ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
dave2528 said:
And bearing in mind that I have a hard enough time keeping and understanding my finances, let alone that of a football club ...How much of the windfall we are experiencing, as far as commercial generated income, do you think is a result of the marketing and business savvy of the Glazers and their ownership?

Might it be a possibility that given the increase in global interests in the sport, that the increase in commercial revenue is a net result of that? Has this ownership hit on a money making phoenomina that only they could have thought of in the last five years, or is it possible that we could have had, under different ownership, also seen increases in these revenue streams?

If under different circumstances, say, ones that didn't involve being saddled with this amount of debt that needs serviced, couldn't this commercial revenue be used to invest in ways that show actual benefit to the club, and not just to offset the loss from all these "one-off" fees?

Could it not be argued that these owners are indeed costing us a penny, or to be more precise, costing us all the pennys it's going to take to pay down the debt they have saddle the club with?
Click to expand...

It's impossible to say. We know that the current owners have pushed very hard into opening up new commercial revenue streams and expanding the overseas markets, but would the PLC have made these same efforts? Or perhaps more relevant, would whoever bought the club from the PLC had the Glazers not done so have made these same efforts? Who knows.

You could just as easy speculate that ticket prices would have increased regardless of the Glazer takeover; nobody knows and nobody will ever know.
 
dave2528 said:
And bearing in mind that I have a hard enough time keeping and understanding my finances, let alone that of a football club ...How much of the windfall we are experiencing, as far as commercial generated income, do you think is a result of the marketing and business savvy of the Glazers and their ownership?

Might it be a possibility that given the increase in global interests in the sport, that the increase in commercial revenue is a net result of that? Has this ownership hit on a money making phoenomina that only they could have thought of in the last five years, or is it possible that we could have had, under different ownership, also seen increases in these revenue streams?

If under different circumstances, say, ones that didn't involve being saddled with this amount of debt that needs serviced, couldn't this commercial revenue be used to invest in ways that show actual benefit to the club, and not just to offset the loss from all these "one-off" fees?

Could it not be argued that these owners are indeed costing us a penny, or to be more precise, costing us all the pennys it's going to take to pay down the debt they have saddle the club with?
Click to expand...

You are spot on and of course I am pretty sure that these increased revenue streams would have been developed Glazers or not, it is not like they are top business men the rest of their failing empire is proof of that. The Glazer ownership has cost the football club a fortune which is undeniable fact money which could have benefited the infrastructure of the club and fans alike
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
In a "if my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle", kind of way, you mean?

The most important thing to remember is this: The club was for sale for the best part of 15 years. Anyone could have come along and made all this money but nobody but the Glazers did.

If all this was such a "no brainer" kind of thing that anyone could have done, why wasn't there a queue of people clamouring to take over Manchester United and mine that gold?

What we do know about the Glazers is that they take this area extremely seriously and view it as key to their overall strategy. To this end, they have set up dedicated offices in London in 2008 with the specific job of pursuing commercial deals.

The Glazers aren't super-human and it could well be that they are only doing what others could do but there is a world of difference between actually doing and saying "I could have done that".

In my head, I have invented the toaster, the wheel and Pizza flavoured Pringles. No one sends me any money from these things though. :(
Click to expand...

Well I don't know your Auntie but the club would have been millons better off if the Glazers had stayed away. No they are not superhuman as a matter of fact they are living off the fact that their now very ill father made a fortune and handed it to them. Malcom was hard tough business man who was so heartless he even sued his own family, nice people heh
 
ciderman9000000 said:
What flavour pizza are your pizza flavour Pringles, TMRD?
Click to expand...

Just pizza really. You know... oregano, mainly. And cheese.

I swear on my auntie Margaret's eyes that Iwas sat there one night and I was having a wee drinky and I was eating some plain Pringles and I thought, "They should do these in Pizza flavour".

The very next week, I was in Asda and there they were... Pizza Flavour Pringles!

It was at that stage that I realised that my thoughts were being monitored by unsrupulous business-men with mind-reading technology and I switched off my brain and haven't had a good idea since.
 
Crerand Legend said:
Well I don't know your Auntie but the club would have been millons better off if the Glazers had stayed away. No they are not superhuman as a matter of fact they are living off the fact that their now very ill father made a fortune and handed it to them. Malcom was hard tough business man who was so heartless he even sued his own family, nice people heh
Click to expand...

You'd have thought this kind of thing would have stopped when vinyl was replaced by CD way back in the 80s.
 
Crerand Legend said:
Is that the best you can come up with? There are some facts you just cannot argue against is there not?
Click to expand...

You are aware that the crap you post is very rarely grounded in fact of any description, aren't you, Crerand? You've not built up your reputation for being a stubborn dunce by dealing exclusively in recognised facts, you know?
 
Crerand Legend said:
Is that the best you can come up with? There are some facts you just cannot argue against is there not?
Click to expand...

There are some "facts" that aren't even relevant to the discussion though Crerand.

We can discuss all day and all night and it invariably ends with you saying, "Well, you can have your opinion and I can have my mine but I will never change my view of the Glazers. The Glazers are bad for United and you can't argue with that."

It's head-bangingly pointless.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
There are some "facts" that aren't even relevant to the discussion though Crerand.

We can discuss all day and all night and it invariably ends with you saying, "Well, you can have your opinion and I can have my mine but I will never change my view of the Glazers. The Glazers are bad for United and you can't argue with that."

It's head-bangingly pointless.
Click to expand...

Can say the exact same about you only the facts and bottom line of the whole debate side with me and you have been unable to convince me or anyone else otherwise. The Glazers took over the most profitable club perhaps in the world and turned it into a club losing over £80m a year
 
Crerand Legend said:
Can say the exact same about you only the facts and bottom line of the whole debate side with me and you have been unable to convince me or anyone else otherwise. The Glazers took over the most profitable club perhaps in the world and turned it into a club losing over £80m a year
Click to expand...

Ok. Here's a challenge for you. Explain to me exactly why we just "lost" over £80million this last year.

Please don't point me to a newspaper article or say something like "Well, if you haven't understood, don't ask me to help you."

If you can't be arsed, that's ok. I obviously have no right to demand anything of you.
 
I've been wondering, anders, GCHQ, anyone; the £164m in the bank, even if the owners do eventually make the £70m carve-out, that still leaves £94m, and if this year's accounts are anything to go by then you can add a shitload more to that come this time next year; what then could/will this cash be used for? The Glazers can't take any more than their entitled dividend, so this would suggest to me that there's more than enough cash in place to fund a decent transfer budget for next season, plus the impending training ground improvements. The club has loads of money in the bank and is operating on a decent and improving annual cash profit, so we're comfortable, right? Is there something i'm missing?
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
Ok. Here's a challenge for you. Explain to me exactly why we just "lost" over £80million this last year.

Please don't point me to a newspaper article or say something like "Well, if you haven't understood, don't ask me to help you."

If you can't be arsed, that's ok. I obviously have no right to demand anything of you.
Click to expand...

Why would I need to tell you that read the last dozen or so pages and it is plain to see, explained by several posters. My main point is that without the Americans the football club would have had made a huge amount of money last year but we didn't we lost a fortune now matter what smokescreen you wish to create
 
ciderman9000000 said:
I've been wondering, anders, GCHQ, anyone; the £164m in the bank, even if the owners do eventually make the £70m carve-out, that still leaves £94m, and if this year's accounts are anything to go by then you can add a shitload more to that come this time next year; what then could/will this cash be used for? The Glazers can't take any more than their entitled dividend, so this would suggest to me that there's more than enough cash in place to fund a decent transfer budget for next season, plus the impending training ground improvements. The club has loads of money in the bank and is operating on a decent and improving annual cash profit, so we're comfortable, right? Is there something i'm missing?
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know what the cash balance was at the end of the last financial year.

I took no real interest in the accounts at that stage so I don't know and I don't know where to look, really.

A lot of the money currently in the bank will obviously be spent as the year goes along (wages etc).

But, as I keep getting told, you need to look beyond the cash situation. There's no point having £200million in the bank if all your players are 67.
 
Crerand Legend said:
Why would I need to tell you that read the last dozen or so pages and it is plain to see, explained by several posters. My main point is that without the Americans the football club would have had made a huge amount of money last year but we didn't we lost a fortune now matter what smokescreen you wish to create
Click to expand...

Right, so you can't explain then? No surprises there.

It is you who has had to be told dozens of times by various different posters that you are reading the accounts incorrectly, but you are either too stubborn or just too plain thick to take that on board.

Can you explain why in a year when we apparently made such a huge loss our bank balance swelled from £150m twelve months ago to £164m today?

No, you can't, because again you're either too stubborn or too thick to have allowed yourself any understanding of the matter.

It's understandable for newcomers to the debate who have not yet had the benefit of anders' or GCHQ's explanations as to how to read the accounts and what they show our operating profit as being to be of a similar opinion to that which you continue to hold. But it is not understandable nor acceptable for you yourself, who've had it explained to you in various ways and on countless different occasions, to still be wallowing in such thick-headed ignorance as you are doing.

You have no right to be engaging in this debate if you refuse to have any inclination to learn from it what people are spending a lot of their own time patiently explaining to you; your continued self-imposed ignorance to any of the concepts under discussion only serves to confuse others who might make the fatal mistake of assuming that, because you have been involved in the debate for a while now, you must have some clue as to what you're talking about.

You don't. Your opinions are invalid and you're wasting everybody's time.

This isn't meant as an insult, it's just the way of things i'm afraid.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
It would be interesting to know what the cash balance was at the end of the last financial year.

I took no real interest in the accounts at that stage so I don't know and I don't know where to look, really.

A lot of the money currently in the bank will obviously be spent as the year goes along (wages etc).

But, as I keep getting told, you need to look beyond the cash situation. There's no point having £200million in the bank if all your players are 67.
Click to expand...

It was £150m twelve month ago according to GCHQ.

Surely expenses like wages would be accounted for already and paid using the club's regular income, not its cash reserves? The money in the bank is surplus to everyday running-cost requirements such as wages, electricity, travel costs etc., is it not?
 
ciderman9000000 said:
I've been wondering, anders, GCHQ, anyone; the £164m in the bank, even if the owners do eventually make the £70m carve-out, that still leaves £94m, and if this year's accounts are anything to go by then you can add a shitload more to that come this time next year; what then could/will this cash be used for? The Glazers can't take any more than their entitled dividend, so this would suggest to me that there's more than enough cash in place to fund a decent transfer budget for next season, plus the impending training ground improvements. The club has loads of money in the bank and is operating on a decent and improving annual cash profit, so we're comfortable, right? Is there something i'm missing?
Click to expand...

No, you're not missing anything. It's what I've argued all along. The £70m carve-out can disappear to RFJV Ltd and the club/Red Football Ltd will just continue on its merry way.

The remaining cash can be used for exactly the things you've suggested, predominantly capital expenditure on players (transfer fees) and facilities (such as the Carrington improvements).

Cash at bank will be c. £200m on June 30 2011 if there is no significant transfer expenditure between now and the end of the financial year and if the carve-out hasn't taken place. Even if the carve-out does go ahead then there will still be £130m available.

We're skint though! Duncan Drasdo said so. :rolleyes:
 
GCHQ said:
No, you're not missing anything. It's what I've argued all along. The £70m carve-out can disappear to RFJV Ltd and the club/Red Football Ltd will just continue on its merry way.

The remaining cash can be used for exactly the things you've suggested, predominantly capital expenditure on players (transfer fees) and facilities (such as the Carrington improvements).

Cash at bank will be c. £200m on June 30 2011 if there is no significant transfer expenditure between now and the end of the financial year and if the carve-out hasn't taken place. Even if the carve-out does go ahead then there will still be £130m available.

We're skint though! Duncan Drasdo said so. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

In other words. The "Ronaldo money" is still there, then?
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
It would be interesting to know what the cash balance was at the end of the last financial year.

I took no real interest in the accounts at that stage so I don't know and I don't know where to look, really.

A lot of the money currently in the bank will obviously be spent as the year goes along (wages etc).

But, as I keep getting told, you need to look beyond the cash situation. There's no point having £200million in the bank if all your players are 67.
Click to expand...

It's right next to the £164m figure in the latest accounts! The 2009 numbers are alongside the 2010 figures. You can't have been reading those accounts very thoroughly! There was £150.5m cash at bank on June 30 2009.

You're right about the cash balance decreasing throughout the year but based on the quarterly accounts from last year, the maximum reduction from the start of the year is c. £40m at the end of quarter three. It did fall to c. £95m at the end of quarter three last year but that included the exceptional cash financing outflows so c. £110m would be a more relevant total as we look forward to how cashflow will be affected in future periods.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
It was £150m twelve month ago according to GCHQ.

Surely expenses like wages would be accounted for already and paid using the club's regular income, not its cash reserves? The money in the bank is surplus to everyday running-cost requirements such as wages, electricity, travel costs etc., is it not?
Click to expand...

How did we arrive at an extra £13million then? I just presumed it was stuff coming in (ST sales etc) and stuff going out (wages etc) and what's left is the profit/loss on the cash side.

Where it all goes murky is when you start having to put things like Goodwill amortisation and the fx conversion whatsit into the picture.

No wonder I'm confused. These figures just make themselves up.
 
Can the Glazers take the dividend in retrospect or have they now forfeited it for this year? Cheers
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Right, so you can't explain then? No surprises there.

It is you who has had to be told dozens of times by various different posters that you are reading the accounts incorrectly, but you are either too stubborn or just too plain thick to take that on board.

Can you explain why in a year when we apparently made such a huge loss our bank balance swelled from £150m twelve months ago to £164m today?

No, you can't, because again you're either too stubborn or too thick to have allowed yourself any understanding of the matter.

It's understandable for newcomers to the debate who have not yet had the benefit of anders' or GCHQ's explanations as to how to read the accounts and what they show our operating profit as being to be of a similar opinion to that which you continue to hold. But it is not understandable nor acceptable for you yourself, who've had it explained to you in various ways and on countless different occasions, to still be wallowing in such thick-headed ignorance as you are doing.

You have no right to be engaging in this debate if you refuse to have any inclination to learn from it what people are spending a lot of their own time patiently explaining to you; your continued self-imposed ignorance to any of the concepts under discussion only serves to confuse others who might make the fatal mistake of assuming that, because you have been involved in the debate for a while now, you must have some clue as to what you're talking about.

You don't. Your opinions are invalid and you're wasting everybody's time.

This isn't meant as an insult, it's just the way of things i'm afraid.
Click to expand...

So he has to explain it, yet GCHQ tells me to read back over the last few pages? Sort your act out lads.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
How did we arrive at an extra £13million then? I just presumed it was stuff coming in (ST sales etc) and stuff going out (wages etc) and what's left is the profit/loss on the cash side.

Where it all goes murky is when you start having to put things like Goodwill amortisation and the fx conversion whatsit into the picture.

No wonder I'm confused. These figures just make themselves up.
Click to expand...

The Cashflow statement shows how the £13m increase was arrived at. That increase in cash from year to year proves how largely irrelevant the club's P/L account is due to the significant non-cash accounting charges included within it.
 
GCHQ said:
It's right next to the £164m figure in the latest accounts! The 2009 numbers are alongside the 2010 figures. You can't have been reading those accounts very thoroughly! There was £150.5m cash at bank on June 30 2009.
Click to expand...

Oops! Rumbled! I confess, I was wading through the notes but for the figures themselves I just used the abridged version on Anders' website and, funnily enough, that doesn't show the cash in the bank figure.
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
So he has to explain it, yet GCHQ tells me to read back over the last few pages? Sort your act out lads.
Click to expand...

Oh do me a favour! I was writing in depth about the c. £80m accounting loss and the reasons for it three days before the actual results were announced ffs!

Now stop being lazy and go back and read through the numerous explanations. Or even read Anders' latest blog entry: the andersred blog If you'd looked back through the thread then you would have seen it without me needing to point it out for you.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
Oops! Rumbled! I confess, I was wading through the notes but for the figures themselves I just used the abridged version on Anders' website and, funnily enough, that doesn't show the cash in the bank figure.
Click to expand...

Piss off it's a summary of the P&L. :D If people want balance sheet and cash flow summaries can I suggest a sharing of the workload?
 
GCHQ said:
Come on Anders, give us a bit of a clue about this big news that you're hiding from everyone?

Has your PIK documents contact come up trumps?
Click to expand...

I'm not hiding anything, I'm trying to adhere to the principle of not publishing stuff before it's properly verified (cue jokes re: dividends in March that never got paid).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.