Undisclosed fees are a pain in the arse for this, but you'd have to go with some pretty wild figures to get anywhere near the £20m net per season plus "marquee signings" or whatever the original promise was.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Undisclosed fees are a pain in the arse for this, but you'd have to go with some pretty wild figures to get anywhere near the £20m net per season plus "marquee signings" or whatever the original promise was.
I agree - this thread is best kept for serious discussion about our finances.
If people want to discuss reasons for getting rid of the Glazers and potential alternate ownership options then better to do it in one of these:
https://www.redcafe.net/f6/all-chan...related-posts-here-please-287713/index56.html
https://www.redcafe.net/f6/green-gold-till-club-sold-283255/index91.html
The sites that include individual fees have our net spend (even after the diouf and Smalling deals) at around £10 mill since the Glazer take over. The reason I asked was that I wouldn't have a clue on how to interpret the details from our accounts. The reported fees seem quite far off than the actual fees then. Do the accounts disclose individual fees or just the net spend?
Well I dont see it as promise to spend that amount of money. It was just a promise to make that amount of funds available on an annual basis for transfers. Now whether Fergie feels the need to spend it is not down to the Glazers as he decides who comes and goes - plus it would be pure muppetry to spend and buy players just for the sake of it - we are not Real Madrid and neither would I want to be.
I thought the fees that were "undisclosed" were just that to the media and the like at the time of the transfer? Aren't the fees disclosed in the clubs accounts?
I've said it's a net cash expenditure of £57m for a nigh on five year period according to the accounts. I've also made the point that the extraordinary figure received for Ronaldo just 11 months ago greatly reduces the total net outlay from what it might have been if the Ronaldo sale hadn't happened.
Not that I want to delve too far into a ''look at what would have happened if we hadn't sold Ronaldo'' argument.
It's just common sense really. We need to wait a few years before we can form a definitive conclusion about the level of Capex under the Glazers ownership. All things considered, I would say that expenditure has been ''reasonable'' up until now.
That old chestnut.
OK, for sake of argument, lets say that we hadn't been lucky enough to get such use out of the old lads along with youngsters like Fletcher, and lets say Fergie had retired and we hadn't benefited from his management, and found ourselves needing to buy players for, say, Mourinho...
The money was there to spend, you say, so that'd be fine.
But would you still be telling us how healthy our financial situation was if we were another £100m+ worse off, both in cash and book terms?
I suspect you probably would, actually.
Well I dont really see the point in answering that as it is not the situation we find ourselves in.
Err... Dunno?
Just the amount received from player sales and the amount spent on players.
You just need to go to the consolidated cashflow statement in the accounts and look at the figures for ''Proceeds from sale of players’ registrations'' and ''Purchase of players’ registrations''.
All of the accounts you will need are at the bottom of the bond issue prospectus: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/pdf/ManUtdProspectus.pdf.
The net cash capex on players for the nine month period to the end of March 2010 was £32.4m.
Brilliant!
Did you type that with a straight face?
Of course - I honestly dont see the point in wasting time discussing hypothetical situations from the past.
Lets focus on our current financial situation which of course does lead to useful discussion about what could happen going forward.
My God are you serious. They are that bad that the Glazers have been forced to open their big mouths. By the way any chance you are Roodboy's love child? If I were you I would look at those accounts a bit longer and take off those red tainted glasses
Roodboy not answering the vital questions again
I would expect that if we spent £50m it would come from the lower interest credit facility and they'd throw the cash reserves at the PIKs.
The PIKS will be about £240 million midyear I'd expect them to at least clear the rolled-up interest of £110M. I don't know whether they can pay off the initial £130M in bits.
But surely saying that the money was there if we'd needed to spend it is a "hypothetical situation from the past"?
My ponit that the money we were told would be spent has not been spent is just a fact.
No doubt. Although they will have heart attacks if SAF spends 50m. If he did however want to they would let it happen so much are they dependant on his support, without SAF they are finished
Without trying to offend you, that to me sounds like pure ignorance. The whole of the campaigns these days is about the Glazers putting United on the rocky road into a position of potential ruin. The Red Knights want to "save the club and bring back stability".
Well as more and more light is shed on the financial situation the club is in, it's clear that they are actually providing the club with the financial stability everyone would like to see, far from steering the clubdown this rocky road to ruin people seem to enjoy talking about.
What's to say that when the Glazers get the club into something of an "end game" situation, they won't have to keep putting the ticket prices up as everyone around them does becase our revenue in other areas is looking like it could be huge. It would be great P.R for them if they planned to stick around and reap the rewards of everything they have worked for an would start to brin fans back round to them.
Wow.
Are you for real?
I mean... there's optimistic, and then there's... this!
Poor old Ciderman. I suppose it was inevitable he would be outdone one day!
Financial stability? Take another look we are in a dangerous position. If the Glazers ever do get to the stage when they are not in debt which I doubt, do you think they are going to start being good to the fans? no chance they will be the winners not the fans and they will pay themselves accordingly
Now when did the Ronaldo money hit our accounts?
Pipe down you, I was just on my way.
Come on mate, it's pretty uncontentious and should be easy for a financial whizz like you to answer off the top of your head.
Or is Google running slowly today?
What do you mean if it wasn't in the bank? It IS in the bank so what a silly question. Let's deal with reality and not play silly beggars please.
The bank account would have £68m less in it as of March 31st 2010 if they'd spent the £25m a season they budgeted.
The fact they've spent less than they budgeted for and met their financial targets, whilst at the same time being able to allow Fergie to maintain a strong squad and a strong on the pitch performance, isn't exactly something to get too upset over I wouldn't have thought.
Why does that upset you Fred?
Don't take every thing I say as my opinion, I sometimes play devil's adovacate for the sake of debate and seeing things from the other side. I'm not niave enough to think they are going to subsidize everyone's tickets.
But. If they keep the turnover progressing at the rate it has then it is not beyond the realms of impossibility that in 5 or 10 years time, if they are still here and have refinanced or started to pay off the loans and they are easily manageable.
The commercial side of the Glazer's income is expected to overtake Matchday income and Media income in just a couple of years. It is in no way beyond the realms of impossibility that the Glazers, no longer relying on Matchday income as their main source, could use this breathing space the Commercial revenue would give them in order to start to win fans back round and make the club more family oriented once again.
A huge P.R exercise like this would then start to give United that all important "Fan's Club" image once again. Anyone in marketing knows that the key to commercial success, is the image of your product. There will be a P.R campaign in place at some point, you can garentue that, there is no way they will leave the devide between the club and it's fans as it is.
Did we really need this new guy pumping out the same shit as Roodboy, one was bad enough but two of them, promoted on a handful of posts as well
Come on mate, it's pretty uncontentious and should be easy for a financial whizz like you to answer off the top of your head.
Or is Google running slowly today?
Apologies, I've just seen your question with regards to the balance sheet and mistook your other post for being about the question on the reduction in cash.
The senior debt bank facilities had been paid off by 31st March 2010.
The bond is treated as both a current asset and a liability on the balance sheet of the MU Finance PLC accounts but wouldn't be in the Red Football Limited accounts. That's because the company that sold the bonds to investors was MU Finance PLC.
Ughh have you got some basis for that?
https://www.redcafe.net/f6/all-issu...-cash-out-etc-280859/index36.html#post8082477
Just taking the figures from what you posted
..................07-09 growth...08-09 growth...£m (rounded up - 30th june 09)
Tickets.........17.5%..............7.7%.........109
Media/TV........62%...............9.9%.........100
Commercial......24.8%.............9.2%.......70
In 07 Commercial revenue was 26.7% of total revenues and in 09 it was 25%
I think this is going to be one of my last posts in here. It really is head against a brick wall stuff. Kudos to roodboy for having such patience.
Seriously, forget for a minute what you have been told by your doom and gloom mate down the pub and put down your Daily Mail.
Have a listen to the what Roodboy, GCHQ and myself are saying, we have read the hard figures and unlike Football, in the financial world, statistics do not lie.
They can be misinterpreted, wether it's by accident or to instill a fear in you. But if you actually took an hour yourself, ignoring everything we have said and forgetting everything any Anti-Glazer propaganda would like you to believe, you will see for yourself that it is all being very well managed and there is nothing to fear.
Please do this for your own sake if not ours.
@Commadus
I saw it in this blog on the BBC, I guess there is more evidence for it
The Glazers believe their 2007 commercial shake-up is starting to pay off with that part of the business forecast to overtake matchday and media revenue in the next few years.
I saw it in this blog on the BBC, I guess there is more evidence for it
The Glazers believe their 2007 commercial shake-up is starting to pay off with that part of the business forecast to overtake matchday and media revenue in the next few years.
I wouldnt say its bullshit - it's more interpretation and your natural perspective - is the glass half full or half empty.
I agree with you regards the fact that Manchester United did not gain anything from the debt - it wasn't used to upgrade our facilities, build a new ground, buy more players - it was there to help the Glazers purchase United.
I suppose what you find difficult and understandbly so is looking at this with a dispassionate way but your emotions perhaps get the better of you?
If you dont want to post any more, your choice. As for the local pub I actually own it and I have never bought the Mail in my life. The Glazers with their expensive accountants can give anything a spin which some people buy into, not me. The fact is that if we had been taken over by some party who could have afforded us we would not be playing inflated ticket prices nor the ACS. We would not have paid 432m in interest since 2005 and we would be competitive in the transfer market and we all as fans would not be having squabbles over a crowd of greedy yanks
Believe me I have bigger problems in life than the Glazers. I do find it frustrating when you ask these experts a simple question you get a big long winded spin. I was a meeting last night with my local MP about a local problem and it was the same situation. My bottom line is that the Glazers have been a bad deal for Manchester United and the fans and I see nothing here that would change my mind
From a financial perspective raising ticket prices and revenue is a positive thing for the Glazers and its creditors but for the fans its not.
It depends from what perspective you take. Have the fans paid more? Yes. Has the club paid more in interest and fees than it has spent on players? Yes
Now are those two points above negative aspects - perhaps fans would say they are but others looking at it from a differenet perspective will not.
You what?
Would you care to tell me what it is about those accounts that you think are ''bad''?
These are the figures I would describe as good:
''Revenue growth YTD year on year of 14% from £193.3m to £219.3m''
''EBITDA growth pre-exceptional items YTD year on year of 30% from £63.4m to £82.1m''
I get the feeling toys are being thrown out of the pram because the accounts don't show that the £70m has gone to repay part of the PIK loan.
I suspect MUST had their ''LOOK WHERE THE RONALDO MONEY HAS GONE'' press release all typed up and ready to go yesterday.
I fully accept that everyone has their own prespective on things
Towards the end of June 2009.
Anybody who read my earlier post about longwinded answers to simple questions need to read above, I am a businessman who knows what accountants can do with accounts. The bottom line is that the club and the fans are in a far worse position because of the Glazers and you can spin that any way you want
You've got some cheek my friend considering what you've come out with.
I suggest you try and calm down a little bit.
You said net cash spend on players was £30m? for the 9 months till end of March 2010?
Makes sense July 09 to March 2010 inclusive.
- Status