This is true.
It'll probably just be Ant and Dec making a few jokes, and then some f-list talking heads telling you about their favourite ever scen from East Enders.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
This is true.
It'll probably just be Ant and Dec making a few jokes, and then some f-list talking heads telling you about their favourite ever scen from East Enders.
Well yes, but then you posted
so we'll let the jury decide on that one.
Anyway though, you're right it's yet another tedious distraction, so enough of that.
I made it very clear that in this thread I wanted to focus on analysising our financials and looking at everything from primarily a business perspective.
I have said all along that I would be happy to discuss more general issues about the Glazers impact on the club in other suitable threads and I have given my opinion on these issues on several occasions in the past (particularly during discussion with ralphie).
Fair enough.
Its not that I WANT to ignore the tax. But the implication (and andersred assumption) being that we would have to pay less tax if we hadn't had the Ronaldo income.
Also, I must apologise, it was just a momentary thing. Nowt to do with you.
Fair enough, though the title of the thread does specifically mention "Glazer taking cash out" but not "whether we broke even"...
Apology accepted - an unusual act of maturity for the caf (you spastic)
As I say, I think the debate on whether we would have MAPWTRS is getting a bit worn-out. None of it alters the fact that the profit or loss made, adn the efefct on cash-flow would have been massively improved without teh interest repayments.
No, that's not acceptable. If MUST aren't interested in telling the truth then why should any of us trust them? Why are they deceiving us? If their accusations against the Glazer ownership are not convincing enough without ridiculous exaggeration then why are they making them? MUST have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, they've shamelessly manipulated the fans with incorrect 'facts', misinformed 'interpretations', moronic soundbites and sensationalised journalism. Yet you'd 'expect nothing less'? Is it too much to ask then that they tell the truth and let us decide from that where we stand? If MUST think we need to be tricked into supporting them, and are ready and willing to trick us, then they stand for nothing and do not deserve to be associated with the United support.
Wrong.
Given the vast propoganda and spin offensives the club are able to push through media channels, if MUST weren't to also play the game their message would never be heard. They need the "we're all going to die!" headlines and soundbites to get any column inches and get people's attention.
Note: I am not talking about telling outright lies, which would not be acceptable, and I'm not aware of them having done. Quite rightly, once you go beyond the attnetnio grabbing headlines, their campaign is based on solid fact, and they are more than happy to let people make informed judgments based on the facts.
They will naturally highlight those facts which are petinent to their cause and not any "Glazer saves drowngin kitten" stories which come along, but what the hell do you expect? If you want impartial, balanced accounts form eithe MUFC or MUSt then your incredibly naive.
Given the vast propoganda and spin offensives the club are able to push through media channels, if MUST weren't to also play the game their message would never be heard. They need the "we're all going to die!" headlines and soundbites to get any column inches and get people's attention.
Note: I am not talking about telling outright lies, which would not be acceptable, and I'm not aware of them having done. Quite rightly, once you go beyond the attnetnio grabbing headlines, their campaign is based on solid fact, and they are more than happy to let people make informed judgments based on the facts.
They will naturally highlight those facts which are petinent to their cause and not any "Glazer saves drowngin kitten" stories which come along, but what the hell do you expect? If you want impartial, balanced accounts form eithe MUFC or MUSt then your incredibly naive.
love Glazer hate MUST?
The Glazer family have released a statement confirming that Manchester United is not for sale and that they will not entertain any offers for the club.
THE END
THE END
I'm not too sure where to start with this...
The best thing I can do is address your claim that ''United isn't performing as well as the Glazers thought it would''.
So I will direct you to the 2006 Investment Memorandum which the Glazers published when they were raising the bank debt for their first refinancing (very interesting read by the way for anyone else interested in this): http://andersred.googlegroups.com/w...SiETdg0Q2ffAyHU-dzc4BZkLnSFWX59nr5BxGqA&hl=en
Look for the ''Key Business Plan Assumptions'' on Page 53 of the document (P54 of the PDF) where you'll see the revenue and more importantly the EBITDA figures that they projected. Remember that United successfully refinanced on the back of these plans.
Note that back then in July 2006 they projected EBITDA to be £92.9m in the 2008/09 financial year.
The actual adjusted EBITDA for that period as revealed in January of this year was in fact £94m.
The truth is, Fred, the Glazers plans for United whether we like it or not ARE on track and ultimately there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about that.
I would suggest it is you who can't accept that fact.
This has probably already been posted but it's the first i saw of it.
Manchester United finances under Glazers to be subject of BBC Panorama investigation - Telegraph
Manchester United finances under Glazers to be subject of BBC Panorama investigation - Telegraph
To be fair to MUST, unless you can show that they have continued repeating the "would not have made a profit without the sale of Ronaldo" line after they were informed that it is an erroneous interpretation, accusing them of intellectual dishonesty and of a willingness to say anything to further their aims is more than a little ironic.
I've no doubt that MUST are in the business of propaganda, which is certainly not something that I appreciate, but that's not the same as purposeful deception, unless otherwise shown. I would lose a lot of respect for them as an organization if that were the case, because there is absolutely no need to inflate the case against the current ownership model, even if it requires a lot more effort to get an accurate narrative in to the wider consciousness.
I've no doubt that MUST are in the business of propaganda, which is certainly not something that I appreciate, but that's not the same as purposeful deception, unless otherwise shown. I would lose a lot of respect for them as an organization if that were the case, because there is absolutely no need to inflate the case against the current ownership model, even if it requires a lot more effort to get an accurate narrative in to the wider consciousness.
What was the point of Gill coming out and saying we got £95m to spend.
That just means that valuations for players we might be looking at are going to be slightly increased after this declaration.
That just means that valuations for players we might be looking at are going to be slightly increased after this declaration.
Not particularly getting involved with Fred's specific point, but it's worth pointing out that at the time SU, IMUSA and many other supporters claimed that the Glazers business model spelt nothing other than a world of shit for the club and it's supporters...
...And as you rightly say, it's all going exactly to plan!
He didn't say that, he said we have around £95m cash in the bank.
Yeah, they'll go up from 3m to 3.5m for our Tesco Value targets.
''World of shit'' is an exaggeration but yes the matchgoing supporter (which includes me by the way) has had to endure a significant increase in the cost of attending matches at Old Trafford.
Anyway I thought we were trying to keep this thread strictly to the club's finances?
And I don't think I need to remind you what those same supporter groups said about United's actual financial situation under the Glazers Ownership.
I don't think it means much to be honest. They had to allude to it in someway, they couldn't just ignore it, and they're hardly going to say they're going to listen to offers.
To be fair, if you're taxed on income, it's bound to be the case. You'll pay more tax on a player sold for £80m than £20m. I don't really see it as an issue.
AutoTrader would charge me more for selling my car for £3000 than £1000 but I'll make more money from it myself - same principle really.
The fact that they have released a statement saying that they have no intention of selling the club can be interpreted in several ways.
That's exactly what clubs say about players, for example, two weeks before agreeing to sell them. It might well be true that the Glazer's have no intention of selling the club, although that's not actually true, because there is certainly a figure that would persuade them to do so, but we'll only really find that out if and when they are offered a sizable amount of money for the club.
Would you care to look at their player capital investment figures and tell me if they likewise are on line with what was forecast ?
If you didn't see my post on the last page then you can see the latest financial results for MU Finance PLC (essentially Red Football Limited) on this website: Manchester United - MU Finance
I need to have a longer look at them but the results appear to be pretty good.
I need to have a longer look at them but the results appear to be pretty good.
Not got time to look myself at the moment either, but you reckon that those 3 tweets somebody posted are groundless then?
OK - just had a quick glance...
Is that "Increase/(decrease) in cash" line not something to file under "Bad", seeing as it appears to report a decrease in cash, and cashflow is what its all about?
Is that "Increase/(decrease) in cash" line not something to file under "Bad", seeing as it appears to report a decrease in cash, and cashflow is what its all about?
What tweets?
Oh yes, just seen the tweets in the G&G thread.
Yes, those tweets are totally groundless. No money as of March 31st had left the club to repay any of the PIK loan. The reduction in cash from £122m at December 31st 2009 down to £96m by March 31st 2010 (not massive by any means) is just the result of seasonal cashflow and also legal fees paid out for the bond issue.
Finance report http://www.mufplc.com/pdf/Q3 2010 Report.pdf
Can you understand how this all adds up to sounding a lot like explaining stuff away?
It's a constant stream of...
"The club only reported profits of £25m after selling Ronaldo"
"Oh, that's because of amortisation of Goodwill, it's the cash position you need to worry about."
"Phew. Hang on, We're £55m down in cash over the last 9 months!"
"Oh, don't worry about that, it's seasonal and there were some legal fees".
At the end of the day, it's all sailing very close to the wind, and needs a constant stream of financial analysis to explain why it's not actually going tits up.
This from a club that, in essence, should be clearing a profit of tens of a millions of pounds, despite being able to spend big on players if required, and without worrying about a single red figure on the books.
Well, let's start by saying that player capital investment has nothing to do with and doesn't effect the level of EBITDA achieved (in accountancy terms anyway).
The net cash expenditure on players in the period since the Glazers takeover in May 2005 up to the end of March 2010 has been £57m. Now obviously that includes the quite extraordinary sale of Ronaldo for £80m 11 months ago. Given the extraordinary size of that fee (smashed the world record let's not forget) it would seem pretty daft to draw any definitive conclusion about the level of Capex on players under the Glazers ownership. Of course if you take that figure out of the equation you get a total outlay of £137m or roughly £27m a year. The average outlay in the three years before the sale of Ronaldo was £23m.
In short, we need to wait and see what the Capex is like over the next few years.
But none of that has anything to do with your point about how United isn't performing financially as well as the Glazers (and banks) had hoped.
Do you now agree that you were mistaken to think that?
Lunch-time
I think you are deliberately trying to play dumb here A1Dan - obviously the club has working capital requirements and has to spend money every month on wages etc - is that a suprise to you?
I wont actually have time to look at results until tonight/tomorrow so will reserve comment until then.
I wont actually have time to look at results until tonight/tomorrow so will reserve comment until then.
If I shut my eyes and dont look at the total debts attached to United, then I think I can see what Roodboy is on about.....
I've quickly scanned both "Financial Results" pdf's and the "Presentation of Results", and there doesn't appear to be anything of particular note that we didn't already know, which is unsurprising.
Well that's pretty much the point I was making ages ago, but you are just flip-flopping to whatever suits you.
On the one hand you say that we shouldn't be looking at proft and loss figures that include non-cash items, as it's all about whether we have cash.
But now you're telling me that cash flow isn't relevant and we should look at the long-term financial picture, which is precisely why accounts include non-cash items such as amortisation of player registrations, taxes etc.
Make your mind up!
Unless I am mistaken, when you prepare a business plan, you look at whats going to come in, whats going to go out, and you formulate a plan of action..
Now quite rightly, you mention the money coming in is what they projected.
Sadly, the money going out somehow doesnt match because they havent had to spend half of what the planned for.
So the money coming in is what they said it would be
THe money in the bank is what they said it would be
The debt is about the amount they projected it would be
But they havent spent what they said they would spend.
Unless you can dress up a credit agreement in a United top and stick him as a centre forward, then I would guess that what they said they would spend on players isnt being matched. That money is going elsewhere.
If you put a dress on a pig, and make it wear lipstick, should you ever be desperate for a shag, just pretend its Angelina Jolie....
If anyone tells you its not Angelina, just remind them that Angelina wears a dress and wears lipstick too. Thus that pig must be the same as Angelina...
the moral... anything can be what you want to to be if you just ignore the bits you dont like...
A couple of things on the balance sheet one of our "experts" could confirm...
Presumably the bond counts within shareholders’ funds, and none of the cash rasied from the bond has yet been used to pay of the senior debt?
Ie - that explains the increase in asstes and shareholders’ funds, and shortly the assets will drop by £4-500m along with the Creditors—amounts falling due after more than one year?
What form is that £4-500m currently in... it's not cash, it's under Current assets—other?
I also don't really get how the bonds can show as shareholders’ funds. Shareholder implies a degree of ownership and control - an equity stake in the company. That doesn't sound like bonds to me...
Presumably the bond counts within shareholders’ funds, and none of the cash rasied from the bond has yet been used to pay of the senior debt?
Ie - that explains the increase in asstes and shareholders’ funds, and shortly the assets will drop by £4-500m along with the Creditors—amounts falling due after more than one year?
What form is that £4-500m currently in... it's not cash, it's under Current assets—other?
I also don't really get how the bonds can show as shareholders’ funds. Shareholder implies a degree of ownership and control - an equity stake in the company. That doesn't sound like bonds to me...
- Status