I just figured you might since you seem so glued up om everything related to MU finances.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
I just figured you might since you seem so glued up om everything related to MU finances.
Gchq is david gill in disguise.
That might explain why he's been right about quite a few things, whilst others have scaremongered eh?
We still have a friggin 433 Million pound debt.
I remember when that was £800 million debt. In a few years time it'll be £200 million, then £150 million etc. etc.
More Glazer debt paid off with club money, great news!!
It's a bit tiresome when people come up with "GCHQ must work for United" stuff every time or most of the time when he posts in this thread. I don't agree with his views or his support of Glazers but surely we know what to expect of him by now, so it's better to argue without resorting to this.
Also the most important of this results as highlighted by Andersred is that Glazer costs total" now at £578m since May 2005, which quite frankly is utterly, utterly despicable.
Also the most important of this results as highlighted by Andersred is that Glazer costs total" now at £578m since May 2005, which quite frankly is utterly, utterly despicable.
Our debt has been reduced basically in half now?
Well, with all the good house keeping, record breaking annual EBIwhatever, I was expecting the interest to go down more. I'm no businessman, and it's probably good practice to have debt on the company to avoid tax or whatever, but it just doesn't feel right.
I never understood all these anyway, what happens to the bond and all that. When that issue matures, will the outstanding bonds be added to the debt? Or does this 433 million include all that crap
Not really. The PIKs were being thrown into the mix to give headlines of 'United a billion in debt!' and excite the scousers. But it's arguable they were debts on the club itself in the first place. It's also quite the mystery how they were paid off in the end. The Glazers probably took out new loans.
The first tranche of 'PIKS' (apparently technically they weren't PIKS after all) were folded into the overall debt.
But there was PIK debt, which was mysteriously paid off, which had been thrown on to the club debt in the media. I really don't want to trawl this thread to dig that up.
It would have been a good idea if the PLC had carried some debt on the club prior to the Glazer takeover. Would have made it impossible for the Glazers to borrow as much cash against the club as they did. Of course it would have been preferable if the government hadn't scuppered the BSkyB deal too.
As I understand it, the 433 million is the amount of outstanding bonds and excludes the bonds the club has bought back. The accounts say they have reserved the right to re-sell those bonds (87 million I think) back on the market if they want to.
As it stands the club will have a new bond issue of 433 million (down from the first issue of 504 million). I would think more bonds will be bought back before maturity and a whack of cash will be put down to reduce that number.
I thought since last year, we have a debt of over £700m and now its down to £433m.
I'd ask one of the finance guys to confirm but I read it as follows:
Senior Secured Notes (in millions)
2010 - 509,181
2011 - 431,234
Total Borrowings (in millions)
2010 - 540,741
2011 - 458,903
you said it had been reduced in half. I don't see how it was above 850m unless the PIKs were in there.
One question: The club has purchased around £87m of the Bonds, but the 'bond level' is only down to £433m., and not £417m (504-87 = 417?!). Could anyone please tell me why this particular difference occures (GHCQ?)? Thanks in advance.
They probably cost more on buy-back than when they were issued plus transaction costs.
Depends on where the 'debt' you are referring to comes from. Todays numbers are about Red Football Limited and not Red Football Joint Venture. The PIKs were carried by RFJV and have since been cleared (last November I think), as United always said they would.
No, Gill said that the Piks weren't the clubs responsibility, not that they would be cleared. As it stands they have been paid off but there is no indication as to how this was financed.
The £433m refers to the club's (Red Football Ltd's) total gross debt. This includes a bank loan of £7.2m relating to the purchase of the freight terminal in 2008 and £4.7m of loan stock owed to the minority shareholder in MUTV. As of 30 Sep 2011 there was also a £9.1m cumulative unrealised foreign exchange loss on the dollar denominated bonds. This loss is reflected in the total value of the bond debt as of 30 Sep 2011. On today's exchange rate the cumulative loss would be £6m. The loss (or gain) on the dollar denominated bonds will only be realised when the bonds are redeemed (bought back). To complicate matters further there's c. £6.3m of accrued bond interest relating to the two month period (August and September) since the last semi-annual interest payment was made (01 August).
So ''principle'' bond debt as of 30 Sep 2011 stood at £405.5m (net of £19.5m of unamortised issue discount and unamortised debt finance costs). The £405.5m figure is arrived at by deducting the £87.5m of bonds that have been repurchased from the total bond debt of £493m when they were first issued (sold) on 29 Jan 2010.
Adding the £9.1m cumulative unrealised foreign exchange loss gives a total bond debt value at 30 Sep 2011 of £414.6m.
Then add the £7.2m bank loan, the £4.7m of loan stock and £6.3m of accrued bond interest and that gives a total gross debt of £432.8m.
They have cost more to buy back but that isn't a factor in terms of the gross debt figure in these financial results. The £87.5m of bonds have cost £92.9m to repurchase. They were issued at 0.98 so the average price at which they've been repurchased is 1.04 (slightly less in reality when costs are included).
Obviously the cost of buying back the remaining bond debt varies quite significantly depending on how and when the club decide to redeem them.
It's just utterly tragic. It's disgusting.
Common sense says that the PIKs were undoubtedly paid off by other refinancing by the Glazers and any debt they have is definitely a concern for the club. Can anyone honestly suggest that should they be short of cash at any point that it would not affect investment etc into the club? No chance. They want money and lots of it.
Can't wait until the club is floated or sold again.
Cheers for that.
Bump for the New Year...
Manchester United falling behind Spanish clubs in 'money league' | Football | guardian.co.uk
Manchester United falling behind Spanish clubs in 'money league' | Football | guardian.co.uk
This report is untrue. We are assured that our glorious owners are so clever that their added value to the club outweighs the minor matter of the shedload of debt that they have imposed upon us.
And in any case we still have enough money to compete with anyone.
And in any case we still have enough money to compete with anyone.
They ARE very clever but unfortunately they can't do anything about the pound depreciating in value against the euro or Deloitte's insistence on using the exchange rate on one day of the year for their analysis (June 30).
We'd have actually CLOSED the gap to Madrid by 14 million euros and by 2.3 million euros on Barca if the exchange rate hadn't moved from £1 = 1.2213 euros on June 30 2010 to £1 = 1.1073 euros on June 30 2011. That movement alone has led to us falling a further 23.7 million euros behind Madrid and a further 35.4 million euros behind Barca.
2009/10 revenue in euros (1 = 1.2213):
Madrid - 438.6m
Barca - 398.1m
United - 349.8m (286.4m)
2010/11 revenue in euros (1 = 1.1073):
Madrid - 479.5m
Barca - 450.7m
United - 367m (£331.4m)
United's revenue for 2010/11 would have been 404.7 million euros based on the June 30 2010 exchange rate. We grew our revenue by £45m in the year and at a faster rate (16%) than either of the two Spanish clubs.
It's worth pointing out that we'd currently be ahead of both Madrid and Barca in terms of revenue based on the exchange rate of mid-2007 (£1 = 1.48 euros). Our £331.4m turnover in 2010/11 would have converted to 490 million euros.
There's actually a staggering lack of acknowledgement of the significance of exchange rate fluctuations throughout Deloitte's report (presumably because it makes a bit of a nonsense of the whole thing). Deloitte would be well advised to use the average exchange rate for the period under review but ultimately there's always going to be an issue so long as Britain remains outside the eurozone (hopefully forever).
We could also get into how Barca and Madrid are killing the rest of the clubs in their league by retaining individual broadcasting deals, which is another significant reason for their current financial advantage over ourselves.
2nd quarter financial results for the three months to 31 December 2011 will be available on the the following website in about 25 minutes time: Manchester United - MU Finance
Headline figures:
Revenue increases by 8.7% from £93.2m to £101.3m
EBITDA up very slightly from £44.7m to £44.9m
Staff costs up 17.3% from £33m to 38.7m (very concerning)
Bond buy backs in the quarter amounted to £5.3m
End of quarter cash balance was £50.9m
Revenue increases by 8.7% from £93.2m to £101.3m
EBITDA up very slightly from £44.7m to £44.9m
Staff costs up 17.3% from £33m to 38.7m (very concerning)
Bond buy backs in the quarter amounted to £5.3m
End of quarter cash balance was £50.9m
Yeah, that stood out.
No wonder contract negotiations seem to be unusually prolonged. Thanks a bunch, Citeh. Now won't someone please, for the love of God, get Michael fecking Owen off our books.
I fear Berba's on his way too.
Matchday revenue up 3.7% from £32.8m to £34.0m
Media revenue up 9.7% from £34.9m to £38.3m
Commercial revenue up 13.7% from £25.5m to £29.0m
Media revenue up 9.7% from £34.9m to £38.3m
Commercial revenue up 13.7% from £25.5m to £29.0m
Yeah, it's a pretty shocking figure particularly given the comings and goings over the Summer. It just goes to show the endemic wage inflation that exists in football and as you say, we can attribute a good chunk of that down to fecking Citeh.
so what does that put our wage/turnover ratio at?
I wonder where the increase came? I guess general contract clauses of increased earnings each year and perhaps Rooney must have come into it?
When you look at players in and players out you'd think it would be down.
Out:
John O'Shea
Paul Scholes
Wes Brown
Gabriel Obertan
Darron Gibson
Mame Biram Diouf
Van Der Sar
In:
Young
De Gea
Jones
(Scholes' playing contract wouldn't really have effected this? His coaching contract was surely lower?)
Surely it should be down rather than up?
Smalling got a higher salary, Hernandez got a higher salary.
Cleverley as well.
You'd assume Rooney's rise was worth at least £60-70k p/w. That would amount for a reasonable chunk of it, you'd think?
This will only rise in the future as Nani will get a bigger contract, Welbeck's due a payrise.
Yes, although he agreed the new contract in October 2010 so the majority of the increase should have been included in the 2010/11 results as well.
- Status