ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Because the interest on the said loans is reduced massively and they then get paid the dividends. In the long term it is definitely a good business move as it's virtually an interest free loan. When they raise enough cash once again, they can set out to buy back that 25%.
My predictions:
Record Turnover - £325m-£330m. Up from £286m in 2009/10
Record EBITDA - £110m-£115m. Up from £100.8m in 2009/10
The 2009/10 ''accounting loss'' of £80m won't be repeated. Instead there should be a small pre-tax profit reported for 2010/11. Not even Duncan Drasdo or Andersred will be able to put a negative spin on these results.
The Guardian certainly had a very very positive spin on our predicted results.
Manchester United set to post record profits before Asia flotation | Football | The Guardian
Manchester United will this week report record operating profits of more than £100m and are set to use Thursday's financial results as a springboard for a bid to raise up to $1bn (£614m) by floating a minority stake in Singapore.
An increase in revenues, understood to have topped £300m for the first time from last year's figure of £286.4m, has been driven by new overseas sponsorship deals that are likely to have pushed commercial income above £100m for the first time.
That figure does not include the £10m a year DHL training kit sponsorship deal or other recently signed contracts. The club is likely to point out that operating profits have more than doubled from £43m since the Glazers took over in 2005. In contrast to last year's record losses of £83.3m, driven by one-off costs related to a £526m bond issue, the club is expected to record a net profit for the year ending June 2011. But campaigners against the Glazer regime will point to the impact of £45m in annual interest repayments on the club's bottom line.
They calculate that £434m has flowed out of the club in interest, fees and debt repayment since 2005. The chief executive, David Gill, has repeatedly insisted the club can shoulder the interest burden and still compete for the best players. For the ambitious flotation scheme to succeed when it goes ahead in mid-October, Manchester United will have to overcome doubts about the way it is structured. It is understood that the club will pursue a dual share structure, whereby investors will have to purchase one "non-voting" share for every voting share, allowing the Glazers to raise funds while staying in control of the club.
Sources argue it is modelled on the US sports model, where clubs in the NFL and the NBA must have a single designated owner, and will allow for strategic long-term planning and swift decision making. "This structure works best for the club, Manchester United as a company and shareholders and the evidence is the club's results in the last five years," a source said. "It is what works well in football given the rapid nature of decisions required and specialist knowledge of the football transfer market."
But corporate governance experts said it was out of step with best practice and increasingly frowned upon by investors.
A spokesman for the Association of British Insurers said: "Investors in the UK market in particular, and to a lesser extent across Europe, do not favour dual share structures. There is a common idea of one share, one vote, so that your economic interests are the same as your voting interests."
Corporate governance consultancy PIRC said it "approves of the 'one share, one vote' structure for companies share capital, and generally disapproves of dual class stock structures which have varying voting and dividend payments rights".
A spokesman added: "In our view, shareowners who have the same financial commitment to the company should have the same rights. Where a company is creating a new class of shares, or seeking an increase in the number of shares of the class of stock that has superior voting rights, we will usually oppose the capital restructuring."
At the height of the hacking scandal, there was much criticism from shareholders of News Corporation's dual share structure.
Anne Simpson, the corporate governance chief at the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), said last month that not having one vote for each share was "a corruption of the corporate governance system".
She added: "We believe that the control of a company should reflect its ownership. That's capitalism."
Manchester United will this week report record operating profits of more than £100m and are set to use Thursday's financial results as a springboard for a bid to raise up to $1bn (£614m) by floating a minority stake in Singapore.
An increase in revenues, understood to have topped £300m for the first time from last year's figure of £286.4m, has been driven by new overseas sponsorship deals that are likely to have pushed commercial income above £100m for the first time.
That figure does not include the £10m a year DHL training kit sponsorship deal or other recently signed contracts. The club is likely to point out that operating profits have more than doubled from £43m since the Glazers took over in 2005. In contrast to last year's record losses of £83.3m, driven by one-off costs related to a £526m bond issue, the club is expected to record a net profit for the year ending June 2011. But campaigners against the Glazer regime will point to the impact of £45m in annual interest repayments on the club's bottom line.
They calculate that £434m has flowed out of the club in interest, fees and debt repayment since 2005. The chief executive, David Gill, has repeatedly insisted the club can shoulder the interest burden and still compete for the best players. For the ambitious flotation scheme to succeed when it goes ahead in mid-October, Manchester United will have to overcome doubts about the way it is structured. It is understood that the club will pursue a dual share structure, whereby investors will have to purchase one "non-voting" share for every voting share, allowing the Glazers to raise funds while staying in control of the club.
Sources argue it is modelled on the US sports model, where clubs in the NFL and the NBA must have a single designated owner, and will allow for strategic long-term planning and swift decision making. "This structure works best for the club, Manchester United as a company and shareholders and the evidence is the club's results in the last five years," a source said. "It is what works well in football given the rapid nature of decisions required and specialist knowledge of the football transfer market."
But corporate governance experts said it was out of step with best practice and increasingly frowned upon by investors.
A spokesman for the Association of British Insurers said: "Investors in the UK market in particular, and to a lesser extent across Europe, do not favour dual share structures. There is a common idea of one share, one vote, so that your economic interests are the same as your voting interests."
Corporate governance consultancy PIRC said it "approves of the 'one share, one vote' structure for companies share capital, and generally disapproves of dual class stock structures which have varying voting and dividend payments rights".
A spokesman added: "In our view, shareowners who have the same financial commitment to the company should have the same rights. Where a company is creating a new class of shares, or seeking an increase in the number of shares of the class of stock that has superior voting rights, we will usually oppose the capital restructuring."
At the height of the hacking scandal, there was much criticism from shareholders of News Corporation's dual share structure.
Anne Simpson, the corporate governance chief at the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), said last month that not having one vote for each share was "a corruption of the corporate governance system".
She added: "We believe that the control of a company should reflect its ownership. That's capitalism."
I'm a complete novice when it comes to our finances, but what is the exact figure of debt now in light of these profits?
BBC saying that they will announce healthy financial results
Sky News breaking news: Manchester United announce full year profits of £110.9 million to end of June.
down to 305m say Skysports.
Plus the only-PIK debt that nobody knows where or how much it is.
So I guess total debt is around 500m
Debt at £458 mil. Cash in bank is £150 mil. Net debt is £308 mil.
£51.2 million went on interest payments apparently.
Amazing that the club is valued at £1.8 Billion off the back of those figures. £1 billion tops imo
From newbie (pradyumna23):
Glazer is Great
As far as we know the PIK has gone - it is no longer in the equation.
If something replaced it and is connected to the club then we should find out when the IPO prospectus is released.
Why £1bn?
Stan Kroenke just bought Arsenal at a value of 14.5 x EBITDA - using the same multiple that gives us:
£110m x 14.5 = £1.6bn
You can also easily argue that a higher multiple would apply to us as our brand is worth so much more.
Apparently we bought back 64m of our own Bonds. This probably accounts for most of the debt reduction.
SAF is great.
So basically same as ever, our long term prospects look better after every one of these results, but still the Glazers are taking a hell of a lot of money out of the club to pay their own debts down.
These results can be spun either way. I'm just happy that the worst case scenario which many painted as a possibility has been avoided.
These results can be spun either way. I'm just happy that the worst case scenario which many painted as a possibility has been avoided.
Difference between buying a Club and floating a Club.
Yep. Non Controlling interest is worth less.
Rood, can you give me details of what Stan Kroenke paid and what what stake?
True
FWIW I actually think the kind of numbers mentioned for our float valuation (£2bn+ according to some reports) sound on the high side - will be interesting to see what they acheive.
Not got it to hand - just remember the multiple - Im sure you can find it with a bit of googling!
The reason why I ask is that you are using the EV EBITDA multiple but you're not factoring in our debt which is much larger than Arsenal's. Not to mention that you should also look at the return multiples to see if we should be getting the same valuations.
Well go for it mate - Im sure all the info you need is out there!
Im just giving a very quick and easy valuation based on the most recent comparable transaction.
I noticed there's a 'unrealised gain' of about £16M in the books because of the dollar weakening, so we could substract that from the profit, just as we ignored the unrealised loss when discussing the results last year.
Also, there's about £20M of taxes to be paid, if I read the results correctly?
So in the end, there's no real profit this year (even a small loss). But the debt went down with £68M, so not a bad year I'd say.
Also, there's about £20M of taxes to be paid, if I read the results correctly?
So in the end, there's no real profit this year (even a small loss). But the debt went down with £68M, so not a bad year I'd say.
Do you have a link to the full set of accounts?
good call!
You get a lot of stick on here, largely unfounded but nobody can ever argue you don't know your stuff. I imagine the nay sayers will glide over this post of yours, which is unlike them...
Complete results:
http://www.mufplc.com/pdf/Q4 2011 Report.pdf
Regarding the tax thing, it's mentioned that 'Based on current year forecasts, we expect this charge to be largely offset by losses elsewhere in the group.'
Does this mean these £20M in taxes won't have to be paid? I don't really understand what this sentence means.
Looks like good results to my amateur eyes.
Yes. Or at least not all of it, it depends on the extent of the losses they are offsetting.
The way things are going, when do you think all the debts will be paid off? Anyone want to have a guess at that?
Still feeling confident GCHQ?
I make it £47m* so far.
Can't see us making much of the ground up in January, but if we get business done in June you may have a chance, I guess.
*based on:
Anders Lindegaard £3,500,000
Phil Jones £16,500,000
Ashley Young £17,000,000
David de Gea £18,900,000
John O'Shea £4,500,000
Wes Brown £1,200,000
Gabriel Obertan £3,000,000
Hats of to those crafty Glazers. If the float goes as planned they can clear the debts, recover the 300 million they originally put into the buyout and still own 70% of the club. For all the stick they have taken United will be in good shape and they will have made over one billion profit. Never doubt a Jew when it comes to money.
I wish they would invest some part of their profit on some big buys for the fans who have been so nice to them over the years.
I wish they would invest some part of their profit on some big buys for the fans who have been so nice to them over the years.
I wish they subsidize the ticket cost and take the ridiculous carling cup tickets schemes off.
They can't pay off all the debts. The bond issue does not allow it. Although, they could end up buying some of the remaining bonds back on the open market.
Reasonably confident. We do tend to get our business done early in the Summer so that gives me a pretty good chance. I think the key factor that may well decide it will be the sale of fringe players. Gibson and PIG not being sold in this window certainly helps me given that their contracts expire in June 2012.
It would've been interesting to draw a direct comparison between our accounts and those of Real Madrid and Barcelona but theirs aren't out yet.. or am I looking in the wrong place?
Could be the difference...
I'm pretty confident myself stilll, though.
We've stocked up on good cover where needed, so I honestly can't see where we'd buy big next summer, other than either a creative or "destructive" centre-mid, depending on what SAF thinks we need (apparently neither at the moment, and with the likes of Cleverly, Pogba, Morrison and Tunnicliffe all at various stages in the pipeline, who's to say that will change?).
So, I reckon there will only be a maximum of one 8 figure signing, and then it is down to whether that player costs more than £28m (give or take other minor buying and selling) and whether he puts pen to paper by end of June.
- Status