This? Heated? Blimey. We've been getting on swimmingly today!
Besides, I've seen those Transfer Muppet threads on here... this thread never boils over to that extent.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
This? Heated? Blimey. We've been getting on swimmingly today!
Besides, I've seen those Transfer Muppet threads on here... this thread never boils over to that extent.
There's a lot of one side of the argument demanding that the other side provides information to back their claims now!
I demand that you provide evidence of this ... NOW!
Exactly. You know this, i know this, SAF knows this, Gill knows this, the Glazers know this. The funding will come when SAF requires it, it's a no-brainer; anyone telling you that the Glazers will take all our money to pay off PIK notes is full of shit.
Again, just because we've been investing in youth and potential for the last twelve months, doesn't mean that that's all we can afford and it's going to be that way forever now; when Giggs and Scholes retire SAF will likely want some well qualified replacements, and there's no reason whatsoever to believe that the Glazers will not sanction those kind of hefty transfers.
If you believe that the Glazers will willingly feck up their primary asset by denying the funding needed to keep it commercially attractive with a high global brand-value then you need a good punch in the head.
They'll not starve United because they'll make no profit from doing so. Instead they'll feed the club and watch it and their profits grow. They'll pay just enough to keep the PIK's at a constant level and use the rest to increase the value of the club by keeping it at the top of the game whilst the overseas markets flourish and the money pours in.
Is there any reason why with proper investment United cannot be worth £2bn+ by 2017? How much will the club be worth if we're starved of funding for seven years and never winning a thing? Not much i would imagine.
Transfers are a small fraction of what was spent on the Glazer debt
I was using your standard tactics. Shit isn't it.
I made several points, one was wrong, the others you haven't refuted because you have no answer to them.
Oh really? How can you establish the truth about the present when we're not privvy to the whole picture?
Deadwood arguments? Like what?
Obviously just headlines about what you deem deadwood.
Would that have been your second point to Crerrand?
The Glazers didn't receive a penny of that money. The Glazers haven't taken money out at the expense of the squad.
You might call semantics but I think there's a massive distinction here. The debts are an integral part of their plan. Introduce debt, increase revenues to cover it. This is what they have done.
When it comes to money taken by the Glazers for themselves, I think it comes to £23million which can hardly be considered a budget-busting amount considering that it spans a five year period.
Taking money out for themselves at the expense of transfers has not, thus far, been proved to be an integral part of their plan.
The Glazers bought this debt to the club and it is they alone who will ultimately benefit and yes their ownership has been to the detriment of the squad, fans and club. Why do opposing fans sing "There is only one Malcom Glazer". They delight in the position he has put Manchester United
Cider,
A lot of the money in the bank at YE 2010 is deferred income-money paid in advance for services yet to be rendered; 52m is advanced ST bookings.
We have big cash reserves in the first quarter which fall away through the year to be once again boosted by deferred income in the fourth quarter of the accounting year.
Cash in bank as at YE 2009 was 150m; cash in bank at the end of the 3rd quarter (March 31 2010) was 96m giving a 55m drop in cash reserves.
Of course we refinanced in that period, so you would expect atypical cashflows that wouldn't be repeated in future periods.
However, when we look at the actual cashflows (for Q3 2009) relating to bank interest and new borrowings, we get:
Swap loss downpayment (13m) and bank interest = 32m in total
Change in borrowings= 16m
The total of 48m (some of it atypical) along with other outgo such as player net spend, etc contributed to the 55m deficit in cash reserves.
Now compare that 48m to the bond interest (payable in August and Febuary) and remaining swap installments (c 50m pa in total) and you can see that though we had the refinancing, the actual outgo as recorded in the Q3 accounts is consistent with the related outgo going forward. All other things being equal, 55m (and not 40m) is a more realistic estimate of the drop in cash reserves.
There are a couple of other factors that will\could actually increase the deficit of 55m too: The bond will be 14 months old by March 31 2011, so an annual dividend can be taken; and the unwind of the Aon deal will kick in from this year for the next 4 years (9m a year).
So you could be looking at a drop in cash reserves of 80m or thereabouts.
Factor in the carveout of 70m and there might not be too much of the 163 left at March 31 2011.
As for the RCF: I don't think it will be used for heavy player expenditure. Consider the cashflow implications if we put 50m, say, on the RCF. We could use deferred income to pay it down but what then? In using the deferred income (advanced ST bookings) we reduce the amount outstanding on the credit facility thus meeting the maintenace covenant but we've also decreased the start-of-year cash reserves by the same amount; we will then need to borrow (on the RCF) to make up for the shortfall in working capital. So heavy usage in one year would rollover in to subsequent periods until its remedied by free cash generation.
Last period, cash generation was 13m (163m-150m). We did not pay an annual dividend in the period and it seems the Glazers didn't take a management fee at YE 2010.
I was using your standard tactics. Shit isn't it.
Hmm. If you say so... I'd like to see an example, though. I have often misunderstood things to do with the accounts and will normally hold my hands up when it is explained. I have said time and again that I am a layman on the subject of accounts.
What? The ticket prices, the ACS and the waiting list? Is that really what you're referring to here?
Eh? When people go into a court, does the judge say, "Well, this is a pointless waste of time because we don't have the full picture so we might as well all go home, you included Mister Murderer."
Or does he listen to both sides of the story, taking into account the evidence submitted by both sides?
I am not likening myself to a Judge on the case here, by the way. Just illustrating how silly your comment was.
I am here to learn and, where possible, educate in my own small way. It is an exchange of views and facts.
What I will do however, is shout down anything that is clearly bullshit or ill-conceived theory because that kind of thing just gets in the way.
I think this discussion and others like it have been very helpful in clarifying a lot of issues. Without these discussions, certain people would have had carte blanche to make up almost anything they wanted without even being challenged.
There have certainly been quite a few deadwood arguments over the months and, thankfully, a lot of these have been consigned to the dustbin where they belong.
As you keep saying Crerand. Sticks and stones and all that.
Yes i see what you're saying. I was basing my calculations on GCHQ saying that a typical deficit in cash reserves would be £40m, nowhere near £80m. I don't know who's right, you or him, and i'm not canny enough to check for myself. Perhaps GCHQ meant something else, because what you say certainly sounds plausible.
Do you know what effect on next year's income the telecoms deals will have compared to last year? How much and when we get paid etc.? I'd assume the Glazers will continue notching up further similar deals this season; there are many territories yet to sign up; do they pay upfront do you know?
Excuse me one cotton pick'in minute where in that post were there any personal insults to your goodself? I have more manners than that
I'd like to hear GCHQ's response to what you have put there because I am obviously not in a position to argue the figures but I do think that you're doing the same thing again.
Why factor in the carve-out?
You're basically completely ignoring the argument that squad investment comes before the carve-out. The carve-out is obviously being lined up to be used (or is at least being lined up to cover any possible future shortfall in the Glazers' PIK elimination plan) but it doesn't mean that it will definitely be used now.
As far as I am aware, it can be taken at any point during the next 7 years (and yes, I am aware that it would make more sense to take it sooner rather than later because those PIKs are growing but this, again, assumes that it is an integral part of their plan to pay off the PIKs) but this could mean 2016-17 if they need some money from somewhere.
I'm still convinced that if there is major squad investment required next summer then we won't be seeing the carve-out during the same financial year and if the need is particularly great then we won't see the dividend either.
Has it ever occured to you, Crerand, that the oppo fans sing Glazer songs just to wind you up? It always made me laugh when they sung things like that, not start running around screaming like my head was on fire.
Does us calling Lampard a fat bastard convince any Chelsea fans that he's overweight?
Does us calling Lampard a fat bastard convince any Chelsea fans that he's overweight?
No. Sorry. It was my crap use of the full-stop. I was referring to how you seem upset that opposition fans take the mick because of the Glazers but your usual response to insults is "Sticks & Stones".
Is piss-taking from opposing fans something peculiar to Manchester United and something which has only started to happen since 2005?
"Sticks and stones make break my bones but names and words will never hurt me" I use that rhyme only in reply to people who indulge in petty name calling and truthfully has nothing to do with the Glazers. No piss taking has gone on since day 1, sad however that they taunt us with the people who actually own our club. You obviously think different but the rest of the football world rejoice at what they have done at United.
OK. It's at times like these when I try to remember 1 CL, 3 PLs and 2 CCs.
If we can get that every five years under the Glazers then I'll accept the jibes.
I don't know if it is possible but can an administrator lock this thread for everyone but possibly anders, GCHQ, redjazz, cider and possibly TMRD (maybe 1-2 others). Everyone else keeps spouting the same shit that was discussed on page 1-100, not diversifying their argument as a result of new information. Just spouting the same stupid nonsense that has been disproven, rendered moot or agreed to disagree. Is it just me that hates sifting through the mounds of excretion to actually find new/interesting developments (and yes I know this post adds to said excretion but if it reduces it by just 2 posts it'll be a success).
To be fair, I think a few of us could take on a bit more of a self-regulatory role in this respect.
Another way to do it would be a new thread with "Major Developments on the Ownership" situation or something.
In that, we would just have perhaps something along the lines of:-
"8th October 2010 - End of year Financial Reports out today" and then a very brief synopsis of the main points. The actual discussion could be brought into here.
If a thread was restricted to just a few people then it would exclude people who may just have a question that they want answering. I have noticed a few times that people will pop in here and ask "Can anyone put it in a nutshell for me?" and that is fair enough, even though it does mean repeating a lot of common knowledge (the thread has gone well beyond the point of "well, just read through the thread"!).
Certainly, I dearly hope it continues but I feel it would be in spite of the Glazers and not because of them.
My god
See what happens when you get involved with yanks-
LIVERPOOL OWNERS MOVE TO BLOCK SALE | Football Transfer News, Football News, Fixtures, Results, Match Reports, Stats
Is this kind of thing in our future?
LIVERPOOL OWNERS MOVE TO BLOCK SALE | Football Transfer News, Football News, Fixtures, Results, Match Reports, Stats
Is this kind of thing in our future?
Careful there Crusoe Finneh wants us all banned from these matters
What? He doesn't like us pointing out that ' THEY'RE IN IT FOR THE MONEY '
Wrong thread, sub-forum, forum, messageboard and website. Good effort though
No, United don't face a future akin to Liverpool's present, despite at quick glance the situations appearing similar. Yanks and debt are all someone not inclined to look into the two clubs in any detail might see, but the differences are there and in this case they're vast and fundamental.
He is only interested in one side of the arguement that is for sure considering the names he wants to continue to post
What? Has Anders joined the Dark Side now?
EDIT: This is an unfortunate post to appear at the top of the page. It is a JOKE!
I presume Anders comes under the other 1-2, so the mystery is who is the other one? We could have a betting show, reckon I am at least 100/1
Correct me if i'm wrong, crusoe (for the benefit of anyone reading this, i'm not wrong, he's stated it on numerous occasions), but your best prediction as to the Glazers' business plan is that they're going buy up 100% of the PIK's, wait until the interest rolls up really really high and then bill United for £600m or something? Thus concludes crusoe's entire contribution to this thread.
anders was the first name he listed! Redjazz is hardly a Glazer-lover either, you know. I think he was showing a preference towards those who show they can grasp the fundamentals of the discussion without resorting to crack-pot theories stemming from the one fact of life being Glazers=Evil. In that case you'd be more like 1,000,000/1 to be in the 1 or 2 others, Crerand.To be fair, you and I are probably most responsible for side-tracking the thread but at least I try to mix it up a bit.
I think you have a template of ten stock answers and you copy/paste the most appropriate one over depending on the topic of discussion at the time.
It would seem that there are two mystery posters apologies for me overlooking that Anders had already been mentioned. I thought TMRD that you lads were claiming Anders as a sort of Ally these days anyway although he may dispute that himself
Umm... no Crerand. That's just you and your amazing powers of perception.
Do you not see what is happening here Crerand? You say something completely stupid but which could have serious implications if allowed to go unanswered which then leads to several posts of complete nonsense?
Bloody hell, Finneh, the thread is dull enough as it stands.
I think the thread could do with a popup summary sheet left apporpriately blank.
As for new developments: Apparently the Glazers are fleecing the club in more ways than one: Joel Galzer, according to reports, seems to be sporting a hair transplant and Rooney (according to another source) may have been the donor. Bastards.
The bottom line of Glazer ownership does not change so why would I change stream, I am as convinced of my position as I was at the start. All the accounts in the world can be posted but the Glazer associated problems remain the same
Have a wee read back there TMRD
Fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion but is it necessary to repeat it on every page throughout the thread using exactly the same words?
By the way, redjazz's post has reminded me. There's some stuff going on in the Rooney thread right now which should be right up your street. I'm sure there's a conspiracy story about how we're lining him up to sell in there for you somewhere.
Ronaldo and Tevez are getting a bit old now. You need some new material. Get to it!
sell Rooney, seriously? I'm not even going to bother reading that shit.- Status