ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

[Rood]

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

That's because Anders has now seen the light and realised that much of what others had been telling him is correct! Some of the financial analysis is open to interpretation (especially forward projections) so there will always be disagreements, but at the end of the day you can't argue with facts about the current financial situation.

Anyway the reason why I want to highlight andersred's analysis is that myself and others are often accused of bias (unfairly as far as I am concerned). So when someone who is strongly antiGlazer (so much so that he chose to give up his season ticket and boycott this summer) is telling you that the finances are much better than expected and the club is well run from a business perpective, then only a fool would argue against that.

 

[Julian Denny]

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.

Indeed but it was in the bond prospectus - I don't know if that makes a difference. The other thing is that it makes very little financial sense to keep cash in the bank when you are paying 15%-16% pa on a loan.

By the way what was the 67m "finance charge" in the accounts ? Was that interest on the previous senior debt plus payments to advisers for putting the bond issue together ? I will say this, the cost of debt re-financing alone has been substantial over the last 5 years.

 

[darko]

This is all just horse shit. So a 600 million pound bond issue is financed at what rate? They say they lost 65 million? Surely they are not paying 10%! I would think it's in the neighbourhood of 5-6% at very most 7%. Plus the club has one of the lowest wage bills in relation to total revenue. This is a private company and I don't trust very many of the financial number that I hear. I don't don't think they lost 30 million on non interest payments last season. Bullshit. If that's the case The EPL is in big trouble.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Indeed but it was in the bond prospectus - I don't know if that makes a difference. The other thing is that it makes very little financial sense to keep cash in the bank when you are paying 15%-16% pa on a loan.

This is what everyone is thinking. What the hell is going on? It makes no sense.

What we have seen over and over again with the Glazers though is that we are rarely shown the full picture. The jigsaw always has a few pieces missing.

By the way what was the 67m "finance charge" in the accounts ? Was that interest on the previous senior debt plus payments to advisers for putting the bond issue together ? I will say this, the cost of debt re-financing alone has been substantial over the last 5 years.

I'm afraid I don't know what 67m "finance charge" you're referring to there and in any case, there are others better qualified than me to explain it.

The cost of re-financing has indeed been enormous over the last five years and this is the source of many people's anger.

Without going around in a circle and ending up back at square one in the discussion, I will only briefly re-iterate what I have always said and that is that whilst a lot of money has gone out, a hell of a lot more has come in and today we find ourselves with £160million in the bank and the money going out has, thus far, not impeded our ability to remain competitive on the pitch.

Whilst the amounts would have been less, there would have been costs associated with any other type of ownership too which need to be taken into account.

 

[Jimble]

We need the red knights to come in, that or an oil tycoon

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

We need the red knights to come in, that or an oil tycoon

Would have preferred Sneijder myself but if either of those can do a job in midfield, they'll do for me.

 

[e.cantona]

What I think will save, or has saved, the Glazers is the fact that even tho they treat United as a regular product, the fans do and can not. They manage to keep the product at an acceptable level while pushing the prize as much as they can and expanding into "new" markets. If it was a Volvo or an Ipod the fans would simpy replace'em with a diffrent product, but in football that's not as easy.. I wont switch to Liverpool simply because United's not as good as they used to be etc etc..

So yeah, unless they push it much more, I'm 100% sure the Glazers will be alright with United long term and the majority of the fans will go along with it.

 

[711]

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.

Your point about Chelsea is rather obvious.

Your point about the Glazer's providing a safety net is somewhat less so.
You're quite right, I don't get it.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

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

This is the perspective from a fan and it is understandable and, on the face of it, it seems impossible to argue against... but you know me!

I think it stems from the fact that the fans cannot accept that Manchester United is anything other than "their club" and therefore every penny that comes into it is also theirs.

Look at it from the Glazers' point of view though.

They probably see something like the following:-

Last year, they took £100million from the fans in matchday income and provided us with an £130million team. This does not even include the millions that have been spent on transfer fees in the last five years.

This team has performed as well as can be reasonably expected of any team over the last few years.

The fans should surely be happy?

But the club also gets a load of money from Sky and such so the fans want that money too. Fair enough, that's where we make up the shortfall in the wages and that's where we get the transfer fees from. There are also operating costs and for a club like Manchester United, they are huge. That money pays for all that kind of stuff.

But what's this £81million commercial revenues? The fans ask. We want that too!

At this point the Glazers perhaps think, "Woah there tiger! We gotta eat too, you know! Yes we have brought the debts but this is an area we have been working hard on in order to negate the effects of the debt. We're going to take all the credit for that bit, I'm afraid and we're going to decide how it gets used. Sorry, but this is where you have to meet us halfway."

 

[robertsoncrusoe]

Dollar is about to go up.......... factor that in to the interest.

 

[Crerand Legend]

This is the perspective from a fan and it is understandable and, on the face of it, it seems impossible to argue against... but you know me!

I think it stems from the fact that the fans cannot accept that Manchester United is anything other than "their club" and therefore every penny that comes into it is also theirs.

Look at it from the Glazers' point of view though.

They probably see something like the following:-

Last year, they took £100million from the fans in matchday income and provided us with an £130million team. This does not even include the millions that have been spent on transfer fees in the last five years.

This team has performed as well as can be reasonably expected of any team over the last few years.

The fans should surely be happy?

But the club also gets a load of money from Sky and such so the fans want that money too. Fair enough, that's where we make up the shortfall in the wages and that's where we get the transfer fees from. There are also operating costs and for a club like Manchester United, they are huge. That money pays for all that kind of stuff.

But what's this £81million commercial revenues? The fans ask. We want that too!

At this point the Glazers perhaps think, "Woah there tiger! We gotta eat too, you know! Yes we have brought the debts but this is an area we have been working hard on in order to negate the effects of the debt. We're going to take all the credit for that bit, I'm afraid and we're going to decide how it gets used. Sorry, but this is where you have to meet us halfway."

So we are mere fans then who should hail our great and good owners and should mind our business when it comes to finance. A football team you have supported all your life is not some souless PLC, the day I think the way you suggest is the day I walk away

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

So we are mere fans then who should hail our great and good owners and should mind our business when it comes to finance. A football team you have supported all your life is not some souless PLC, the day I think the way you suggest is the day I walk away

I was merely asking you to humour me for a moment and attempt to look at the situation from a different perspective. I should have known better...

 

[Red Dreams]

Any 'owner' can only own what is on the balance sheet of the club.

We the supporters are the heart and soul of Manchester United. We come before the manager and the team. Managers and teams will come and go. We will remain forever. That is why the club can never die. We pass on our passion to our children...and it goes on.

 

[Crerand Legend]

I was merely asking you to humour me for a moment and attempt to look at the situation from a different perspective. I should have known better...

If I had give you an inch you would have taken a mile TMRD . Off to work

 

[e.cantona]

Any 'owner' can only own what is on the balance sheet of the club.

We the supporters are the heart and soul of Manchester United. We come before the manager and the team. Managers and teams will come and go. We will remain forever. That is why the club can never die. We pass on our passion to our children...and it goes on.

And that's pretty much what the Glazers are hoping and probably expect will happen

 

[Silva]

I don't get this dollar thing. Surely, if the dollar is weak, when we exchange the £ for the $ we spend less for more?

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

I don't get this dollar thing. Surely, if the dollar is weak, when we exchange the £ for the $ we spend less for more?

Well, it's one way or the other. I wouldn't lose sleep over it - the full implications won't be realised until 2017 from what I can gather and a lot can happen between now and then.

The following was posted about it yesterday, hope it helps (this kind of stuff just makes my brain go curly).

The second and less serious interest cost relates to a foreign exchange loss linked to the bond issue, which was offered to investors in both Britain and the United States. Because of this part of the bond will need to be repaid in dollars.

At the time when the bond was taken out, the dollar was much stronger compared to the pound ($1.62 to £1). But by 30 June, the end of United's accounting year, the dollar had weakened ($1.51 to £1) meaning that if the bond had to be repaid at that point United would have lost £19.2m.

 

[GCHQ]

Well, it's one way or the other. I wouldn't lose sleep over it - the full implications won't be realised until 2017 from what I can gather and a lot can happen between now and then.

The following was posted about it yesterday, hope it helps (this kind of stuff just makes my brain go curly).

The second and less serious interest cost relates to a foreign exchange loss linked to the bond issue, which was offered to investors in both Britain and the United States. Because of this part of the bond will need to be repaid in dollars.

At the time when the bond was taken out, the dollar was much stronger compared to the pound ($1.62 to £1). But by 30 June, the end of United's accounting year, the dollar had weakened ($1.51 to £1) meaning that if the bond had to be repaid at that point United would have lost £19.2m.

That's the wrong way round. By 30 June the dollar had stengthened against the pound.

Nobody should be concerned about exchange rate movements to be honest. The principal sum of the bonds (c.£500m) is unhedged but because they don't mature until 2017 it's really not an issue for a good few years yet.

The February 2011 half yearly interest payment on the dollar denominated bonds has been hedged and ever since the bond issue was completed we've been agreeing our new commercial/sponsorship contracts in USD to act as a hedge against future interest payments. So if the dollar stengthens against the pound the interest payments go up slightly but so does our revenue and vice versa. It's worth stating that it really would take a significant change in the exchange rate in order to have any real impact. The annual interest payment on the dollar denominated bonds is $35.6m (£22m) at an exchange rate of 1.62/1. So even if the dollar strengthened to 1.52/1 the increase in the annual interest payment would only be £1.4m to £23.4m. 1.42/1 would see it increase to £25m, 1.32/1 would be £27m and so on. Today's rate is 1.595/1 so even a drop to 1.42/1 would represent a significant change and the affect is only £2.7m. And like I said the Feb 2011 payment is hedged and I fancy that in around 12 months time we'll have built up a very significant amount of income from commercial contracts in USD which will act as a natural hedge against the interest payments anyway. It's nothing to be concerned about.

Incidentally the next MUFplc results for the first quarter to 30 Sep 2010 should show an unrealised foreign exchange gain (profit) on the dollar denominated bonds of c.£14m. The pound had appreciated against the dollar from 1.51 on June 30 to 1.585 on Sep 30. Gross debt will be down to c. £505m and the £14m foreign exchange gain will show as a profit in the P/L account. It will be just as irrelevant as the unrealsied £19m loss in the 09/10 accounts though, so I won't be making anything of it on November 29 when the next results are released unlike the usual suspects did with the loss in the annual accounts.

 

[andersred]

That's the wrong way round. By 30 June the dollar had stengthened against the pound.

Nobody should be concerned about exchange rate movements to be honest. The principal sum of the bonds (c.£500m) is unhedged but because they don't mature until 2017 it's really not an issue for a good few years yet.

The February 2011 half yearly interest payment on the dollar denominated bonds has been hedged and ever since the bond issue was completed we've been agreeing our new commercial/sponsorship contracts in USD to act as a hedge against future interest payments. So if the dollar stengthens against the pound the interest payments go up slightly but so does our revenue and vice versa. It's worth stating that it really would take a significant change in the exchange rate in order to have any real impact. The annual interest payment on the dollar denominated bonds is $35.6m (£22m) at an exchange rate of 1.62/1. So even if the dollar strengthened to 1.52/1 the increase in the annual interest payment would only be £1.4m to £23.4m. 1.42/1 would see it increase to £25m, 1.32/1 would be £27m and so on. Today's rate is 1.595/1 so even a drop to 1.42/1 would represent a significant change and the affect is only £2.7m. And like I said the Feb 2011 payment is hedged and I fancy that in around 12 months time we'll have built up a very significant amount of income from commercial contracts in USD which will act as a natural hedge against the interest payments anyway. It's nothing to be concerned about.

Incidentally the next MUFplc results for the first quarter to 30 Sep 2010 should show an unrealised foreign exchange gain (profit) on the dollar denominated bonds of c.£14m. The pound had appreciated against the dollar from 1.51 on June 30 to 1.585 on Sep 30. Gross debt will be down to c. £505m and the £14m foreign exchange gain will show as a profit in the P/L account. It will be just as irrelevant as the unrealsied £19m loss in the 09/10 accounts though, so I won't be making anything of it on November 29 when the next results are released unlike the usual suspects did with the loss in the annual accounts.

Totally right.

Ignore the FX swings, between now and 2017 they'll be up or down each quarter and it really tells us nothing.

 

[GCHQ]

You do realise how much more money we're making?

How do you work that out? We generated £101m EBITDA in 09/10 compared to Arsenal's £56m EBITDA on football activities.

If you're saying you make a higher paper profit in the P/L account then I think it's about time we revisited the ''We Won a Throw In'' thread.

 

[GCHQ]

Totally right.

Ignore the FX swings, between now and 2017 they'll be up or down each quarter and it really tells us nothing.

Just the man I was looking for. Did anything interesting come out of the conference call?

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

That's the wrong way round. By 30 June the dollar had stengthened against the pound.

Nobody should be concerned about exchange rate movements to be honest. The principal sum of the bonds (c.£500m) is unhedged but because they don't mature until 2017 it's really not an issue for a good few years yet.

The February 2011 half yearly interest payment on the dollar denominated bonds has been hedged and ever since the bond issue was completed we've been agreeing our new commercial/sponsorship contracts in USD to act as a hedge against future interest payments. So if the dollar stengthens against the pound the interest payments go up slightly but so does our revenue and vice versa. It's worth stating that it really would take a significant change in the exchange rate in order to have any real impact. The annual interest payment on the dollar denominated bonds is $35.6m (£22m) at an exchange rate of 1.62/1. So even if the dollar strengthened to 1.52/1 the increase in the annual interest payment would only be £1.4m to £23.4m. 1.42/1 would see it increase to £25m, 1.32/1 would be £27m and so on. Today's rate is 1.595/1 so even a drop to 1.42/1 would represent a significant change and the affect is only £2.7m. And like I said the Feb 2011 payment is hedged and I fancy that in around 12 months time we'll have built up a very significant amount of income from commercial contracts in USD which will act as a natural hedge against the interest payments anyway. It's nothing to be concerned about.

Incidentally the next MUFplc results for the first quarter to 30 Sep 2010 should show an unrealised foreign exchange gain (profit) on the dollar denominated bonds of c.£14m. The pound had appreciated against the dollar from 1.51 on June 30 to 1.585 on Sep 30. Gross debt will be down to c. £505m and the £14m foreign exchange gain will show as a profit in the P/L account. It will be just as irrelevant as the unrealsied £19m loss in the 09/10 accounts though, so I won't be making anything of it on November 29 when the next results are released unlike the usual suspects did with the loss in the annual accounts.

yeah. what he said.

 

[GCHQ]

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.

The total cash capital expenditure on players over the last five years has been £212m.

212 million pounds or an average cash outflow of 42.4 million pounds per year.

At the same time the wage bill has increased from c.£80m back in 2005 to c.£130m in 2010.

To suggest that investment in the playing squad under the Glazers ownership hasn't at the very least been reasonable, is just wrong. Simple as that.

 

[andersred]

Just the man I was looking for. Did anything interesting come out of the conference call?

Really? How times change!

No actually, very dull. Nobody thought to ask "why haven't you repaid any PIKs"?

There appears to be a one-off positive to (non-staff) operating costs "associated with certain commercial contract". It's mentioned in the presentation and they chose to mention it again on the call without expanding on what or how much which isn't useful.

Very cagey on exec sales, lots of generalities and no specifics.

One thing which is weird and I'm trying to get to the bottom of is that they said on the call that the reported "doubling" of overseas PL TV rights wasn't correct (without saying what it was). Arsenal said the same thing in their results statement, estimating it would add 10% (i.e. £5.1m) to their PL TV money from this season. Last season every club got £10.1m (half of that amount to relegated clubs). That implies (even including this year's boosting of parachute payments) that the overseas deal is only 50-55% greater than the prior one.

What's going on there? I've asked a few friendly journos to find out. Dan Johnson at the PL won't talk to me for some reason.

That was about it. It was short and sweet.

The only other thing about it was that Tariq Panja from Bloomberg wasn't allowed on the call as punishment for publishing the "Glazers own 20% of the PIKs story". I understand Joel called Bloomberg HQ in NYC to try to get the story spiked. Petty.

 

[esmufc07]

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.

Good summary. And yes, it is depressing. If we'd remained a PLC how much money would have come out as dividends?

 

[Devil_forever]

Really? How times change!

No actually, very dull. Nobody thought to ask "why haven't you repaid any PIKs"?

There appears to be a one-off positive to (non-staff) operating costs "associated with certain commercial contract". It's mentioned in the presentation and they chose to mention it again on the call without expanding on what or how much which isn't useful.

Very cagey on exec sales, lots of generalities and no specifics.

One thing which is weird and I'm trying to get to the bottom of is that they said on the call that the reported "doubling" of overseas PL TV rights wasn't correct (without saying what it was). Arsenal said the same thing in their results statement, estimating it would add 10% (i.e. £5.1m) to their PL TV money from this season. Last season every club got £10.1m (half of that amount to relegated clubs). That implies (even including this year's boosting of parachute payments) that the overseas deal is only 50-55% greater than the prior one.

What's going on there? I've asked a few friendly journos to find out. Dan Johnson at the PL won't talk to me for some reason.

That was about it. It was short and sweet.

The only other thing about it was that Tariq Panja from Bloomberg wasn't allowed on the call as punishment for publishing the "Glazers own 20% of the PIKs story". I understand Joel called Bloomberg HQ in NYC to try to get the story spiked. Petty.

In simple terms what does that actually mean Anders? Thanks.

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

The only other thing about it was that Tariq Panja from Bloomberg wasn't allowed on the call as punishment for publishing the "Glazers own 20% of the PIKs story". I understand Joel called Bloomberg HQ in NYC to try to get the story spiked. Petty.

I guess that puts paid to the theory that the story was leaked by the Glazers themselves, then.

 

[peterstorey]

How do you work that out? We generated £101m EBITDA in 09/10 compared to Arsenal's £56m EBITDA on football activities.

If you're saying you make a higher paper profit in the P/L account then I think it's about time we revisited the ''We Won a Throw In'' thread.

Yeah but then you had to pay Glazer's finance costs which blew a nice big fat hole in the £100M. By the way is it definitive that any PIKS paydown post-30 June would have to be reflected in these accounts?

 

[andersred]

In simple terms what does that actually mean Anders? Thanks.

feck knows.

Non-staff costs went down by £9.4m compared to last year. The club puts this down to:

2 fewer home games (lighting, insurance, policing etc, etc). You can imagine how much everything costs to organise a United home game at OT.

2 fewer euro aways (inc a final), in other words no need to fly the squad and backroom staff to a semi and final, put them up in hotels etc, etc. It never occurred to me before but each trip must cost quite a substantial sum.

plus this mystery comment about "reduced expenses associated with certain
commercial contracts", which is apparently a one-off for the year.

How the £9.4m splits between those categories I don't know.

 

[GCHQ]

Yeah but then you had to pay Glazer's finance costs which blew a nice big fat hole in the £100M.

We're still £25m up on you after your own debt servicing costs have been paid.

Not to mention the fact that our wage bill is £20m higher which helps to ensure that we actually win trophies as opposed to simply getting awfully excited about qualifying for the Champions League year after year before crashing out in the knock out rounds when you come up against a serious outfit.

That's all thanks to the fact that our turnover is £63m higher than yourselves and the gap between us will keep increasing in the next few years due to your pathetic commercial operation compared to our own brilliant one.

 

[GCHQ]

feck knows.

Non-staff costs went down by £9.4m compared to last year. The club puts this down to:

2 fewer home games (lighting, insurance, policing etc, etc). You can imagine how much everything costs to organise a United home game at OT.

2 fewer euro aways (inc a final), in other words no need to fly the squad and backroom staff to a semi and final, put them up in hotels etc, etc. It never occurred to me before but each trip must cost quite a substantial sum.

plus this mystery comment about "reduced expenses associated with certain
commercial contracts", which is apparently a one-off for the year.

How the £9.4m splits between those categories I don't know.

Anders, do you reckon that mystery comment could be related to the fact that the previous consultancy agreement was terminated during the year which turned into a positive change when the £6m management fee wasn't taken? Or more likely something related to the Nike/AIG/AON contracts?

 

[Devil_forever]

We're still £25m up on you after your own debt servicing costs have been paid.

Not to mention the fact that our wage bill is £20m higher which helps to ensure that we actually win trophies as opposed to simply getting awfully excited about qualifying for the Champions League year after year before crashing out in the knock out rounds when you come up against a serious outfit.

That's all thanks to the fact that our turnover is £63m higher than yourselves and the gap between us will keep increasing in the next few years due to your pathetic commercial operation compared to our own brilliant one.

Arsenal unveiled turnover of ~£380 mill for 2009-2010, didn't they?

 

[esmufc07]

Arsenal unveiled turnover of ~£380 mill for 2009-2010, didn't they?

I think a lot of that was to do with flats or something which was built on the ground where Highbury used to be, so I think I'm right in saying that they won't be getting that money again this year.

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

Really? How times change!

No actually, very dull. Nobody thought to ask "why haven't you repaid any PIKs"?

There appears to be a one-off positive to (non-staff) operating costs "associated with certain commercial contract". It's mentioned in the presentation and they chose to mention it again on the call without expanding on what or how much which isn't useful.

Very cagey on exec sales, lots of generalities and no specifics.

One thing which is weird and I'm trying to get to the bottom of is that they said on the call that the reported "doubling" of overseas PL TV rights wasn't correct (without saying what it was). Arsenal said the same thing in their results statement, estimating it would add 10% (i.e. £5.1m) to their PL TV money from this season. Last season every club got £10.1m (half of that amount to relegated clubs). That implies (even including this year's boosting of parachute payments) that the overseas deal is only 50-55% greater than the prior one.

What's going on there? I've asked a few friendly journos to find out. Dan Johnson at the PL won't talk to me for some reason.

That was about it. It was short and sweet.

The only other thing about it was that Tariq Panja from Bloomberg wasn't allowed on the call as punishment for publishing the "Glazers own 20% of the PIKs story". I understand Joel called Bloomberg HQ in NYC to try to get the story spiked. Petty.

You're right, it is petty. There's been petty behaviour on both sides and it benefits noone.

 

[peterstorey]

We're still £25m up on you after your own debt servicing costs have been paid..

Our EBITDA was £72M, net profit £56M. You can't really wipe out the £40M refinancing costs as a 'write down' pal. Even allowing the goodwill and the exchange rate hedge you made a loss while we made a profit ( and paid the fecking tax).

 

[GCHQ]

Really? How times change!

No actually, very dull. Nobody thought to ask "why haven't you repaid any PIKs"?

There appears to be a one-off positive to (non-staff) operating costs "associated with certain commercial contract". It's mentioned in the presentation and they chose to mention it again on the call without expanding on what or how much which isn't useful.

Very cagey on exec sales, lots of generalities and no specifics.

One thing which is weird and I'm trying to get to the bottom of is that they said on the call that the reported "doubling" of overseas PL TV rights wasn't correct (without saying what it was). Arsenal said the same thing in their results statement, estimating it would add 10% (i.e. £5.1m) to their PL TV money from this season. Last season every club got £10.1m (half of that amount to relegated clubs). That implies (even including this year's boosting of parachute payments) that the overseas deal is only 50-55% greater than the prior one.

What's going on there? I've asked a few friendly journos to find out. Dan Johnson at the PL won't talk to me for some reason.

That was about it. It was short and sweet.

The only other thing about it was that Tariq Panja from Bloomberg wasn't allowed on the call as punishment for publishing the "Glazers own 20% of the PIKs story". I understand Joel called Bloomberg HQ in NYC to try to get the story spiked. Petty.

Rather odd that nobody asked about the carve-out for the PIKs. How many questions were there roughly?

I noticed in the presentaion of results that there was a £2.6m reduction in matchday revenue which wasn't related to weaker playing performance (ie fewer home games). Matchday comprises quite a number of different revenue streams but you would imagine that reduced exec income makes up the majority of that deficit.

Negative interest rate fluctuations since the talk of the overseas deal doubling would account for part of the reduction but it's hard to explain how the improvement has gone from 100% to 55%.

The Bloomberg thing is classic Glazer behaviour. It was a predominantly very positive story and they'd still rather keep it secret rather than let people know about it. They must absolutely hate you for digging your way through US mortgage filings!

 

[GCHQ]

Our EBITDA was £72M, net profit £56M. You can't really wipe out the £40M refinancing costs as a 'write down' pal. Even allowing the goodwill and the exchange rate hedge you made a loss while we made a profit ( and paid the fecking tax).

Hang on! You're not seriously suggesting that the EBITDA from your property business, which will completely stop in a few years time, should be included in a comparison with United are you? That's absurd.

The £40m refinancing costs are a one-off and no analyst worth his salt would include that when making a comparison between the two club's trading performance.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Hang on! You're not seriously suggesting that the EBITDA from your property business, which will completely stop in a few years time, should be included in a comparison with United are you? That's absurd.

The £40m refinancing costs are a one-off and no analyst worth his salt would include that when making a comparison between the two club's trading performance.

Well you are including the debt they took on associated with the new stadium, so why would you not include the profit they made on the development and sale of the old stadium?

 

[peterstorey]

Hang on! You're not seriously suggesting that the EBITDA from your property business, which will completely stop in a few years time, should be included in a comparison with United are you? That's absurd.

The £40m refinancing costs are a one-off and no analyst worth his salt would include that when making a comparison between the two club's trading performance.

You misrepresented our EBITDA, and are ignoring the PIKs as well.

 

[GCHQ]

Arsenal unveiled turnover of ~£380 mill for 2009-2010, didn't they?

That was group turnover. £157m was from the property business. Their football turnover actually fell by £2m to £223m from £225m the previous year. Their football business financials really weren't anything to write home about in 09/10. Chelsea are going to be the same.