So in your opinion the accountants have manipulated the revenue and EBITDA figures to make them look better than they actually are?
This is getting silly now.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
So in your opinion the accountants have manipulated the revenue and EBITDA figures to make them look better than they actually are?
This is getting silly now.
Yup, £32.4m net cash spend on players for that nine month period.
ENRON ENRON ENRON........
Lol We are the Next Enron - you heard it here!
I don't think Crerand is saying that. I think he just does not like the idea of the big debt on United even though United can service the debt.
Oh god, what I have come out with. So you are some sort of whizz kid accountant or the like, ok round of applause. Right then, explain how blowing 430m in interest was good for the fans of Manchester United
Is that the same period that we sold Ronaldo for £80m cash?
Because of a Commerical marketing decision they made in 2007. Instead of renewing the current mobile marketing rights, they have devided up their world market and sold it seperately around the world.
Currently it's known they have sold the mobile marketing rights seperately to South Africa, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, India and Malyasia this allowed them to break it down and recieve more. Whereas in the past they could not sell to different companies due to conflicting products using us as the face of their products and it was then up to those companies to then sell their product over the globe. Now, they have broken the globe into seperate territories seeing that there is no conflict of interest.
So to give an example, in the past we were sponsored by Vodafone, which meant that if a company like AT&T came to us as a sponsor we wouldn't be able to use both as Vodafone have their own plans in America.
Now however we could be sponsored by Vodafone in the UK and if AT&T came in looking to sponsor us in the North American market, we could.... and Vodafone would have to bid against them for the sponsorship rights.
It basically means that people are advertising to their target audience.
What would be the point of Terry Tibbs advertising his used car shop Nationally when its only going to sell to a local area? Same thing on a world scale. What would be the point of Telekom Malaysia advertising to the world when only Malaysia can take advantage of it? Instead of selling to just Malaysia for world coverage, they get the Malaysian coverage for less, but we sell to every other market around the world too which in layman terms = a fecking truck load of money coming in.
Add on to that the extra's from mobile clips from MUTV, goal alert's, news, ringtones ect and it's a very real and very scary amout of money that will be coming in.
It's why even Formula One are looking to follow our commercial blueprint.
ENRON ENRON ENRON........
Lol We are the Next Enron - you heard it here!
I don't think Crerand is saying that. I think he just does not like the idea of the big debt on United even though United can service the debt.
Of course I am not I have said several times that I dont think the club is threatened
Could you provide me with a breakdown of that £430m in interest?
Why is anyone who analyses the financial situation objectively and tries to give a best guess of what is likely to happen in the future painted as saying the Glazer takeover has been good for the club or the fans?
Good point.
On the last page of this thread you said and I quote: ''Financial stability? Take another look we are in a dangerous position.''
Make your mind up.
Actually no but if I am wrong then so are half the posters on here as it is on here that I aquired the info. Going to work your wonderous ways on the interest figures as well now, I must admit you boys are good
Whoa! While I agree that we're stable given the debt/condition we're in, you can never convince men or any fan that this situation isn't bad as compared to a non Glazer scenario.
I have defended the interpretation of accounts done by roodboy and you here. You can check that up, but are you seriously implying that we're not in a bad situation as compared to what it could've been minus us being a part of a leveraged takeover? If so, then you're wrong.
Yes, accepting the situation that we find ourselves in atm (ie, a part of a leveraged buyout), I agree that we're not financially precarious as some are suggesting. However, Glazer takeover hasn't been good for the club. If you don't agree with that then you need to rethink certain things.
Rattled?
Just for the record.
I don't think the Glazers have been good for the club or its supporters and I wish they had never got their hands on our club.
Can you not see that praising the Glazers for "actually providing the club with the financial stability everyone would like to see" is like praising a gangster who you're paying protection money to for ensuring your business is safe.
We were the absolute model of financial stability before they turned up, we didn't need anybody to "provide financial stability".
And yet somehow, by playing Russian roulette with our finances for their own gain, and just about pulling it off so far, we are meant to be happy that they have "provided financial stability"?
It's absolutely preposterous!
Err, no.
You did massively contradict yourself though in a rather short space of time. If anyone is rattled then I suggest you might want to look a little bit closer to home for whom that might be.
You really are Roodboy's love child, he was right!
Seriously, why do you expend so much energy trying to defend the Glazers? I just don't get it.
Cheers! I'll take a look through that later and see if it stacks up correctly.
Because everytime you ask them what could happen if the shit hits the fan you get whammed with the same answer
"IT WONT.. Man United cant possible stop making as much money as they are now"
This I could understand if it were independant people with no loyalty to United saying it, but its just MUFC supporters trying to put a positive spin on anything that happens to United..
If Rooney broke his right leg in 12 places, they'd come out and say "well he's got another leg.. he's just as good shooting with that one"
If they were being objective then I could understand it.
£700 million + worth of debt, and increase of £200million since they took over
Ticket increases of up to 60%
Owners taking revenue from the club to pay themselves management fees
The ACS scheme
An average of over £85 million a year paid to banks
If anyone can look at that lot and say "well its not that bad" seriously needs a slap round the head with a very heavy instrument....
All of the things above and people say "but at least the Glazers are bringing in more money".
Thats like the Jews thanking Hitler for helping create Israel.
You really are Roodboy's love child, he was right!
Seriously, why do you expend so much energy trying to defend the Glazers? I just don't get it.
Noone is defending the Glazrs here, Dan.
I think thats where the disconnect is. I believe roodboy and co are arguing the propoganda that we're doomed for a financial disaster. Thats all.
I doubt anyone can defend Glazers for whatever they've done to the club. Doesn't mean you implicate them for the wrong reasons.
Contradiction where? Bit pompous arent you.
Is he defending the Glazers or is he dispassionately analysing the available information so we can try and see what will happen from here?
Everyone agrees that the Glazers have been bad for us, that goes without saying, what this thread should be about is understanding the exact situation we find ourselves in.
You really are Roodboy's love child, he was right!
Seriously, why do you expend so much energy trying to defend the Glazers? I just don't get it.
Here we go...
I'm not trying to ''defend'' the Glazers at all. I simply want to look at what is the reality of the club's financial position.
Now I know you don't like the reality. You like to believe in fairy tales and big groups of shiny Red Knights galloping over the hill to ''save us'' but I don't and clearly that is where the difference is between us.
What part of £700 million in debt so he can own the club needs explaining ?
I think he's less likely to be the kind that if David Gill said his dick tasted of chocolate, he'd suck it just to find out...
Exactly my point.
I have been anti Glazer for a long time and I believed they were ruining the club so I took some time out to do my own research and form my own opinion and I was actually very surprised at what I found.
The fact is they are good for the club and bad for the fans.
Sadly thats how it is these days, the club and it's fans are seperate entities with different agenda's.
For me personally, money is not an issue yet and while the Cup Scheme might hit some where it hurts, the Season Tickets are in my opinion still value for money (that may change). So they are not bad for me but I am a supporter and I want to see my fellow supporters happy.
I do however think it's in both parties interest to see the Team do well which is why I think the Glazer's do have the money readily availible for Ferguson to spend.
I think the real issue for Ferguson is that he want's to get someone in that is worth the big bucks he's willing to spend on them.
Imagine if we signed another player for £30m that didn't fit the team a la Berbatov? I think spending nothing is better than spending too much on the wrong player in his eyes. We have a team that can hold it's own right now, it's about identfying the players who bring us back to the top level we should be at.
Can I just point out that the club is nothing without the fans..
As far as what I can make out, noone in this thread has the level of experience in Business Analysis to answer whether the club can bear shocks to the revenue streams. I suggest you get an independent opinion on that. On the other hand, you have less experience than others posting here and yet doesn't stop you from believing what you're saying is spot on and supporting it by definitions off the web.
Also, how did you get to Hitler from where you started? Perspective, fred.
I am on record as saying I had my doubts on the RKs, you cant get me for that one GCHQ
In the absence of the Glazers and if we remained under the ownership structure prior to when the Glazers took over would we be a in a better position than we are now in?
All the issues regarding United's ability to service that debt, whether this is likely, the scale and changing nature of the debt structure, the timescales involved in paying it off or maintaining it, the cashflow situation going forward, the Glazer's business plan and what impact this will have in the future, the different scenarios that could occur depending on future success... there really is a lot to look at and consider.
Shouting 'the Glazers are bad, they put us in massive debt' is true and something we all agree on, but it's not exactly much help in trying to understand what's going to happen in the future and the specifics of the financial situation the club is in.
I am referring to those that believe that we should be grateful to the Glazers for putting us in a position where the finances could be good enough to cover the debts.
IMHO yes, considerably
But arguing "that side of the argument" over fine details can only play into the hands of the Glazers.
I would much rather that the reasons we want the Glazers out were a little overstated than that people drift away thinking "well, it's OK, I read people on the internet saying that everything's fine after all".
It's like the local dibble turning up at primary schools and saying "actually, most strangers who offer you a lift home are probably just being genuinely helpful and have no bad intentions. And if your frisby gets stuck in a pylon and you climb up and get it, chances are you'll be OK" (do they still show that video?).
But the point is, you say people agree the Glazers are bad.
They wont believe that if you get hte likes of Roodboy and his cronies all making out that everything is fine, so theres nothing to worry about.
Any supporters from other clubs will be looking at this thread and thinking "this is so called rejection of the Glazers.. I'd call it more of an invitation to pop round for dinner"
How very mature Fred.
- Status