ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

[GCHQ]

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?

No, the bonds represent the club's debt (ie they replaced the old c. £500m of bank debt). The PIKs were never the club's responsibility to repay.

The club spent c. £24m on buying back bonds in the second quarter. The escalation in the bond price from early February to the end of the quarter will have restricted how much they could buy back this quarter. It just depends what activity took place in the month of January really. I'd be surprised if much more than £10m worth were bought back but it's impossible to say really. Perhaps a good reference point is the report from the Bloomberg journalist that the Glazers, a few weeks before they actually repaid the PIKs in full, requested permission from the PIK holders to use £50m of the club's cash to buy back £50m worth of bonds (the club's debt).

It's worth pointing out that even if a further £25m has been/is spent on buying back bonds before the end of the financial year, then the club will still have c. £150m of cash in the bank as of 30 June 2011. We've got so much of the bloody stuff we don't know what to do with it.

 

[Aaron]

Is there any interest to be paid on top of paying off the bond early?

I mean, if they decide to pay £40m off, does the 'bond debt', or whatever it is, reduce by £40m or is there an interest charge on top of that, so for example £40m might reduce the bond thing by £34m after interest charges, or something?

 

[GCHQ]

Is there any interest to be paid on top of paying off the bond early?

I mean, if they decide to pay £40m off, does the 'bond debt', or whatever it is, reduce by £40m or is there an interest charge on top of that, so for example £40m might reduce the bond thing by £34m after interest charges, or something?

It's not 'interest', no, but if the club made an open market bond purchase for a higher price than what they were issued at then the club wouldn't reduce its borrowings/debt by the same amount. Obviously the higher the bond price the less likely the club are to buy them back. They're currenty trading at 107.00 having been issued/sold by the club at 98.00.

Example: At that price the club would have to spend £10.7m in order to buy back the equivalent of £9.8m worth of bonds at their discounted issue price (what the club orginally sold them for).

 

[7even]

No, the bonds represent the club's debt (ie they replaced the old c. £500m of bank debt). The PIKs were never the club's responsibility to repay.

The club spent c. £24m on buying back bonds in the second quarter. The escalation in the bond price from early February to the end of the quarter will have restricted how much they could buy back this quarter. It just depends what activity took place in the month of January really. I'd be surprised if much more than £10m worth were bought back but it's impossible to say really. Perhaps a good reference point is the report from the Bloomberg journalist that the Glazers, a few weeks before they actually repaid the PIKs in full, requested permission from the PIK holders to use £50m of the club's cash to buy back £50m worth of bonds (the club's debt).

It's worth pointing out that even if a further £25m has been/is spent on buying back bonds before the end of the financial year, then the club will still have c. £150m of cash in the bank as of June 30 2011. We've got so much of the bloody stuff we don't know what to do with it.

So buying back bonds is one way to avoid taxes? According to you how much own money is suitable to have at the end of the financial year? The reason I ask is because I can't see Sir Alex net-spend so much money, it's not on his Scottish system.

(He he.. NHL Playoffs Detroit - San José 3-1 (3-3) Kronwall and Zetterberg did it again.)

 

[GCHQ]

So buying back bonds is one way to avoid taxes? According to you how much own money is suitable to have at the end of the financial year? The reason I ask is because I can't see Sir Alex net-spend so much money, it's not on his Scottish system.

(He he.. NHL Playoffs Detroit - San José 3-1 (3-3) Kronwall and Zetterberg did it again.)

No, it's nothing to do with avoiding taxes. The main purpose of buying back bonds is to improve the yield on the club's liquid assets (cash at bank) and to effectively reduce the club's net interest payments. The club's cash at bank is currently yielding peanuts because bank interest rates are so low (0.5%) so it makes an awful lot of sense to use some of that cash to buy bonds yielding around 8%. You're also reducing risk somewhat despite the fact the club's net debt (gross debt - cash at bank) doesn't actually reduce when they buy back bonds. The gross debt obviously does reduce in line with the value of the bonds bought back.

I'd say that a figure of anything around £100m at the end of the financial year would be suitable.

 

[Escobar]

No, the bonds represent the club's debt (ie they replaced the old c. £500m of bank debt). The PIKs were never the club's responsibility to repay.

The club spent c. £24m on buying back bonds in the second quarter. The escalation in the bond price from early February to the end of the quarter will have restricted how much they could buy back this quarter. It just depends what activity took place in the month of January really. I'd be surprised if much more than £10m worth were bought back but it's impossible to say really. Perhaps a good reference point is the report from the Bloomberg journalist that the Glazers, a few weeks before they actually repaid the PIKs in full, requested permission from the PIK holders to use £50m of the club's cash to buy back £50m worth of bonds (the club's debt).

It's worth pointing out that even if a further £25m has been/is spent on buying back bonds before the end of the financial year, then the club will still have c. £150m of cash in the bank as of 30 June 2011. We've got so much of the bloody stuff we don't know what to do with it.

Looks like a pretty good result, especially when you consider the recent economical turmoils. However, it cant denyied that the financial result is also massively influenced by our success on the pitch (as you said, esp. in the 4th quarter). A bad season could prove hard.

As for the cash in the bank, there is no way that we could spend just anything close to that figure, just a (smallish) amount of it

 

[Red-Indian]

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.

Its starting to look much healthier isn't it? As an ex-banker, i'd be quite okay with the Net Debt to EBITDA - in fact its starting to look a tad underleveraged. The interest coverage could be better though I guess thats a factor of the large cash balance which is beginning to look quite wierd now. They have to start normalising it either through the bond buyback as you suggest or through some other investment.

 

[GCHQ]

Its starting to look much healthier isn't it? As an ex-banker, i'd be quite okay with the Net Debt to EBITDA - in fact its starting to look a tad underleveraged. The interest coverage could be better though I guess thats a factor of the large cash balance which is beginning to look quite wierd now. They have to start normalising it either through the bond buyback as you suggest or through some other investment.

Yup, it's quite interesting to show the progression of the Net Debt/EBITDA ratio since the August 2006 refinancing.

At the year end 30 June 2007, Net Debt was £452.4m, Pre-exceptional EBITDA for the year was £75.4m (it was £46m for y/e 2006). So 6.0x EBITDA.

Year end 30 June 2008: Net Debt £474m, Pre-ex EBITDA £80.4m = 5.89x

Year end 30 June 2009: Net Debt £364m, Pre-ex EBITDA £91.3m = 3.98x

Year end 30 June 2010: Net Debt £357.8m, Pre-ex EBITDA £100.8m = 3.55x

Year end 30 June 2011: Projected Net Debt c. £300m, projected pre-ex EBITDA £110m = 2.73x

So clearly huge progress has been made over the last four years.

Projected interest coverage for the current year: £110m/£42m = 2.62x. Somewhere in the 3.0-3.5 range would be more comfortable but like you say the large cash balance provides an obvious opportunity to do just that.

 

[Rood]

Looks like a pretty good result, especially when you consider the recent economical turmoils. However, it cant denyied that the financial result is also massively influenced by our success on the pitch (as you said, esp. in the 4th quarter). A bad season could prove hard.

As for the cash in the bank, there is no way that we could spend just anything close to that figure, just a (smallish) amount of it

I would deny that! Some of our income is affected by success but not that much plus there is enough room to cushion the impact of a couple of bad seasons.
While qualifying for the CL is important (although not necessarily vital), last season showed that the business plan is not reliant on winning major trophies - our revenue and profit still went up.


Having so much spare cash is starting to look a bit strange, will be interesting to see if there was any further Bond repurchases - I dont really monitor the price of the bonds but last I heard they were trading at a premium to original value and I doubt the club would pay over the issue price.
I guess Fergie will just have to spend it all in the summer

 

[Rood]

Yup, it's quite interesting to show the progression of the Net Debt/EBITDA ratio since the August 2006 refinancing.

At the year end 30 June 2007, Net Debt was £452.4m, Pre-exceptional EBITDA for the year was £75.4m (it was £46m for y/e 2006). So 6.0x EBITDA.

Year end 30 June 2008: Net Debt £474m, Pre-ex EBITDA £80.4m = 5.89x

Year end 30 June 2009: Net Debt £364m, Pre-ex EBITDA £91.3m = 3.98x

Year end 30 June 2010: Net Debt £357.8m, Pre-ex EBITDA £100.8m = 3.55x

Year end 30 June 2011: Projected Net Debt c. £300m, projected pre-ex EBITDA £110m = 2.73x

So clearly huge progress has been made over the last four years.

Projected interest coverage for the current year: £110m/£42m = 2.62x. Somewhere in the 3.0-3.5 range would be more comfortable but like you say the large cash balance provides an obvious opportunity to do just that.

Good stats there GCHQ - I knew things had been improving on the debt side but those ratios show even better progress than I realised!

Do you know how the bond have been trading since the repurchase of the first lot last quarter?

 

[GCHQ]

I would deny that! Some of our income is affected by success but not that much plus there is enough room to cushion the impact of a couple of bad seasons.
While qualifying for the CL is important (although not necessarily vital), last season showed that the business plan is not reliant on winning major trophies - our revenue and profit still went up.

Spot on Rood. Even if we'd matched last seasons's 2nd place league performance and quarter final exit in the CL then we'd have still achieved very solid revenue growth of c. £25m (9%) and an uplift in EBITDA of c. £5m (5%) in the current period. It would be a huge mistake to think that the club isn't making significant financial progress from its core operational activity. The extremely impressive 25%-30% commercial revenue growth achieved in the current year demonstrates that progress perfectly.

 

[GCHQ]

Good stats there GCHQ - I knew things had been improving on the debt side but those ratios show even better progress than I realised!

Do you know how the bond have been trading since the repurchase of the first lot last quarter?

Here you go (click on the six month icon above the graph labelled as '6 M'): Bond | MU FINANCE 10/17 REGS | A1ASW2 | XS0479707688

So as we can see they were trading just above issue price at 101.00 from early to mid January. The price then jumps to 110.00 in mid-February as the Qatar takeover speculation intensified (Bloomberg reported that they touched 112.00 on 15 Feb before closing the day at 110.00). The price gradually tailed off in early-mid March down to just below 106.00 and has been in the 106.00-107.00 range ever since.

 

[peterstorey]

Shouldn't this all be in the 'Accountancy Mutual Masturbation' thread?

 

[Rood]

you are just jealous peter, anyway you have your own nasty yank owner to worry about now

 

[Red-Indian]

Here you go (click on the six month icon above the graph labelled as '6 M'): Bond | MU FINANCE 10/17 REGS | A1ASW2 | XS0479707688

So as we can see they were trading just above issue price at 101.00 from early to mid January. The price then jumps to 110.00 in mid-February (Bloomberg reported that they touched 112.00 on 15 Feb before closing at 110.00) as the Qatar takeover speculation intensified. The price gradually tailed off in early-mid March down to just below 106.00 and has been in the 106.00-107.00 range ever since.

Its unlikely they'd be buying at that price though given what they're earning on that cash sitting in the bank, anything would be an improvement I suppose. Its way too much and its been there too long especially in the current interest rate environment where they could borrow at pretty decent rates if they needed to to fund some investment either in the squad or any other infrastructure.

I suppose they mean to take a dividend though why they don't just do it and get it over with if they mean to is something I can't understand. That way we'd know the true fund availability.

Thanks for the stats by the way.

 

[Rood]

Here you go (click on the six month icon above the graph labelled as '6 M'): Bond | MU FINANCE 10/17 REGS | A1ASW2 | XS0479707688

So as we can see they were trading just above issue price at 101.00 from early to mid January. The price then jumps to 110.00 in mid-February as the Qatar takeover speculation intensified (Bloomberg reported that they touched 112.00 on 15 Feb before closing the day at 110.00). The price gradually tailed off in early-mid March down to just below 106.00 and has been in the 106.00-107.00 range ever since.

Do we have any idea what price was paid for the £24m they repurchased?

I would be suprised if they bought back any above the issue price.

 

[GCHQ]

Do we have any idea what price was paid for the £24m they repurchased?

I would be suprised if they bought back any above the issue price.

Well the bonds throughout that quarter traded very close to issue price so I think you're probably right. Just to confirm that the bonds were issued at a discounted price of 98.00 but have to be be redeemed at par (100.00) by the club when they mature in 2017.

 

[KingMinger22]

Will be interesting to see if we spend big money in the summer. If it is available, I am certain Fergie will be trigger-happy with it.

If he doesn't buy some big signings this summer, I will be certain to myself that there definitely is not much funds available.

 

[esmufc07]

andersred Andy Green
#MUFC Q3 results EBITDA (ex-player sales) down 2.8% at £22.8m on revenue up 0.8% to £75.2m.

andersred Andy Green
#MUFC Q3 Matchday and media both down 9% (timing differences vs last year). Commercial up 29%, slight slowdown on Q2.

andersred Andy Green
#MUFC 9 mths EBITDA up 1.6% to £83.4m.

andersred Andy Green
#MUFC confirms repurchase of £5.5m of bonds between Jan and March 2011.

 

[esmufc07]

andersred Andy Green
#MUFC staff cost in Q3 up 3.6% vs prior year. Staff costs for first 9 mths up 8.1% vs. prior year. Impact of contract renewals.

andersred Andy Green
#MUFC cash interest paid in Q3 £23.4m, for nine months £47m.

andersred Andy Green
#MUFC cash balance at 31 March 2011 £113m. Debt £477m. £7m of debt reduction due to £ strength vs. $.

 

[King_Eric]

Results are online:

http://www.mufplc.com/pdf/Q3 2011 Report.pdf

 

[Rood]

andersred Andy Green
#MUFC confirms repurchase of £5.5m of bonds between Jan and March 2011.

This is the main thing of interest - another (although pretty small) repurchase of the Bond debt. I guess the price went too high so wasnt worth buying anymore.

The rest is as expected really.

 

[Rood]

Manchester United Owners Continue Buying Back Team

Manchester United bought 5.5 million pounds ($8.9 million) of its own bonds and reported a 1 percent increase in sales for the third quarter, according to results published today by the 18-time English champion.

United, which needs a point from its remaining two matches to secure a record 19th league crown, is going for a fourth Champions League title when it meets Barcelona in the May 28 final.

United had spent 25 million pounds on buying back the dollar and sterling denominated notes in the second quarter. The club’s owners, the Florida-based Glazer family, replaced a 500 million pound banking facility with the bond last year.

The team’s 250 million pounds of 8.75 percent bonds due 2017 were little changed at 108.1 pence in the pound, according to Bloomberg Bond Trader. United, which also has $425 million of 8.37 percent notes, has 477.7 million pounds in gross debt and retains 113 million pounds in cash.

Sales for the three months ended March 31 rose to 75.2 million pounds from 74.6 million pounds in the year-earlier period. Much of the growth comes from the club’s commercial operation, which has surged 29 percent in the past year. Match- day income slipped 9 percent to 29.1 million in the past quarter because of fewer games.

United has won three league titles and the 2008 Champions League since the Glazers, who also own the NFL’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers, bought the team for 790 million pounds in 2005. Forbes Magazine estimated its market value at $1.8 billion.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

It's all sounding a bit too rosy though.

This thread has become really one sided. Would someone with an anti-Glazer opinion please come back and argue the case. Otherwise its starting to look like you guys have no argument.

 

[Rood]

It's all sounding a bit too rosy though.

This thread has become really one sided. Would someone with an anti-Glazer opinion please come back and argue the case. Otherwise its starting to look like you guys have no argument.

Exactly.

Just look back in this thread and see posters who were very active who have now fecked off because they were talking shite.

 

[datura]

Strange inflammatory post to try and gain a reaction!

I think it would be more accurate to say that many still hold the same opinions and nothing underlying has changed but the arguments have all been had so just rehashing the same cyclical arguments again is fairly futile.

 

[Aaron]

Strange inflammatory post to try and gain a reaction!

I think it would be more accurate to say that many still hold the same opinions and nothing underlying has changed but the arguments have all been had so just rehashing the same cyclical arguments again is fairly futile.

But if the arguments have been had and we haven't gone out of business and the club still can afford it's obligations and revenue has increased dramatically and we're still winning things on the pitch...isn't that an indication, perhaps, that rather than an argument had, it is an argument lost?

There seems to be a huge lot of amnesia about the whole thing and those of us who erred on the side of reality when what seemed like most people were acting as if they've just heard an Orson Welles radio broadcast, are now supposed to forget all that and the abuse we took at the time for not thinking the sky was falling in.

There are plenty of anti-owner points to be made, but 'They don't know what they're doing, this is all going to end horribly, we'll be bankrupt within two years' - wasn't ever one of them.

 

[datura]

But if the arguments have been had and we haven't gone out of business and the club still can afford it's obligations and revenue has increased dramatically and we're still winning things on the pitch...isn't that an indication, perhaps, that rather than an argument had, it is an argument lost?

No because it's not just about the finances as you well know. The whole sense of assigning 'winners' and 'losers' is all rather childish.

Anyway, as you were.

 

[Aaron]

No because it's not just about the finances as you well know. The whole sense of assigning 'winners' and 'losers' is all rather childish.

Anyway, as you were.

It was all about the finances. What else was it? Hatred of shit pubic looking ginger beards?

I'm not assigning winners or losers at all but I'll take no lectures from anyone after years of 'If you don't think the Glazer's will destroy Manchester United within two years you're a cnut' - abuse that everyone took.

If people want to pin their colours to the mast of extremism, be prepared to get some back when what has been said turns out not to be true.

Some of the claims wheeled out by the usual suspects at the time were frankly embarrassing. So I'm not surprised a lot has been swept under the carpet and seemingly forgotten about now.

But a lot of fans were quite disgustingly treated simply for having a modicum of independent thought about the situation. None of us loved the Glazer's but just because we were able to see past the propaganda, we got dogs abuse for it.

 

[GCHQ]

This is the main thing of interest - another (although pretty small) repurchase of the Bond debt. I guess the price went too high so wasnt worth buying anymore.

The rest is as expected really.

Yup, if you reverse the matchday and media revenue timing differences then the numbers (% increases in revenue and EBITDA) are very similar to those achieved in the first two quarters.

I'm pleased to see that staff cost growth has actually slowed down considerably since the first quarter (which is a bit bizarre really). First quarter staff cost growth was 14.6%. Second quarter - 6.8%. Third quarter - 3.5%. For the nine month period - 8.1%.

 

[Rood]

No because it's not just about the finances as you well know. The whole sense of assigning 'winners' and 'losers' is all rather childish.

Anyway, as you were.

This thread is only about finances and I was refering only about financial arguments in my previous post - everything else is seperate.
It is not about 'winners' and 'losers', but it is about 'right' and 'wrong' - people like me had to endure a lot of flack for our views over the years, but history has clearly shown who was right and who was wrong when it comes to the club finances.
Since the Bond issue the figures are there for all to see, so there is not much to argue about and that is why we dont see the likes of fredthered anymore.

 

[711]

There were people who predicted short-term disaster, and they have been shown to be wrong.

There were many more who said the club had been placed at greatly increased risk, and I would say that still to be true. No one knows what the world or national economy will do, and a company of any sort must be at greater risk if it is in debt than if it isn't.

There were also those who said that without the Glazers we would have had much more to spend on players and the ground, or had lower ticket prices. This will never be proved, because no one can say how well the old plc would have done had they still been there, but the club was pretty well the best-run club around, and I think they would have achieved most of the improvement of recent years, if not all, so again I consider that still to be true.

There are still plenty of reasons to dislike the Glazers, tarring every protester with the same brush won't change that.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

There were people who predicted short-term disaster, and they have been shown to be wrong.

There were many more who said the club had been placed at greatly increased risk, and I would say that still to be true. No one knows what the world or national economy will do, and a company of any sort must be at greater risk if it is in debt than if it isn't.

There were also those who said that without the Glazers we would have had much more to spend on players and the ground, or had lower ticket prices. This will never be proved, because no one can say how well the old plc would have done had they still been there, but the club was pretty well the best-run club around, and I think they would have achieved most of the improvement of recent years, if not all, so again I consider that still to be true.

There are still plenty of reasons to dislike the Glazers, tarring every protester with the same brush won't change that.

But surely after improving the debt situation over the past few years with a global backdrop of the biggest western recession since the early 1900 proves some level of good stewardship over the club. It really couldn't have been worse since 2008 and yet we're still increasing revenue. Surely now with the recession seemingly coming to an end and markets picking up Manchester United are in a relatively strong position. With the next round of negotiations with sponsors we will be able to push non-matchday revenue even higher. This in-turn will ease the burden of the debt, increase finances for transfers and hopefully lessen the price of ticketing at OT.

I might be a tad over-optimistic with the last bit.

 

[711]

But surely after improving the debt situation over the past few years with a global backdrop of the biggest western recession since the early 1900 proves some level of good stewardship over the club. It really couldn't have been worse since 2008 and yet we're still increasing revenue. Surely now with the recession seemingly coming to an end and markets picking up Manchester United are in a relatively strong position. With the next round of negotiations with sponsors we will be able to push non-matchday revenue even higher. This in-turn will ease the burden of the debt, increase finances for transfers and hopefully lessen the price of ticketing at OT.

I might be a tad over-optimistic with the last bit.

Yes, they are hardly shit businessmen I'll agree, but the recession such as it's been hasn't really affected football so far. As for it coming to an end, that is the official postion, but there are many who say it hasn't even started yet, as job losses, wage freezes, inflation and in time higher interest rates haven't started to kick in yet. Interest rates have been at an all-time record low for a long time, when they start to correct I for one doubt they'll just shift up a bit to a more normal level, because there is always over-reaction and they could go up a long way.

 

[Aaron]

It's not really related to the Glazer thing or the bond issue but it is to do with the club finances and it's mind boggling when you consider just how much of a money spinner the CL is for clubs.

I've worked out that with the prize money for qualification, amount per game, per draw and per win and for what we got for each round post the group stage, even without taking into consideration what it has earned through the turn styles, ahead of the final, we've pocketed about £23.5m this season from the Champions league. Could rise to near enough £32.5m.

I have no idea what we make per home match, if it's £2.5m, as an example, that's £15m from this season without taking into account the cut of the away CL games.

Incredible amount of money, really. All told it probably tops well in excess of £50m for us this season.

EDIT: Champions League winners can expect £100m windfall | European Football - Times Online

Just found this that said the winner in 2009, received close to £100m all told.

fecking hell.

Just think of the number of players we won't sign with that amount

 

[Irwinwastheking]

Yeah Aaron. The 50mill figure is a bit conservative. You didn't take into account increased advertising revenue, merchandising revenue etc.

But you are absolutely right, its a monster money spinner!

 

[GCHQ]

It's not really related to the Glazer thing or the bond issue but it is to do with the club finances and it's mind boggling when you consider just how much of a money spinner the CL is for clubs.

I've worked out that with the prize money for qualification, amount per game, per draw and per win and for what we got for each round post the group stage, even without taking into consideration what it has earned through the turn styles, ahead of the final, we've pocketed about £23.5m this season from the Champions league. Could rise to near enough £32.5m.

I have no idea what we make per home match, if it's £2.5m, as an example, that's £15m from this season without taking into account the cut of the away CL games.

Incredible amount of money, really. All told it probably tops well in excess of £50m for us this season.

EDIT: Champions League winners can expect £100m windfall | European Football - Times Online

Just found this that said the winner in 2009, received close to £100m all told.

fecking hell.

Just think of the number of players we won't sign with that amount

We're guaranteed to receive a minimum of 52.5m euros from Uefa in distributions relating to TV and Prize money thanks to our run to the final. It will be 56m euros if we win it. Your £15m estimate for our six home CL games is about right. We don't get a cut of away game receipts.

That's the direct income from the run to the final. The £100m windfall was caluclated by including things like the increase to the club's brand value, commercial/merchandising spin-offs and increases in the value of the club's players.

 

[Pexbo]

What's the TV rights like on the World Club Championship?

 

[GCHQ]

What's the TV rights like on the World Club Championship?

$5m to the winners.

EDIT

From Wiki:

For each team, the winners received $5 million, the second-placed team takes $4 million, the third-placed team $2.5 million, the fourth-placed team $2 million, the fifth-placed team $1.5 million, the sixth-placed team $1 million and the seventh-placed team received $500,000.

 

[Sonny Feehan]

Exactly.

Just look back in this thread and see posters who were very active who have now fecked off because they were talking shite.

Manchester, United made £286m turnover, more than any other club if Arsenal's property income is discounted – yet the costs and interest on the debts the Glazer family have loaded on to the club, pushed United into a losing £79m.

This from the Guardian seems rather negative. Is it justifiable or is it missing some important aspects of United's finances? I only ask because I am not very knowledgable on the subject and I know that you and GCHQ seem to have a good handle on this sort of stuff