ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pexbo said:
I fully agree with him.

By today's market we need a top quality winger, a top quality midfielder to play with Carrick and one to replace him, an excellent left back and a centreback too if Rio and Vidic leave which is looking likely.


CB: £15m-£20m
Winger: Reus? £30m
CM's: Gundogan and Vidal £30m and £45m
LB: Coentrao: £20m


That's about £150m right there. Call it "being a muppet" or whatever but we're talking about bringing our squad up to the level of City and beyond that, Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but the work you got to make in keeping a good squad involves a big scouting network if you want to avoid having to spend that amount again. We don't see that at the likes of Chelsea, City or Madrid, so they spend tons of money rebuilding their teams. Buying young players and developing could do wonders, look at Bayern's pool of young talents for example. We proud of our homegrown players, the the class of 92 is all but gone and even tho we got some good players, we don't get close to achieving something like that. Not to mention the Pogba situation, that would help us so much if he was playing for us still.

But we have the urgency to resolve our situation, and we need to invest big. If that's the case of spending 100+ million to kickstart our post-Ferguson era, so be it.
 
I wonder if the advertisers have to make an additional payment when there's extra time? Or do they just get it for free? Or are there frantic negotiations with Epson and Nike and the rest. Sorry, carry on.
 
You've just given EdWood an idea, he'll be off pitching extra-time only advertising to a 24/7 laundromat tomorrow morning, having forgotten about the Mata medical.
 
Devil_forever said:
Oh dear.
Click to expand...

Good lord. You are just shitting on all the threads tonight.

The money league is a ridiculous barometer for a number of reasons:

A) We are unique among Europe's top teams in outsourcing our merchandising operations - Whereas we make c.£30m revenue from the nike deal (and therefore £30m profit pre-tax) most other clubs manufacture their kit in house - £80m revenue and £50m costs. Whilst we both made the same profit one club gets £80m revenue and one gets £30m revenue. Revenue as a barometer for overall financial health all to often gets used as the key figure. Whereas if you looked at EBITDA, we are the most profitable club n the world. But that doesn't sell papers....

B) The exchange rate they use is based on one single date in the calendar year (30 June). Currencies can fluctuate cquite considerably on an annual basis between their peak and trough. As an example - based on today's exchange rate our revenue would actually be EUR 444.29 not EUR 423.8 putting us back ahead of Bayern. Based on this one date you get wildly scewed figures (why they don't use a mean from the period in question i have no idea).

C) The figures do not take into account the AON deal, the Chevrolet deal (other than the £12m introduction payment), the new Nike deal and the new tv rights deal. Also increased CL revenue next year for regaining the title.

Taken from the report:

Despite some inconsistent performances on the pitch this season, the club is well placed to regain third place in next year’s Money League, and may even challenge the top two, through uplifts from new collective Premier League broadcast rights deals as well as further additions to its extensive list of commercial partners. Subsequent years may see the Red Devils mount a challenge on the top spot providing the club consistently qualifies for the Champions League, as the full extent of the Chevrolet deal kicks in and a new kit supplier deal is entered into, with the current Nike deal expiring at the end of the 2014/15 season.

Lazy journalism + gullible readers = bash Utd story.

Nothing to see here (CL qualification being the only caveat)

EDIT: Link here if anyone wants to read it http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom... Business Group/uk-deloitte-sbg-dfml-2014.pdf
 
Great break down above, London Red.

Glad to hear there are some holes in the report.

Do you think we might overtake Real soon, assuming we continue to secure CL football?

If I'm not mistaken, the club said we expect to post £420m revenues this coming year?

Other than a new kit deal, with TV rights and shirt sponsorship all fixed for the next couple of years, albeit at handsome figures, and with gate receipts pretty much at saturation, can we realistically expect any other big revenue jumps in the next couple of years?
 
Also, I believe some clubs e.g. The Spanish two get 50% of image rights in return for high salaries. D you know If that is correct and what sort of effect does it have on revenue figures?
 
Yeap. Its kick United when we are down time in the press.

The interesting trend is that the CL doesn't contribute as much as it used to, in terms of topline revenues. Around 10% at the moment. But its the catalyst/multiplier for other revenue sources going forward.
 
sglowrider said:
Yeap. Its kick United when we are down time in the press.

The interesting trend is that the CL doesn't contribute as much as it used to, in terms of topline revenues. Around 10% at the moment. But its the catalyst/multiplier for other revenue sources going forward.
Click to expand...

CL TV deal is worth double from 2015 though.

It is definitely very important.
 
"Whilst Manchester United drop one place in the Money League, a number of the club's recent commercial deals will boost revenue in 2013-14, so this fall to fourth place may only be temporary," said Deloitte's Austin Houlihan.

"These deals, combined with the impact of the improved three-year Premier League broadcast deals from 2013-14, mean they are likely to get close to the 500m-euro revenue mark in next year's Money League.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25844751

Expect us to close the gap next year.
 
KingMinger22 said:
Yep, BT bought it. Google for reference...
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean the same thing at all. British sides don't get all or solely money from UK TV deal contributions. The money for the CL would only double if ALL TV rights across European broadcasters did. All that's happened is that a portion of the contributing pot has doubled, nothing more.
 
Plugsy said:
That doesn't mean the same thing at all. British sides don't get all or solely money from UK TV deal contributions. The money for the CL would only double if ALL TV rights across European broadcasters did. All that's happened is that a portion of the contributing pot has doubled, nothing more.[/quotNo i


No, it's proportionate to the amount your country contributes domestically. Might not double but will boost greatly...
Click to expand...
 
KingMinger22 said:
No, it's proportionate to the amount your country contributes domestically. Might not double but will boost greatly..
Click to expand...

So when I said it hasn't doubled your response is to tell me I'm wrong and that it hasn't doubled?

Okay, glad you straightened me out on that.
 
Out of interest now we've signed Mata for about £37m, when we will be 'broke' again? Few hours? Next week?

I'm laying odds of 7/4 that by the time the window shuts we're back to referring to Veron as the last big transfer we made.
 
Plugsy said:
Out of interest now we've signed Mata for about £37m, when we will be 'broke' again? Few hours? Next week?

I'm laying odds of 7/4 that by the time the window shuts we're back to referring to Veron as the last big transfer we made.
Click to expand...

You should make yourself a trophy
 
Plugsy said:
Out of interest now we've signed Mata for about £37m, when we will be 'broke' again? Few hours? Next week?

I'm laying odds of 7/4 that by the time the window shuts we're back to referring to Veron as the last big transfer we made.
Click to expand...

I think everyone is ecstatic that we have bought a top player and paid good money at that.

It was well and truly overdue and took an unbelievably poor half of a season for it to occur.

Hopefully there will be a few more but anyone being smug or saying 'told you so' is ridiculous. We have missed out on a string of quality players because we didn't cough up the right money.

Hopefully we are changing things in this respect. Mata is a great start.
 
Was reading the telegraph and saw this. What in the actual feck? That's huge. Any credence to this? The number is very specific. Almost ridiculously so. I haven't seen any speculation regarding the numbers in an expected renewal with Nike.

Arsenal's current deal with Nike dates back to 2003 and is worth around £8 million a year. The Puma contract is worth a basic £30 million annually, although that could rise to £34 million with possible add-ons.
It surpasses all existing kit deals in English football, with Manchester United currently receiving £25.4 million a year from Nike and Liverpool being paid £25 million by Warrior. United, though, are soon expected to announce a new £76.9 million per year deal with Nike.
Click to expand...

So impressive I had to use bold, italic and underline.

source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ear-as-replacement-kit-supplier-for-Nike.html
 
simonhch said:
Was reading the telegraph and saw this. What in the actual feck? That's huge. Any credence to this? The number is very specific. Almost ridiculously so. I haven't seen any speculation regarding the numbers in an expected renewal with Nike.



So impressive I had to use bold, italic and underline.

source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ear-as-replacement-kit-supplier-for-Nike.html
Click to expand...

Wow. That is huge. Very intriguing he is so specific with the figure I agree.

Haven't heard anything about the figures being released (thought it would have been a long time before now as the exclusivity period ended last July).

Perhaps the club are waiting for an opportune moment to announce it.
 
A hedge fund headed by one of the financiers who failed to buy Manchester United four years ago is betting against the club's New York-listed shares.

Sky News can exclusively reveal that Marshall Wace, one of the world's biggest hedge funds, stands to reap a profit worth millions of pounds if Manchester United continues to perform as poorly on the stock market as it is doing at its Old Trafford home.

The emergence of Marshall Wace's position in United's shares comes as the Premier League champions struggle to avoid their most ignominious season for more than two decades.

Already out of the League Cup and FA Cup competitions, they trail the Premier League leaders Arsenal by 14 points and face a tough task to progress further in the Champions' League.

Paul Marshall, one of the founders of Marshall Wace, was a member of the Red Knights consortium which in 2010 launched a campaign to persuade Manchester United's owners to sell the club.

The American Glazer family refused to engage with the Red Knights, who were led by Jim O'Neill, the former chief economist at Goldman Sachs. In August 2012, the Glazers floated the club on the New York Stock Exchange.

Since then, United have continued to enjoy reasonable success on the pitch, winning the Premier League title last season in Sir Alex Ferguson's final campaign at the helm.

His successor, David Moyes, has endured a torrid start to his Old Trafford career, however, with a series of home defeats culminating in last week's League Cup exit to Sunderland.

The size of Marshall Wace's short position in Manchester United's shares is unclear, with a spokesman for the hedge fund declining to comment on Monday.

Under US rules, hedge funds do not have to disclose the extent of their short positions in publicly-traded stocks.

However, insiders said that Marshall Wace had placed a "not immaterial" bet on a further decline in the club's shares, which have fallen nearly 14% during the last 12 months.

Mr Marshall is understood to have sanctioned the investment decision, adding a further layer of intrigue to the club's ownership.

Marshall Wace is far from the only investor expecting to make money from an ongoing fall in its share price.

Odey Asset Management, the hedge fund led by Crispin Odey, a prominent City financier, was disclosed in December as holding a short position worth approximately $5m.

Last week, it emerged that Manchester United had been relegated from the leading trio of the world's wealthiest football clubs after being usurped by Barcelona, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich.

The annual list compiled by the accountancy firm Deloitte revealed that the English club had slipped into fourth place with annual revenues of £347.7m.

That figure will slide further next year if Manchester United fail to finish in the top four of this season's Premier League.

On Monday, the club's shares were trading down roughly 1.6% at $14.78, valuing it at just under $2.5bn.

Mr Marshall is one of the City's most successful money-makers, amassing a vast fortune from the firm he set up with his business partner, Ian Wace.

A Manchester United fan, he has argued more broadly for supporter-based ownership of football clubs, criticising the Glazers in an article for The Times last year.

"In 2005, United became perhaps the most famous UK victim of the excesses that led to the global financial crisis, when they were taken over by a family of US-based real estate developers with no connection to the city.

"The Glazers could not afford the asking price but a banker from JPMorgan named Ed Woodward came up with the wheeze of 'payment in kind' notes, effectively a form of very high interest-bearing loans that enabled the Glazers to acquire the club by putting £500m of debt on to its balance sheet, turning it overnight from the wealthiest club in the country to the most debt-laden."
Click to expand...
http://news.sky.com/story/1202023/red-knight-shorts-manchester-united-shares
 
"In 2005, United became perhaps the most famous UK victim of the excesses that led to the global financial crisis, when they were taken over by a family of US-based real estate developers with no connection to the city.

"The Glazers could not afford the asking price but a banker from JPMorgan named Ed Woodward came up with the wheeze of 'payment in kind' notes, effectively a form of very high interest-bearing loans that enabled the Glazers to acquire the club by putting £500m of debt on to its balance sheet, turning it overnight from the wealthiest club in the country to the most debt-laden."


Ed Woodward was behind that????!!!!
 
UnofficialDevil said:
"In 2005, United became perhaps the most famous UK victim of the excesses that led to the global financial crisis, when they were taken over by a family of US-based real estate developers with no connection to the city.

"The Glazers could not afford the asking price but a banker from JPMorgan named Ed Woodward came up with the wheeze of 'payment in kind' notes, effectively a form of very high interest-bearing loans that enabled the Glazers to acquire the club by putting £500m of debt on to its balance sheet, turning it overnight from the wealthiest club in the country to the most debt-laden."


Ed Woodward was behind that????!!!!
Click to expand...


Well done to him if it was, as attracting the Glazer family as owners has proved one of the most successful moments in our history.
 
UnofficialDevil said:
"In 2005, United became perhaps the most famous UK victim of the excesses that led to the global financial crisis, when they were taken over by a family of US-based real estate developers with no connection to the city.

"The Glazers could not afford the asking price but a banker from JPMorgan named Ed Woodward came up with the wheeze of 'payment in kind' notes, effectively a form of very high interest-bearing loans that enabled the Glazers to acquire the club by putting £500m of debt on to its balance sheet, turning it overnight from made healthiest club in the country to the most debt-laden."


Ed Woodward was behind that????!!!!
Click to expand...

Well... Woodie made his bed... now has to roll around in the pool of shite he helped create.
 
sglowrider said:
Well... Woodie made his bed... now has to roll around in the pool of shite he helped create.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm sure his huge salary, privileged lifestyle and access to the world's best marketing and financial contacts not to mention being vice-executive chairman at one of the world's biggest and most successful sports teams, is just a cross that weedy little shit will have to bear.
 
Silent_Running said:
Well done to him if it was, as attracting the Glazer family as owners has proved one of the most successful moments in our history.
Click to expand...
Im happy to admit some of my worst fears about the Glazers look to have been unfounded. And I will accept that they have done some extraordinary work in terms of increasing our commercial revenues, which will hopefully make a difference on the football side of things in due course. However, I balk at attributing the incredible success we have had since 2005 to the Glazers. Just because we have been incredibly successful since the Glazers took over, that does not mean we have been incredibly successful BECAUSE the Glazers took over. We were successful because of SAF and I see no reason to believe it would have been any different if we had remained a PLC. SAF might have talked a lot about how great they were, that is fair enough, people are usually quite complimentary about their employers when they are on the record. But I struggle to see specific decisions the Glazers have taken that the PLC wouldnt have been reasonably expected to take as well that have led to the on-field success.

As I said, going forward that may change if the Glazers sanction some of this commercial revenue being made available to the manager, money we wouldnt have had under the PLC because we would not reasonably expect them to have been as successful with the commercial deals. But until now the difference IMO has not been experienced on the pitch, it has been experienced by whose pockets the money has ended up in.
 
Where the Glazer's do deserve credit is in sticking by the previous manager. Especially 2004-2006 when anti-Fergie sentiment was hardly rare. Look at how Chelsea have got through managers under Abramovic. Nobody expects Moyes to be fired. If he was in same situation with Chelsea or City we'd be talking about little else other than when, not if, he'd be pushed.
 
Glazers.

They're not great owners. In some eyes they aren't even good owners. But they certainly are not bad owners.. We could of had a lot worse.

The problem I have personally is the gamble. We are in a good position now. Had we not of been so successful over the last years and during the recession things could have gone very very wrong. That is the problem I have, but that has been and gone. That is business I suppose. As long as they don't interfere with managing the club then they'll continue to not be bad owners and we'll just continue on, business as usual.
 
I wonder what position we'd be in had the global financial crash not happened. Presumably post 2007 until fairly recently, loans at a reasonable rate were difficult to come by.
 
Plugsy said:
Where the Glazer's do deserve credit is in sticking by the previous manager. Especially 2004-2006 when anti-Fergie sentiment was hardly rare. Look at how Chelsea have got through managers under Abramovic. Nobody expects Moyes to be fired. If he was in same situation with Chelsea or City we'd be talking about little else other than when, not if, he'd be pushed.
Click to expand...
They deserve zero credit for that. Well, they deserve as much credit for that as I get for making dinner for my kids. It is a given, anything else would be negligence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.