We're rich!
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
They already sold him!
Our 'Warchest'
Last time I checked, he wanted out...or did I miss something?
What difference does that make? If he's sold, he's sold, and there can no longer be any pressure to sell him!
Erm, last time I checked we convinced Rooney to stay...or am I wrong? Why didn't we cash in?
I'm ok with finding reasons as to why the Glazers are fecking the club but thats poor reasoning IMHO.
Weren't these losses to be anticipated as they relate back to the refinancing issues the club had when it paid off the bank loan, set up the bond scheme etc....
My point is just that, having sold out best player for £80m (for whatever reason), I should bloody well think we shouldn't be in a position where we are forced to sell our (next) best player to balance the books. If that were the case then the shit really would have hit the fan, and we'd be sinking fast.
I don't think anybody claims that we are currently so cash strapped that we need to sell our best player - if we previously were getting to that stage, the fortuitously timed sale of Ronaldo saw the danger off.
So Gill's comment is completely redundant and pointless. That's not to say he doesn't have the right to make it - people say dull and obvious things all the time, especially in business and football!
I assume these are more or less the same figures that we saw in october, no? Does this come out now because the financial year of the club and Red Football run between different dates?
must do, the losses are for the same reason
This is the reason why I never believe the so called "losses" made by other clubs like Barcelona for example, so much of these "losses" seem to be paper losses and nothing more.
Didn't Barcelona have to borrow 100m to pay their staff over the summer?
Most of them haven't been watching the team for that long- they're used to grinding out 1-0's and not the swashbuckling style of old.
I'm pretty sure that the bulk of this loss will be shown to be down to those weird little non-capital expenditue accountancy things that cloud the picture.
The currency exchange rate on the Bond, for example could well account for millions of that figure. The amortization will be another load of millions.
There's some really lazy, shitty journalism going on here.
How can we be £590million in debt with circa £150million in the bank, for a start?
The currency exchange rate on the Bond, for example could well account for millions of that figure. The amortization will be another load of millions.
There's some really lazy, shitty journalism going on here.
How can we be £590million in debt with circa £150million in the bank, for a start?
Essentially isn't this just a retelling of the £80m loss we heard of in October? It's gone up by £20 odd something million but essentially it's for the same reason isn't it?
Agree with that, although not many clubs (certainly in the Premier League) are doing it that well. To coin a phrase that people keep using for where we are in the Premiership: "the best of a mediocre bunch".
I think you might be confusing the parent company with the club there TMRD
anyway I havent seen the new accounts but unless there is something hidden in there, today's 'news' is just rehashing old stories.
anyway I havent seen the new accounts but unless there is something hidden in there, today's 'news' is just rehashing old stories.
Oh! we lost money, that's an old story.............More spin
It's quite convincing spin too as they've managed to convince the news outlets to time machine themselves back to October of last year and make them retrospectively retell this brand new news story.
TMRD in getting confused with accounts shock!
Yeah, I AM confused. I thought this was some new stuff just out today. Seems it isn't and it's stuff we've been over before.
Glad that's sorted then. I can go back to sleep now.
From the way the quote is phrased it sounds very much like he was answering a question that was put to him, a question which sounds like it was admittedly dull and pointless. Which was then whipped up into a dull and pointless news story. Which probably makes your comment... dull and pointless?
Which probably makes this comment dull and pointless too
I see what you've done there A1Dan. You've made up a scenario and then made a point up about it. And you post largely goes downhill from there.
You see that money in the bank that we've got? Take roughly £65million off it (we bought Valencia to replace Ronaldo) and that's how much we needed to sell Ronaldo to balance the books.
One day people will just have to accept that Ronnie has been gone for a long while now and that his departure was totally down to the fact that he wanted to leave and that the offer from Real was simply too good to turn down for a wantaway player.
Well firstly we know that there never was any danger, but the problem is that some people actually do think that we need to sell players to balance the books - I guess it is not that suprising when there are newspaper articles talking about £100m losses etc, if you didnt have a clue about accounts then it probably seems like worrying information.
Thankfully in the last year or so many people seem to have started to understand what is really going on - but there are still many with mistaken ideas about our finances due to all the negative media stories.
For a lot of people, it isn't really the sale of Ronaldo itself, everyone realises he wanted to leave it's the way we went about replacing him. Earlier this season Ferguson talked about cycles, and how you can only have success for a certain amount of years before you have to rebuild, but I think that is just an excuse.
Inter Milan were in a similar situation to us in 2009, they had won the League for 3 seasons in a row (and been awarded the one before that) and their best player wanted to move to Spain, and they sold him. Inter sold Ibrahimovic, and brought in Eto'o, Lucio, Sneijder, Militio and more, and they went on to win the Treble, destroying the myth that it is impossible to replace a top quality player immediately. None of those players were a direct replacement for Ibra, but they didn't need to be, because they improved all areas of the squad. United, on the other hand, brought in Valencia, Owen, Obertan and Diouf to replace Ronaldo, and declined significantly.
I struggle to believe that in the twilight of his managerial career, instead of trying to improve the team, Ferguson would sit there moaning about how expensive players were and accept that we'd decline. I also find it difficult to believe that Jose Mourinho is that much better than Ferguson that he can work out how to replace his top player in the space of 3 months, while it takes Ferguson years to get his team back up to that level.
I don't think you do... I certinaly haven't got a clue what you're on about, and I suspect you don't either.
Where have I said that we needed to sell Ronaldo? All I've said is that we would be in a hideous state if, having already sold Ronaldo, we were still needing to sell our best players to balance the books. And fortunately that's not the case. Do you disagree?
I accepted that getting on for two years ago and so did just about everybody else. You're just picking arguments with thin air, not for the first time...
OK. So it's as first thought. There was no actual point to your point. Other than "we don't have to sell our best players to balance the books". Well spotted.
€155 million to be exact.
Yup. It's effectively that £80m ''accounting loss'' plus the c. £30m of ''rolled up'' interest on the PIK loan which was always held at the RFJV Ltd level.
It's probably worth repeating that these results also include the £64.66m of one-off ''exceptional'' costs that were discussed in great detail back in October. Just to be clear to everyone, those costs will NOT be repeated in the current financial year. They are ''exceptional'' items which were incurred as a result of the refinancing that took place in January 2010 and also due to the subsequent movement in the £/$ exchange rate between that time and the end of the financial year on June 30 2010.
In addition to that, obviously the £30.2m ''rolled-up'' interest charge also won't be repeated again given that the PIK loan was repaid in November.
And finally, people should discount the £35.3m annual goodwill amortisation charge, included in these results, because it's an irrelevant non-cash loss.
So you should discount c. £130m of losses/expenses from these results in order to provide an accurate and realistic account of the underlying performance of the company going forward.
There was a possibility that we may have discovered a little bit more about how it was repaid in these accounts. However, there was no mention of the PIK repayment in the post-balance events because the accounts were signed off in late September and the PIK loan was paid off in November. We'll just have to wait another year I'm afraid.
But would that not leave us with around £21m profit for the year? If we took the reported £109 'loss' and ignored effectively £130m of it.
£21m profit a year doesn't seem wildly impressive, does it?
And if we look at the Q1 and Q2 results of 2010-2011, which show that we have around 7m better PBT than in first half of 2009-2010... That will probably mean that we will probably be in small but relevant gain at the end of the 2010-2011?
Also we can expect higher matchday revenue than in year before - matches against Crowley and Arsenal in FA Cup, ticket allocation for Wembley against City, and who knows - maybe match against Inter at OT, and two matches on Wembley more...
A very good post.
Sure, but that £21m profit would be stated after incurring a £42.3m interest charge on the old bank debt/new bond debt and after a c. £27.5m net non-cash loss relating to player trading (£40m amortisation of players' registrations minus a £12.5m profit on disposal of players) as well as a c. £8.5m non-cash expense relating to the depreciation of fixed assets (stadium, training ground etc). That's how you'd reconcile the EBITDA of c. £100m from the bottom line profit. The amortisation and depreciation charges are non-cash expenses but they are relevant because they reflect ongoing investment/expenditure on players and facilities over a period of time.
The best way for any supporter to look at the club's finances is in cash terms. You can forget about the Profit and Loss account to a large extent.
You start off with the annual ''cash'' operating profit of c. £100m (should be at least £105m in the current financial year).
From that you should deduct the annual net cash interest charge of c. £45m.
There is then £55m-£60m of cash available for net expenditure on players and facilities.
That's the reality of the club's financial position. Not bad eh?
The problem for everybody without a sugar daddy is that annual wage increases are hoovering up half of that at least.
Correction. Everybody without a sugar daddy except Manchester United because our commercial revenue growth is more than compensating for the rampant player wage inflation. That inflation is hurting Arsenal's football profits because your revenue growth (particularly your commercial division which is really struggling) isn't compensating for it.
Our profits are increasing, Peter. And so is the amount of cash available for expenditure on players and facilities. We're in great shape and FFP will only help matters further.
Your wages are increasing faster than your commercial revenue. Our commercial revenue is artificially skewed due to signing long-term front-ended deals to pay for a new stadium. That will be resolved soon and we'll probably go down the route of pre-season tours to Japan etc to take up the slack.
I think Arsenal's immediate cash concern is finding the £20-odd to replace Almunia!
And if we look at the Q1 and Q2 results of 2010-2011, which show that we have around 7m better PBT than in first half of 2009-2010... That will probably mean that we will probably be in small but relevant gain at the end of the 2010-2011?
Also we can expect higher matchday revenue than in year before - matches against Crowley and Arsenal in FA Cup, ticket allocation for Wembley against City, and who knows - maybe match against Inter at OT, and two matches on Wembley more...
Yes, there's a decent chance of a small PBT for Red Football Limited's 2010/11 financial year. In addition to the variables you mention, the other main two are the extent of the unrealised profit on the dollar denominated bonds (assuming that the pound doesn't fall below 1.51 against the dollar on June 30 2011, in which case there would be a further unrealised loss) and also whether or not there are any significant player disposals before the end of the financial year (June 30).
Of course any unrealised profit would be irrelevant in terms of looking at the underlying performance of the company but then so would the £35.3m annual goodwill amortisation charge.
The fun and games for the media and MUST with regards to sensationalising the significant ''accounting losses'' are now over.
- Status