Yup, that's pretty much it. When the Glazers purchased the club for £790m, the ''fair value'' of the club's identifiable net assets was stated as c. £260m, which is how the c. £530m of goodwill arose. That £530m essentially reflects what the Glazers paid for the club's brand value and its future earnings potential (although in reality I'd argue that the club's net identifiable assets were undervalued by c. £100m).
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Yup, that's pretty much it. When the Glazers purchased the club for £790m, the ''fair value'' of the club's identifiable net assets was stated as c. £260m, which is how the c. £530m of goodwill arose. That £530m essentially reflects what the Glazers paid for the club's brand value and its future earnings potential (although in reality I'd argue that the club's net identifiable assets were undervalued by c. £100m).
In the short-term, I very much doubt it. In the medium term (5-10 years time), I'd say there's a reasonable chance.
I'm glad you explained that. Thanks. Must admit, I often wondered how the hell it came to £30m+ a year over 15 years if the club was worth £500m. Seems my £500m figure was miles out.
More of a chance when people stop calling for boycotts, I'd say.
Put it this way, when there's a large element of the support being influenced by people encouraging them not to buy a ticket in an attempt to throw the business model into chaos do you:-
a) Build another 10,000 seats?
b) Leave it as it is and hope the seats you already have get filled?
More of a chance when the ticket prices stop vastly outstripping supporters' pay, I'd say.
Put it this way, when there's a large element of the support unable to afford tickets due to the attempt get them to pay for some greedy parasites to get rich off the back of their club do you:-
a) Build another 10,000 seats?
b) Leave it as it is and hope the seats you already have get filled?
Surely, reducing prices makes sense? I mean, this way United could get 100K per game.
There are some people who say they wouldn't go back to OT while the Glazers are in charge even if they were giving tickets away free.
Whether they really mean that or not, I don't know.
I've said a few times that increasing capacity could make it feasible to lower ticket prices AND increase matchday revenues at the same time.
The point is, this is easier for the bean-counters to determine when people aren't staying away from OT "on principle" - especially when they have based their decision on some dodgy premises.
Where is FredtheRed these days? He'd have a field day in this thread.
He has disappeared precisely because he wouldn't be having a field day in this thread.
To be fair, all kinds of shit has been thrown at the Glazers since their takeover and they have largely failed to respond.
There was some evidence of a fightback last season as anti-Glazer banners and such were confiscated but this is an offensive on a different level.
I must admit, I saw this guy's website and I thought he was completely out of order. He was basically telling people not to use the services of the companies listed because they were tacitly supporting the Glazers (in his eyes - personally, I just thought they wanted to watch a game of footie in style but hey ho).
I'm more surprised that the companies concerned haven't lodged proceedings against him before now.
The thing is, the source of the misinformation that Mr McKenna was acting on needs to be addressed too. There was all kinds of shit flying around this time last year (and in 2005) about what the Glazers had in mind and most (all?) of it has failed to materialise.
I don't particularly want to see the club taking on it's own supporters but certain people have pitted themselves against the club.
I suspect that there might be one or two more squeaky bums around than is usual at this time of year as a result of this.
I am not quite sure what the play is here though. It would seem that this guy's resources (or lack thereof) precludes "damages" as the primary motivator for the writ.
To find the source of the leak? A warning to others?
Playing hardball is okay in principle but it's a bit dodgy on the P.R. front.
I agree with all of that. It does seem to be that the Club are now drawing a line. Enough's enough, kind of thing. We're going to get serious because what you're doing is serious.
It might be dodgy on the PR front but when claims against the owners have proved unsubstantiated, they might just be of the view that to allow this stuff to continue is more damaging. Not only financially (because I am sure that this kind of stuff, left unchecked, can only be detrimental to the corporate side of things) but also, by not fighting back, it might be construed that the accusers actually have an argument.
No doubt some will spin this in the future as the Glazers being heavy-handed but, just like the missiles launched (literally) at the Glazers in the beginning, the war was started by others.
Thanks for that explanation guys. Now if anyone else who is accounting illiterate like myself asks, you can point them to this post.
He's (or more probably 'they'!) in hiding because every doom and gloom prediction he ever made didnt happen - there are only so many times you call tell people that the sky is falling in before they stop listening.
Musnt forget the bet he had with me just before disappearing:
Even if that were true, it's absolutely not likely that our wage costs will continue to grow at that rate. It's more likely that the growth will be quite modest over the next few seasons, and they will certainly be kept in step at less than 50% of total revenue. Growth in commercial revenue on the other hand is only likely to improve, and there are some who believe it could grow very, very strongly over the next 5 years.
The recent bout of contract extensions we've seen, presumably all of a higher wage than before, plus expectation of one, two or more signings in the summer who will likely also be on substantial wages, aren't we most likely to see the wage bill continuing to rise over the next year or two?
Well when players hit £100K a week I thought that's about it - it's got to taper off now - but no sign of it. It's probably more likely that you've taken some of the low-hanging commercial fruit and won't be so successful on the pitch in the next five years, so your commercial growth will plateau.
I think wages will come down in coming years (or at least remain the same which is a reduction in real terms).
It depends on how much we'd reduce tickets by. Anyway, safe standing's the only way I can see us increase how capacity. We'd be able to cram in another 15...20K.
If safe standing was ever reintroduced, and it won't be, I think any compromised reached would lead to authorities insisting that there isn't 20,000 more fans 'packed' into anywhere.
Any acceptance of 'safe-standing' and in order to placate the strong concerns about crowd control issues (justified or not) I'm almost certain would restrict any safe-standing area to the capacity equivalent of the area when it was all-seater.
There is no chance in hell the authorities are ever going to allow a 'pack-em in' approach in the improbable event that they relent on the issue at all.
No one has said we'd pack them in... the German model's pretty decent where likes of the Westfalen increases its capacity for Bundesliga games by 20,000. It makes good financial sense...and will improve atmosphere.
Well you didn't say 'pack' you said 'cram' but let us not split hairs on semantics.
I just think the idea of them allowing capacity increases with standing areas from the current seated capacity number with all the concerns they have over crowd control is as optimistic as the leader of the Green Party announcing at the end of her speech at her parties 2014 autumn conference 'Go back to your cats and prepare for government'
I should've said 'we could increase our capacity by another 20K with safe standing'. That would've sounded so much nicer....and not totally changed the point about safe standing increasing match day revenue and atmosphere at matches. As I said, some German stadia have had their capacities increased by as much as 20K thanks to safe standing. I see no reason whatsover...why we couldn't use a similar model. But yeah....pack'em in or something. Or cram'em in safe standing areas.
I think people perhaps overstate the scale of any capacity increase. There's always this assumption that it would be so the south stand 'mirrored' the north. It may be that the south stand is increased to a lesser degree so the stand isn't quite as high which whilst raising the capacity by 5,000 or whatever, perhaps won't have that much of an issue in respect of the current problems they have working on it. Or perhaps they'll just do the quads on the south side of the east and west.
I've never understood that suggestion (and it's gone down to home-made diagrams in the past!) - how could "just doing the quads" work, unless you propose taking the roof of the South stand?
It would be much safer to let 6,000 away supporters stand on a terrace rather than have the 3,000 standing between the seats which is what you get now. The PL are more interested in money-making things like the 39th game rather than paying any attention to what the fans might want. (And no one wants messy stuff like away fans at all if they could get rid of them).
I don't see the fuss about standin; probably because the standing era was before my time. The only time I've stood all the way through a match was when we beat Watford 4-0 in the semi-final of the FA Cup at Villa Park a few years ago; I was coming down heavily from ten pills and an epic or so of Carling from the night before and was completely battered; if they'd have offered a laying down section I'd have been chuffed to bits.
The only time I went to OT during the standing area era, I was actually in a seat so I've no personal experience of the standing area at all.
However, I've spoken to people around my age who were kids at the time and did stand in the standing areas. They mostly seem to remember being well below pitch level and could only see the tops of player's heads when they were taking corners and such and spent half their time asking what the feck was happening.
The family stand's for the kids. Or were they stood on the Manny Road end at Gigg Lane?
Never had a problem standing at Old Trafford be it Stretford Terrace or any of the groundside paddocks, including the Scoreboard End when the home fans had it in the early 90s. Think my last game stood on the terracing at Old Trafford was in the 3-1 against Villa in the December when Ince and Eric scored in front of us late on in quick succession.
Never had a problem standing at Old Trafford be it Stretford Terrace or any of the groundside paddocks, including the Scoreboard End when the home fans had it in the early 90s. Think my last game stood on the terracing at Old Trafford was in the 3-1 against Villa in the December when Ince and Eric scored in front of us late on in quick succession.
Do none of you watch lower league football? Standing is still a relatively regular occurance for me
Brad, there aren't exactly crowding issues at Spotland are there?
The only time I went to OT during the standing area era, I was actually in a seat so I've no personal experience of the standing area at all.
However, I've spoken to people around my age who were kids at the time and did stand in the standing areas. They mostly seem to remember being well below pitch level and could only see the tops of player's heads when they were taking corners and such and spent half their time asking what the feck was happening.
I watched us against Wigan whilst sat on the frontmost row in the South Stand near the tunnel end; your eyelevel remains barely above the grass when sat there and you can't see feck all except throw-ins and corners down that end; it's a very odd design.Used to watch Bury quite a bit standing as a kid, but I imagine a packed standing OT would be an entirely different experience; you could just walk around at Gigg Lane, play British Bulldog with your mates or kick a ball about down by the hoardings, there wasn't much atmosphere. I don't live there anymore and have no interest in Stafford Rangers; though I can watch Stafford Town games from my bedroom window.
Interesting, I used to watch Bury as a kid too. What are the odds we spent years together at Gigg Lane without knowing like we did at Old Trafford!
Bury occasionally, cheap tickets and it's next to work. I used to live in the flats behind the stadium as a kid.
Anyway I posted this in reply to you in the other thread, my take on it. I'm not going to be in here hardcore because I don't have all the facts but this is my opinion anyway.
I can see where Weaste is coming from, I can see where both sides are coming from tbh, but I try and look at the bottom line for everything.
Third quarter financial results will be announced on Friday
I know there's another finance related thread on the first page of the forum but I think this is the appropriate one for discussing financial results.
I'd suggest that the most interesting detail from these results will probably be how much was spent on buying back bonds in January before the Qatar takeover speculation sent the bond price rocketing in early February. Of course if people are still concerned about the Glazers taking money out themselves (via RFJV Ltd) then these results will again put their minds at rest (hello A1Dan).
As for the Revenue and EBITDA numbers, they should show a pretty similar level of growth to that achieved in the first half of the financial year. The half year results to 31 December 2010 revealed year on year growth of 8.2% from £144.7m to £156.5m. Year on year pre-exceptional EBITDA growth was 3.2% from £58.7m to £60.6m.
There was one less home league game played in the third quarter and in the first nine months of this financial year compared to the previous period. That will have some impact on these figures but obviously we make that game back in the fourth quarter. It will be the fourth quarter where we see the most impressive growth of the year thanks to our run to the CL final compared to our quarter-final exit last year. I think at this stage my projection of total revenue for the full year would be c. £325m, an increase of c. £40m on last year's turnover of £286m. That would represent year on year revenue growth of c. 14%. An accurate projection of EBITDA at this stage is more difficult because potential trophy win bonuses to the players & management would have a significant impact on staff costs. I think a conservative projection at this point would be £110m compared to £100.8m the year before, which would represent year on year EBITDA growth of c. 10%.
Nice to be back btw.
I know there's another finance related thread on the first page of the forum but I think this is the appropriate one for discussing financial results.
I'd suggest that the most interesting detail from these results will probably be how much was spent on buying back bonds in January before the Qatar takeover speculation sent the bond price rocketing in early February. Of course if people are still concerned about the Glazers taking money out themselves (via RFJV Ltd) then these results will again put their minds at rest (hello A1Dan).
As for the Revenue and EBITDA numbers, they should show a pretty similar level of growth to that achieved in the first half of the financial year. The half year results to 31 December 2010 revealed year on year growth of 8.2% from £144.7m to £156.5m. Year on year pre-exceptional EBITDA growth was 3.2% from £58.7m to £60.6m.
There was one less home league game played in the third quarter and in the first nine months of this financial year compared to the previous period. That will have some impact on these figures but obviously we make that game back in the fourth quarter. It will be the fourth quarter where we see the most impressive growth of the year thanks to our run to the CL final compared to our quarter-final exit last year. I think at this stage my projection of total revenue for the full year would be c. £325m, an increase of c. £40m on last year's turnover of £286m. That would represent year on year revenue growth of c. 14%. An accurate projection of EBITDA at this stage is more difficult because potential trophy win bonuses to the players & management would have a significant impact on staff costs. I think a conservative projection at this point would be £110m compared to £100.8m the year before, which would represent year on year EBITDA growth of c. 10%.
Nice to be back btw.
Looking very good indeed.
How much do you think we spent on buying back bonds? Btw. Is buying back bonds project similar to buying back PIKs?
How much do you think we spent on buying back bonds? Btw. Is buying back bonds project similar to buying back PIKs?
- Status