Bearded Genius
BeeGee gold that.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
BeeGee gold that.
Disappointing figures. We need to do the IPO.
£25.6m... wouldn't be surprised if that it our transfer budget! We'll see.
Cue GCHQ's bullshit propaganda about how it is good that our overall debt minus cash reserves has gotten worse...
£25.6m... wouldn't be surprised if that it our transfer budget! We'll see.
Cue GCHQ's bullshit propaganda about how it is good that our overall debt minus cash reserves has gotten worse...
Regarding transfers, let's hope that it's because we will be looking to do deals whereby we make payments annually. We do love debt and all.
Everytime this thread gets bumped I know its going to be a depressing read but I read it anyway.
According to F365:
£258,909: Average amount paid per day by Manchester United on interest repayments and bond buy-backs over the last nine months, according to their latest financial results.
£258,909: Average amount paid per day by Manchester United on interest repayments and bond buy-backs over the last nine months, according to their latest financial results.
So best case is we continue to pay a whopping £70 odd million per year and are debt free in around 5 years. Although would the glazers then potentially leverage more debt on the club to get more cash and reduce tax payments etc?
Andy Green @andersred
Not a #MUFC fan? Amused by Glazers? UK taxpayer? MUFC opting profit £50.7m, corporation tax paid £3.3m. Effective rate 6.5%.
Not a #MUFC fan? Amused by Glazers? UK taxpayer? MUFC opting profit £50.7m, corporation tax paid £3.3m. Effective rate 6.5%.
The IPO can't come quickly enough.
I am afraid that is not the case. £70m is barely more than the interest we pay.
Our interest cost is 8%?
I think so :/ as said it's more efficient to buy back that debt currently than have cash in bank.
It should be added that andersred also said that march is always a seasonal low and that cash in the bank will now be circa £75m
Furthermore, the PIKs have been paid off almost certainly (99.9% likely) by other debts taken on by the Glazer's in the US.
Although these are by no means liabilities on Red Football (the club) the sum still cannot be ignored as it is finance taken on by our profit hungry owners and they will factor these costs into their investment, as any capitalist would. They want their return!
Although these are by no means liabilities on Red Football (the club) the sum still cannot be ignored as it is finance taken on by our profit hungry owners and they will factor these costs into their investment, as any capitalist would. They want their return!
That'll rise again once season ticket money is in. It's the seasonility of our accounts is all. Not to say the debt is a good thing.
Seems to be a bit of a cnut this guy.
Interesting and good news for the so-called war chest.
We just need to hang on for a few more years and eventually the Glazer's will sell up, hopefully for them at a profit. Although a lot had gone there way in terms of increasing TV deals, commercial revenues and success on the pitch despite low net transfer investment, there is no way they would have foreseen debt costs being as high in the long run as they expected to refinance but the credit crunch happened.
They are not looking to make annually profits from their investment, clearly. It's about the eventually sell-off they are looking to.
Exactly. Anyone have any figures on our interest coverage and leverage?
Andy Green @andersred
Really don't want to scaremonger on this £25m #MUFC cash balance. It is at a seasonal low in March. Will be back to c. £75m by end June
Really don't want to scaremonger on this £25m #MUFC cash balance. It is at a seasonal low in March. Will be back to c. £75m by end June
What a joke. They are fecking us over, and unfortunately I can't see anybody buying them out any time soon.
Too true. This next quarter is when they start getting the season ticket payments, TV money and PL money etc.
fecking leeches are bleeding the club dry.
Scum.
Scum.
A an average at around 8.5% that means the debt cost £37m per annum plus they pay down a part of that debt and by the looks of 2011 the total is around £100m.
I would think if they sold all their assets, including their NFL team, they could pay back most if not all the debt. The money they would have saved from doing this 5 years ago would have been more than enough to buy their NFL team back by now.
Disgrace what's happening to a football club that has been perfectly fine before the take over.
Yeah, I think the annual interest bill is down from £44m to £37m. Can someone clarify that?
I think that whilst I despise the fact that the Glazers have put us in debt, it should be noted that have managed to 'manage' this debt pretty well. Still doesn't change the fact that they're making us lose unnecessary funds.
I don't like to complain about the money lost servicing the debt because it doesn't do any good, but I do wonder why no one with the actual money to buy United didn't come in and do it. They could have pocketed the 500 or 700 or however many hundreds of millions of dollars the Glazers have taken from the club and given to the bank to buy themselves a club they couldn't afford.
I know the Glazers have increased commercial revenue by a substantial amount but surely the club was quite profitable before it was sold?
I know the Glazers have increased commercial revenue by a substantial amount but surely the club was quite profitable before it was sold?
GCHQ argued the debt served as a brilliant motovator to work harder and find new revene streams. Thing is Apple has no debt is making tens of billions per quarter so what's motivating them?
United can service the debt but at what cost to buying players and maintaining success?
United can service the debt but at what cost to buying players and maintaining success?
I know, I mean our records since the Glazers took over is shocking.......oh wait.
Thank god the Glazers came, otherwise our record would've been disastrous.
Take a Posche. Smash the windows, scratch and spray paint the body and shit all over the seats. That car will still drive the same. Doesnt mean it hasnt been vandalised.
Glazer is that vandal. I hate him for making my car smell of shit.
Glazer is that vandal. I hate him for making my car smell of shit.
It's not difficult to calculate. Our debt right now is £423M. Some of that debt is in dollars and some in pounds. Iirc the sterling debt has a marginally higher interest rate, but if we take the higher figure - 8.75% - as applying to the debt as a whole (which slightly overstates our total interest payments) then we pay interest of £423M x .0875 = £37M per year.
Net debt = debt - cash in bank
The reason that net debt has risen, while debt as such has fallen, is that we spent money over the last year. Some of that money was used to pay off some of the debt - hence the drop in debt. We spent a little less than £60M in the summer on players. Without seeing the accounts I'm not sure, but some money may have been spent on infrastructure - Carrington? - or the acquisition of commercial property abroad.
There's nothing in the least bad about these figures. The club's debt continues to fall, and our finances are in good shape.
Andersred's anti-Glazer prejudice makes him an untrustworthy source of information about the club.
Anders never used to mention net debt, but now that it has risen - for the reasons explained above - and can be used to make things look bad to the uninformed, it figures prominently in his commentary.
Another interesting piece of misleadingly comment is this "Don't need to be Einstein to see net debt at #MUFC has RISEN £26m in last 12 mths despite £71m spent on bond buybacks + interest" Why does the word 'despite' appear in that sentence? Net debt = debt - cash in bank. If bank money is spent paying debt then net debt shouldn't change at all. It's simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. And yet despite. Because it sounds bad
I presume he's using the word "despite" because net debt has risen, not remained the same.
Despite using cash reserves to pay down the total debt, net debt has risen. Seems like a fair enough comment.
Despite using cash reserves to pay down the total debt, net debt has risen. Seems like a fair enough comment.
It's not difficult to calculate. Our debt right now is £423M. Some of that debt is in dollars and some in pounds. Iirc the sterling debt has a marginally higher interest rate, but if we take the higher figure - 8.75% - as applying to the debt as a whole (which slightly overstates our total interest payments) then we pay interest of £423M x .0875 = £37M per year.
Net debt = debt + cash in bank
The reason that net debt has risen, while debt as such has fallen, is that we spent money over the last year. Some of that money was used to pay off some of the debt - hence the drop in debt. We spent a little less than £60M in the summer on players. Without seeing the accounts I'm not sure, but some money may have been spent on infrastructure - Carrington? - or the acquisition of commercial property abroad.
There's nothing in the least bad about these figures. The club's debt continues to fall, and our finances are in good shape.
Andersred's anti-Glazer prejudice makes him an untrustworthy source of information about the club.
Anders never used to mention net debt, but now that it has risen - for the reasons explained above - and can be used to make things look bad to the uninformed, it figures prominently in his commentary.
Another interesting piece of misleadingly comment is this "Don't need to be Einstein to see net debt at #MUFC has RISEN £26m in last 12 mths despite £71m spent on bond buybacks + interest" Why does the word 'despite' appear in that sentence? Net debt = debt + cash in bank. If bank money is spent paying debt then net debt shouldn't change at all. It's simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. And yet despite. Because it sounds bad
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't net debt is actually defined as short and long term debt - cash reserves?
What I thought as well.
I'm fairly certain that's the case, unless five years of business studies have taught me absolutely nothing
In our case the debt has decreased, but the cash reserves has decreased with a bigger sum, which means net debt has actually increased.I thought andersred sort of undermined that argument a bit when he pointed out that the cash reserves are mostly this low because of seasonal changes. If they triple again soon, it means that the net debt has decreased. I suppose you have to compare last year's Q3 statements to make a proper asessment though.
Anyways, Glazers out!
I guess the short term issue is whether we can spend a reasonable amount of cash on transfers/wages. There's no doubt at all that debt related costs have been restricting us but it's difficult to know by how much.
The fact that we are buying up land and building a medical centre suggests we aren't totally skint.
The fact that we are buying up land and building a medical centre suggests we aren't totally skint.
Sorry, that plus should obviously be a minus. I will now edit. The point of my post makes rather more sense with the minus. If you use £50M cash to pay off £50M debt, then cash goes down by £50M and debt drops by £50M and net debt remains the same
What a misguided argument.
Its clear that the club have achieved despite the new ownership and not because of it. Thank god we have the worlds best manager because without Fergie keeping the club at the top of the tree the whole house of cards may have come crashing down.
Perhaps those more financially literate than me can suggest where I'm going wrong but it appears apprent that any increase in revenue strems the Glazers have developed (if indeed the Glazers have done so rather than those already involced in the club) outweighs the enormous debts the club are saddled with.
- Status