ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

[Fergies Gum]

If he has he shouldn't have been but I doubt he has anyway. As annoying as he was at times he always put his point across in a decent and articulate manner despite being insulted over and over. Different opinions are what makes a forum great and this one in particular benefits from an openness to express an unorthodox opinion without fear of banning.

Doesn't look like he was banned but he hasn't posted since the summer. He was having a mare in the Welbeck thread and was opposed to the RvP transfer. Probably embarrassed after that TBH.

Just had a look and it does not say "banned" under this name, so it lookes like he has stopped posting.

Agree that different opinions is what makes a forum great, but he did talk a lot of nonsense at times.

He was definitely ITK.

Reckon he worked for the Glazers.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

I thought it was a known fact he worked for the Glazers. Maybe I'm wrong, but there's no way IMO that someone could put that much effort into one subject and POV which was contrary to everyone else for so long, and as soon as public opinion has softened and it seems that the Glazers aren't the cancer they were declared to be he isn't here giving it 'I told you so'. If he was a normal fan he's be ramming it down our throats now, but instead he's gone when not needed.

 

[VoetbalWizard]

3.06 Billion ? WTF ?

dollars

 

[VoetbalWizard]

The share price is now up just over 31% since flotation in August.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts...n;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

This gives United a market cap of £3.06bn!

The latest quarterly update and analyst briefing is being broadcast online at 1pm.

http://ir.manutd.com

dollars not sterling.

what's on the call? couldn't listen to it due to other engagements.

 

[Rood]

Why did GCHQ and Andersred stop posting ?

I think andersred preferred to direct traffic to his own blog for discussion rather than get in to arguments on here - not sure why GCHQ stopped posting, I personally dont think he worked for the club but who knows.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Andersred is always a great read. Very detailed analysis and is never afraid to admit his mistakes.

He's welcome to come on here and admit his mistakes personally any time he wishes. Myself, rood and GCHQ spent a couple of years dispelling anders' and MUST's blatant scaremongering, only for him to promptly feck off when it turned out he'd been in the wrong.

Crerrand, Fredthered, Ralphie; none of them post here anymore.

 

[Fergies Gum]

I thought it was a known fact he worked for the Glazers. Maybe I'm wrong, but there's no way IMO that someone could put that much effort into one subject and POV which was contrary to everyone else for so long, and as soon as public opinion has softened and it seems that the Glazers aren't the cancer they were declared to be he isn't here giving it 'I told you so'. If he was a normal fan he's be ramming it down our throats now, but instead he's gone when not needed.

A few posters have mentioned it in the past that they think he worked for the Glazers. It does look odd on his part that he disappears when we are getting all this encouraging financial results and you would expect him to be here telling everyone how great the Glazers are.

 

[finneh]

I don't think luck played much of a part to be honest. They are very astute business people who most people in football underestimated, perhaps because they're Americans in Soccer or perhaps because they all look like inbred leprechauns.

The way they have forged through new barriers for United with commercial deals for everything has been amazing. The biggest windfall of all is yet to come with the clubs ownership of it's own media rights which for me was the one thing they have been waiting for. Of course they couldn't do it with any other club. We had the fanbase, the stadium and SAF. Perhaps that's why they didn't buy another club!

I disagree to some extent.

An expert could predict a healthy increase in the commercial sector. But I don't believe that anyone (the Glazer's included) could predict the potential to double our turnover within 6 years. Likewise no-one could predict that TV revenue would almost quadruple within 10 years.

I'm sure Hicks/Gillett had the same expertise, with the same plan as the Glazer's, but with Liverpool. A combination of a lot of good fortune and Sir Alex in my opinion was the reason that they stand to make such a killing.

 

[hp88]

In terms of marketing the club and bringing in sponsors their work has been incredible, call them leaches or whatever you want but they are clued up when it comes to making money.

 

[ciderman9000000]

But I don't believe that anyone (the Glazer's included) could predict the potential to double our turnover within 6 years. Likewise no-one could predict that TV revenue would almost quadruple within 10 years.

I'm sure they could have done. If you read back through this very thread I personally mentioned on more than one occasion that the potential for commercial income from the United brand had been largely untapped; one of my primary examples being that there was potential for huge increases in TV revenue as the populations of the developing and third worlds (where United enjoy massive support) gain more readily accessible and cheaper televisual technology. This was long before the improved TV deal had been announced. If I could make such a prediction, then I don't see why the Glazers wouldn't have been able to, especially since their entire business model seems heavily wagered upon such eventualities. The vast increases in revenue were perfectly predictable imo, as the club wasn't making use of its global fanbase as well as it could have been. People laughed when Gill mentioned that there are 300m United fans spread around the world; well, they're not laughing now.

Three year ago I made this post in answer to a question from Pogue, sceptical that the Glazers could continue to increase commercial revenue for a sustained period:

Have you been living in a cave for the last six months? United have said that, with the advancement of mobile technology and the deals in place with mobile service providers around the world, commercial revenue will soon overtake matchday income. It stands to reason that the more people able to watch United then the more valuable their advertising space will become; as technology becomes more affordable and more and more households in developing countries, where United enjoys massive support, gain access to satellite television, mobile smart-phones, high-speed internet etc. the value of our advertising space will shoot up. There's not a billboard in the world that compares with United, it's our global support and unique and instantly recognisable branding that makes us such a valuable and effective business; the Glazers are only just beginning to see United live up to its commercial potential, and i believe there will be great leaps forward over the next ten to fifteen years. They wont sell for this reason.

The huge increases in TV and sponsorship revenue certainly weren't unforeseeable. Our current situation hasn't been arrived at though good fortune on the part of the Glazers, rather, we're where we are now thanks to their extremely good judgment.

 

[Interval]

Just like the stock was being undervalued prior to the IPO, it seems a bit overvalued now. Global liquidity is extremely high and risky assets are being bought into

 

[finneh]

I'm sure they could have done. If you read back through this very thread I personally mentioned on more than one occasion that the potential for commercial income from the United brand had been largely untapped; one of my primary examples being that there was potential for huge increases in TV revenue as the populations of the developing and third worlds (where United enjoy massive support) gain more readily accessible and cheaper televisual technology. This was long before the improved TV deal had been announced. If I could make such a prediction, then I don't see why the Glazers wouldn't have been able to, especially since their entire business model seems heavily wagered upon such eventualities. The vast increases in revenue were perfectly predictable imo, as the club wasn't making use of its global fanbase as well as it could have been. People laughed when Gill mentioned that there are 300m United fans spread around the world; well, they're not laughing now.

There is a huge difference between mentioning the obvious: ie "the potential for commercial income from the United brand had been largely untapped..." and quantifying the scope of this increase.

If it was even semi-obvious that revenues would increase by the amount the have they'd have been a queue of rich(er) investors that would have been bidding to take over united in 2005. The fact that one of the most famous brands in the world that was essentially "for sale" didn't have a queue of investors suggests that people with the same knowledge (probably more) thought it was a gamble. If it was as obvious as you imply, why wasn't there tons of people wanting to not only triple or quadruple the value of their asset within 7-8 years, but also banking the hundreds of millions that have been wasted on interest payments (as they'd be rich enough to not need the loans)?

No-one can laud the Glazer's as geniuses whilst using Hicks/Gillett as an example of everything that is wrong with Football. They are two sides of exactly the same business model, with a similar levels of risk.

 

[ciderman9000000]

There is a huge difference between mentioning the obvious: ie "the potential for commercial income from the United brand had been largely untapped..." and quantifying the scope of this increase.

If it was even semi-obvious that revenues would increase by the amount the have they'd have been a queue of rich(er) investors that would have been bidding to take over united in 2005. The fact that one of the most famous brands in the world that was essentially "for sale" didn't have a queue of investors suggests that people with the same knowledge (probably more) thought it was a gamble.

No-one can laud the Glazer's as geniuses whilst using Hicks/Gillett as an example of everything that is wrong with Football. They are two sides of exactly the same business model, with a similar levels of risk.

I predicted the increases in revenue would be vast. Of course, if I could do it, the Glazers could do it.

See my post above if you don't believe me; three years ago I specifically mentioned vast increases in TV and Sponsorship revenue; it was the crux of many of my arguments with anders at the time.

If you think the increases were unforeseeable, then you're wrong; it really is as simple as that. Years ago I argued long and hard that they were inevitable, giving specific reasons as to why this was the case. People laughed at me at the time, but I'm still here posting on the caf, whilst those who laughed don't show their faces anymore. Likewise people laughed at the notion of the Glazers facilitating the continuation of the success at United, that the club would thrive under their ownership; well, how has that turned out?

Not many people foresaw what would happen with United, especially in the early days when before MUST became a laughing stock, but some did, and the evidence for that is right here in black and white on this very forum. How can you disbelieve that such predictions were possible when they were accurately made and preserved right here on the website you're using as the conduit for your scepticism?

 

[Irwinwastheking]

No-one can laud the Glazer's as geniuses whilst using Hicks/Gillett as an example of everything that is wrong with Football. They are two sides of exactly the same business model, with a similar levels of risk.

That's nonsense to me. There are gigantic differences between the risks that the Glazers took and those undertaken by successive Liverpool owners. Liverpool may have a very similar trophy haul to United, but that's where the current similarities end. United had the Stadium while Liverpool have a ramschackle rundown Anfield that needs to be completely rebuild. We have a winning team while Liverpool are way short in terms of youth delivery and first team squad. We have had success in the last 20 years while these new markets have been opening while Liverpool have been suffering. United are the only club that you could do what they did at in England. The only comparable clubs worldwide are Real and Barca. Anything else would be an insane risk.

Do you think Liverpool could possibly secure some of the sponsorships Untied have attained?

 

[Castia]

Im interested to hear more about the training kit sponsorship it must be a huge deal for us to cancel the DHL deal earlier this season. With the Nike negotiations ongoing aswell we should be in for some nice profits in the coming years.

 

[Irwinwastheking]

I don't get this thing of having deals and canceling them. Surely in the long term it would be better to honour them?

 

[ciderman9000000]

I don't get this thing of having deals and canceling them. Surely in the long term it would be better to honour them?

One would have to imagine that such deals would only be cancelled by mutual consent, both parties happy that cancellation served their best interests in some way or another.

 

[RedCanuck]

Im interested to hear more about the training kit sponsorship it must be a huge deal for us to cancel the DHL deal earlier this season. With the Nike negotiations ongoing as well we should be in for some nice profits in the coming years.

Here's a bit more detail on today's announcement - from Yahoo

UPDATE 2-Manchester United signs new training kit sponsor
Reuters

* Club boosted by run of new deals

* Posts record revenue in peak quarter

* Team thriving on pitch after failures last season

Feb 14 (Reuters) - English Premier League soccer club Manchester United has signed a new sponsor for its training kit for the next eight years, the latest in a series of commercial deals cashing in on its huge global following.

United, English champions a record 19 times and controlled by the American Glazer family, are unusual in that their image is strong enough to attract backers for both their training kit and the famous red shirts they play in.

The club called an early halt to its existing agreement with training kit partner DHL after July's record $560 million deal to have the Chevrolet brand on its playing shirts for seven years showed the club it could aim higher.

Chevrolet's sponsorship begins in 2014. Until then, United will receive about 20 million pounds ($31 million) a year to carry the name of U.S. insurer Aon on the team's playing shirts.

The training kit deal will run for eight years from next season but the club was surprisingly coy about identifying the new backer at this stage.

"At the request of our new training kit partner, we have agreed to withhold further details pending a formal announcement," vice chairman Ed Woodward told financial analysts on a conference call.

DHL had been paying about 10 million pounds a year for its innovative training kit deal, sources with knowledge of the agreement said. The sponsorship had been due to run for four years from 2011.

United, currently top of the Premier League, signed six new sponsorship deals with companies around the globe in the last three months of 2012, the second quarter of the club's financial year.

RECORD REVENUE

Those deals helped the club to achieve record revenue and underlying profit in the quarter, one of the busiest periods in the soccer calendar.

It posted revenue of 110 million pounds in the three months to Dec. 31 and earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) of 50 million, in line with analyst forecasts.

The club said that it is on target to hit its financial targets for the full year.

United claim to be the world's best supported soccer team, with more than 650 million followers worldwide and regular 75,000-strong capacity crowds at their Old Trafford stadium despite failing to win a trophy last season - the first barren year since 2005.

They lead the Premier League by 12 points and appear certain to regain the title they lost to local rivals Manchester City on the final day of last season.

On the European front, they drew 1-1 with Spain's Real Madrid on Wednesday as two of the world's richest clubs met in the first leg of their tie for a place in the quarter-finals of the Champions League.

Success on the pitch has helped to dampen criticism from fans who say that the Glazers loaded the club with too much debt when they bought the club for 790 million pounds in 2005.

Borrowing fell to 367 million pounds at the end of last year, down from 439 million pounds a year earlier.

Manchester United shares have also strengthened on the New York Stock Exchange after a much-criticised listing last August.

They traded at $18.60 on Thursday, down 11 cents on the day, but well above the $14 listing price and valuing the club at more than $3 billion.

U.S. asset management company BlackRock has bought more than 8 percent of the listed shares, dispelling the notion that serious investors are not interested in soccer clubs.

The Glazers retain a tight hold on the club thanks to the listing's dual-share structure.

 

[Redjazz]

Big buys (rather than a shift in fundamentals) from some leading Asset Managers have pushed up the share price in the last few weeks. The Lansdowne Group acquisition (just filed) means that they and BlackRock have purchased over 20% of the available A shares in the same period.

 

[Will Absolute]

They got lucky to a certain degree. They arrived at the right time and at the right club. They could not have done it at any other club. The explosion in TV money, the huge Chevrolet deal and also the implementation of FFP was not guaranteed 8 years ago, but it all played into their hands.

The great thing they did is the splitting of the commerical partnerships across markets and geographies.

Not really. They chose to buy United, not some other club, and the timing was also their choice.

The TV money and the lucrative commercial deals were a consequence of the expansion of the game, which attracted the Glazers in the first place. They weren't some fortuitous, unanticipated windfall. FFP will be important for the future in curbing City and any imitators - who weren't even on the football map when the Glazers purchased the club - but hasn't played any role in the club's financial success to this point.

The dice have sometimes fallen favourably for them and sometimes not, but football's greatly increased revenue flows are something which any shrewd businessman might reasonably have foreseen and gambled on.

 

[Cold_Boy]

How much is the new kit deal rumoured to be worth?

 

[Gambit]

He's welcome to come on here and admit his mistakes personally any time he wishes. Myself, rood and GCHQ spent a couple of years dispelling anders' and MUST's blatant scaremongering, only for him to promptly feck off when it turned out he'd been in the wrong.

Crerrand, Fredthered, Ralphie; none of them post here anymore.

I still post here, and yet as always am overlooked.

 

[JayWalker]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Sell Rvp, Buy Messi?

 

[Gambit]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Sell Rvp, Buy Messi?

Buying Ronaldo back

 

[JayWalker]

That greasy wanker that plays for Madrid? Meh.

 

[Gambit]

That greasy wanker that plays for Madrid? Meh.

rumour is he can levitate

 

[Cevno]

I still post here, and yet as always am overlooked.

You don't post in the Transfer Forum anymore though. Is that candle for Hamsik still burning ?

 

[Red-Indian]

They've had some good luck but suffered plenty of bad as well.

They couldn't have anticipated the global financial crisis pushing up borrowing costs to the extent it did and making it difficult for them to refinance their initial acquisition debt.

Also they've been able to leave the really unpopular moves like Stadium naming rights and pushing for individual TV rights in reserve.

They've done pretty well for themselves to be fair and are now in a great position. We the fans have got nothing out of it though...and the matchgoers have had the worst of it.

 

[ciderman9000000]

I still post here, and yet as always am overlooked.

Who are you?

 

[Gambit]

You don't post in the Transfer Forum anymore though. Is that candle for Hamsik still burning ?

Yes I do post in there. and I guarantee I'll be the posting in there and building upto the summer window. The candle for Hamsik does still burn. his agent though I'd hang out to dry.

 

[Jippy]

Just like the stock was being undervalued prior to the IPO, it seems a bit overvalued now. Global liquidity is extremely high and risky assets are being bought into

Yes there is plenty of money washing round the system, but not sure on what basis you say the IPO price was undervalued considering how variable the company's profits are.

Big buys (rather than a shift in fundamentals) from some leading Asset Managers have pushed up the share price in the last few weeks. The Lansdowne Group acquisition (just filed) means that they and BlackRock have purchased over 20% of the available A shares in the same period.

Obviously Soros buying in last Aug/Sept seemed to put a floor on the price, but Lansdowne buying in is odd. If it's Lansdowne Partners as I assume, they are a hedge fund group. Those guys were all shorting us before and now seem to be going long.

 

[finneh]

I predicted the increases in revenue would be vast. Of course, if I could do it, the Glazers could do it.

See my post above if you don't believe me; three years ago I specifically mentioned vast increases in TV and Sponsorship revenue; it was the crux of many of my arguments with anders at the time.

If you think the increases were unforeseeable, then you're wrong; it really is as simple as that. Years ago I argued long and hard that they were inevitable, giving specific reasons as to why this was the case. People laughed at me at the time, but I'm still here posting on the caf, whilst those who laughed don't show their faces anymore. Likewise people laughed at the notion of the Glazers facilitating the continuation of the success at United, that the club would thrive under their ownership; well, how has that turned out?

Not many people foresaw what would happen with United, especially in the early days when before MUST became a laughing stock, but some did, and the evidence for that is right here in black and white on this very forum. How can you disbelieve that such predictions were possible when they were accurately made and preserved right here on the website you're using as the conduit for your scepticism?

Please show me where I indicated the bolded.

You're ignoring what I said. Obviously any idiot could predict an increase in revenues. Any semi-intelligent person could predict a large increase in revenues. But no-one could even close to predict the boom that has happened since 2005, evidenced by the fact that the Glazer's were one of the only ones interested in United, even at a damn low price. The increases haven't been vast, as you state, they've been far, far greater than that.

Either the Glazer's are absolute geniuses and were the only people who could leverage £500m that knew how much of a sure thing United were (which is clearly untrue as a random guy on Redcafe is claiming to be privy to this information); or there is a much more likely option. The option that several factors meant United were an exceptionally risky acquisition that put off many potential investors. Factors such as constant success on the pitch being so imperative to profit off the pitch, clubs like Chelsea being able to blow prudent clubs out of the water, wage increases swallowing up all media revenue increases, having to imminently replace the most successful manager in the clubs history who was going to retire etc.

The fact is the Glazer's were incredibly lucky. Absolutely everything that could have gone in their favour, did, and to such an extent that no-one could have predicted.

That's nonsense to me. There are gigantic differences between the risks that the Glazers took and those undertaken by successive Liverpool owners. Liverpool may have a very similar trophy haul to United, but that's where the current similarities end. United had the Stadium while Liverpool have a ramschackle rundown Anfield that needs to be completely rebuild. We have a winning team while Liverpool are way short in terms of youth delivery and first team squad. We have had success in the last 20 years while these new markets have been opening while Liverpool have been suffering. United are the only club that you could do what they did at in England. The only comparable clubs worldwide are Real and Barca. Anything else would be an insane risk.

Do you think Liverpool could possibly secure some of the sponsorships Untied have attained?

All of the differences you mention were somewhat reflective in the purchase price (United being valued at close to £800m, Liverpool around £215m). I'd say the near £600m difference would easily build a state of the art stadium.

When Liverpool were bought they were essentially guaranteed Champions League football for the foreseeable future. They were challenging for trophies and were one of the top 5-6 teams in world Football, having won the Champions League less than 2 years previous and were on their way to another Champions League final a couple of months after the purchase (as well as winning the FA Cup etc). I'm sure in theory a little investment and they would be competing for the Premier League and trophies consistently (which indeed they were for 2 and a half years).

Unfortunately for them in Football nothing is guaranteed... The season after challenging us all the way they lost Alonso, bought Aquilani and finished 7th, lost vast amounts of Champions League revenue that had been leveraged against (like us) and started to implode.

In answer to your question regarding sponsorships; they already did. When they signed their deal with Standard Chartered it was the same our deal with Aon. When they doubled their deal signing with Warrior it was the same as our deal with Nike. At the time of signing those 2 deals they were worth more than Bayern Munich and Real Madrid Kit/shirt sponsors.

 

[ciderman9000000]

The increases haven't been vast, they've been far, far greater than that?

You're talking shit, finneh.

Definition: Vast

1. Very great in size, number or quantity
2. Very great in area or extent: immense
3. Very great in degree or intensity

 

[finneh]

The increases haven't been vast, they've been far, far greater than that?

You're talking shit, finneh.

You still haven't put forward an argument as to why there wasn't a queue of intelligent rich investors waiting to buy United at such a cheap price, despite even random internet guy knowing that revenue would double inside 6 years and probably quadruple inside 10-15?

Could it be that the scope of the increase has been unfathomable, like I'm suggesting?

 

[Gazza]

Surely the only way the Glazers' plan could have worked was if these huge revenue increases actually materialized? Therefore they must have planned with those in mind, making it harder to ascribe pure luck as a real factor.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Please show me where I indicated the bolded.

You said:

An expert could predict a healthy increase in the commercial sector. But I don't believe that anyone (the Glazer's included) could predict the potential to double our turnover within 6 years. Likewise no-one could predict that TV revenue would almost quadruple within 10 years.

Here's my prediction three years ago:

United have said that, with the advancement of mobile technology and the deals in place with mobile service providers around the world, commercial revenue will soon overtake matchday income. It stands to reason that the more people able to watch United then the more valuable their advertising space will become; as technology becomes more affordable and more and more households in developing countries, where United enjoys massive support, gain access to satellite television, mobile smart-phones, high-speed internet etc. the value of our advertising space will shoot up. There's not abillboard in the worldthat compares with United, it's our global support and unique and instantly recognisable branding that makes us such a valuable and effective business; the Glazers are only just beginning to see United live up to its commercial potential, and i believe there will be great leaps forward over the next ten to fifteen years.

So I predicted the mass increases in revenue. I don't see how the Glazers could not have done so also; in fact, this prediction was in large part influenced by the noises coming from the club at the time.

 

[ciderman9000000]

You still haven't put forward an argument as to why there wasn't a queue of intelligent rich investors waiting to buy United at such a cheap price, despite even random internet guy knowing that revenue would double inside 6 years and probably quadruple inside 10-15?

Could it be that the scope of the increase has been unfathomable, like I'm suggesting?

The Glazers certainly weren't the first to try to buy United.

 

[finneh]

Surely the only way the Glazers' plan could have worked was if these huge revenue increases actually materialized? Therefore they must have planned with those in mind, making it harder to ascribe pure luck as a real factor.

They would have accounted for healthy increases I'm sure. I doubt they would have accounted for wages however doubling within 6 years.

They clearly allowed no margin for error - us not qualifying for the Champions League or not needing to spend vast amounts to keep us at the top or get back to the top. Thank god that Fergie didn't retire a few years ago like he said. It was an exceptionally risky gamble that paid off.

You said:

Here's my prediction three years ago:

So I predicted the mass increases in revenue. I don't see how the Glazers could not have done so also; in fact, this prediction was in large part influenced by the noises coming from the club at the time.

So I didn't say that revenues were unforeseeable as you asserted and actually said the opposite? Cheers for clearing that up.

The Glazers certainly weren't the first to try to buy United.

The Glazer's bought an £800m asset with around £650m of debt. If a party that doesn't even have 25% of the cash required to buy the asset outright was able to, there'd be thousands of others who could. The fact that others didn't put forward a serious offer (lets be honest the Glazer's offer would be the last one the board would have accepted if given a choice) shows your point to be hollow. United at the time was a huge global brand with a big "BUY ME" sign attached to them. The only party with a serious offer was a seriously shit offer for the club.

Although random internet guy knows better than tons of investors who almost certainly looked at all the relevant information and decided it was far too risky.

 

[Gazza]

Their strategy was high-risk absolutely, but I'm not sure that's equivalent to saying it was lucky that it came off.

 

[finneh]

Their strategy was high-risk absolutely, but I'm not sure that's equivalent to saying it was lucky that it came off.

It was very high risk and everything that could have worked in their favour, worked in their favour.

As I've said: thank Christ Fergie didn't retire.