ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
1) we did not have nearly £200m
2) a large part of the cash surplus was the ronaldo money
3) we shit over £70m on debt costs
4) we do not make loads of surplus money.
5) where do you think that big cash like has gone?

Cashflow situation going forward (ie next year - 2012/13) will be something like:

£110m net cash inflow from operating activity

Minus

£35m interest paid

That leaves £75m for the club to spend on transfers, improvements (training ground etc) and yes, if they wish, further bond buybacks which would further reduce interest payments and create more surplus cash going forward.

That's plenty of surplus cash for the club to use as it sees fit. And that's just for one financial year.
 
1) we did not have nearly £200m
2) a large part of the cash surplus was the ronaldo money
3) we shit over £70m on debt costs
4) we do not make loads of surplus money.
5) where do you think that big cash like has gone?

1) We did.
2) £80M
3) Don't know what that means
4) We do
5) We've paid off about £100M of our debt. We also spent quite a lot of money last summer. (There'll be plenty left this summer to buy anybody - possibly not Messi - we want)
 
Just reading back over that Magnier dispute now.

I'd say he's the only football manager in the world who could have gotten away with what he did. He was lucky not to be sacked.
 
It's extremely relevant though isn't it when we're looking at a comparison between what would have most likely happened under the PLC and what has actually happened under the Glazers ownership.

Removing the Irish was a massive boost to Fergie and the stability of the club. We have the Glazers to thank for that. Do you accept that?

Eh? You started off by saying the plc wouldn't have brought in as much money as the Glazers. After it was pointed out to you that such theory is totally abstract and so can't be used as legitimate argument, you've conveniently shifted topic to something else entirely!!

Let's be honest, you've only brought this topic up because you're early point was illogical... the original topic was based soley on the difference in incomes between the Glazers and the PLC... it was not about the overall difference between a PLC ownership and the Glazers and everything in between.

Regardless, to answer your brand new irrelevant question... I don't think the Glazers were the only way to solve the dispute between Fergie and the horse fellas.
 
Eh? You started off by saying the plc wouldn't have brought in as much money as the Glazers. After it was pointed out to you that such theory is totally abstract and so can't be used as legitimate argument, you've conveniently shifted topic to something else entirely!!

Let's be honest, you've only brought this topic up because you're early point was illogical... the original topic was based soley on the difference in incomes between the Glazers and the PLC... it was not about the overall difference between a PLC ownership and the Glazers and everything in between.

Regardless, to answer your brand new irrelevant question... I don't think the Glazers were the only way to solve the dispute between Fergie and the horse fellas.

I said we could make a sensible and reasonable assumption that the PLC board wouldn't have achieved the same level of commercial growth as the Glazers based on their past record and also based on what's happened at other clubs since 2005. Do you see any territory specific telecom deals at Liverpool for instance?

If that's illogical then your following statement:
''What we all do know for pretty much fact is that, under the PLC, we would not be wasting millions of pounds paying off borrowings/interest/etc''
is also illogical because according to you we can't possibly know what the PLC would have done over the last seven years.

The relationship between Fergie and the Irish had completely broken down. They needed to be bought out ASAP and I don't remember anyone else prepared to take the plunge apart from the Glazers.
 
Just reading back over that Magnier dispute now.

I'd say he's the only football manager in the world who could have gotten away with what he did. He was lucky not to be sacked.

And I say again, a large number of people are surprised that Fergie is happy with the Glazers ownership. God knows why. They got rid of the biggest threat to his future as manager and essentially put him back in charge of the whole show. Short memories, etc.
 
I said we could make a sensible and reasonable assumption that the PLC board wouldn't have achieved the same level of commercial growth as the Glazers based on their past record and also based on what's happened at other clubs since 2005. Do you see any territory specific telecom deals at Liverpool for instance?

Again, totally abstract and completely arbitary. You go on as if the PLC were a pack of wild monkeys who were unable to run a football club even remotely succesfully.

If I had to guess, I would say that income would probably not be as high under the PLC as the Glazers (though not by a ridiculous margain as you probably think, and they certainly would have exploited and expanded our revenue streams), largely because they wouldn't have a huge pile of debt hanging over them to motivate them into doing so. But that's just my guess work and so, once again, is totaly abstract.

If that's illogical then your following statement: is also illogical because according to you we can't possibly know what the PLC would have done over the last seven years.

Horrible argument. You're comparing apples with a fork-lift truck.

If you honestly and seriously think that there is just as much chance of running into hundreds of millions of pounds of debt under the PLC, as there is a PLC obtaining second-tier sponsorships/exploting new revenue streams, then you are seriously deluded.

The relationship between Fergie and the Irish had completely broken down. They needed to be bought out ASAP and I don't remember anyone else prepared to take the plunge apart from the Glazers.

So, in your mystical world where Uncle Malc came to rescue us from impending doom... Say if the Glazers hadn't put in a bid at that point, what would exactly do you think would have happened?
 
Could someone please summarise whatever new thing happened to get this thread going?
 
you have a pm

Thanks. Might as well answer the question here as it's perfectly relevant to the thread:

How much room do we have to increase our wage bill right now or is it at the ceiling already?

We definitely aren't at a ceiling in the sense that the wage bill will continue to increase annually alongside increases in revenue. For example, there has been underlying wage growth of c. 10% this year but with bonuses down due to not reaching the final of the Champions League and not winning the Premier League, total staff costs will only have increased slightly (2%-3%) on last year.

There certainly isn't room for a dramatic increase in wages but we should definitely be able to cope with underlying salary growth of something like 7.5%-10% per year. I think what a lot of people don't appreciate is that the current first team squad all have annual contractual increases written into their salary settlements and on average they probably aren't far short of that 7.5% figure. In which case we largely need to offload members of the squad in order to add new players although numbers wise that's a natural process anyway and necessary due to the squad limits imposed by the Premier League and Uefa.

Having said that I'd imagine there would have been just about enough room to have added someone like Sneijder last Summer on top of our other transfer business, albeit for a much more sensible amount than he was demanding. That's just specualtion though on my part but the rest is pretty fair I think based on what we've seen over the last seven years and based on the targets we know the club have set themselves (50% wages to turnover limit being the key one).
 
Again, totally abstract and completely arbitary. You go on as if the PLC were a pack of wild monkeys who were unable to run a football club even remotely succesfully.

If I had to guess, I would say that income would probably not be as high under the PLC as the Glazers (though not by a ridiculous margain as you probably think, and they certainly would have exploited and expanded our revenue streams), largely because they wouldn't have a huge pile of debt hanging over them to motivate them into doing so. But that's just my guess work and so, once again, is totaly abstract.

Probably not be as high under the PLC? Without wishing to sound too pompous if you'd followed the club's finances as closely as I have over the years then there wouldn't be any ''probably'' about it.

"As a plc, we thought we were one of the most commercially astute clubs and were leading the world of football, but the world has moved on in the last five to seven years. The owners have been true to their word by investing for the long term. We have invested in people - 40 in London on the commercial side. We are acting much more like a FTSE 100 company."

That was from Gill a few weeks ago. No doubt you'll say, well of course he'd say that, but it happens to be true. I'm not suggesting for a minute that the PLC wouldn't have eventually expanded the commercial operation but it's absolutely certain that they would have been significantly behind the progress that the club has made under the Glazers ownership. £25m-£30m behind is my conservative estimate based on the £120m that will be generated in the current financial year. I appreciate you don't want to accept that because it throws a massive spanner in the works for people like you who want to end any debate at ''Glazers are evil, look at the debt, look at the interest, bastards, etc''. Like pretty much everything in life, there's rather a lot more to it than that.

It was only two years ago that a club like Arsenal had just two sales people in their sponsorship department. You're underestimating how far English clubs were behind some of their continental rivals and in particular the NFL franchises in the US. Now let's see. Is there a link over recent times between the commercial prowess of the NFL franchises and Manchester United? Yes, there is! It's the Glazer family!

Horrible argument. You're comparing apples with a fork-lift truck.

If you honestly and seriously think that there is just as much chance of running into hundreds of millions of pounds of debt under the PLC, as there is a PLC obtaining second-tier sponsorships/exploting new revenue streams, then you are seriously deluded.

Funny you should say that considering that the likes of Andersred were urging the PLC board to take on about £200m of debt in order to make the club less vulnerable to a Glazer style LBO.

So, in your mystical world where Uncle Malc came to rescue us from impending doom... Say if the Glazers hadn't put in a bid at that point, what would exactly do you think would have happened?

Biggest shareholder in open conflict with the club's manager, who a reasonably large section of the club's support were suggesting should retire in the 2005 to 2006 period. I'd suggest it's entirely possible that Fergie could have left the club around that time had the Glazers not bought the club.
 
Again, totally abstract and completely arbitary. You go on as if the PLC were a pack of wild monkeys who were unable to run a football club even remotely succesfully.

If I had to guess, I would say that income would probably not be as high under the PLC as the Glazers (though not by a ridiculous margain as you probably think, and they certainly would have exploited and expanded our revenue streams), largely because they wouldn't have a huge pile of debt hanging over them to motivate them into doing so. But that's just my guess work and so, once again, is totaly abstract.

The PLC had zero growth in Commercial over the 6 years prior to the takeover. They would have got the automatic Nike step ups and would have had to negotiate a new shirt deal (albeit a couple of years after the Glazers were able to), so Commercial would definitely have risen. The question is whether their two person office in Manchester would have been able to do what happened under the Glazers. Remember that it would have required a considerable investment in consulting to make the move - would the PLC have made that investment? Of course we'll never know.

A point on the abstract nature of the arguments. Projecting what might have happened under the PLC will always require assumptions. But when it is suggested that we are worse off under the Glazers, a similar set of assumptions has to be made - worse implies a comparison and the baseline for any comparison is going to be some view of what results would be like under the PLC. I'm not suggesting that we aren't worse off, just that you can't make the statement without a basis for comparison - which requires taking a view on what the PLC would have done.


So, in your mystical world where Uncle Malc came to rescue us from impending doom... Say if the Glazers hadn't put in a bid at that point, what would exactly do you think would have happened?

My suspicion is that SAF would have left, one way or another. There was significant fan grumbling and results had not been that great (3rd in the PL for three years out of 4). That, with the pressure from M&M, might well have spelled the end for SAF. Of course, we'll never know.
 
Probably not be as high under the PLC? Without wishing to sound too pompous if you'd followed the club's finances as closely as I have over the years then there wouldn't be any ''probably'' about it.

"As a plc, we thought we were one of the most commercially astute clubs and were leading the world of football, but the world has moved on in the last five to seven years. The owners have been true to their word by investing for the long term. We have invested in people - 40 in London on the commercial side. We are acting much more like a FTSE 100 company."

That was from Gill a few weeks ago. No doubt you'll say, well of course he'd say that, but it happens to be true. I'm not suggesting for a minute that the PLC wouldn't have eventually expanded the commercial operation but it's absolutely certain that they would have been significantly behind the progress that the club has made under the Glazers ownership. £25m-£30m behind is my conservative estimate based on the £120m that will be generated in the current financial year. I appreciate you don't want to accept that because it throws a massive spanner in the works for people like you who want to end any debate at ''Glazers are evil, look at the debt, look at the interest, bastards, etc''. Like pretty much everything in life, there's rather a lot more to it than that.

It was only two years ago that a club like Arsenal had just two sales people in their sponsorship department. You're underestimating how far English clubs were behind some of their continental rivals and in particular the NFL franchises in the US. Now let's see. Is there a link over recent times between the commercial prowess of the NFL franchises and Manchester United? Yes, there is! It's the Glazer family!

Didn't we spend more then that this year on servicing our debts??

That Gill quote is extremely poorly worded. He starts talking about how "As a plc, we thought we were one of the most commercially astute clubs and were leading the world of football" before then suddenly talking about something they have utterly no control over (World has moved on in last 5 to 7 years), and then doesn't make reference to whether or not we actually were one of the most commercially astute clubs in world football (as the use of "we thought" would suggest) ... is that honestly the full quote??

I digress... he's right, world football has moved on, and I don't think it's alien to suggest the PLC would have moved with it.


Funny you should say that considering that the likes of Andersred were urging the PLC board to take on about £200m of debt in order to make the club less vulnerable to a Glazer style LBO.

His suggestion, not mine. (still less then half of what the current debt is)Again moving away from the topic of PLC ownership revenue vs. Glazer ownership revenue.


Biggest shareholder in open conflict with the club's manager, who a reasonably large section of the club's support were suggesting should retire in the 2005 to 2006 period. I'd suggest it's entirely possible that Fergie could have left the club around that time had the Glazers not bought the club.

That is entirely plausible... it's also possibly that another buyer could have swooped in a few months after the Glazers that wanted only there shares and not total control of the club. Who knows, maybe Fergie and the Irish Mafia would have solved their differences over a Whisky and become best friends.

Obviously the last one is tounge in cheek, the point is that whilst the Glazers appeared at the right time, it's not cut and dry that they were the only possible solution to the problem (though they were the most immediate).

The PLC had zero growth in Commercial over the 6 years prior to the takeover. They would have got the automatic Nike step ups and would have had to negotiate a new shirt deal (albeit a couple of years after the Glazers were able to), so Commercial would definitely have risen. The question is whether their two person office in Manchester would have been able to do what happened under the Glazers. Remember that it would have required a considerable investment in consulting to make the move - would the PLC have made that investment? Of course we'll never know.

A point on the abstract nature of the arguments. Projecting what might have happened under the PLC will always require assumptions. But when it is suggested that we are worse off under the Glazers, a similar set of assumptions has to be made - worse implies a comparison and the baseline for any comparison is going to be some view of what results would be like under the PLC. I'm not suggesting that we aren't worse off, just that you can't make the statement without a basis for comparison - which requires taking a view on what the PLC would have done.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with speculating what might have happened under the PLC, I just take issue with passing off any speculation as being anything more then speculation. In GCHQ first post, he called it a "sensible assumption" before using definitive terms such as "would have" in order to prove a point in an argument (which was someone taking issue with him suggesting that "He knows the strength of the playing staff would be no higher if we were still under a PLC".

Nothing wrong with making assumptions/estimates based on relevant information... I don't think you can really pass it off definitive though.
 
I think this is a pretty fair summary from andersred.

Since United had its bond issue in early 2010, the club has reported increased year-on-year revenues every single quarter. This revenue growth has more than offset rampant wage inflation. Meanwhile of course the club has clocked up Champions League finals and Championships. This season the performance on and off the pitch has stalled somewhat. The numbers for the next quarter (which runs from April to June) will be worse again.

For the Glazers, the clever trick of football success on a limited budget with high and seemingly ever increasing profits may well coming to an end. Will they spend at the expense of those profits? If they don't, will the success and hence the profits still be achievable?

It's getting harder to square the circle.

Revenue and EBITDA - both down a little
The poor performances in Europe and the domestic cups can be seen in these quarterly figures. Matchday income fell 13% compared to last year as the club played seven home games compared to last season's nine. Of the seven played, two were in the Europa League in front of smaller gates paying lower prices.

Media income fell 19% compared to 2010/11 despite the higher share of the UEFA CL "market pool" this year. The explanation is simply the exit from the Champions League. The impact will be far more severe in the current quarter of course when there will be no CL media income at all compared to the previous year's run to the final.

Commercial income was again the star, with the new contracts signed since last year; DHL, Epson etc and a step up in Nike income and income recognition boosting revenue by 15% compared to 2010/11.

In total, revenue fell 5.8% year-on-year in the quarter and revenue growth for the nine month period was 6.1% (down from 11.9% in the first half of the year). United may be a commercial powerhouse, but old fashioned football success and failure can still have a major impact.



Staff costs only rose 1% compared to last year, reflecting lower bonuses (presumably linked to qualification for the CL knock-out stages). The wage bill for the year to date is still 10% higher than last season, although the fourth quarter will not see any of last season's bonuses.

The major fall in operating expenses (down 16.3%) is largely due to the lack of domestic home cup games. The club accounts for the gate sharing for such games as an expense and this season there were no such games.

With revenue down 5.8% and costs only down 4.7%, EBITDA fell 8.4% and for the first nine months of the year was only up 3.3%. There will be a larger fall in Q4.

These falls shouldn't be overplayed, with United still making cash profits before transfers of £85m in the first nine months of the season. That is more than any other English club has made over any twelve month period. The worry for the Glazers, is that the profits are stagnating this year at a time when investment is needed to keep up with City and others, and none of that is not good if you hope to float your club on a stock exchange.

Below EBITDA - not much of note
The club made a small £2m profit on player sales during the quarter (Gibson and Ravel Morrison). The amortisation charge (how transfers are "charged" in accounts) was basically unchanged at £9.7m for the three months. To put this in context, the c. £40m annual amortisation charge compares to a figure of £83.8m at free spending City in the last reported season (2010/11).

There was a £4.3m "exceptional" charge during the quarter which the club says related to "professional advisory fees" and the need to top up the Football League pension fund. I suspect the "fees" element accounts for the great majority of this £4.3m and relates to advice on the mooted IPO.

The interest charge is spread evenly over each quarter even though bond interest is paid twice a year in February and August. The club recorded a "gain" of £6.5m as the pound rose against the US dollar, reducing the sterling value of the club's dollar denominated bonds.

Taking all these charges and credits into account, pre-tax profit for the quarter was £2.8m, down from £7.4m last year.

Cash - a lot less money than there used to be
As I always say in these pieces, I do not consider the profit and loss account described above to be particularly informative*when looking at football clubs*below the EBITDA figure. The cash flow statement is often more informative. Cash flow includes real spending on transfers which are after all cash transactions (the amortisation charge is a significant simplification by contrast). For United, lumpy bond interest payments and bond buybacks are also a fact of life that constrain what the club can spend.

Despite their advantages, cash figures come with a warning however. Football is a seasonal business with season ticket revenue collected in the summer, boosting cash balances. The end of the season also see large TV payments from the Premier League and UEFA. Furthermore, prepayments on sponsorship contracts can lead to large positive and negative swings in cash and at United there are large interest payments in the first and third quarters of each financial year. It should be remembered that United are the only football club to publish quarterly figures (a requirement of the bond issue), all other club accounts are struck at the seasonal high point for cash in the summer.

You can see the volatility in United's quarterly cash flow in the chart below which shows how cash builds up in the fourth quarter and runs down through the rest of the year:



Manchester United is not like other football clubs of course, because it has £420m of outstanding bonds. Since the bonds were issued in February 2010, the club has periodically gone into the market and repurchased them (usually paying more than the issue price). These buybacks make financial sense (the bonds cost c. 8.5% whilst cash at the bank barely yields 1.5%) but risk depriving the club of cash needed for investment. It is a choice made by the Glazers and their management team.*

There were no buybacks in the third quarter of the 2011/12 financial year, but since 2010, the club has spend over £92m on them. You can see their impact on the "gross" debt which has fallen by the amount bought back (plus currency fluctuations) and on the cash balance below:



Since June 2011, the club has spent £71m on buybacks and interest payments which together with the other seasonal cash outflows described above has pushed the club's cash reserves down to a low of £25.6m at the 31st March.



As described above, there will be the usual rebound in the club's cash position in the current quarter, although the precise amount is very hard to estimate. Judging from previous years and taking into account the lower profits caused by the CL exit, I estimate the cash position will improve to c. £75m by the end of June.

Will they spend?
The big question supporters want answering is not about buybacks or EBITDA, it's about spending to keep the club competitive after a season when the squad was found wanting at home, but especially in Europe. I can't give an answer to whether the club will spend, only the Glazers can, but the very issue raises big questions over their strategy for running the club.

Since the takeover, Fergie's genius has allowed United to consistently win trophies (with a couple of rebuilding dips on the way)*whilst keeping the club's wage spending to turnover ratio very low (45.7% so far in 2011/12 for example) and*whilst spending very little on transfers (average net spend of *£16m per season). This combination of controlled wages and low transfer spending is vital for two reasons. Firstly it theoretically boosts the value of the club (if you look at valuation based on EBITDA). Secondly, it frees up profits to service the enormous debts taken on to buy the club. Since the takeover, 18% of revenue has gone on interest. This has been "affordable" because the club hasn't ever really had to "pay up" in either wages or transfers.

Since 2005 the challenge of achieving this financial balancing act has been aided by a number of factors. In the years immediately after the takeover, the 40%+ ticket price rises were crucial. The Ronaldo windfall in 2009 and, to be fair, the rapid growth in Commercial income in the last two years have also been significant pluses. Now however, the trick is becoming more difficult to pull off.

Bond buybacks and interest have eroded the club's previously huge cash balance. There has been spending (£47m last summer) but not on crucial areas of the pitch (United haven't bought a single midfielder since Ronaldo departed). Major transfers cost money twice over, both driving up wages and demanding immediate cash. Wage inflation and transfer inflation across football remain endemic and the advent of FFP appears not to be having any impact on this.

If United are to strengthen, money will be needed and that means no more bond buybacks. It probably means lower profitability, in at least the short-term, with negative implications for the valuation achievable at any IPO. The alternative may well be under investment and the club going further backwards relative to its main competitors.

The Glazers know their structure hampers the club. There was heavy briefing of journalists in the run up to the aborted IPO process last year, suggesting debt would be paid down from the IPO proceeds to make United more "competitive". If the IPO can't be delivered however, the club is stuck with its debt and the owners will have to accept lower profits or further relative decline. Can they square this circle?
 
Give me a break. If the Glazers had brought instability, a lack of funds in the transfer market or had mishandled the debt that they had to incur to buy the club, I would be straight on the Glazers out bandwagon. The fact is they have not.

We are still competitive, we have not changed our transfer policies, they have left Fergie to manage the club. Our revenue streams have seen unprecedented growth. The fact remains they own this club. All this Glazers out bullshit is exactly that.....bullshit.

The fact remains that if it were not for the banking crisis and the inability to refinance their debt, we would be a hell of a lot closer to being debt free, which we still will be. When this happens and you think the club is being mismanaged, then blow your trumpet. Right now, you are wasting your breath with your house of cards analogy because its just bullshit.

I disagree - they have brought massive debt to the club, which it didn't have before, and I don't see that the club is any better for it. Whether they "mishandle" the debt or not, the club as a business is spending massive sums on servicing the same. That's a fact.

They own the club indeed - in the same way that I own my house with a massive mortgage on it. The point you raise regarding the "banking crisis" and turbulent markets highlight the point - the world of high finance is highly unpredictable and volatile, otherwise we'd all be borrowing money and playing the markets, so I don't think its unreasonable to worry that the club may suffer long term.
 
Pexbo its not a duality. You cant say with any certainty what wouls have happened under the PLC and compare it to what is happening under the Glazers.
 
Debt is a word of propaganda. Debt is normal in business, thousands of successful businesses operate in debt making healthy profits just like us.

Think of it as a mortgage. Would you rather your favourite pub was owned by a crap landlord with no mortgage who took out a wage but didn't make enough money to hire any quality barmaids and chefs.

Or would you rather having a landlord who had a big mortgage that he could pay comfortably and did so well that he could afford to higher a good standard of staff and make the place pleasant to come to as well?

And what if your landlord faces some unforseen circumstances - i.e. the price of beer skyrockets, and he can't pay his massive mortgage? Probably wish then he'd cut his cloth to suit a little more when the pub get repossesed.

There's a reason why companies with huge debts are a less attractive proposition for investors - nobody knows what will happen in the future. It only takes a bank to hit hard times and call a loan in, or general uncertainty in the market to affect refinancing and your fecked.

The fact is a lot of huge businesses don't keep cash reserves and if things go tits up they're weeks away from insolvency - look at how many banks would have gone under if not for the government stepping in.

Its true that plenty of companies function with debt - the issue here is that United is not like other "businesses". The strength of the product it sells must remain high or revenue's dwindle - for example, being knocked out of teh CL this year. You need to speculate to accumulate in my view. Hopefully we'll see that this summer.
 
£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.

With a statistic like that I really wonder how the Glazers pass as 'fit and proper' to run our football club.
 
It's a reasonable and sensible assumption based on the fact that the PLC would have stuck to their 50% wages to turnover target and wouldn't have been as aggressive and skillful in generating commercial revenue growth as the Glazers have been.

Let's look at the 2010/11 full year financial results. Turnover under the Glazers was £331m. Wages were £153m. With the PLC generating £25m-£30m less in commercial revenue it doesn't leave any room for the wage bill to grow from £153m to stay within the 50% wages to turnover target, does it?

With the PLC still in place, instead of moaning about debt and interest payments, United fans would have been like today's Arsenal fans complaining about why they're so far behind the the top clubs in terms of commercial revenue and a lack of second tier sponsors.

There's several huge assumptions being made by yourself.

Who is to say that this cap of 50% wages-turnover would have continued to be applied under the PLC in the first place? I'd say it is a fair assumption that as transfer fee's as a % of net profits are far, far lower now than they were 7-8 or 12 years ago, whereas the wage costs are far higher as a % (for instance I'd estimate Rio Ferdinand was probably paid over his 5 year contract period maybe 30% of his transfer fee vs the likes of Aguero where it's at least his transfer fee again), that our investment focus would have shifted to the latter.

I would say that it isn't a contentious point to assume that a PLC model would shift investment from big transfer fees (for an example I estimate between 01/02 and 04/05 we invested over 2/3rds of our net profit on transfer expenditure) to staff costs. This would allow us to comfortably run at, say a 60% wage figure. Even if you took into account a £25m drop in Commercial income at 60% that would still leave a wage bill allowance more than we are currently spending.

There is also another point that you don't recognise: there will be a point where we can't possibly milk any more money from Commercial dealings (apart from up-steps), just as occurred with Match Day revenue and TV Revenue. So you are saying that the Glazers are increasing Commercial revenue faster than a PLC model, but the latter would inevitably have caught up and the end figure will be the same. Therefore the only difference between the two in your opinion is the short-term differential between the two, which I'd say at best will probably be 5 years at £25m. This may be obvious but from reading your posts I nearly fell into the trap of thinking they would be earning us £25m more perpetually, which obviously wouldn't be the case.

Also I remember you saying that the burden of debt forced us to be more competitive... Surely the inertia of knowing we could improve our income Commercial income if something bad did happen is not a bad thing (ie a bad managerial appointment after Fergie retires).

/Edit: Obviously that's working on the fact that the PLC would be quite incompetent. I personally think they were at the forefront of Media and Match Day revenue at the time and the natural focus once these were exhausted would have been Commercial. It was the only place to go for increased revenue. The example of Arsenal is a poor one, as they still had the stadium and match day revenue to significantly improve, so Commercial dealings would have been secondary to their major focus. A better comparative example would be Barcelona or Real Madrid, who had maxed out other avenues, like ourselves.
 
Supposedly but the delay is a bit worrying.

The delay is as a result of some very poor performing IPO's in the Asia region in the last year and a half.

They want maximum value for their listing so they are waiting for the market to rebound or at least show signs of life again. Probably not going to happen anytime soon unfortunately with Europe on the verge of folding.
 
To be fair, if people are stumbling all over themselves to buy Facebook stock, we should be able to get a decent price. At least we have a demonstrable product.
 
The delay is as a result of some very poor performing IPO's in the Asia region in the last year and a half.

They want maximum value for their listing so they are waiting for the market to rebound or at least show signs of life again. Probably not going to happen anytime soon unfortunately with Europe on the verge of folding.

Precisely.

Furthermore, this years financial results with the poor CL and cup runs will have made a dent that doesn't help, especially when the Leeches are wanting to get an extremely inflated price.
 
Precisely.

Furthermore, this years financial results with the poor CL and cup runs will have made a dent that doesn't help, especially when the Leeches are wanting to get an extremely inflated price.

I'm sure, like all of us, they'll want the best possible price for what they sell. It's up to buyers to decide what they're willing to pay.
 
Indirectly related to United but here's an interesting article on GM's advertising from AdAge from August 2011:

What's Behind GM's $3 Billion Review: Cost Cutting

From Detroit to Dubai, industry-tongues are wagging over General Motors' $3 billion-plus global media agency review. But what sparked it?

Marketing experts point to a desire by the car maker to trim fat out of its marketing budget and to make sure media dollars are being allocated in step with changing consumer consumption habits. More evidence that GM is looking to cut costs: In the U.S. it is weighing a plan to cut spending to return it to pre-bankruptcy levels.

Already in the first quarter of 2011, the automaker's ad spending was down 8.3% even though it returned to the Super Bowl -- where 30 seconds of commercial time cost as much as $3 million -- after sitting the game out amid its bankruptcy. GM spent $3.37 billion on global media last year, according to Ad Age's Data Center. If the first-quarter cuts in marketing hold up all year, that could mean up to $279 million in savings.

The company spent $4.26 billion overall on worldwide advertising in 2010, according to the company's annual report. GM spent about 67% of its 2010 worldwide advertising and sales promotion money in North America, according to its 10-K.

As reported first by Ad Age, GM has thrown its $3 billion-plus global media-buying and planning duties into review. It noted in a statement that it's seeking proposals from global media shops "on ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its global operations for purchased media." The company works with more than 20 media-buying companies globally.

Following our report, GM spokesman Tom Henderson provided further detail, explaining that GM's global marketing team -- including global Chief Marketing Officer Joel Ewanick -- will lead the review, but that the automaker will have help from Chicago-based search consultancy R3:JLB in managing the process. The search comes as Mr. Ewanick has promoted his No. 2, Chris Perry, formerly the U.S. marketing chief, to a global role.

The request for proposal is being issued to several global media companies and will include all consumer-facing planning and buying operations in support of all media channels including print, digital, broadcast, search and social media, the car maker said. But finding a single, or even a couple, of agencies that could handle all of the above might be next to impossible due to conflict issues.

Media shops at WPP will have issues due to its exclusive relationship with Ford, while Omnicom Group agencies handle media duties for several car makers including Nissan, Mistubishi and Porsche. The majority of GM's Latin American business is run by Interpublic Group of Cos.' Universal McCann, and while the agency is expected to try to defend it in that region, it is limited; in in the U.S. the agency has a conflict courtesy its Chrysler account. Other incumbent shops that have GM media duties are Publicis Groupe's Starcom, which has handled media-buying and -planning duties in the U.S. since 2005, and Aegis Group's Carat, which handles Europe. India and China are not included in the review.

Mr. Henderson declined to answer whether the company is under a cost-cutting mandate, but said the review is "all about strengthening GM's global marketing capabilities by becoming more effective and efficient in how we buy media on a global basis. We won't know what might be saved in terms of costs until we've reviewed each proposal. In the end though, we may validate our current process and partners."

That the company is already prepared to potentially stay with its current marketing partners is something that has the industry further speculating that the entire exercise could be a cost-cutting move.

"Cost cutting is one of the primary motivations," said automotive marketing expert Ralph Paglia, VP at Washington- and Miami-based Tier10 Marketing, which specializes in the auto industry. "Cost cutting, methodologies, strategies, tactics. It's prudent on Ewanick's part. I can see him doing this to review those methodologies." He added that media-consumption patterns have "changed dramatically in the last five years and I bet they have a big part in this review process. You may see something where the media buying is somewhat segmented across different channels, where digital media is handled by a different agency than broadcast media."

Peter DeLorenzo, a former automotive marketing executive who now runs Autoextremist.com, said he also believes this was about costs. "It has everything to do with gaining cost efficiencies and creating some changes in the scenery of the media component," he said. "Any efficiencies that might be gained by making a switch would be welcome. He is probably looking for more creativity out of the media shops. It's not about the work. Joel is a pretty quick and a creative thinker, and he wants to see that from his media agencies."

"This is the practice that GM has to take going forward, to at least be responsible on how they spend their money," Jesse Toprak, VP-industry trends and insights at TrueCar.com. "They've had the same strategy in other aspects, from production to their personnel, in creating efficiencies," Mr. Toprak said, noting that GM was able to produce more cars this year while spending $10 billion less than three years ago, pre-bankruptcy.

The media review follows a period of dramatic shifts in GM advertising since the company emerged from bankruptcy in 2009. Last year, GM moved Chevrolet to Omnicom's Goodby, Silverstein & Partners and awarded Cadillac to Publicis' Fallon, both without a review. The Goodby win put Omnicom squarely onto GM's roster, which had long been filled with agencies owned by Publicis and Interpublic.

GM made a point to note that creative agencies are not included in the current review, despite the brouhaha that has taken place in the last week when Mr. Ewanick graded the work being done by Goodby as a C or B.

Former Chrysler CMO turned automotive consultant Julie Roehm said further whirlwind moves in media buying that are similar to the changes Mr. Ewanick made 15 months ago with creative agencies would be counter-productive. Ms. Roehm said she believes Mr. Ewanick is not happy with Goodby's work, but that He "brought that agency in without a review. To come back 18 months later and kick them out would be embarrassing."

"In the auto industry, you have three-, four-year launch cycles; you have to give agencies a chance," she said. "He's creating turmoil and change; it's just chaos. These agencies have to work together. We don't live in a bucketed world. I don't think it's about cost cutting. It's smoke and mirrors to hide bigger problems."
 
Manchester United 'ditches Asia for US IPO'

After first eyeing a £1.7bn Hong Kong IPO, it had planned to float up to 30pc of the club in Singapore in the second half of last year. With a 30pc stake of the club valued at around £600m, the overall value of United would be in the region of £2bn.

As a result of its change of listing location, Manchester United is expected to make changes to its bookrunning syndicate. Credit Suisse, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley were originally mandated as bookrunners for the Singapore listing, but sources told Reuters said that this line-up could change. Jefferies has also joined the deal, the sources said.

The banks working on the deal and a Manchester United spokesperson did not respond to Reuters' requests for comment.

One of the sources said Manchester United had always planned to position itself as a global media business rather than a sports franchise, suggesting that a US listing would make more sense.

The club's American owners, the Glazer family, are well known in the US as owners of American football team the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, as well as First Allied Corp, which owns and leases shopping centres. Conversely, they are extremely unpopular in the UK, which could have made a London listing difficult.

US investors are also familiar with the dual-class share structure that was under discussion for Manchester United's Singapore listing, having seen it used by household names such as Google and Facebook.

The Glazers are understood to have wanted to sell Class B shares with limited or no voting rights to maintain a level of control of 95pc to 100pc.

That structure was said to be one reason why they opted for Singapore in the first place, as, unlike Hong Kong, the exchange was happy to agree to the format, and for the club's Class A shares to be quoted but not traded.

However, the issuer is understood to have become frustrated with long delays in approval from the Singapore Exchange, even after it had indicated it would have no problems with a dual-class share issue.

A US listing might earn the company a better valuation as a media business, since it has contracts for broadcasting rights as well as its own television channel.

However, it is unlikely to achieve the original goal of putting shares in the hands of a wide base of United fans. A source told Reuters that the original aim of the Singapore listing was to create "a pan-regional platform for retail investors".

Singapore had seemed the ideal location, as it provided a way to reach retail investors in one of its biggest fan bases, Indonesia. When the Singapore listing was still under consideration, the importance of Asia to the company, with much of its growth coming from Asian merchandise sales, had been heavily emphasised during marketing to investors.

The club claims to have 659m supporters worldwide, of which 325m are in Asia Pacific and 55m in Indonesia. It counts just 34m fans in North America, where soccer has yet to build a significant supporter base.

Last year the club posted a record full-year operating profit of £110.9m to June 30.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...anchester-United-ditches-Asia-for-US-IPO.html
 
Why would it? They are selling Class B stocks, which have basically no power in terms of influencing the direction of the club. The Glazers would still hold all the Class A stock, which is the portion that would allow any influence on the club.
 
This is why I asked.

Well, it might because its reason for existing it to own Manchester United. So if some MUFC is for sale, even without voting rights, it might want to buy what it can. What is it invested in now? FTSE? Bunds? Gold ETFs? Might as well invest in this as anything else.
 
You've got to wonder whether the class B shares valuation is even realistic in this current economic climate. Especially now that they are considering listing on the US market instead of an Asian one.

Anyways, its a very good method of raising financing and if they can somehow get the price they are looking for then I take my hat off to the Glazers because they have played it brilliantly. Not only will they manage to wipe out all/most of the debt (assuming they DO use the capital raised for this purpose) but they keep full control of the club.
 
The other big news from yesterday that will impact club finances is the new PL TV deal that starts the season after next. There is a 70% increase on the previous deal. I would think this will add around 20-30m a season to our current take from the PL. I think it is currently 50m, and I would expect it to be maybe 70-80m once the new deal kicks in.
 
The other big news from yesterday that will impact club finances is the new PL TV deal that starts the season after next. There is a 70% increase on the previous deal. I would think this will add around 20-30m a season to our current take from the PL. I think it is currently 50m, and I would expect it to be maybe 70-80m once the new deal kicks in.

When players see increasing TV contracts they just demand even higher wages though.
 
You've got to wonder whether the class B shares valuation is even realistic in this current economic climate. Especially now that they are considering listing on the US market instead of an Asian one.

Anyways, its a very good method of raising financing and if they can somehow get the price they are looking for then I take my hat off to the Glazers because they have played it brilliantly. Not only will they manage to wipe out all/most of the debt (assuming they DO use the capital raised for this purpose) but they keep full control of the club.

Terrible time to go for an IPO anywhere in the world. Maybe next year things will turn around. Maybe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.