People insisting there are positives to the takeover!
no point moaning about it, we are stuck with this leechers like it or not .
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
no point moaning about it, we are stuck with this leechers like it or not .
Can anyone explain why gross debt increased very slightly from the end of the previous quarter (30 September 2011) to the end of the second quarter (31 December 2011) despite the fact that a further £5.3m of bonds were bought back in that period?
Gross debt increased by £5.8m from £433.2m to £439m. There was a £1.17m unrealised foreign exchange loss during the quarter on the principle value of the dollar denominated bonds but there's still pretty much £10m unexplained once you factor in the the £5.3m bond repurchase.
EDIT - To answer my own question I believe it's due to an increase in the amount of accrued interest on the bonds. There are semi-annual interest payments on 01 February and 01 August so there's been an additional three months of accrued interest since 30 September 2011.
After you've taken out the cumulative unrealised foreign exchange loss of c. £10m on the dollar denominated bonds and the c. £16m of accrued bond interest for the five months to 31 December 2011, then the actual gross debt is really £413m and not £439m.
Gross debt increased by £5.8m from £433.2m to £439m. There was a £1.17m unrealised foreign exchange loss during the quarter on the principle value of the dollar denominated bonds but there's still pretty much £10m unexplained once you factor in the the £5.3m bond repurchase.
EDIT - To answer my own question I believe it's due to an increase in the amount of accrued interest on the bonds. There are semi-annual interest payments on 01 February and 01 August so there's been an additional three months of accrued interest since 30 September 2011.
After you've taken out the cumulative unrealised foreign exchange loss of c. £10m on the dollar denominated bonds and the c. £16m of accrued bond interest for the five months to 31 December 2011, then the actual gross debt is really £413m and not £439m.
Dan
☃
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 14,669
How many years do you think it wil take for United to be debt free, GCHQ?
How many years do you think it wil take for United to be debt free, GCHQ?
Well that's an impossible question to answer. Rather than ''debt free'' the more pertinent question would be when are we going to see a (further) significant reduction in gross debt. The Singapore float is the obvious route to achieve that goal. That could be in three months time, 12 months or even not happen at all. It depends on the global economic environment and the Glazers plans.
Red_Jamie
Full Member
It's gotten to the point now where we probably have been hampered with the takeover. We've been fecked and bought by two Americans with no affiliation with the club in order to make a lot of money from our team. Money which loyal fans pump in constantly.
However, the thing is it's happened now. It sucks, and it's worthwhile thinking how different things would be without them,but we've still got a fantastic football team, and slowly but surely, the Glazers are harming us less and less IMO.
Yep, I agree with all of that.
UnitedRoadRed
Full Member
That Ronaldo money that was "ring-fenced" - did that go on buying bonds instead?
That Ronaldo money that was "ring-fenced" - did that go on buying bonds instead?
No. Much of it has been spent on the likes of De Gea, Jones and Young and the rest is still there for the club to spend when it sees fit. I remember certain people back in the Summer claiming that our transfer expenditure wasn't that significant given that we'd apparently cut the wage bill substantially by off loading a number of senior players. Oops.
UnitedRoadRed
Full Member
I thought we had a £25m net spend promise from them anyway? Oops.
I thought we had a £25m net spend promise from them anyway? Oops.
And there was a £50m net spend on players in the Summer. The net cash expenditure on players over the past four years has been £50m and there's still £50m available to spend over and above the annual £25m.
MikeUpNorth
Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 20,041
I don't really get this 'what about the Ronaldo money' talk. I think our transfer business in the summer was very good, with the exception of failing to sign a central midfielder.
I don't really get this 'what about the Ronaldo money' talk. I think our transfer business in the summer was very good, with the exception of failing to sign a central midfielder.
And that failure to sign a central midfielder wouldn't look particularly significant if it wasn't for Kevin fecking Davies.
MikeUpNorth
Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 20,041
You have to allow for injuries. We should have signed a midfielder.
You have to allow for injuries. We should have signed a midfielder.
Carrick, Anderson, Fletcher, Cleverley and Giggs. We were obviously confident that Anderson and Cleverley would make significant contributions this season together with Fletcher making a full recovery from his illness. When three of your five central midfielders miss massive chunks of the season then you're going to struggle a little bit. Any club would.
MikeUpNorth
Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 20,041
Carrick, Anderson, Fletcher, Cleverley and Giggs. We were obviously confident that Anderson and Cleverley would make significant contributions this season together with Fletcher making a full recovery from his illness. When three of your five central midfielders miss massive chunks of the season then you're going to struggle a little bit. Any club would.
That midfield selection is clearly one player short given that we went into the season knowing Fletcher's condition, Anderson's injury proneness and Giggs' need to have his playing time carefully managed. Not that any potential midfield signings seem to be jumping out at us right now. Anyway, this isn't the thread for this discussion.
That midfield selection is clearly one player short given that we went into the season knowing Fletcher's condition, Anderson's injury proneness and Giggs' need to have his playing time carefully managed. Not that any potential midfield signings seem to be jumping out at us right now. Anyway, this isn't the thread for this discussion.
You'd then be going into the season carrying six players for two positions. It's the faith in Anderson that's the issue and which I can only imagine is down to us having signed him for £20m. If he'd been sold and replaced with a competent central midfielder who didn't spend half the season on the sidelines then we'd have coped with Fletcher and Cleverley's problems far better than we have done. Of course it doesn't help when pretty much your only consistently available and performing central midfielder then has to drop back into central defence for a few games due to four of your five centre backs being out through injury as well. That is an absolutely ridiculous set of circumstances to have to deal with.
Dion
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 4,466
6 central midfielders when 1 is 38, one has a serious illness and two are completely unproven/inconsistent isn't overkill in my opinion.
6 central midfielders when 1 is 38, one has a serious illness and two are completely unproven/inconsistent isn't overkill in my opinion.
We still had Gibson as a sixth option on 30K per week or whatever he was earning. Perhaps if he'd actually left in the Summer along with someone like PIG on 40k per week then we'd have signed someone. Who knows. When you look at the increase to the wage bill in the first half of the year then the failure/reluctance to sign a midfielder is much more understandable.
Looking at next season there seems a realistic possibility that we'll have Fletcher, Carrick, Anderson, Cleverley, Giggs, Scholes and Pogba all on the books. I don't see how you can justify signing another midfielder in that situation without offloading at least one of the above players. And that's just from a practical point of view in terms of offering enough game time to everyone never mind the financial implications.
tintedsepia
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,330
Hmm.
Hard to not think that the timing of the Spoony interview wasn't done to mask this financing story especially with the float in the far east still having great importance.
Hard to not think that the timing of the Spoony interview wasn't done to mask this financing story especially with the float in the far east still having great importance.
KingMinger22
City >>> United. Moaning twat
We are one of the only top flight professional football teams that operates with a wage bill of around the 50% mark. I believe there is only one other team in the league that does. That said, we are a business and others such as Real Madrid and Barca are not. They are fan/member owned clubs. Lucky bastards.
Why should the players not get a high percentage of revenues anyways? They fill the stadium and sell the brand.
Hopefully we will unload some high earners that are not really needed, e.g Berbatov and IMO Anderson.
I was hoping we'd see Fergie get to splash the cash to bring us closer to Real and Barca.
Why should the players not get a high percentage of revenues anyways? They fill the stadium and sell the brand.
Hopefully we will unload some high earners that are not really needed, e.g Berbatov and IMO Anderson.
I was hoping we'd see Fergie get to splash the cash to bring us closer to Real and Barca.
KingMinger22
City >>> United. Moaning twat
And there was a £50m net spend on players in the Summer. The net cash expenditure on players over the past four years has been £50m and there's still £50m available to spend over and above the annual £25m.
So, in that case it is reasonable to assume Fergie has £50m left in surplus from the last four seasons, as well as the £25m for this coming summer?
That's not to mention that supposed 'star' player pot of £25m every two seasons.
giggs-beckham
Clueless
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2007
- Messages
- 7,323
Why didn't they float then, what are the risks?
charleysurf
Obnoxious, abusive bellend who is best ignored
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 16,298
Why didn't they float then, what are the risks?
It wasn´t exactly the best time for a share offer given the market turbulence. Maybe, just maybe, things in the market are looking up now.
People get far too bogged down on all this 'Ronaldo money' and '£25m a year' stuff, it is completely meaningless - we have no issues on finding money for transfer fees, we have had bucketloads of cash sat in the club bank account doing nothing for a couple of years now and the balance was just getting bigger and bigger. That is why it made sense to use some to buy back bond debt that we are paying 8% on because in the long term this will save cash that would otherwise have gone on interest payments.
Things have changed a lot in the transfer market over recent years and nowadays wages are as important as transfer fees. Our limitations come only on the wage side of things and our self imposed 50% wage/turnover limit has been in place long before the Glazers ever came to town (it was originally a policy of the PLC). Wage inflation created by the likes of City, Madrid etc has created an issue for us and at the moment we are close to our wage cap so players will have to leave before anyone major comes in - some may argue that our squad was too big anyway and there have been clear efforts to trim it.
FPP cant come quick enough for us as other clubs are slowly being forced to slash their wage bills and come into line with our type of policy (e.g. Chelsea), hopefully the type of wage inflation we have seen over recent years will start to slow down with player's wages returning to some kind of relative normality.
Things have changed a lot in the transfer market over recent years and nowadays wages are as important as transfer fees. Our limitations come only on the wage side of things and our self imposed 50% wage/turnover limit has been in place long before the Glazers ever came to town (it was originally a policy of the PLC). Wage inflation created by the likes of City, Madrid etc has created an issue for us and at the moment we are close to our wage cap so players will have to leave before anyone major comes in - some may argue that our squad was too big anyway and there have been clear efforts to trim it.
FPP cant come quick enough for us as other clubs are slowly being forced to slash their wage bills and come into line with our type of policy (e.g. Chelsea), hopefully the type of wage inflation we have seen over recent years will start to slow down with player's wages returning to some kind of relative normality.
We are one of the only top flight professional football teams that operates with a wage bill of around the 50% mark. I believe there is only one other team in the league that does. That said, we are a business and others such as Real Madrid and Barca are not. They are fan/member owned clubs. Lucky bastards.
Why should the players not get a high percentage of revenues anyways? They fill the stadium and sell the brand.
Hopefully we will unload some high earners that are not really needed, e.g Berbatov and IMO Anderson.
I was hoping we'd see Fergie get to splash the cash to bring us closer to Real and Barca.
Nonsense. Bayern Munich and Real Madrid, two of our three biggest financial rivals both consistently achieve a wages to turnover ratio of under 50%. Arsenal are the same. So including us that means four of the five highest revenue generating clubs on the planet operate with the same financial performance target. The other club in that top five, Barcelona, operate at around 60%.
There will be four clubs in Europe with a higher wage bill than us this season: Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea and Man City. The first two of those clubs have a turnover 75-100 million euros higher than ourselves and the other two clubs are owned by the world's largest sovereign wealth fund and by one of the richest individuals on the planet.
Hmm.
Hard to not think that the timing of the Spoony interview wasn't done to mask this financing story especially with the float in the far east still having great importance.
It's a conspiracy!
There's nothing controversial about the latest financial results.
So, in that case it is reasonable to assume Fergie has £50m left in surplus from the last four seasons, as well as the £25m for this coming summer?
That's not to mention that supposed 'star' player pot of £25m every two seasons.
Yes, to your first question and I'm pretty sure that additional £25m was planned to be used over a longer period than two seasons.
KingMinger22
City >>> United. Moaning twat
Thanks for the replies, GCHQ.
It would appear it is wage demands that is hindering us in the transfer market as opposed to transfer fees. Prices for top talent have actually declined in reflection of increased football revenues but wages have certainly soared.
This perhaps highlights the need for us to flog a couple more players in the summer. There really is no point in having Berbatov here imo when it is clear he will never be a first team player. This is evidenced by him scoring a hat-trick one week and being on the bench next game.
I imagine Anderson is on a resonable whack too?
Owen is on a lowish basic and pay-as-you-play bonuses if I'm not correct?
Fletcher appears unlikely to return and if he does it is hard to imagine him recapturing his best form but we'll see.
It would appear it is wage demands that is hindering us in the transfer market as opposed to transfer fees. Prices for top talent have actually declined in reflection of increased football revenues but wages have certainly soared.
This perhaps highlights the need for us to flog a couple more players in the summer. There really is no point in having Berbatov here imo when it is clear he will never be a first team player. This is evidenced by him scoring a hat-trick one week and being on the bench next game.
I imagine Anderson is on a resonable whack too?
Owen is on a lowish basic and pay-as-you-play bonuses if I'm not correct?
Fletcher appears unlikely to return and if he does it is hard to imagine him recapturing his best form but we'll see.
Hmm.
Hard to not think that the timing of the Spoony interview wasn't done to mask this financing story especially with the float in the far east still having great importance.
X-Files/RAWK terroritory..
Thanks for the replies, GCHQ.
It would appear it is wage demands that is hindering us in the transfer market as opposed to transfer fees. Prices for top talent have actually declined in reflection of increased football revenues but wages have certainly soared.
This perhaps highlights the need for us to flog a couple more players in the summer. There really is no point in having Berbatov here imo when it is clear he will never be a first team player. This is evidenced by him scoring a hat-trick one week and being on the bench next game.
I imagine Anderson is on a resonable whack too?
Owen is on a lowish basic and pay-as-you-play bonuses if I'm not correct?
Fletcher appears unlikely to return and if he does it is hard to imagine him recapturing his best form but we'll see.
I don't disagree with any of that. Transfer fees obviously shouldn't be disregarded but wages are the absolute number one factor on the cost side of football finance.
Berbatov isn't the perfect example of that but I think his transfer has killed the dreams of people hoping we'd sign players at the peak of their careers. A £30m+ transfer fee AND a big contract for a player in his 28th year just doesn't make financial sense does it? It would look an awful lot better if Berbatov had performed to the level he was capable of, but his failure to do so has left that transfer looking like the perfect example of how not to get value for money.
We're still going to be right in there competing for the top (younger) talent and I think we showed that in the Summer with the signings of De Gea and Jones. Wages for those players are clearly far more reasonable than would be the case for the likes of Nasri and Sneijder.
The key to our policy and to ensure that we continue to be successful is that we retain our best players once they reach their mid to late 20s and beyond in some cases. Arsenal's strategy has collapsed because they haven't been able to retain their best players although I think Wenger hasn't helped by seemingly being too hasty in offloading senior players who could have been a massive help to the younger members of his squad. Why get rid of Gilberto Silva for instance? Crazy. They then spend the next few years with an inexperienced Alex Song as the main holding midfield player at the club and promptly get embarrassed when a good side rolls into town.
We weren't able to hold onto Ronaldo but he was the world's best player and he'd always had a strong desire to play in Spain. We have though retained the likes of Ferdinand, Rooney, Vidic and Evra in spite of fierce interest from rival clubs. If reports this morning are to be believed then we'll have done the same with Nani which would be great. Vidic might leave this Summer but it's hard to argue we haven't had his best years given that he's 31 later this year and is returning from a cruciate ligament injury. And unlike Arsenal we'd still have Rio there next season to guide the younger centre backs.
KingMinger22
City >>> United. Moaning twat
I agree there is no point buying expensive players above 27. I think that buying expensive youngsters should still be considered when top potential is there, e.g. Gotze, Hazard, Bale.
I can't see Vidic leaving. What makes you think that he might? I really hope not.
It's hard to imagine Rio playing a leading role anymore. He's second best player if I am not mistaken. I am sure he will be here next season though.
I can't see Vidic leaving. What makes you think that he might? I really hope not.
It's hard to imagine Rio playing a leading role anymore. He's second best player if I am not mistaken. I am sure he will be here next season though.
I agree there is no point buying expensive players above 27. I think that buying expensive youngsters should still be considered when top potential is there, e.g. Gotze, Hazard, Bale.
I can't see Vidic leaving. What makes you think that he might? I really hope not.
It's hard to imagine Rio playing a leading role anymore. He's second best player if I am not mistaken. I am sure he will be here next season though.
I agree that large transfer fees for youngsters with top potential should be considered. I think by signing De Gea, the second most expensive goalkeeper in history, and Phil Jones for a transfer fee that could rise to £20.5m, shows that we're prepared to do just that. We wouldn't have a problem with offering very good wages to the likes of Gotze, Hazard and Bale. Of course a handful of other clubs club can always offer more than us but they can't sign everyone.
Transfer United Till I Die
I am totally in the know, honest
I agree there is no point buying expensive players above 27. I think that buying expensive youngsters should still be considered when top potential is there, e.g. Gotze, Hazard, Bale.
I can't see Vidic leaving. What makes you think that he might? I really hope not.
It's hard to imagine Rio playing a leading role anymore. He's second best player if I am not mistaken. I am sure he will be here next season though.
That m16 chap said he'd been told that vidic had been told he could leave this summer after asking to go last year, but that his injury may have changed that.
Amir
Full Member
That m16 chap said he'd been told that vidic had been told he could leave this summer after asking to go last year, but that his injury may have changed that.
So he's already covered himself nicely...
Sir A1ex
Full Member
Anybody posted this from David Conn in the Guardian yet?:
Cost of Glazers' takeover at Manchester United reaches £500m
For most normal souls outrage can only last so long, and at Manchester United, supporters' fury at the Glazer family's pillage of their club has been tempered by titles won, the glories of Wayne Rooney, Nani and the rest in full flow, as well as the passage of nearly seven years. The Glazers have sat across the Atlantic, not communicating with the club's fans, and ridden it out until battle weariness has consigned green and gold to the fringes. The release of impassive accounts for "MU Finance plc" has become a quarterly ritual, with the world pointed to the growth in the club's income, from TV deals which would have increased anyway, and commercial operations the Glazers have required to be sweated until the brand squeaks.
Yet the latest figures, covering the Glazers' financial machinations with United for the final three months of 2011, document a landmark. From October to December 2011, the cost of the Glazers' "leveraged buyout" of United, when they loaded their own £525m borrowings on to the club itself to repay, was £17.5m. The club paid £12.2m in interest and other financing charges, and £5.3m paying off some actual debt, which nevertheless remains over £400m. As documented with forensic anger by Andy Green in his "Love United, Hate Glazer" Andersred blog, the total drained out of United in interest, bank charges and other payments before these latest figures was £480m. So the total cash taken out of United, to pay for a takeover the fans and then board did not want, was £497.5m by 31 December. In round figures, and anyway now, with two months further interest from December, the Glazer family have been responsible for £500m going out of United.
Most United supporters know this and have never become reconciled to the damage done, only, slowly, to the frustration that there is nothing they can do about it. The Premier League, Football Association and government, after unrolling the red carpet for the Glazers in 2005, have ever since been silent.
There are a few contrary voices in support of the Glazers' record, so the tedious argument does have to be joined with the fact that United have continued to be successful under their rule, winning four Premier League titles since 2005 and one Champions League, in 2008. The three most straightforward answers to that are: United, who were hugely rich, had no debt, a great manager and squad of top players when the Glazers arrived, might have been even more successful, perhaps dominated in Europe as well as the Premier League, had £500m dead money not gone to bankers since.
Secondly, it is arguable that the Glazers' shrewdest move has been effectively to leave Old Trafford well alone, knowing that in Sir Alex Ferguson and David Gill, they had the partnership to maintain success, even given so much less money to play with.
Third, give the Glazers as much credit as you like, decide the playing success really is somehow all due to their absentee and debt-laden ownership, yet still no argument can be advanced for how leaking half a billion pounds out of the club, still to barely chip into the originally imposed debt, has been good for United.
The US owners of two of England's other biggest clubs, Arsenal and Liverpool, both motivated financially by the Premier League's global TV and commercial income, fly in this week. Stan Kroenke will contemplate the crumbling of quality at Arsenal and departure of several top players during his ownership, while ticket prices for fans were increased. John Henry will arrive for a Wembley final after a deeply ignominious episode in the club's history, the Luis Suárez affair, the leadership at Liverpool furiously criticised by a coalition of anti-racism groups.
Henry has always expressed puzzlement with United fans' objections to the Glazers' debt-loading, given United's success. Kroenke, who paid Arsenal's selling English shareholders millions personally but has committed to not putting a cent into the club itself, in his only public address to date, memorably went out of his way to express admiration for what the Glazers have done. MU Finance plc is where those deeds are recorded, and even after so long, the running total should always be observed.
For most normal souls outrage can only last so long, and at Manchester United, supporters' fury at the Glazer family's pillage of their club has been tempered by titles won, the glories of Wayne Rooney, Nani and the rest in full flow, as well as the passage of nearly seven years. The Glazers have sat across the Atlantic, not communicating with the club's fans, and ridden it out until battle weariness has consigned green and gold to the fringes. The release of impassive accounts for "MU Finance plc" has become a quarterly ritual, with the world pointed to the growth in the club's income, from TV deals which would have increased anyway, and commercial operations the Glazers have required to be sweated until the brand squeaks.
Yet the latest figures, covering the Glazers' financial machinations with United for the final three months of 2011, document a landmark. From October to December 2011, the cost of the Glazers' "leveraged buyout" of United, when they loaded their own £525m borrowings on to the club itself to repay, was £17.5m. The club paid £12.2m in interest and other financing charges, and £5.3m paying off some actual debt, which nevertheless remains over £400m. As documented with forensic anger by Andy Green in his "Love United, Hate Glazer" Andersred blog, the total drained out of United in interest, bank charges and other payments before these latest figures was £480m. So the total cash taken out of United, to pay for a takeover the fans and then board did not want, was £497.5m by 31 December. In round figures, and anyway now, with two months further interest from December, the Glazer family have been responsible for £500m going out of United.
Most United supporters know this and have never become reconciled to the damage done, only, slowly, to the frustration that there is nothing they can do about it. The Premier League, Football Association and government, after unrolling the red carpet for the Glazers in 2005, have ever since been silent.
There are a few contrary voices in support of the Glazers' record, so the tedious argument does have to be joined with the fact that United have continued to be successful under their rule, winning four Premier League titles since 2005 and one Champions League, in 2008. The three most straightforward answers to that are: United, who were hugely rich, had no debt, a great manager and squad of top players when the Glazers arrived, might have been even more successful, perhaps dominated in Europe as well as the Premier League, had £500m dead money not gone to bankers since.
Secondly, it is arguable that the Glazers' shrewdest move has been effectively to leave Old Trafford well alone, knowing that in Sir Alex Ferguson and David Gill, they had the partnership to maintain success, even given so much less money to play with.
Third, give the Glazers as much credit as you like, decide the playing success really is somehow all due to their absentee and debt-laden ownership, yet still no argument can be advanced for how leaking half a billion pounds out of the club, still to barely chip into the originally imposed debt, has been good for United.
The US owners of two of England's other biggest clubs, Arsenal and Liverpool, both motivated financially by the Premier League's global TV and commercial income, fly in this week. Stan Kroenke will contemplate the crumbling of quality at Arsenal and departure of several top players during his ownership, while ticket prices for fans were increased. John Henry will arrive for a Wembley final after a deeply ignominious episode in the club's history, the Luis Suárez affair, the leadership at Liverpool furiously criticised by a coalition of anti-racism groups.
Henry has always expressed puzzlement with United fans' objections to the Glazers' debt-loading, given United's success. Kroenke, who paid Arsenal's selling English shareholders millions personally but has committed to not putting a cent into the club itself, in his only public address to date, memorably went out of his way to express admiration for what the Glazers have done. MU Finance plc is where those deeds are recorded, and even after so long, the running total should always be observed.
I must say I rather enjoyed these two little extracts from Mr Green's latest musings on United's financial performance:
Most observers, yes. Not this one though Mr Green.
Commercial income continues to grow very fast (up 13.4% during the quarter vs last year and up 17.7% over the six months). Much of this growth comes from the c. £10m per annum DHL training kit deal. The club has also recently signed new deals with Bulgarian and Bangladeshi telecom operators. This strategy of finding a local telecom partner in a myriad of markets will eventually reach a natural end of course, but I must confess to having been too cautious on United's commercial growth. The "brand" has stretched far further than most observers (including this one) felt was possible.
Most observers, yes. Not this one though Mr Green.
Credit has to go to the club for once again boosting revenues in a tough economic climate. United (along with Real, Barcelona and Bayern) is one of the commercial giants of modern football. Much though it pains me to say it, the Glazers have overseen extraordinary commercial growth (this year Commercial income will be more than 2.5x the level the PLC achieved in their best year).
Sir A1ex
Full Member
So basically, we are like a prossie with a massive heroin addiction that has forced us to work harder and do more depraved stuff than anybody would think possible in order to pay for it?
Oh well, could be worse, could be scouse...
Oh well, could be worse, could be scouse...
So basically, we are like a prossie with a massive heroin addiction that has forced us to work harder and do more depraved stuff than anybody would think possible in order to pay for it?
Oh well, could be worse, could be scouse...
I see your love of bizarre metaphors is still going strong!
robertsoncrusoe
Thinks the mods have too much power..
View from Boston......
Man United’s cash reserves fall by $158 million
February 21, 2012|Rob Harris, AP Sports Writer
Manchester United’s cash reserves fell by 100 million pounds ($158 million) in six months partially to finance an investment in a roster failing to maintain the English champions’ dominance. As a result of spending that also took in stadium improvements and a bond repurchase program, the Old Trafford bank balance dropped from 150.6 million pounds to 50.9 million pounds ($238 million to $80 million) to Dec. 31, the club’s quarterly accounts revealed on Tuesday. Despite net spending of 48 million pounds ($76 million) on new players, including goalkeeper David de Gea, defender Phil Jones and winger Ashley Young, United failed to advance past the first round of the Champions League and has been eliminated from both domestic cups. Meanwhile, neighbor Manchester City holds two-point lead in the Premier League.
United spent 5.3 million pounds ($8.4 million) in the three months ending Dec. 31 buying back bonds that were issued two years ago to raise 504 million pounds (then $762 million) to replace long-term financing and reduce debts to hedge funds. United has spent 92.8 million pounds ($147 million) repurchasing that debt — more than the 80 million pounds (then $130 million) received from Real Madrid in 2009 for the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo.
The club’s debt, resulting from the 2005 takeover by the American Glazer family, stood at 439 million pounds ($694 million) at the end of 2011 and incurred almost 24.5 million pounds ($39 million) in interest payments in six months. Although the debt was down from the 508 million pounds at the end of 2010 it rose again in the final three months of 2011 by 6 million pounds ($9.5 million). However, United’s moneymaking abilities appear to be undiminished, with 175 million pounds ($277 million) in revenue in the six months ending Dec. 31 — up more than 10 percent on the same period a year earlier due largely to a rise in TV income and a new training jersey sponsorship deal with express delivery and freight firm DHL.
“Revenues continue to grow strongly although costs are increasing just as quickly so pretty much negating that growth,’’ the Manchester United Supporters’ Trust said in a statement. “However the key figures of interest to supporters show the Glazers have now spent every penny of the money received from the sale of Ronaldo, and more.
“That’s now 92.8 million pounds spent on buying back their own bond debt that they loaded onto our club.’’ MUST said that since Ronaldo’s departure, net transfers totaled 90 million pounds ($142 million) while 225 million pounds ($356 million) had been taken out of the club to cover debt payments and interest.
“What could the club have done with that extra 225 million pounds? Cheaper tickets for loyal fans, investing massively in the squad and stadium, developing and retaining the best youth players, competing on an equal basis with the very best teams in Europe,’’ MUST said. “This is the true cost to Manchester United of the Glazers’ ownership.’’
Man United’s cash reserves fall by $158 million
February 21, 2012|Rob Harris, AP Sports Writer
Manchester United’s cash reserves fell by 100 million pounds ($158 million) in six months partially to finance an investment in a roster failing to maintain the English champions’ dominance. As a result of spending that also took in stadium improvements and a bond repurchase program, the Old Trafford bank balance dropped from 150.6 million pounds to 50.9 million pounds ($238 million to $80 million) to Dec. 31, the club’s quarterly accounts revealed on Tuesday. Despite net spending of 48 million pounds ($76 million) on new players, including goalkeeper David de Gea, defender Phil Jones and winger Ashley Young, United failed to advance past the first round of the Champions League and has been eliminated from both domestic cups. Meanwhile, neighbor Manchester City holds two-point lead in the Premier League.
United spent 5.3 million pounds ($8.4 million) in the three months ending Dec. 31 buying back bonds that were issued two years ago to raise 504 million pounds (then $762 million) to replace long-term financing and reduce debts to hedge funds. United has spent 92.8 million pounds ($147 million) repurchasing that debt — more than the 80 million pounds (then $130 million) received from Real Madrid in 2009 for the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo.
The club’s debt, resulting from the 2005 takeover by the American Glazer family, stood at 439 million pounds ($694 million) at the end of 2011 and incurred almost 24.5 million pounds ($39 million) in interest payments in six months. Although the debt was down from the 508 million pounds at the end of 2010 it rose again in the final three months of 2011 by 6 million pounds ($9.5 million). However, United’s moneymaking abilities appear to be undiminished, with 175 million pounds ($277 million) in revenue in the six months ending Dec. 31 — up more than 10 percent on the same period a year earlier due largely to a rise in TV income and a new training jersey sponsorship deal with express delivery and freight firm DHL.
“Revenues continue to grow strongly although costs are increasing just as quickly so pretty much negating that growth,’’ the Manchester United Supporters’ Trust said in a statement. “However the key figures of interest to supporters show the Glazers have now spent every penny of the money received from the sale of Ronaldo, and more.
“That’s now 92.8 million pounds spent on buying back their own bond debt that they loaded onto our club.’’ MUST said that since Ronaldo’s departure, net transfers totaled 90 million pounds ($142 million) while 225 million pounds ($356 million) had been taken out of the club to cover debt payments and interest.
“What could the club have done with that extra 225 million pounds? Cheaper tickets for loyal fans, investing massively in the squad and stadium, developing and retaining the best youth players, competing on an equal basis with the very best teams in Europe,’’ MUST said. “This is the true cost to Manchester United of the Glazers’ ownership.’’
£500 million pounds of essentially wasted money.... fecking hell.
No. Much of it has been spent on the likes of De Gea, Jones and Young and the rest is still there for the club to spend when it sees fit. I remember certain people back in the Summer claiming that our transfer expenditure wasn't that significant given that we'd apparently cut the wage bill substantially by off loading a number of senior players. Oops.
I'm not sure I understand this comment. To my untrained eye, Since Ronaldo left, combined with the sale of other players we've brought in about 110m, and we've spent around 100m. So either only the money being brought in from transfers can be used for transfers (inc. Ronaldo cash) and the club is not providing any other money to spend apart from that, or we have the biggest war chest in known history waiting in the wings??
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Share: