Exactly, there's loads of cash in the bank. Even if the owners were to take their £70m carve-out we'd still have £94m available; or Ronaldo Money +£14m. Next year we'll have even more, year after that even more. If that's not enough to replace Scholes and Giggsy i don't know what is!
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Exactly, there's loads of cash in the bank. Even if the owners were to take their £70m carve-out we'd still have £94m available; or Ronaldo Money +£14m. Next year we'll have even more, year after that even more. If that's not enough to replace Scholes and Giggsy i don't know what is!
I disagree, cider.
It can't be done without the RCF.
You think we'll need more than £94m net to invest in the squad in the coming twelve months? How so?
That's positive then. We're lucky our brand is so big worldwide, and its promising that after the sale of Ronaldo (one of the most popular players in the world) were still able to attract world wide attention and increase profits from years before. It was interesting to read that the Glazers increased our profit in one sector from around 14million to 104. I read it the other day so I'm not sure. Even with the complaints of matchday attenders our revenue only slumped 6 million which is down to less Champions League games. 94 million to replace Scholes and Giggs is way to much considering we have a lot of talent at our club so from what I understand, things look a bit positive. Thanks for the help boys.
So 220+500 = 720, how come GCHQ says our debt is £350m
16% of interest, it's illegal, it's an usurious interest and it will became invaluable
The interest rate should be renegotiable as for whatever mortgage all over the world
The interest rate should be renegotiable as for whatever mortgage all over the world
As per the conv with GCHQ earlier... there are peaks and troughs with the cash balance.
Last year it went down to £95m but because of some accountancy claptrap we can view that as £115m - perhaps due to the fact that we have £13m more than this time last year we can count that as £128m.
Take £70m from that (or £95m maybe) and that is what we have left for transfers.
I see that as just over £30m to replace Giggs, Scholes and VDS.
However, I will say this...
The main thrust of my argument is that the Glazers will always take the view that the squad comes first. They will forego their divs in order to invest in the squad. It would be illogical to do otherwise.
This is what they appear to have done by not taking their divs.
Other people will ask "where else will they get the money from, then?" but these people have been watching too many shit Panorama documentaries.
Some of them even had a starring role.
Maybe my maths is totally out again but I don't think it is on this occasion.
If as the Glazer apologists have said constantly in recent times we have all this cash in the bank, why do we need a credit facility? Now don't eat the head of me only asking
I presume he was talking about net debt.
£500m is our debt minus £160mill in the bank.
The £220mill is not Manchester United debt.
500 million is the clubs debt, which we contribute 45 million per annum to pay for whilst the 220 is the Glazers debt which they pay in their own way.
As Cider said, we have 164 in the bank and even if Glazers choose to take out there 70million one of payment their entitled to for the PIK payments, we still have 94 million to maintain, and through our high generation of income that will only increase.
Simple. The PIK notes are held higher up than club level and are not included in United's debt, so you just deduct our £164m cash in bank figure from the remaining debt without the PIK's included; the figure you're left with is our net debt.
Do you honestly think that the Glazers think the squad comes first? Well I strongly disagree the Glazers as their family history shows are interested in one thing only and that is the ruthless pursuit of profit and money. They don't give two sweet damn's about Manchester United the way we the ordinary fans do, they are here for money nothing else
A stronger squad means more income.
720-164 = 556, a long way from £350m
Look, if you're going to completely ignore the answers you are given. Don't ask the questions, is that fair enough?
Yes, i see what you're saying now.
The 'troughs' in our cash reserves would only be temporary though, so with large net transfer expenditure we'd perhaps need to temporarily dip into the rolling credit facility for immediate funds, but by year's end this will have all been paid back as our cash reserves peak again.
GCHQ predicts that by June next year, without transfer expenditure or the £70m carve-out, our cash reserves will reach £200m. So even with the carve-out we'd have £130m net to spend on new players, even if in actually spending it we need to make temporary use of the RCF. That's a phenomenal amount of money; far more than we'd need.
Fair enough, would Ronaldo and Tevez not amounted to a stronger squad then and perhaps even 4 prem's in a row. They left here for Red football issue's and not for the good of Manchester United football club
Exactly. A concept some people have major difficulty with. Especially because it goes against their pre-conceived ideas.
The fact of the matter is that the Glazers could have paid off their personal debts by now with money they have either received or spent on players but they haven't. It remains within Manchester United.
Keep your hair on, so what is it you want answered?
It's more like 500 million - 164 million in the bank.
+ 70million(one off payment Glazers are entitled) and then 25(which Glazers get yearly)
This equates to 431 million.
Crerand can you butt-out for a bit with your inane shit, we're trying to talk here.
Exactly. From what I can gather, the RCF IS a temporary credit facility.
I believe that whatever we borrow, 50% of it has to be paid back within the year.
I can believe that. I would even say that the cash would be higher if we have a better season than last on the pitch.
The £40m spent on the swap, for example, wouldn't even be there.
The truth hurts, I will leave the Glazer's to preach their gospel
We actually made a 25 million bid for Tevez that he rejected. As Gill said, we wanted to keep Ronaldo but we couldn't hold him against his will. He actually handed in a transfer request the year before he left that was rejected so yes the primary concern is the squad. Our squad is what brings us to success. Without reaching the semi-final of the Champions League we lost out on 6 million pounds revenue.
TMRD just said that the PIKs are 220, the bond is 500. We are lead to believe that there is 164 in the bank which leaves a balance of ......
Yeah the £40m one-off payment is crucial. If we managed to make a £14m cash profit this year with that payment deducted, even if revenues don't rise at all for twelve months we could expect a £54m cash-profit by June 2011.
Believe what you want, what really happened is another matter. As I have said before Red Football takes priority over Manchester United the football club
Oh please CL.
You're talking to a guy who, by all accounts, has just joined the debate and even he has got a better handle on things than you.
You choose which bits you want to read and ignore the rest. It makes you look stupid.
I said the Glazers owe £220m. We owe £500m.
Can you not see the difference?
If your business has a £20k loan and you have a £50k mortgage on your house, do you say that your business has a £70k debt?
No. You don't.
Ignore him, puNANI, he's always like this. He's been making that exact same post every few hours or so for months now. It doesn't matter how you respond to him or what lengths you go to to explain things, he'll just go ahead and make the same post again and again for weeks and weeks.
For everyone's sake, just ignore him, he's a wum.
Anders sent me a graph today which shows how matchday income suffered as a result of last season's comparatively poor showing (when compared to 2008-09).
It was quite depressing to look at because we all know that a goal here or a goal there could have made a massive difference financially.
But then I snapped out of it and hit myself in the face.
"What the feck!?", I said to myself.
When I start to see failure to win the PL as millions in the bank or a CL QF instead of a SF or Final as lost revenue, I know that I must be getting too deeply involved in this shit!
Yeah but the only money that can be taken out of our club to service the PIK payments is a one off 70million payment, and 25million each year which the Glazers are entitled to. Our cash reserves amounts to 164 million, so even if the Glazers take out 95 million in one year it would leave us with 69 million of our money. The net debt is 500 million, minus our 69 million which amounts to 431million. To service the debt we need 45 million per annum, which leaves us with 24 million in cash reserves. That means even after paying the 45 million to service the debt the net is 500-24 million= 476. Now if Glazers don't take out the 95 million out of the club at once, our cash reserves will continually grow and we will have enough money to replace the veterans.
Ah I replied before I read that. I'll start ignoring from now on.
@ puNANI grasping in half an hour what Crerand still can't understand after 129 pages of explanation.
It is rather sad, isn't it?
Anders sent me a graph today which shows how matchday income suffered as a result of last season's comparatively poor showing (when compared to 2008-09).
It was quite depressing to look at because we all know that a goal here or a goal there could have made a massive difference financially.
But then I snapped out of it and hit myself in the face.
"What the feck!?", I said to myself.
When I start to see failure to win the PL as millions in the bank or a CL QF instead of a SF or Final as lost revenue, I know that I must be getting too deeply involved in this shit!
It's encouraging then that even after a relatively poor season we still were able to post largely positive financial results.
I've seen little so far this season to suggest that we'll have a much better or much worse season than last season on the pitch, but who knows what can happen; since losing Ronaldo we've been in a difficult transition phase, if Rooney can find his form we'll hopefully once again look like a truly solid outfit.
I know what you mean about thinking in terms of finances when winning matches and trophies, but for the benefit of this thread and this thread only we should be able to forgive ourselves for putting success into monetary form.
The fact is that money in the bank above and beyond their dividend entitlements is largely worthless to the Glazers to be just sat there unused. If SAF wants cash to improve the squad and thus improve the club's earning power then it will be made available to him; which is what SAF has said all along. The figures show that the money is there; there's far more stockpiled than the Glazers could ever take out. We have a big transfer budget.
Cider, we haven't actually paid the £40m in full. THe club will pay 4-5m pa over the next 6 years (including the current trading year) to unwind the amount outstanding.
, it's not to confusing if your not completely one sided. I'm sure all of us would want us to be rid of the debt, as that 45 million that we spend on servicing the debt can be used on transfers but we seem to be doing fine as we generate high income. Even amidst all of this bullshit, we've been spoiled with great success in the last four years.To be honest, I get criticised for concentrating on the cash-flow too much but I am going to ignore the P&L accounts mostly from now on.
I think the cashflow is where it's at.
Yes we know that players need replacing and it is a case of working within the framework to see whether or not it is possible and making allowances.
I genuinely believe that this is where the Glazers operate. Everything is year on year. They have a long term vision but it is fluid and is dictated by the yearly accounts.
So. Bog off all you accountancy types with your fancy dan Goodwill Amortisation and Player Contract Amortisation. It means feck all.
I know that this might seem a waste of all your years of training and academic knowledge but this is business.
The Glazers operate within fine margins. It scares the pants off you accountancy types because the nearest you come to risk is when you go to work with a calculator that has been showing serious signs of battery failure and may well conk out at any given moment.
Cash is king. Accounts are for beardy, weirdy people who wear mostly beige and cardigans.
And so ends the gospel according to TMRD.
I think the cashflow is where it's at.
Yes we know that players need replacing and it is a case of working within the framework to see whether or not it is possible and making allowances.
I genuinely believe that this is where the Glazers operate. Everything is year on year. They have a long term vision but it is fluid and is dictated by the yearly accounts.
So. Bog off all you accountancy types with your fancy dan Goodwill Amortisation and Player Contract Amortisation. It means feck all.
I know that this might seem a waste of all your years of training and academic knowledge but this is business.
The Glazers operate within fine margins. It scares the pants off you accountancy types because the nearest you come to risk is when you go to work with a calculator that has been showing serious signs of battery failure and may well conk out at any given moment.
Cash is king. Accounts are for beardy, weirdy people who wear mostly beige and cardigans.
And so ends the gospel according to TMRD.
Actually yes. I forgot this. I think we paid £14.6million with the rest over the next few years.
For some weird reason, it has been entered into the P&L account as paid in full this time though.
Whatever. We're talking a few mill cash per year.
Ah ok, i hadn't realised that.
So we're not as profitable as i'd first thought then.
Perhaps £35m cash profit per annum would be more accurate?
- Status