ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aaron said:
So based on the cash reserves increasing to £160m the net debt should be around £340m?
Click to expand...

Essentially yes, although the accounts will show net debt as c. £350m because there will have been c. £10m of unrealised foreign exchange losses on the dollar denominated bonds at the December 31 quarter end date. So gross debt will continue to fluctuate slightly so long as the dollar bonds remain unhedged but personally I'd disregard those losses given that the bond doesn't mature until 2017. For example, today's exchange rate is 1.62/1, which is exactly the same rate as when the bonds were issued on January 29 2010, so there would currently be no unrealised loss or profit on the dollar denominated bonds. The exchange rate was c. 1.55/1 on December 31 2010, so the c. £10m unrealised loss will be included in the gross debt at the second quarter end date.

Welcome to the main forum btw.
 
Julian Denny said:
Yes and that might explain why there have been no significant transfers in since Valencia.
Click to expand...

Well I'd look at it a different way and argue that Fergie's desire to retain all his existing first team players explains why there's been no significant transfers since Valencia.

I said back in the Summer that if we were going to sign a new midfield player then realistically either Anderson or Carrick would have to leave and that's not only due to financial reasons but also because the size of the squad would otherwise have been too large and opportunties far too limited for some first team squad players.
 
sammsky1 said:
Given that Rooney, Vidic, Evra, JOS, Nani, Berbatov & Carrick (I think) have all recently received improved contracts, what impact will those have of the clubs cash-flow and P&L?
Click to expand...

Well improved contracts will obviously result in increased operating (staff) costs. If EBITDA growth is to continue then revenue growth will have to outstrip cost growth and I'm very confident that will be the case, largely due to the superb growth achieved in the commercial revenue division.
 
Anti-Glazer protest leads to slump in Manchester United shirt sales

Not sure if this is the right thread but the G&G thread has been locked for some reason so:
• United's merchandising revenue fell by 10%, says report
• 'Green and gold' campaign could affect new Nike deal

Manchester United's worldwide merchandising revenues have been hit hard by anti-Glazer sentiment, according to a report by the Sport+Markt, the respected sports-business analyst.

The key finding of the European Football Merchandising Report, a survey of 182 clubs and 10,000 fans, was that United's global revenues (excluding television income) have fallen by 10% in 12 months. The report's author, Dr Peter Rohlmann, told Digger this was attributable to the "green-and-gold" campaign against the club's owners.

"Our data show the club has lost retail revenue from the year 2009 to 2010 by around 10%," Rohlmann said. "This is due to the fact that all the circumstances about the ownership and the behaviour of the Glazer family were not positive in the minds of Manchester United fans. This has had a direct impact on their merchandising spend."

Rohlmann did not disclose the figures relating to United's merchandising income because all disclosures made to Sport+Markt by clubs are on a confidential basis. However, he stated that the report analyses all of United's self-generated merchandising revenues, along with those of their licensing partners such as Nike.

As United reportedly seek a 50% improvement on their £302.9m, 13-year Nike shirt deal, which expires in 2015, the demonstration of a decline in revenues comes at a bad time for the club. The Premier League leaders' share of the merchandising market, which is worth ¤1.2bn for the 10 highest-earning clubs across Europe, has also slipped. They are now ranked sixth, down one place from 2008.

A spokesman for the club disputed Sport+Markt's findings, saying royalties from the profit-share arrangement with Nike had risen in each of the past four years.

Anti-Glazer protest leads to slump in Manchester United shirt sales | Football | The Guardian
Click to expand...
 
GCHQ said:
Well I'd look at it a different way and argue that Fergie's desire to retain all his existing first team players explains why there's been no significant transfers since Valencia.

I said back in the Summer that if we were going to sign a new midfield player then realistically either Anderson or Carrick would have to leave and that's not only due to financial reasons but also because the size of the squad would otherwise have been too large and opportunties far too limited for some first team squad players.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But that should not have been at the expense of a quality midifielder and perhaps a right back too. When I see our so called second string in action we may be big on numbers but certainly short on quality. I just hope this lack of reserve quality and a midfield achilles is not going to haunt us as we face some really tough games in the run in.
 
Julian Denny said:
Indeed. But that should not have been at the expense of a quality midifielder and perhaps a right back too. When I see our so called second string in action we may be big on numbers but certainly short on quality. I just hope this lack of reserve quality and a midfield achilles is not going to haunt us as we face some really tough games in the run in.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of fans feel that this Summer is a big test of the Glazers' commitment to United.

With players like Hargreaves, Owen, Gibson, VDS, Welbeck, Macheda, Bebe, Obertan possibly leaving on loan or permanantly and with the "smoke" regarding Carrick/Brown with Neville having already retired and Scholes not yet having resigned there will be definitely room in the squad for a couple of signings.

I have to say I think we are alright at RB, with Rafael, O'Shea, Fabio and Brown (if he stays) all being able to play there. Central midfield, a keeper and a left winger would be more pressing in my opinion.
 
Feeky_Magee said:
Not sure if this is the right thread but the G&G thread has been locked for some reason so:
Click to expand...

It's bollocks. There was a £1m reduction in Manchester United Merchandising Limited's total turnover (5% fall) but the accounts state the main reason for that was due to lower retail revenues from fewer home games.
 
Feeky_Magee said:
Not sure if this is the right thread but the G&G thread has been locked for some reason so:
Click to expand...

Speculative, imo. You could also argue that Nike's insistence on making shite ugly kits for us has resulted in a drop in merchandising sales.
 
So where did this 'extra' money come from? I know it's their own personal finance so not really any of our concern but it is interesting to speculate. Presumably one possible option is that they simply anticipated having to pay the loan back so used some of their own capital amassed to do so. Or took out another loan. I guess we'll never know.

In the papers today rumours that they'll release a statement along with the results on Friday to the bond holders confirming they have no intention of selling the club. Again.

They do seem to be a resourceful bunch. If the vast majority of financial experts were and are to be believed, the club would have gone out of business a year after the takeover and every week therein after.
 
I don't think a fall in merchandising would have too much affect on the Nike deal anyway, even if it was attributable to more than there simply being fewer home games. One of Nike's main motivations for having United's contract is surely the global advertising and association.
 
R_Nick said:
I don't think a fall in merchandising would have too much affect on the Nike deal anyway, even if it was attributable to more than there simply being fewer home games. One of Nike's main motivations for having United's contract is surely the global advertising and association.
Click to expand...

True, but if there is one concrete measure avaiable of that brand uplift, it's probably merchandising sales. Hard to see how the two would not be closely related.

All seems fairly speculative anyway, mind.
 
Surely the increase in the number of commercial partners amassed alone mean more in terms of 'brand power' and association than a survey does anyway?
 
A1Dan said:
True, but if there is one concrete measure avaiable of that brand uplift, it's probably merchandising sales. Hard to see how the two would not be closely related.

All seems fairly speculative anyway, mind.
Click to expand...

That's true, but I would imagine that when Nike have great big billboards advertising their brand with (for example) Rio on it, I'm sure they're expecting it to attract sales for more than just United related products. Still, it's as good a barometer as they're likely to get as you say, so who knows.


Aaron said:
Surely the increase in the number of commercial partners amassed alone mean more in terms of 'brand power' and association than a survey does anyway?
Click to expand...

Also true.
 
The next kit manufacturing deal will be interesting. If Nike paid France $60m per year, it really makes the mind boggle over how much we'd be able to get.

I've read reports that the Glazer's are hoping for £500m, but it suggests that the length of contract will be as long as the last one, which was very long. I have my own doubts over whether the club would want to commit to the terms of one deal for over a decade again. My own completely mindless speculation based on nothing at all is that a shorter deal is perhaps more likely.

The only thing attractive about a deal that stretches for 10 or more years again, would be a large down payment.
 
Manchester United owners the Glazer family set to issue statement in reaction to Qatari takeover speculation - Telegraph



United’s results for the financial quarter ending Dec 31, 2010, are due to be posted on Friday and it is understood that the club's Florida-based owners are considering a statement to bondholders, within the accounts, to clarify their position on the record in order to avoid accusations of allowing the value of the bond to continue to grow due to constant links with a Qatari buy-out.

The club’s high-yield bonds rose to record highs last Tuesday due to the speculation, prompting sources close to Qatar Holding insisting that the investment arm of the Gulf state's sovereign wealth fund ‘is not and has never been in discussions to buy Manchester United.’

Despite the regular insistence of the Glazers’ spokesmen that the family is not looking to sell, the absence of a direct rebuttal from the family has ensured continuing speculation.

Following attempts by a group called the Red Knights to raise funds for a takeover early last year, however, the Glazers sanctioned a statement within their quarterly accounts last May, declaring, ‘The owners remain fully committed to their long-term ownership of the club. Manchester United is not for sale and the owners will not entertain any offers.’

A similar statement in the coming week would be viewed by the City as clarifying any ambiguity, with the Glazers also aware that a failure to repeat last May’s statement would only fuel speculation of an ownership battle at Old Trafford.
 
GCHQ said:
Revenue up c. 7% in the quarter. EBITDA up c. 3%.

The club purchased £24m of bonds in the quarter to December 31 2010, which left a cash balance of £134.5m.
Click to expand...

£24m out of the £500m? You think perhaps that's a one off or would there be similar 'buy ups' later on?

It'd certainly be odd if the rumours that they've fueled the takeover speculation themselves raising the value of the bonds when they intended to buy some themselves, are true.
 
But surely even if it was their money, as owners of the club would their fortune in that way not generate from the club anyway? Unless we're expecting the Glazer's to be the first owners of a profitable football club in history not to actually profit from it themselves.
 
Aaron said:
But surely even if it was their money, as owners of the club would their fortune in that way not generate from the club anyway? Unless we're expecting the Glazer's to be the first owners of a profitable football club in history not to actually profit from it themselves.
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. It's all about the amount being taken from/lost by the club I guess.
 
While all the financial heads are in here, I have a question:

Is the increased revenue of the club achieved during the Glazer ownership enough to cover even the total interest payments on the debt accrued since 2005?
 
Do we enough money left in the bank to buy back Ronaldo, a few decent midfielders and a goalie?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.