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.
That would be the case Ralphie, it is a disgrace
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
That would be the case Ralphie, it is a disgrace
Really? Name me any other "top club" in the world that runs profits like that
Madrid, Milan x2, Chelsea, Barcelona, City etc all run at a loss.
People need to learn to distinguish the difference between gross and net profit.
I would be interested to see a comparison (if the figures are publicly available and easily obtainable) between EBITDA and the final reported pre-tax figure (ie in our case -£80m) across different clubs.
If we took say, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs, to see not only what the difference in operating profit is between the clubs, but how much of these non-cash deductions normally accrue to in a "normal" club operating without a huge burden of debt.
Also, to throw my 2c into the mixer, whilst the non-cash deductions arent money physically going out of the club, they are still relevant to the discussion. Taking depreciation as an example, the whole point of accounting for depreciation is to give an accurate valuation of the clubs assets. Whilst it doesnt affect cashflow, it is put into a balance sheet for a reason and that cannot be ignored - saying that it doesnt really count is just ignorance or at best, window dressing to make the best out of a bad situation. When you consider the rumours going around that the Glazers are going to take over some of the clubs assets like the training ground, of course it is going to be relevant to make sure Carrington is correctly valued in our finances.
Anyway im just rambling and its been a couple of years since i did my accounting course so my memory is very hazy on all this now.
Ultimately what I will say is that if we were to produce £40m of non-cash losses every single year it would impact the club very quickly.
If we took say, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs, to see not only what the difference in operating profit is between the clubs, but how much of these non-cash deductions normally accrue to in a "normal" club operating without a huge burden of debt.
Also, to throw my 2c into the mixer, whilst the non-cash deductions arent money physically going out of the club, they are still relevant to the discussion. Taking depreciation as an example, the whole point of accounting for depreciation is to give an accurate valuation of the clubs assets. Whilst it doesnt affect cashflow, it is put into a balance sheet for a reason and that cannot be ignored - saying that it doesnt really count is just ignorance or at best, window dressing to make the best out of a bad situation. When you consider the rumours going around that the Glazers are going to take over some of the clubs assets like the training ground, of course it is going to be relevant to make sure Carrington is correctly valued in our finances.
Anyway im just rambling and its been a couple of years since i did my accounting course so my memory is very hazy on all this now.
Ultimately what I will say is that if we were to produce £40m of non-cash losses every single year it would impact the club very quickly.
This is exactly what is happening. And we have a few fan boys singing hosannas to the owners.
Debt is good. But it is under control. Well managed club.When will this charade end?
Strange how a few weeks ago Glazer supporters were claiming they were successful because there was a huge waiting list, and now they're claiming success because there isn't.
Anyway, if I understand you then you are saying the fact that the plc shareholders sold is proof that they didn't think they could manage the club as well as the buyers. If every company sale were a success then this might be true, however many acquisitions fail, so it isn't. All it proves that the shareholders thought they were being offered more cash than the club was worth, no more.
Chelsea 'stole our thunder' because of our complacency eh? Nothing to do with the hundreds of millions their owner put into the club then. I'm glad you've cleared that up.
Thanks for the stuff about eyes and arms and legs, I'll bear it in mind.
That he can recall at any time if he do so wish. Which btw would cripple Chelsea. What you don't get is that what the Glazers have done is provide a safety net. By not investing, they're not losing anything if they get into financial trouble and have to sell the club. Meanwhile if Roman gets into trouble, Chelsea are royally fecked. He'd have lost millions because nobody is going to pay the kind of money he's invested given the age of the squad.
I still don't understand why the Red Knights didn't buy the bonds. If the Glazers reneged come due date, it would be the cheapest way to obtain the club.
What was the cash in bank figure ?
£160 million.
It seems to me like the Glazers are trying to build up enough income to use interest to pay of the PIK and Invest in the squad.
But as for the quote of Gills about "Debt is the road to ruin" is a load of bannana bollocks and any financial adviser would tell you this. If I can remember properly, gearing of around 30% for a business is considered healthy. Obviously we're not in a healthy gearing bracket, but he was wrong.
If United were still a PLC what would be the dividend payment out on the figures that United have just posted?
Thanks. Obviously, as expected, there is enough cash to make a significant dent in the PIK debt as well as to buy players. So when Gill said there was mmoney available for players he was right although he was also a little disingenuous. As I have been pointing out it is an issue of wages not money for transfer fees. Our "ceiling" on new recruits is probably closer to 50k a week than 120k ! What the financials tell us is that costs are being successfully contained and keeping a relatively tight budget is going to be the policy for the foreseeable future.
There is a valid point made above regarding Neville, Giggs and Scholes. Very difficult to ask them to accept a pay cut for the remainder of their careers with United to finance a new midfielder, say, given what they have done for the club.
Look, I don't claim to be an expert mate, but when someone like Anders - who has been as critical of the Glazers as anyone - is saying...
...then I have to think that they actually were good accounts. Unless Anders has suddenly become pro-Glazer, and that I doubt.
Even during this period of "reigning in the wage bill", it still went up from £123million in 08/09 to £131million (7% rise) this year which I believe is 44% of turnover.
Given that we didn't win the PL or CL last season, we can only assume that it would have been a bit higher than that this year if we had (as we did in 08/09).
I think it's fair to say that when you look closely, the situation doesn't really suggest any kind of "penny pinching" going on at United. Cost control, maybe. But not penny pinching.
why do people believe Anders when he talks down the figures United provide and blithely ignore him when he says summat positive about them ever so occasionally
A touch of Wengerism perhaps or even maybe hypocrisy
The comments on his blog yesterday were quite funny. The usual sycophants with their "Great stuff Anders! Glazers Out!", "We have to get these gimps out as soon as possible, they're bleeding us dry" etc etc etc
And I thought to myself, have they actually read what he's just written, much less actually understood what he has just written or have they become so accustomed to Anders taking the negative view that they now don't even bother to read what he has said and just assume that it's all bad and the Glazers have just screwed us over one way or another?
Costs have risen by roughly 10% pa since the Glazers have been in control but so have revenues - except this last year. It may not be "penny pinching" but it's definitely cost control at the expense, from the team perspective, of getting in one or two world class players who could have made a difference right now and not in two or three seasons time. From their perspective its a gamble but it could backfire with less success which in turn will have an effect on revenues, as we have already seen from last year.
Absolutely but I still think that you are assuming that it was the Glazers, and not Fergie, who decided not to get one or two world class players in this summer.
As we said in the transfer thread, it would appear that we are now at the stage of one in, one out on both the wages front AND the squad rules front.
I think that it is generally agreed that all things considered, even the relatively small increase in revenues was good.
Even GCHQ and Anders were locked in agreement that EBITDA was likely to be around the £95million mark (iirc) - in the end it was over £100million.
The main thing is that we obviously all agree that some players will need replacing and the tricky part was trying to work out where the money would come from after the Glazers had taken their £95million and their £6million "management fee" etc.
Well, they they haven't taken any of these things.
Of course we don't really know but I come from a position where I think we needed a couple of quality players and we didn't go for them - well not seriously. Fergie has a big say but I believe he's bought into the idea that generally there's no great value in the transfer market, that players are over demanding from a wage viewpoint and so on. Getting players such as Hernandez, Bebe and Smalling suits the financial set up. They are young, they don't cost much and their wages are well below that demanded by the top level. I think all of them could turn out to be great but in a few seasons perhaps. Fergie, I think, likes the idea of working with young talent mixed in with the current experienced group. He enjoys the challenge of trying to win things on this basis. I think, however, it could be very difficult this time.
Even if the Glazers took the 95m plus, there would still be 50m odd for the team plus the RCF, if needed (which it won't be for now). So it's not the cash that's holding us back.
I agree with pretty much everything there.
The main thing is that almost everyone expected to see at least £95million to come out of the account in these latest financials.
This money has clouded just about every discussion we've been having for the last ten months but it can be put to bed for now - the money was indeed there for transfers but Fergie, for whatever reason, seems to have decided not to use it.
If this is indeed the case then I'm happy to trust in Fergie's judgement.
I still think most of us are still in some kind of shock that the money hasn't been taken. It was like the air-raid sirens have been blaring, we could see the bomber flying overhead, the crowd have been shouting, "It's coming!" and we've all been huddled up just waiting for the blast, just hoping that we'd come through unscathed and then... nothing.
We're currently peeking out from our bomb-shelters, looking warily up to the sky - dare we step back out or is there still some kind of nasty surprise in store?
It's just a very strange situation where we have almost become brainwashed into believing the situation is "this" but it turned out to be "that" and re-adjusting our brains is going to take a little time.
Because people believe what they want to believe - I realised long ago in this thread that even when there are indisputable facts about our financial situation, that many people still refuse to believe it and prefer to live in ignorance.
I think it could be a similar thing to this "£95million is going to come out but it never did" but on a much bigger scale - it is some form of "conditioning".
Anyone who has been with MUST since before the Glazers took over have been told that the Glazers are bad and nothing good can possibly come from their ownership and they must be removed at all costs.
When you're told the same thing over and over again for over five years, you will probably have it ingrained so deep into your subconscious that anything that points to the contrary is almost automatically rejected or at least mentally manipulated into something that fits your paradigm.
We see loads of examples of it on here where quite normal, everyday football events (such as the sale of a player or the failure to sign a player or the purchase of a younger player or the failure to win four successive Premier League titles or even the failure to win a game) are somehow absorbed into the anti-Glazer argument and used as yet another example of why the Glazers are bad for us.
(I'm sure that someone like Joga Bonito could describe what I am trying to say in a much better way!)
I take it the Glazers will be suing practically every paper printed today who are all reporting their outstanding accounts(according to some) in a very negative fashion. Surely all these papers and their independant financial advisers cannot be right and that yesterdays accounts leave alot to be desired.
It would be interesting to ask the other 19 PL club owners if they would swap accounts with us.
I'm guessing we'd have at least 18 takers.
I dont dispute that but in the years to come our position is severely under threat by the weight of the debt. How come every tabloid/broadsheet is tearing our financial reports apart this morning are they all anti Manchester United? A few on here are pointing out that Anders has stated the accounts are not as bad as he thought they would be but that does not make them acceptable, just not as bad as he thought. Call me more names if that what pleases you but other than the performance of the Club in raising more finance from sponsorship etc there is nothing but bad news and that is my opinion and no amount of insulting or spin is going to change my mind.
I imagine the only paper you buy is the star.
Stick and stones and all that, big contribution to the debate there. Try and add something instead just coming on to play the big tough guy. Now push your ignore button theres a good lad
Look at this, though Crerand...
"other than the performance of the Club in raising more finance from sponsorship etc there is nothing but bad news and that is my opinion".
So, if we take away one of the good things, there's nothing but bad things.
I must admit that I struggle to grasp the intricacies of the accounts but the £83million "loss" includes weird things like goodwill amortisation of £35million.
I have absolutely no idea what this means but it is something to do with when the Glazers took over the club in 2005. It is a shitload of money which needs to go into the accounts but my understanding of it is that £35million did not physically leave the club this year - even Andersred says that we should ignore that figure.
So, that £83million figure comes down to £48million.
There is also this other weird figure about the dollar against the pound from the Bond Issue which I struggle to get my head around but my understanding is that, again, it has to go into the account even though no actual money came out of the club for it this year.
It is a figure which is based on the exchange rate and the dollar has fallen against the pound at the moment and so it reads a negative. If the dollar moves up against the pound then this figure changes to a smaller amount. If the dollar is worth more against the pound in 2017 than it was at the time of the Bond Issue then we actually end up with a positive figure (please someone correct me if what I am saying here is completely wrong).
Again, even Anders says that this figure can be ignored because it is a non-cash expense.
It was recorded on the account as £19million for this so we can take that away, bringing the "loss" down to £29million.
We then have the cost of swapping the loan to the Bond. I am not sure where Anders and GCHQ are with this one but it was definitely a cost as far as I can see and it cost us £40million.
My understanding of this though is that whilst it is a significant sum, it is a one-off sum - it won't be repeated every year because we won't be swapping to a Bond Issue every year.
If we just pretend that that £40million isn't there for a moment (pretend this is next year, for example) then that £29million loss become an £11million profit.
There's clearly something else I am missing here because David Gill says that this figure would have been £25million profit and I'll leave it to the accountancy bods to put me straight on that one but that is my half-arsed attempt at explaining what we are seeing here.
Can you still see nothing but bad news, here?
This will probably be my last attempt at talking some positivity into you so make the most of it... please!
Fair points. But who's to say the money wasn't drawn out after the year end to avoid criticism during a time when all the RK speculation & G&G effort was at its highest ? They may even be quite surprised to see how the G&G campaign seems to have foundered somewhat of late. Anyway,even if the designated money has been used, and of course it would make perfect sense given the crippling interest rate of the PIKs, there would have been plenty of cash over to spend on a couple of quality players who could have improved our squad. Whatever the true intentions were/are, it's now down to Fergie and co to weave some magic with what they've got - hoping that quite a number of the squad who haven't as yet, for various reasons, really stepped up to the plate, will do so now in what appears to be an hour of need.
A good summary here: BBC - David Bond: Crunching the numbers at Old Trafford
The most depressing part for me is that more than £450m has so far come out of the club since 2005 to service a debt that is much bigger now than it was then.
The most depressing part for me is that more than £450m has so far come out of the club since 2005 to service a debt that is much bigger now than it was then.
Look at this, though Crerand...
"other than the performance of the Club in raising more finance from sponsorship etc there is nothing but bad news and that is my opinion".
So, if we take away one of the good things, there's nothing but bad things.
I must admit that I struggle to grasp the intricacies of the accounts but the £83million "loss" includes weird things like goodwill amortisation of £35million.
I have absolutely no idea what this means but it is something to do with when the Glazers took over the club in 2005. It is a shitload of money which needs to go into the accounts but my understanding of it is that £35million did not physically leave the club this year - even Andersred says that we should ignore that figure.
So, that £83million figure comes down to £48million.
There is also this other weird figure about the dollar against the pound from the Bond Issue which I struggle to get my head around but my understanding is that, again, it has to go into the account even though no actual money came out of the club for it this year.
It is a figure which is based on the exchange rate and the dollar has fallen against the pound at the moment and so it reads a negative. If the dollar moves up against the pound then this figure changes to a smaller amount. If the dollar is worth more against the pound in 2017 than it was at the time of the Bond Issue then we actually end up with a positive figure (please someone correct me if what I am saying here is completely wrong).
Again, even Anders says that this figure can be ignored because it is a non-cash expense.
It was recorded on the account as £19million for this so we can take that away, bringing the "loss" down to £29million.
We then have the cost of swapping the loan to the Bond. I am not sure where Anders and GCHQ are with this one but it was definitely a cost as far as I can see and it cost us £40million.
My understanding of this though is that whilst it is a significant sum, it is a one-off sum - it won't be repeated every year because we won't be swapping to a Bond Issue every year.
If we just pretend that that £40million isn't there for a moment (pretend this is next year, for example) then that £29million loss become an £11million profit.
There's clearly something else I am missing here because David Gill says that this figure would have been £25million profit and I'll leave it to the accountancy bods to put me straight on that one but that is my half-arsed attempt at explaining what we are seeing here.
Can you still see nothing but bad news, here?
This will probably be my last attempt at talking some positivity into you so make the most of it... please!
Look you are convinced of your position and that is your right and you aggressively defend it no problem, I respect your views but that does not mean I have to agree with them or you with mine. I understand you want to defend yesterdays accounts and you have made quite a case but the bottom line is we wasted 100m of profits plus a further 80m of losses, money that could have been used to reduce ticket prices, abolish the ACS, invest in the team or club or anything that would improve Manchester United football club. You cannot argue that the only people benefiting out of yesterdays accounts were the Glazer family
This is something people are obviously speculating on now but the point was raised yesterday, and I think it is a very good point, that there would have had to be something put into the notes of yesterday's accounts if such an extra-ordinarily large sum of money such as £70-95million had been taken out shortly afterwards.
For example, I think there is a note referring to an £8.3million transfer occuring after the year end and this is assumed to be the signing of Bebe.
It does look like this one is going to rumble on and on but, as far as we can see, the suggestion that the Glazers were desperate to get their hands on that £95million asap appear to have been a little wide of the mark.
I have yet to find any media reporting that yesterdays accounts were anything but bad news for the club
so Anders - almost twinned with MUST is now to be ignored
Anders has a mind of his own like everybody else is entitled to say what he wants. A whole lot on here who disagreed with him for months have suddenly become his greatest fans, strange. Anders can say what he wants but yesterday was not good for Manchester United the football club that is
I think that's the key point. It's important to get away from the idea that we are financially fecked and look at the real issues. The main issues are the above, ticket prices and the ability of the club to keep the team competitive. The latter is the real bone of contention in this thread. There are so many predictions made on here that do not come to fruition, largely because there is so much information that we simply aren't privy too.
The other principal issue is where do we go from here? There doesn't currently seem to be a viable alternative on the horizon and the glazers seem to have the margins to see off fan protests and boycotts. I think a lot of people mistake posters who want the club to perform as well as possible off the pitch to be able to remain competitive in the absence of an alternative for being actively supportive of the glazer ownership, which is almost entirely wrong.
What I have given you there isn't a "view" or an "opinion", those are the facts of the matter at hand.
You come on here and say the same thing over and over again about how we've made an £83million loss and this cannot possibly be good and then have a go at others for adding nothing to the discussion.
When someone attempts to explain why your view of the situation is blinkered, you trot out the same old arguments about the ACS etc and end with an opinion, stated as fact along the lines of "this is how I see it, therefore this is how it is and you cannot argue with that."
What you cannot seem to accept (or are completely unwilling to accept) is that when a person buys a business, they have to run it. That's all. There is nothing in the rulebook that states "they must also put in [insert arbitrary multi-million-pound figure here] of their own money on top of the purchase price."
If you cannot see why spending £130million on player wages is them investing in the team or a proposed £11.5million upgrade for Carrington is them investing in the club then I can't help you.
I.m still not and will never be an Anders fan.
I was just very amused that Anders who you and many more with your attitude have consistently been using Anders "facts" and posts at virtually every twist in the argument to further your cause, Are now ignoring something which now doesn't add to your case - in fact undermines a large part of it. Funny that
If the money wasted on Glazer assoc business was available to the club we could have done all I said and refitted Carrington as well. Just because they are not your views does not mean that mine are blinkered, at that rate every newspaper in the country printed blinkered views this morning. £130m wages was in line with what a club of our size is paying these days so I can't see the big deal there. It is of course their business to run as they like but without customers like me £2000 I paid for season tickets, their business would suffer, there are thousands who think like I do btw
Funny that, post 4798 and I personally have not used Anders as a source that I can remember, agreed with him a couple of occasions that was it
- Status