Sporstnet1, yeah I'm not sure but I'd fecking hate to miss any. I'll have a look around later...I know I found a great footy schedule for all these damned channels. At least Setanta is in HD this year.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Sporstnet1, yeah I'm not sure but I'd fecking hate to miss any. I'll have a look around later...I know I found a great footy schedule for all these damned channels. At least Setanta is in HD this year.
I am pretty sure that United's game against Spurs at the end of this month is the only other United game that Sportsnet One is showing this year.
He does talk bollox sometimes though.
One thing we haven't mentioned is that the PIK interest rate could well return back down to 14.25%, possibly as early as February, because RFJV Ltd's Net debt to EBITDA ratio should have just about come in at under 6.0x on June 30 2010. RFJV Ltd's (where the PIKs are held) net debt would have been c.£585m on June 30 and if the £100.8m RF Ltd EBITDA was repeated at the RFJV Ltd level then that would do it.
Cool
Had a brief read of the thread but dont think I can be arsed to read it all - not even had a chance to look at the figures properly but noticed there is a shitload of cash in the bank so all is well !
We are though. You do realise how utterly pathetic your commercial operation is in comparison to our own don't you?
Yeah, I know nothing about finance (it bores me to tears) but my mum was an accountant and all she ever says is 'forget everything else, look at the cashflow'. Maybe she was a shit accountant though.
It's great that we've got all that money in the bank, but the 160 million pound question is if we're actually allowed to spend it, should we need to.
That's the main thing of importance, especially in these results with the expectations of various fees and dividends which havent materialised.
Without even touching that cash we can comfortably afford a £30m net cash expenditure on players every year from our cash operating inflow.
Im sorry but massivley increased ticket prices, huge amounts of debts, the losses and the general poor treatement of the fans begs to differ, not good owners in anyway, bar the fact the success on the pitch has continued, but that has feck all to do with them. they also havent involved themselves in transfer dealings, again will that continue without fergie?
I guess this is why some people think you are a cnut (not me obviously)
Would you like that every word you ever posted on here was held up to such scrutiny? have you never said anything which, with the benefit of hindsight, you thought, "I should have kept my mouth shut there?"
Give him a break, man. It's ancient history now. Maybe the Glazers have taught him a trick or two about how to run a business.
Scrutinise all you like, I may well have called Darren Fletcher shit once, and I regret that. But there's a big difference between that and the figurehead of the business publicly stating his financial philosophy and then making a massive U-turn when his job depended on it.
I do believe the Gimps have taught him a trick or two alright, how to buy a club with someone elses money, screw the fans and make a shed load of cash on the back of it.
Nice one David
I doubt they ever had the pleasure of watching a game of football before the takeover. Their businessmen, using unethical, but legal means at their disposal to buy an asset without risking much of their own capital.
PS: United were very successful prior to the Glazers being handed over the keys.
Can somebody summarise the good points and the bad points from the latest results please?
Good things:
- Record revenue and cash profit
- Commercial revenue up
- Glazers have (somewhat inexplicably) not taken the dividend they're entitled to
- There's £163m in the club's bank account
Bad things:
- Matchday revenue down
- Debt burden unchanged
We were promised an annual budget for transfers of 25million, plus some a marquee signing? Nothing of the sort has materialised.
Thank you God for the genius we have as a manager.
Pros:
[*]We've turned record profits of £100.8 mill (before the debt related stuff)
[*]We've got around £160 mill in the bank, the Glazers haven't taken any of it out (not yet anyway)
[*]Even Andersred think's we're the best run club in england if it wasn't for the debt of course.
Cons:
[*]We've apparently made an £83 mill loss but most of which is comprised of one offs or just paper losses.
[*]The interest payments continue to be a pain.
con/pro: Apparently we'd have made a profit of around £25 mill if it wasn't for the losses incurred from one offs and paper losses.
Have you been to Asia!? Every shirt sold is a fake. We get sweet feck all in revenue from Asia for all the hype.
This guy is without question on the Glazer's payroll.
The loss is a disgrace. Leveraged buyouts are a distgusting practice. Criminasl in nature, if not legally so.
It was obvious we were completely skint this summer. Here's the proof.
You do realise how much more money we're making?
Which is peanuts. Absolutely peanuts to support a Champions League calibre team.
Our debt continues to spiral.
**Qualifier: I am not an accountant and don't really know what I'm talking about**
From what I can see from the accounts, in the last year we spent £40.087m on amortisation of players’ registrations (i.e. buying players), plus £8.307m since June 30th (on buying Bebe).
We made a profit of £12.689m on player sales.
Therefore, net spend over the past year has been £35.705m.
I'm probably doing it wrong mind.
I thought they were two-tier PIKS (at 14ish & 20+%) which took out 30% of RFJV's share of Man Utd if not redeemed?
Indeed. And then the Ronaldo money on top of that.
What a quote.
This is a football forum. We're talking about football clubs.
Your such a feckin sad twat.
We should have a budget of about 150 million for players if we are to believe what we're told from Gill and the Glazer's
(Ronaldo money and the excess left from 5 years of 25 million net budget, not to mention 'star' player one-offs)
We'll need it to replace VDS, Scholes, Giggs, Possibly Rio...
(Ronaldo money and the excess left from 5 years of 25 million net budget, not to mention 'star' player one-offs)
We'll need it to replace VDS, Scholes, Giggs, Possibly Rio...
MikeUpNorth; said:
The amortisation isn't spend on new players. It's spreading the cost of player acquisitions over the length of their contract.
I worked out actual net spend at £12m. Purchases of players of £28m less proceeds from sales of £16m.
These 'one-off' costs are too big and too regular to be sustained.
So what are the PIKs at now?
Where is the logic in having 150 cash in the bank but not paying those bastards off?
So what are the PIKs at now?
Where is the logic in having 150 cash in the bank but not paying those bastards off?
Sounds about right
An £84m loss, eh?
On record income.
What a tragic, tragic waste of our money.
The Glazers, and those who defend them, should hang their heads in shame.
On record income.
What a tragic, tragic waste of our money.
The Glazers, and those who defend them, should hang their heads in shame.
An £84m loss, eh?
On record income.
What a tragic, tragic waste of our money.
The Glazers, and those who defend them, should hang their heads in shame.
Ralphie, it is a tragic waste of your money, so stop giving it to them.
LUHG
An £84m loss, eh?
On record income.
What a tragic, tragic waste of our money.
The Glazers, and those who defend them, should hang their heads in shame.
Outside the £40m on interest, the loss wasn't made up of real money though was it? It was a paper loss and a cash profit.
I struggle to understand why people aren't focussing on the key issue here, which is why haven't the Glazer's taken their dividend (that's real money!). Something doesn't make sense and I want to know what it is. Why aren't they paying down their debts?
Eh?
Well I don't read the Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime-fest that makes up 99% of Red Cafe comment on these issues these days, but I thought the simple answer is we don't know. The options seem to be:
(a) Fergie has £160 to spend on players. The moment he finds "value in the market", then BANG, we'll spend spend spend, baby. And god bless the Glazers.
Or:
(b) There's something in the T&Cs of the PIKS that mean at the moment the Glazers can't pay them off yet.
Eh?
Well I don't read the Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime-fest that makes up 99% of Red Cafe comment on these issues these days, but I thought the simple answer is we don't know. The options seem to be:
(a) Fergie has £160 to spend on players. The moment he finds "value in the market", then BANG, we'll spend spend spend, baby. And god bless the Glazers.
Or:
(b) There's something in the T&Cs of the PIKS that mean at the moment the Glazers can't pay them off yet.
Even when ( if ) they pay them off I want them out of here.
I get torn to shreds on here for looking solely at the cashflow.
Cash is king in my book. Bollox to all that amortisation rubbish. Non-cash expenses? Pfft...
Show me the f**king money!
Eh?
Check Anders blog. He says the results are impressive and better than he expected. The headline loss is due to a number of paper losses rather than cash transactions. There is more cash in the club's bank account than this time last year.
There's at least four other possible reasons which have been speculated on in this thread. Fact is, no one knows. But it is the pressing question.
I'll have a pnit of what you're drinknig [*hic*]
Eh?
Well I don't read the Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime-fest that makes up 99% of Red Cafe comment on these issues these days, but I thought the simple answer is we don't know. The options seem to be:
(a) Fergie has £160 to spend on players. The moment he finds "value in the market", then BANG, we'll spend spend spend, baby. And god bless the Glazers.
Or:
(b) There's something in the T&Cs of the PIKS that mean at the moment the Glazers can't pay them off yet.
Surely that's the whole point of PIKS. If you could just pay high interest for a short while and then pay the debt off, then the lenders would be standing a high risk for relatively feck-all. The PIKS rate is so high because they couldn't borrow the money anywhere else at the time, not for any other reason, and the lenders will want their premium for that in full.
- Status