ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Cool, so we're clearing £50m a year, cash, and £130m last year?
One question though: Where's it gone?
That's over £300m since the takeover, yet the debt has gone up a bit. Somebody's got their fingers in the till here!
What, the ones who can't discuss the issue like adults without resorting to abuse every post? Yep, it's certainly done that!
Oh yes, on that one we most definitely agree.
What we disagree on is who the knuckledraggers are...
You wouldnt believe who I think is the worst culprit..
So United cleared £130 million after interest payments last year ?
What happens when we have to refinance in 2017? Will the PIKS have been paid off by then? It's those that are really fecking us at the minute, I don't know why it isn't a priority of the Glazers to pay them off as soon as possible. 2% increase in August isn't it?
I must admit, I don't like it when people tell lies. Even clever people get cross. They do tend to understand simple concepts though and remember when they've been told something.
The £50m net cash profit was for last year. You don't include transfer fees received and paid in net cash profit. That comes under net Capex.
The debt has gone up largely due to the way the PIK loan interest is rolled up and added to the principle.
The intial debt that was taken out was a short-term measure to gain PLC board approval for the takeover.
They might then very briefly have to use some of that facility for a large outlay on transfer fees. It would be cleared again very quickly and would add a tiny sum of interest to the overall amount.
Is EBITDA the new Champions league?
Can you get an 'end of season' review DVD of it?
Does it go on our list of honours?
Oh I do hope so!
This was a research note of the bond issue Fred. It was written after the bond issue had taken place.
But, but, but... that profit was after all the interest a minute ago!
And I still don't get where the £300m has gone?
Ironically I did actually take about ten minutes to answer that question because I was trawling through endless posts of drivel from yourself (and that's me putting it kindly).
It was net cash profit so of course the interest that was accrued and rolled up and added to the principle of the PIK loan isn't included. Worth pointing out that the PIK loan isn't secured against United's assets and isn't the responsibility of the club.
£130m has gone on Capex for a start. And of course net cash profit was much lower than £50m in the earlier years of the Glazers reign so there never was £300m anyway.
But this is where the whole thing falls down. I recently withdrew an extra couple of grand from my flexible mortgage - remortgaging in effect. Only a fool would think I made a couple of grand profit on the deal.
Same as the last round, another bond issue is the most likely outcome.
Companies do this quite frequently. I'm not sure what goes on with the PIKs. Ideally they'd want to pay those off asap as the interest rates are killer.
I see that must have released another patronising and embarrassing statement which I can't be arsed to link from my phone. Jist: glazers are terrified of the red knights. It's another message for the retarded and uninformed so that must can say they've got another 20000 "members".
Which part of ''the PIK loan isn't the responsibility of the club and isn't secured against the club's assets'' did you not take in?
Members who only have to provide their name and email address and who can then add all of their friends, family's and animals email address' as well and then they all count as members too!
It's an awesome day outside I suggest you chill and enjoy the rest of the day.
BBC - David Bond's Blog: Glazer stance ends Red Knights dream
That's why I don't believe in fairy tales. They never come true unfortunately!
That's why I don't believe in fairy tales. They never come true unfortunately!
''In fact, the overall debt in the club has gone down from £543.3m to £520m for the corresponding period last year.''
But but but.....
What would be the projected turnover for this year? Would it be a £27 mill increase on last years or would the last quarter have also seen improvements to the year before but the those results would have been dented by us being knocked out of the champions league and not being involved in the FA cups later stages would they not?
They would, yes.
My projection would be turnover showing a £15m-£20m rise with cash operating expenses rising by £5m-£10m.
So you would be looking at EBITDA of somewhere between £95m-£105m. Up from £90m last year.
I think we all know how the fourth quarter/end of year results will be ''spun'' by certain people:
''United's revenue FALLS in the fourth quarter, the club is doomed!''
The reality will be that revenue with have increased year to year and more significantly earnings (EBITDA) will have grown by around 10% to £100m despite the fact that the club's on the pitch performance was weaker than that of the previous 12 months.
Right, so money from the club won't be used to pay them back? That's a relief, there was me thinking they represented a drain on our finances.
I wonder why they get talked about so much in discussions of our debt - we should spread this knowledge.
I think we all know how the fourth quarter/end of year results will be ''spun'' by certain people:
''United's revenue FALLS in the fourth quarter, the club is doomed!''
The reality will be that revenue with have increased year to year and more significantly earnings (EBITDA) will have grown by around 10% to £100m despite the fact that the club's on the pitch performance was weaker than that of the previous 12 months.
Agreed, i must say I take my hat off to yourself, Roodboy and the likes for having the patience you do to try and explain these things, i know full well i wouldn’t have had such patience to have to repeat the same thing time after time to people who clearly just don’t understand the financial state of the club mainly because they’ve listened to MUST propaganda and the likes of Fredthered spouting doom prophecies for 5 years.....its a shame people don’t take the time to look at the figures themselves and see for themselves how its not half as bad as some would love the world to believe.
Glad you’ve been promoted by the way, its always nice to have people on here who actually display an understanding of the financial side of the club, were usually stuck with fred, A1dan and the like who clearly haven’t got the foggiest clue what their talking about, hence their comments get systematically corrected time after time.
Analysts say Manchester United must sell players to pay debts
• 'The model doesn't work unless there are player sales'
• Company trying to push up advance ticket renewals
Manchester United posted a £66.5m loss in the first nine months of its fiscal year as financing costs and one-time items more than offset increasing media, matchday and commercial revenues.
The accounts of Red Football Ltd, United's holding company, released today, show a £40.6m one-off charge linked to closing down an interest rate swap – or protection that companies buy against interest rate increases – that the firm had to pay when it swapped its loan debt with a bond earlier this year. The company posted a £19m non-cash foreign exchange loss due to the increase in the US dollar against sterling, which makes the bonds that United issued in dollars more expensive. The remaining £7m contained other costs including those related to debt issue.
United posted a £9.3m profit on the disposal of players that was far behind last year, when it sold Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid for £80m. "The loss shows that the business model doesn't work unless there are player sales," said Philip Long, partner at PKF accountants and business advisers, who has worked on football deals. "It's an absolute mess – when the full-year interest is accounted in and there are no items like last year's sale of Ronaldo, what's going to happen?"
Rising player salaries pushed staff costs up by 7% to £94.5m, from £87.9m, in line with the company's revenue, Manchester United said. The club faces rising interest on £225m of payment-in-kind (PIK) loans, incurred in 2005 when the Glazer family bought the club. The PIK interest payments to investors, including hedge funds, are due to increase to 16.25% from 14.25% in August because of the firm's high debts. Apart from the PIK loans, United also has £520.9m of debt but the accounts showed that a £70m facility available to pay down PIK debt has not been used.
The bonds, sold in February at about 98 pence to the pound, trade between 93p and 94p, putting investors at a loss. "All the high-yield market is down," a person familiar with the bond issue said. "And it's a football deal, which doesn't fit into some asset managers' investment strategies."
Bondholders were cheered by boosting media revenue, to £76.8m, which helped lift earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation to £82.1m, up from £63.4m over the same period last year, the company said.
During a conference call, management warned investors that four-quarter growth may be lower because of fewer Premier League games to be played during the period – due to a calendar issue – and the team's elimination from the 2009-10 Champions League in the quarter-finals, having reached the semi-finals in the two previous years.
The company, which said it has £95.9m in cash reserves, is trying to push up advance ticket sales, warning fans that their season tickets will be passed on unless they make a payment. A club email to executive members seen by the Guardian said: "If you do not renew your Old Trafford executive facility for the forthcoming 2010-11 season before the renewal deadline of 31 May, your facility will automatically be released to the seasonal hospitality waiting list." The email said this is now a "matter of urgency".
The club reiterated that United are not for sale. "The board notes recent press speculation regarding a possible bid for Manchester United," the club said. "The owners remain fully committed to their long-term ownership of the club. Manchester United is not for sale and the owners will not entertain any offers."
The Glazer family are keen to hold on to their investment, despite their unpopularity among the fans, who blame them for loading the club with debt and turning it into a commercial venture. The owners, however, do not want to capitalise their investment until revenue-boosting new technology develops, allowing access to live games and more content through mobile phones, a person familiar with the situation has told the Guardian.
The Red Knights, a group of more than 10 wealthy investors led by the Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O'Neill, declined to say whether their planned offer was still being prepared.
Analysts say Manchester United must sell players to pay debts | Football | The Guardian
• 'The model doesn't work unless there are player sales'
• Company trying to push up advance ticket renewals
Manchester United posted a £66.5m loss in the first nine months of its fiscal year as financing costs and one-time items more than offset increasing media, matchday and commercial revenues.
The accounts of Red Football Ltd, United's holding company, released today, show a £40.6m one-off charge linked to closing down an interest rate swap – or protection that companies buy against interest rate increases – that the firm had to pay when it swapped its loan debt with a bond earlier this year. The company posted a £19m non-cash foreign exchange loss due to the increase in the US dollar against sterling, which makes the bonds that United issued in dollars more expensive. The remaining £7m contained other costs including those related to debt issue.
United posted a £9.3m profit on the disposal of players that was far behind last year, when it sold Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid for £80m. "The loss shows that the business model doesn't work unless there are player sales," said Philip Long, partner at PKF accountants and business advisers, who has worked on football deals. "It's an absolute mess – when the full-year interest is accounted in and there are no items like last year's sale of Ronaldo, what's going to happen?"
Rising player salaries pushed staff costs up by 7% to £94.5m, from £87.9m, in line with the company's revenue, Manchester United said. The club faces rising interest on £225m of payment-in-kind (PIK) loans, incurred in 2005 when the Glazer family bought the club. The PIK interest payments to investors, including hedge funds, are due to increase to 16.25% from 14.25% in August because of the firm's high debts. Apart from the PIK loans, United also has £520.9m of debt but the accounts showed that a £70m facility available to pay down PIK debt has not been used.
The bonds, sold in February at about 98 pence to the pound, trade between 93p and 94p, putting investors at a loss. "All the high-yield market is down," a person familiar with the bond issue said. "And it's a football deal, which doesn't fit into some asset managers' investment strategies."
Bondholders were cheered by boosting media revenue, to £76.8m, which helped lift earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation to £82.1m, up from £63.4m over the same period last year, the company said.
During a conference call, management warned investors that four-quarter growth may be lower because of fewer Premier League games to be played during the period – due to a calendar issue – and the team's elimination from the 2009-10 Champions League in the quarter-finals, having reached the semi-finals in the two previous years.
The company, which said it has £95.9m in cash reserves, is trying to push up advance ticket sales, warning fans that their season tickets will be passed on unless they make a payment. A club email to executive members seen by the Guardian said: "If you do not renew your Old Trafford executive facility for the forthcoming 2010-11 season before the renewal deadline of 31 May, your facility will automatically be released to the seasonal hospitality waiting list." The email said this is now a "matter of urgency".
The club reiterated that United are not for sale. "The board notes recent press speculation regarding a possible bid for Manchester United," the club said. "The owners remain fully committed to their long-term ownership of the club. Manchester United is not for sale and the owners will not entertain any offers."
The Glazer family are keen to hold on to their investment, despite their unpopularity among the fans, who blame them for loading the club with debt and turning it into a commercial venture. The owners, however, do not want to capitalise their investment until revenue-boosting new technology develops, allowing access to live games and more content through mobile phones, a person familiar with the situation has told the Guardian.
The Red Knights, a group of more than 10 wealthy investors led by the Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O'Neill, declined to say whether their planned offer was still being prepared.
Analysts say Manchester United must sell players to pay debts | Football | The Guardian
So we can safely say your inthe patronising camp then.
Maybe if I study really hard I can be as clever as you?
Maybe then I can presume that anybody with a different opinion to me must be stupid too?
Money from the club might be used to repay part of them back, yes. Then again, money from the club might not be used to repay part of them back. We don't know do we? Nobody knows. It's obviously entirely at the Glazers discretion as to what happens to the PIK loan. All we know is that as of yet no club money has gone to repay part of the PIK loan.
Given that the PIK loan isn't secured against the club's assets and isn't on the club's balance sheet it therefore would appear pretty sensible to not include it in any discussion of United's financial performance.
Oh come on...
I'd be the first to admit that most of what you say is fairly reasonable, but you just sound daft trying to push the above.
So we can safely say your inthe patronising camp then.
Maybe if I study really hard I can be as clever as you?
Maybe then I can presume that anybody with a different opinion to me must be stupid too?
Its not about being clever though is it, its about being able to read and grasp what’s in front of your very eyes, Roodboys done that, grasped it and displayed an understanding of them and bless him continues to try and explain it to persons such as you and fred who clearly don’t…..GCHQ is the same, your lucky these lads have the patience to keep answering your questions.
Maybe if you read the accounts and give yourself some time to take them in you wouldn’t need to ask the same questions over and over and over and over again??.....The information is all there, how you look upon it is up to you but its pure laziness to argue a point continually without clearly even taking the time to form your own view based on the figures, and not based on MUST propaganda.
Clearly Freds a lost cause on that score hes to wound up in his own misted hate, im hoping your not.
Oh come on...
I'd be the first to admit that most of what you say is fairly reasonable, but you just sound daft trying to push the above.
A1Dan, you've obviously never considered that there are other ways for the Glazers to ''manage'' the PIK loan. And one of the main alternatives is to attempt a refinancing of the loan at cheaper rates.
Jesus, I've heard preaches that are less patronising than you.
If you took the time to read through this thread, you'd see that I have read through those accounts, and got bogged down in a fair amount of their detail in discussions with Roodboy. What you claim is fact that is there in black and white is no such thing, it is a matter of interpretation and opinion as to what is relevant. The accounts aren't all bad news, but there remain serious doubts about the business plan and the overall financial position of the club.
The reason we keep going back over the same points, is because Roodboy's analysis is full of holes, and however many times we point them out we never get a proper answer, just the same old lines. I know Roodboy sees it as the exact reverse of this, and it's probably true that it's all a bit pointless going over and over it, as nobody is really going to budge.
That's not particularly relevant. It is still debt, and it is still debt that, while you disagree, I would be amazed if they are not intending to repay with money from the club, whenever they get round to repaying it.
Jesus, I've heard preaches that are less patronising than you.
If you took the time to read through this thread, you'd see that I have read through those accounts, and got bogged down in a fair amount of their detail in discussions with Roodboy. What you claim is fact that is there in black and white is no such thing, it is a matter of interpretation and opinion as to what is relevant. The accounts aren't all bad news, but there remain serious doubts about the business plan and the overall financial position of the club.
The reason we keep going back over the same points, is because Roodboy's analysis is full of holes, and however many times we point them out we never get a proper answer, just the same old lines. I know Roodboy sees it as the exact reverse of this, and it's probably true that it's all a bit pointless going over and over it, as nobody is really going to budge.
Well we do know that MUST have had to budge.
MUST - May 2005
''We forecast that within three years the Glazers business plan will fail and they will be forced to sell the club''
And you expect all of us to still take these jokers seriously five years on?
- Status