Don't you give the Glazer's ANY credit for ANYTHING?
I'm sorry you live in such a miserable doom and fecking gloom world...it must be awful for you.
They spend £50m and still you moan. I give up!ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Don't you give the Glazer's ANY credit for ANYTHING?
I'm sorry you live in such a miserable doom and fecking gloom world...it must be awful for you.
They spend £50m and still you moan. I give up!Don't you give the Glazer's ANY credit for ANYTHING?
I'm sorry you live in such a miserable doom and fecking gloom world...it must be awful for you.
so because they finally put their hands in their pockets we're supposed to do cartwheels. Sorry mate, but I'll save the cartwheel for when they have fecked off and stopped taking United's money offshore.
Of course they have done some good things, just not a lot for United's ultimate benefit. I didn't say they were incompetent.
Sorry to disappoint but I don't live in a "fecking gloom world" thanks to SAF and that's apart from the fact that United not longer occupy 90% of my being.
Maybe I'm just getting on a bit and have been supporting United since before Albert Johanssen and Alan Peacock were struggling to get you lot out of Div II for the first time in living memory - and maybe I just don't like the way money is changing the game.
.....but I still wish they'd feck off and somebody with the club's welfare at heart would take over.
Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned but money, to me has always been (at least partly) a means to an end = trophies. To them, trophies (or at least CL qualification) are a means to an end = $$$$$$$$$$$
Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned but money, to me has always been (at least partly) a means to an end = trophies. To them, trophies (or at least CL qualification) are a means to an end = $$$$$$$$$$$
Jeesus...there's a name from the past! I only just remember seeing him flying down the wing for us...he came to a really sad end too
I agree the game is not what it was but then little is...what I don't understand with the anti Glazer stuff is what do people think will replace it? Nobody is going to run it on their own money so the next owners will still be using borrowed money in just the same way and it's not as if previous owners didn't use the club for their own game...like it or not, football has always and will always be a business...it's just that the business is bigger/global and the figures larger.
So the club has provided everything?
And then you turn your attention to Ferguson and basically call him a liar....can't think of another way of putting it as, despite him saying the Glazers have done nothing other than support him, (which is reflected in the money spent on players), you say we don't know what he thinks. Why not just believe him? After what he's done for your club I'd think you owe him that much.
Yeah, you're definitely on a WUM here so not going to bother replying to any of that.
Jeesus...there's a name from the past! I only just remember seeing him flying down the wing for us...he came to a really sad end too
I agree the game is not what it was but then little is...what I don't understand with the anti Glazer stuff is what do people think will replace it? Nobody is going to run it on their own money so the next owners will still be using borrowed money in just the same way and it's not as if previous owners didn't use the club for their own game...like it or not, football has always and will always be a business...it's just that the business is bigger/global and the figures larger.
we don't expect them to run it on their own money - the club's money will do just fine and we'd just like to keep it in the club and not failing American shopping malls.
I agree the Edwards family weren't behind the door when it came to lining their own pockets but at least they didn't plunge us into debt. That's the diff. The figures are not just greater, it's a case of +/- ie: we are in debt and paying huge sums of money on interest payments and setting up loans etc
United would easily compete with Chelsea, Madrid and Barca if we didn't have this lot leeching millions. You point out the $50m recently spent, finally they've dipped into the club's money for the club's benefit after they've enjoyed the proceeds of $80m coming in on Ronaldo alone. I'm not saying we have to, but we should be able to spend $50m as a minimum every year. At least we'd have a chance of securing our transfer targets.
Anyway, this stuff just goes around in circles and does my head in and somebody will soon come in and say I'm demanding we spend 50m every year (the very thought
) and I have a day off today so, to the porno sites......just kidding.Funny we spent 60 million last year and getting close to 60 million this year. I'd say that's very much a trend developing.
we don't expect them to run it on their own money - the club's money will do just fine and we'd just like to keep it in the club and not failing American shopping malls.
I agree the Edwards family weren't behind the door when it came to lining their own pockets but at least they didn't plunge us into debt. That's the diff. The figures are not just greater, it's a case of +/- ie: we are in debt and paying huge sums of money on interest payments and setting up loans etc
United would easily compete with Chelsea, Madrid and Barca if we didn't have this lot leeching millions. You point out the $50m recently spent, finally they've dipped into the club's money for the club's benefit after they've enjoyed the proceeds of $80m coming in on Ronaldo alone. I'm not saying we have to, but we should be able to spend $50m as a minimum every year. At least we'd have a chance of securing our transfer targets.
Anyway, this stuff just goes around in circles and does my head in and somebody will soon come in and say I'm demanding we spend 50m every year (the very thought
With the profits being 110 million quid, I'm guessing we should be spending all of the 'profits' back into the club. I'm not sure, but aren't the interest payments (30-40 million quid) lowering our profit from 140-150 million?
Surely that 110 or more million should be going back towards the club in a 'fair' ownership. Around 60-70 million more in transfers (over and above what we spent in that year) and 20-30 million more in wages, and the rest into developments.
That'd mean the Glazers would benefit from their asset gaining value, rather than us paying a 'Glazer tax' i.e. money from each $ we earn going into interests, shopping malls in America etc..
Marching is exactly right.
The ridiculously trumped-up anti-Glazer sentiment is on the gradual decline and sooner or later the vast majority of fans will come to realise—if they're not realised already—that we're a well run club with good owners and that we should count ourselves lucky in that regard.
The ridiculously trumped-up anti-Glazer sentiment is on the gradual decline and sooner or later the vast majority of fans will come to realise—if they're not realised already—that we're a well run club with good owners and that we should count ourselves lucky in that regard.
It makes me laugh how people think we don't compete with City or Chelsea. We already compete with them, and on the majority of years come out better.
We never competed with Real before the Glazers. In the 90's we never competed with top Italian clubs with transfers fees or wages.
Are interest and debt payments part of the profit statements?
Ask Marching...
The Leeds fan who cares so much about our club's finances that he spends all his spare time pontificating about it, TELLING US ALL HOW WE SHOULD FEEL AND HOW LUCKY WE ARE, whilst his own is being run by Ken fecking Bates.
Interest payments run through the Profit & Loss Statement (also known as the Income Statement). Debt repayments don't.
You can download United's financials from www.mufplc.com if you really want to see what goes on in them. The Statement of Cash Flows actually tells you more about the money going in and out of the club than the Income Statement does.
I know, it is utterly ridiculous. Even worse is when some people go on about how Stoke outspend us
We have spent a shitload for 2 seasons in a row now and if people aren't happy with the amounts being invested into the squad then they are transfer muppets
That fingering thread though... what the feck?
I know. It won't happen again now the internet police have my number.
Share price went up to 13.80~ levels for quite a while, dipped and is around 13.50 now.
Much better than the low low 13~ levels we had before, I guess.
Much better than the low low 13~ levels we had before, I guess.
My brother works for Charles Schwab and I've been asking him about the stock market, and one thing that has made an impression on me is that public opinion often sets the price of a stock way more than the economic factors. I recall several analysts saying they would be short selling United, and he said this often causes the stock price to go down. But because it's something of an artificial dip created by opinion it will inevitably come back up to a more realistic value in the long term, it's just very hard to tell when that will be.
At least that's what I got out of what he told me.
At least that's what I got out of what he told me.
research arms at banks began coverage and ratings for shares yesterday.
nomura, BAML rate it at neutral: concerns with most of the revenue increases going directly to wages and transfer payments.
JPM and a few others at a buy with a 17-dollar target.
shares down at the lowest mark today since IPO.
nomura, BAML rate it at neutral: concerns with most of the revenue increases going directly to wages and transfer payments.
JPM and a few others at a buy with a 17-dollar target.
shares down at the lowest mark today since IPO.
you got any links to these research notes?
A lot of them you need Bloomberg or Reuters terminals to see, they arent available on the internet - or they are behind a pay-wall.
check tariq panjas timeline on twitter. He linked to a Bloomberg article about it.
Some news about the research notes - price targets vary from $13 to $20 (although that is Jeffries who are probably holding a shitload of stock that they need to offload!).
So even the most bearish feel there is little downside from current levels, a very different message to the very negative press that surrounded the initial float.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/04/uk-manchesterunited-research-idUKBRE8830WG20120904
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...d-weigh-on-Manchester-United-warn-Nomura.html
So even the most bearish feel there is little downside from current levels, a very different message to the very negative press that surrounded the initial float.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/04/uk-manchesterunited-research-idUKBRE8830WG20120904
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...d-weigh-on-Manchester-United-warn-Nomura.html
where was that crazy flow chart some lad on here wrote up?
this is BAML's:
https://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5047dbed6bb3f7083a000005/Man Utd.png
this is BAML's:
https://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5047dbed6bb3f7083a000005/Man Utd.png
Genius.
I hope they are working on something similar to explain that whole "night follows day" concept to us mere mortals.
I hope they are working on something similar to explain that whole "night follows day" concept to us mere mortals.
Manchester United have seen the club's value drop by about £137m since their flotation on the New York Stock Exchange just over a month ago.
The Initial Public Offering was priced at $14 a share, below the $16 - $20 price targeted by the Glazers. However, the share price dropped to a low of $12.59 this week, a 10.1 per cent dip. This meant that the club was valued at £1.29 billion compared with £1.42 billion on the August 10 launch date.
If the value of the club continues to decline it makes even less likely that the Glazers will sell as they want to recoup what they see as its true value.
The Initial Public Offering was priced at $14 a share, below the $16 - $20 price targeted by the Glazers. However, the share price dropped to a low of $12.59 this week, a 10.1 per cent dip. This meant that the club was valued at £1.29 billion compared with £1.42 billion on the August 10 launch date.
If the value of the club continues to decline it makes even less likely that the Glazers will sell as they want to recoup what they see as its true value.
I'm pretty sure the club would sell for a share chunk more than 1.29 billion quid, or more than $12.50USD a share, if there wasn't a dual class structure - Not many are drawn towards buying shares that don't have voting rights.
I totally agree - those using the price of the floated shares to value the club are way off IMO. The shares with full voting rights must be worth more than those without.
Anyway price continues to slide ...
https://marketdata.nyse.com/JTic?app=JPV&rf=GIF&cs=368x300&style=NY2&VOLUME_SCALE_IS_TITLE=FALSE:TRUE&fq=D&ezd=1M&id=Man Utd&cred=l8bCBrn1yOi2LSb2VhwRw558DNBCUlW2XtJfEInYMtMHct3dWAzT1Q.opg21PqKOo4uKtznUqChX3Ca6phY8wOm4hXIBljeoPpGh/5zbh9tqeKpry7KDYW
It should be remembered that that represents the value of the club with it's debt, rather like the value of a house minus the value of it's outstanding mortgage. For the club's true value add 350m quid.
4Q and fiscal 2012 results released on 18 sept (tuesday) @ 6AM EST
Investor Call: 18 Sept (Tuesday) @ 8 AM EST
Follow this link for the call: http://ir.manutd.com
Investor Call: 18 Sept (Tuesday) @ 8 AM EST
Follow this link for the call: http://ir.manutd.com
Interesting. I'm betting on 100m EBITDA, but I may be over-optimistic.
The glazers were hoping for an enterprise value of 2 billion.
That's certainly not the case as the market is showing. Though I doubt the glazers care since they have their money from the IPO and I doubt they'll be floating any more nor selling the club anytime soon.
The joke is on those who bought in.
18th Sept will be very very interesting.
The estimate in the prospectus was 90-92m. Why would you expect substantially more?
http://www.dailypolitical.com/finan...updates-for-manchester-united-plc-Man Utd.htm
Just isn't the case. Google would be a good counter example - together with the 60% or more of IPOs in the States that involve the same type of voting structure as United. The point is that investors don't buy shares because they want a say in the running of the company; they buy them because they expect that dividends and price appreciation will provide a sufficient rate of return on their investment. So, if I buy Google "A" shares I really don't give a damn that my shares have only one tenth of the voting power of Google "B" shares - that's not why I'm buying them.
I thought your post was a joke until I found the genuine article. Here's the "original" anyway: 
- Status