There is so much grey area in the world of Glazer finances, that is why this thread has endured and will continue to throw arguement and counter arguement, the truth is nobody knows what really went on or what the future holds, here is hoping that it is positive but I am worried and nobody has convinced me otherwise
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
There is so much grey area in the world of Glazer finances, that is why this thread has endured and will continue to throw arguement and counter arguement, the truth is nobody knows what really went on or what the future holds, here is hoping that it is positive but I am worried and nobody has convinced me otherwise
Well his blog is wrong then.
Looks like it. Have you got a link to the claim?
I'm sorry, where are you getting that from?
Sorry, puNANI. I am no Tevez lover. But, I think he was benched most of the time because of the 30m signing; not because he under-performed.
Where exactly because I can't see it?
Me neither and I wrote it....
He's logged off now.....
Bit poor that.
Bit poor that.
But what about the rat in the kitchen?
Was looking at the Profit/Loss on player sales.
Sorry, nipped out to grab lunch.
80.7 + 12.7 - presumed this was what it said.
Is this a spend value or is this a staggered income?
Either way, does it indicate a 94m profit in the last two statements?
Good lunch I hope.
Yes, that's the profit on player sales in the last two years, nowt to do with cash spending, all to do with sale proceeds and the book value of the players when sold....
Yes, sushi from a cracking little place near Piccadilly Circus thanks. Wasabi mayo rocks
So it's book value in versus book less value out? Is that more or less equivalent to, for want of a better phrase, layman's net spend?
The flipside to that wasted money is United in a situation like Liverpool's. Expensive as the bond issue was it has really removed, for the time being, any chance of the club teetering on the brink of financial meltdown.
As for signing players and contracts, well that needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Not many flash players want to go to Manchester, either due to the weather or maybe even Fergie or the club's wage structure, which has been around longer than Malcolm et al. I reckon these are the signings that would satisfy that demand, not that we really need any players but there you go, a lot of fans go in for that.
Reduced ticket prices is a bit of a dream, don't you think? The ACS should be an option, although it does surprise me that fans with STs don't get to all the matches they can, but that's probably just envy on my part.
What's done is done and the Glazers are here to stay for the forseeable future, like it or not and I'm not sure many do, which makes these discussions all the more entertaining.
I thought the wage structure was a plc thing? Yes, Gill has carried on running the show in that sense, but he no longer has to do so and if the club no longer has to publish wages, etc., then it's more of a case of each player gets what they are worth/need to keep them at the club. We'd have had to absolutely smash the wage structure to keep Ronaldo for example, whereas the current regime allowed us to offer £150k a week.
The key is, we don't know how well the plc would have done post-Kenyon given we didn't have the situation for that long, but we had already started performing better.
I think so (re: the PLC thing) but it is a very sound business practice, look at what happened at Pompey because they ignored things like that.
It's hard to speculate on how the PLC would have performed for sure. I don't think they would have been as aggressive as the Glazers in mining new revenue streams but that's likely been more out of neccessity than anything else. That said, depending on who the shareholders were such a course may have been possible.
The wages under the PLC were £80million in their last year.
The wages are now £130million.
I make that something in the region of 60%+ increase in five years.
Judging by the accounts, the plan is to keep wages at or below 50% of turnover and it currently stands at 46% so there's clearly room for a little extra but I suppose you also have to wonder what the wage bill would have been had we won the PL or CL last season - the bonuses would have taken to closer to that 50% mark, I suspect.
To me, this is all running the thing very sensibly.
Compare this to up the creek Liverpool who, I believe spent £107m on wages at last count on a turnover of £185m which is closer to 58% although they clearly haven't had to worry about winning anything for quite some time.
The wages are now £130million.
I make that something in the region of 60%+ increase in five years.
Judging by the accounts, the plan is to keep wages at or below 50% of turnover and it currently stands at 46% so there's clearly room for a little extra but I suppose you also have to wonder what the wage bill would have been had we won the PL or CL last season - the bonuses would have taken to closer to that 50% mark, I suspect.
To me, this is all running the thing very sensibly.
Compare this to up the creek Liverpool who, I believe spent £107m on wages at last count on a turnover of £185m which is closer to 58% although they clearly haven't had to worry about winning anything for quite some time.
The wages under the PLC were £80million in their last year.
The wages are now £130million.
I make that something in the region of 60%+ increase in five years.
Judging by the accounts, the plan is to keep wages at or below 50% of turnover and it currently stands at 46% so there's clearly room for a little extra but I suppose you also have to wonder what the wage bill would have been had we won the PL or CL last season - the bonuses would have taken to closer to that 50% mark, I suspect.
To me, this is all running the thing very sensibly.
Compare this to up the creek Liverpool who, I believe spent £107m on wages at last count on a turnover of £185m which is closer to 58% although they clearly haven't had to worry about winning anything for quite some time.
The problem is the debt burden of our owners which is draining the club of its wealth, not the wages
I like the way you moved from net to gross there without even pausing for breath. Seamless.
What's the net cash outflow?
For the benefit of all those claiming that the Glazers would not allow SAF funds to sign Tevez or that they would not pay his wages, consider this Sky Sports article dated 20th of June 2009.
It reports with official quotes that United had offered the £25.5m needed to buy Tevez on a 'lucrative five year contract' which would make Tevez 'one of the club's highest paid players':
So the Glazers did sanction the signing, as SAF always said would happen. They offered to make him one of our highest paid players but he rejected us. Did the Glazers deny SAF funds then? No, they did not. City simply had turned his head by offering him more cash; SAF put a valuation on him, tried to make him one of our top earners, received the full backing of the owners, made a bid with lucrative terms and was ultimately rejected; they then announced that Tevez would be leaving the club.
Good riddance.
We didn't sign Tevez because he was sulking following a poor season which saw him third in the pecking order behind £30m signing Dimitar Berbatov. Despite being offered top dollar he showed no inclination to want to continue at United and fight for his place.
We did not fail to sign Tevez because there were no funds available.
Hopefully we can put this to bed now.
It reports with official quotes that United had offered the £25.5m needed to buy Tevez on a 'lucrative five year contract' which would make Tevez 'one of the club's highest paid players':
Sky Sports 20/06/09 said:
So the Glazers did sanction the signing, as SAF always said would happen. They offered to make him one of our highest paid players but he rejected us. Did the Glazers deny SAF funds then? No, they did not. City simply had turned his head by offering him more cash; SAF put a valuation on him, tried to make him one of our top earners, received the full backing of the owners, made a bid with lucrative terms and was ultimately rejected; they then announced that Tevez would be leaving the club.
Good riddance.
We didn't sign Tevez because he was sulking following a poor season which saw him third in the pecking order behind £30m signing Dimitar Berbatov. Despite being offered top dollar he showed no inclination to want to continue at United and fight for his place.
We did not fail to sign Tevez because there were no funds available.
Hopefully we can put this to bed now.
I like the way you moved from net to gross there without even pausing for breath. Seamless.
You're right Ralphie - shameless it was - catching summat nasty from Anders I reckon
Tevez was made an offer when the damage was already done. The offer came after huge pressure from the fans but by that stage SAF and him were barely on speaking terms. IMHO by the way
You're saying it was SAF's fault then? I thought you were blaming the owners?
Look, it's obvious that the funds were there and that the club were prepared to make Tevez a top earner. If SAF's man-management was to blame then fair enough; SAF had always said they'd sign him once the season was over, but Tevez didn't want to play second fiddle to Berbatov and it showed.
The accounts show there was plenty of cash available, the cash was put on the table and offered to Tevez, he rejected the deal.
Stop blaming the owners for something that had feck all to do with them.
Net cash outflow on player capex reflects the amount of cash that's been spent on the purchase of players over and above the amount of cash received from the sale of players.
I believe the club made a decision not to sign Tevez for financial reasons, I fully understand there are viable arguments against this but I believe I am closer to the truth
I like the way you moved from net to gross there without even pausing for breath. Seamless.
Thank you. What's a cnut? GCHQ.
Stop avoiding the point and answer it:
What is our net cash outflow on player capex since the Glazers have arrived?
If I buy a house for £100k.
I spend £180,000 on a mortgage
It costs me £50,000 to modernise the property
I sell if for £300,000
I am not £200,000 in profit am I.
You are simply saying "well they bought it for £780 million.. They will sell it for £1.25 billion so they are £500 million odd in profit" which is a completely stupid way of painting it.
Take all what they've spent on Purchasing the club, take out the debts they have to repay should they sell it, take off the money from the bond issue, take off any fees they incur selling the club, and what do you have left ?
There will not be £500 million more than what they started with. That is a 100% certainty.
This is exactly what Gillette and Hicks are facing at the moment.
They bought Liverool for £230 odd million. NESV are going to be paying £300 million so by your argument Gillette and Hicks are walking away with £70 million profit.
Thats not the case at all, because by the time the expenses, debts, loans, blah blah blah are all paid back then G+H actually will stand to be out of pocket by £144 miillion.
The Glazers are most certainly not £500 million richer than when they first bought United, no matter what you say.
You are playing with words to try and paint a picture that simply isnt there.
Secondly how do you reach the conlusion that the net debt has increased by £100 million.
When they took over they borrowed £510 million to fund United.
The NET debts now stand at approximately £725 million.
Now unless you are a magician, that does not make £100 million increase.
Yes, the strongest viable argument against what you're saying is the fact (read: fact) that the club made the decision to sign Tevez, as they always said they would, and offered him loads of money.
You believe you are closer to the truth because you're a moron.
Lovely more name calling
Sure, and the amount City are purported to have paid for his registration definitely supports that.
Now the question is, would you have paid over forty million pounds for Tevez and would you have supported the club if they did so?
I've quite a bit of this topic over the last couple of hours and I'm not sure I'm any wiser as to what's happening or where the club stands. I am however sure that Crerand Legend is on a complete windup with his constant drivel.
Is they're a detailed post within this tread which explains everything that is known to the average man (me)?
Is they're a detailed post within this tread which explains everything that is known to the average man (me)?
Not really. It's because the Tevez to City story had been doing the rounds since February in Manchester.
Your article was from 20/6/09
He was widely reported to have signed for City 12 days earlier.
Your article stated:
That means that United negotiated with him on the 19th, assuming the article was correct. In which case Tevez clearly had no intention of signing and United arguably knew that.
No I am not on a windup and call it drivel if you must, disprove then
I'm pretty confident that crerand isn't on a wind up you know. He's as serious as cancer when he says rhythm is a dancer.
Sorry, after your earlier confusion about another accounting term I thought a basic explanation was the order of the day.
The total net cash outflow on player capex since the Glazers arrived has been £55m or an average of £11m per year. The gross cash outflow is £212m which clearly shows that there has been very significant investment in new players during the Glazers ownership. The fact the club sold a player for a world record £80m fee just over a year ago clearly renders the net cash outflow figure irrelevant. After such a massive exceptional event you simply have to wait 2-3 years before the net figure becomes in any way relevant again.
The club has also been very successful over the last few years at selling young players, acquired at minimal cost, for significant transfer fees.
Absolutely not. This thread would have been a one-pager were that the case.
Basically we've made an operating profit (revenue less costs) of £100m and an accounting loss (profit less Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation) of £83m.
What some of us are trying to evaluate is how much of the difference is made up of actual money rather than accounting procedures. We know for sure that there is the bond interest and the costs associated with setting the bond up that are around £83m in total. There are also values that we know are accounting figures (such as the practice of writing off a player's registration evenly over a set number of years, like writing off computer equipment off over a 3 or 4 year period despite losing the cash for it in year 1).
- Status