They can do but it would have to be at a steady rate.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
They can do but it would have to be at a steady rate.
I promise you it's included.
Aaron, the greater irony is assuming that the more frequent posters on this thread don't have 'bias and interest in this'. A less selective summary is one that provides a more detailed analysis to the accounts rather than just focusing on the positive headline figures. If this interpretation discomforts your definition of "neutrality" then feel free to substitute 'alternative' for 'less selective'. I am sure your definition is loose enough to make the accommodation.
I've followed this thread for a while and am fully aware were most of the regular contributors stand on the issue.
I just thought it was amusing to say that Anders blog was 'less selective' when he's put a dirty great highlighter mark over the figures he wants those reading to pay attention to.
They weren't paid with the club's money.
The point is that we don't know how they were paid, so whilst the possibility remains of them having simply refinanced there is nothing to get exited about.
I don't know why you criticised GCHQ for saying they were paid without using the club's money though as that is entirely accurate.
However they were paid, whether the Glazer's took out a personal loan or paid them with cash they had, we don't know, but either way, it wasn't using the club's money.
Sometimes GCHQ talks a lot of objectionable shite, but I can't help feel people sometimes just have a go at him for stating basic facts.
They can, yes.
I don't think they plan on buying back the majority of the bond debt. The priority of course it to make the necessary investment in the first team squad in order to sustain and grow the club's operations.
Quite.
33% growth this quarter and set to smash the £100m barrier for the financial year.
Whilst what he directly said in that post may have been technically accurate the point he is continually making is 'they didnt use the clubs money and the PIKs are gone, everything is great', which is disingenuous whilst it remains to be known how they were funded.
If they were refinanced and secured against their shareholding then it's not the great wonderful win he's painting it as, and his continual claim that everything is sunny and we should just leave the Glazers to it is what grates.
You do realise that even if we knew that they paid off the PIKs in cash with no new debt, even if they came out and proved it, that wouldn't mean they couldn't take out a loan secured on their shareholding in the future without us knowing. Someone's personal finances is just one of those things you aren't always going to know the details of, even if it does have potential consequences for United.
Exactly, couldn't have put it better myself.
So no more wild claims like "we have nothing to worry about. David Gill was telling the truth. You should have believed him" then?
The day has finally come. Nice knowing you!
We don't have anything to worry about. You can keep worrying about whether some dividends will leave the club to pay down a hypothetical loan, but back in the real world, I'm very happy to continue enjoying the success of a Glazer owned Manchester United.
We're top of the league.
Another reason why the current ownership structure is deeply unsatisfactory.
Green and Gold died after the Glazers repeatedly posted rapidly improving financial results; they continue to grow the club in this fashion and have shown that the financial model is working just fine; United are the biggest club in the world and our trophy haul under Glazer ownership has been fantastic, just as it has been since the earth 90's; why then are we still hearing these same old dick-head arguments over and over that the Glazer family are not decent owners? The scaremongers have been proven wrong, time to move on.
Interesting to note that the ''less selective summary'' you're referring to points out the significance of the growth in commercial revenue when just a matter of 12 months ago the same individual was describing the raft of new sponsorship deals as ''nice to have but not really that big a deal in the grand scheme of things''.
The person in question can be awfully selective and disingenuous when it suits.
2010 / 2011 English Premier League Ticket Prices
Premier League ticket prices 2010/2011
-------------------------
Arsenal
£48-£94
Villa
£17-£43
Brum
£25-£35
Blackburn
£17-£38
Blackpool
contact club
Bolton
£21-£36
Chelsea
£45-£65
Everton
£34-£40
Fulham
£25-£45
Liverpool
£26-£39
City
£23-£44
United
£27-£49
Newcastle
contact club
Stoke
£25-£42
Sunderland
£22-£33
Spurs
£27-£73
WBA
£10-£42
Wigan
£20-£30
Wolves
£20-£40
-------------------------
Can't see anything to moan about myself.
Premier League ticket prices 2010/2011
-------------------------
Arsenal
£48-£94
Villa
£17-£43
Brum
£25-£35
Blackburn
£17-£38
Blackpool
contact club
Bolton
£21-£36
Chelsea
£45-£65
Everton
£34-£40
Fulham
£25-£45
Liverpool
£26-£39
City
£23-£44
United
£27-£49
Newcastle
contact club
Stoke
£25-£42
Sunderland
£22-£33
Spurs
£27-£73
WBA
£10-£42
Wigan
£20-£30
Wolves
£20-£40
-------------------------
Can't see anything to moan about myself.
Indeed it does. The commercial growth is very impressive, a "star" performer.
A 'more selective' summary might exclude the trend in commercial revenue growth from the analysis and focus more on the numbers that support the author's bias. Your own comments above, intended or otherwise, implicitly support a 'less selective', more complete analysis of the accounts, one that includes both the positives and the negatives.
Would you say though, Jazz, that the positives do indeed outweigh the negatives? That's the real issue, regardless of who's reporting is the least selective.
Wasn't there also something like an 80% increase in the price of the top whack season ticket in the five years preceding the takeover?
It was intended as a dig at Andersred for being so incredibly inaccurate (or disingenuous, take your pick) about the performance of the commercial division.
I don't think his blog article was particularly selective, although his piece in the Guardian certainly included a good dose of spin.
What other figures do you think I should have mentioned by the way? Revenue was up, EBITDA was up, gross debt down etc. This was clearly a positive set of results.
No, of course it isn't! I assume you know what capital introduced actually is?
No we're not Royal Madrid are the richest club in the world, but uncle Malcs after them fascist bastards!
What is it then? It is money (capital) coming into the club (introduced) as a result of the Glazers' increased focus on securing more commercial/sponsorship deals.
I think that you think that they should be putting money into United from their own back pocket, am I right? This is what you see as the introduction of capital, yes?
Well, the Glazers don't roll like that I'm afraid. The idea was always to increase the revenues to cover the debts incurred so that the net effect of the debt is decreased or eradicated completely.
Besides, if the only way you can show a profit is by continually putting in money from your own back pocket then you're not really running a business, are you? You're slowly going broke.
I doubt you are referring to the financials released today. But, in case you are, I think the club has produced a good set of results; revenue growth driven by the impressive growth in 'other' sponsorship has negated cost increases to produce a modest growth in EBITDA. The club will produce headline figures at YE better than those envisaged by the JPM credit report's 'upside scenario' back in early 2010.
So the Glazers have apparently spent 20 something million of the club's cash reserves buying some of their own bonds. Which makes sense. Bugger all return on cash with interest rates as low as they are and the bonds are returning something like 8% interest.
What's interesting, though, is why they spent such a relatively small sum when there's supposed to be 130m in cash reserves sloshing round the accounts. I wonder what they're planning on doing with the rest of it?
What's interesting, though, is why they spent such a relatively small sum when there's supposed to be 130m in cash reserves sloshing round the accounts. I wonder what they're planning on doing with the rest of it?
Probably some combination of player investment, other investments, bond buybacks and dividends.
I wonder if they're looking at increasing the ground capacity?
Would be smart. OTs capacity increases throughout the 90s helped make the club a real powerhouse.
Google it. This isn't accountancy 101, and I've learnt before that it's futile trying explain anything to you anyway,
Re the rest, a shame you didn't read the conversation between me and Richio as it would have saved you wasting your time quoting me.
Stadium expansion would be very costly with it having to be the troublesome south stand. It'd probably cost £100m to do that. Is demand outstripping supply sufficiently enough right now to justify that?
I think the consensus on a thread about increasing the capacity was that further expansion is unlikely for the time being.
I think the club do have plans, or at least ambitions. But last I heard they were just that - ambitious. Nothing concrete if you'll excuse the pun. Simply because of the issues with the development of the south stand.
What would an expansion take us up to on the assumption it'd mirror the expansion over the rest of the ground?
Gill's said that Fergie's got a £100m warchest at his disposal in the summer (MEN earlier this week). Obviously no point emptying the coffers on other stuff in case of emergencies.
Thanks to the Glazers, no.
Season ticket prices were rising quite dramatically before they turned up.
Hang about, wasn't this the original plan? force the Glazers to default by boycotting matchdays and merchandise and then 'get the club back'. So now it's an issue? When I was highlighting the risk in this back when the Glazer hate was in full flow noone had a problem with it, necessary evil some said. Well low and behold, now its an issue...
So you don't believe Edward Woodward?
I don't believe he would necessarily know to be honest GCHQ.
For my money it's GCHQ's input that makes this thread the best place on the web to read up on United's finances. The AndersBlog is useful as well but comes from a decidedly anti-Glazer POV, and anything there is covered here too.
This is a very successful business model! It´s a win and win move for both the club and the owners.
If we enter a couple of seasons with less success there is always a possibility for the club to sell back our £24m of bonds, it´s like a future cash reserve. If we don't need the money the club have reduced a little part of the dept´s and (according to my knowledge) we don't need to pay any taxes for those £24m.
It´s a brilliant move from the Glazers. Hat´s off!
Glazers own United. United owe c.£500m. Money taken out of club to pay off debts in the form of bond buy up. Cut it whichever way you like, but that's paying Glazer debt off. It's money leaving the club that wouldn't have happened without a leveraged buyout.
But you could still get just the 19 games if you wanted. Quite a net increase if you wanted to retain your ticket, wouldn't you agree?
- Status