I cant see why they wouldnt want to wash their hands of the club.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
I cant see why they wouldnt want to wash their hands of the club.
Because those articles are a pile of shit and by 2017 they will be sitting on a £1Bn profit.
The other thing to understand is that the PIK loan is not with a standard bank - it comes from hedge funds who will accept forgoing an annual interest payment in return for a much bigger payout in the future. In effect they are more like the Glazers' business partners and will eventually take a big cut of our profits.
Just about sums it up yeah..
The cold harsh truth.
Yeah but when will they pay off the PIK loan? and will repayments come from the money generated by the club ie cash saved in the bank thanks to amortisation and other profit disguised as non profit? or will they use some of their own cash? oh and how will this affect transfers? if last summer's to go by the purse have tightened. And I don't care what anyone says, it still leaves an awful taste in my gob.
Last summer we put 30 million quid on the table for Benzema, 25 on the table for Tevez and spent 20 million on Valencia and Obertan......it was hardly tight purse strings lets be honest here.
It's not great but its probably better than some of the alternatives, eg:
- being owned by a sugar daddy who interferes with team affairs cf Abramovic
- being owned by a criminal, cf Usmanov's 25% of Arsenal
- being owned by an incompetent leverage merchant, cf Hicks/Gillette
- being owned by a sugar daddy who interferes with team affairs cf Abramovic
- being owned by a criminal, cf Usmanov's 25% of Arsenal
- being owned by an incompetent leverage merchant, cf Hicks/Gillette
Come on now, we didn't put a bid in for Benz - we simply weren't willing to pay £30m. In a nutshell we spent £20m and made a total profit of £70m in the TM. Those are facts. Also see the Glazers' net spending for proof. I don't get this Glazer apologist stuff. . .at least deal with facts.
Depends whether you believe Gill or not
BBC Sport - Football - Wayne Rooney not for sale at any price - Man Utd
We didn't get Benzema but we did offer 35m Euros," said Gill.
"It was just one phone call to the States saying we would like to make an offer for him 35m Euros and they said 'fine'. We did it, but he went to Real for something like over 40m Euros.
"But Alex has gone on record saying that was too much.
It's not great because they're expecting the fans to pay off their mortgage. Sure the fans should've bought the club when they had the chance but not everyone's been given the gift of foresight.
I'm fairly certain both Lyon and Benzema himself confirmed it. But, he chose Real, and that has worked out well for him.
Eh? both Lyon and ourselves confirmed wed offered just over 30 million euros for the player, Madrid simply offered more and we weren’t willing to pay the 40 million euros Aulas prized out of them, and on reflection id say we were rather wise.......it was well documented wed made the bid though, as i say it was confirmed by the French club so quite why you say that i don’t know.
He cost 35m Euros - but it could rise to 40m. Fact is we ended up with Owen, and weren't willing to spend 35m Euros on KB.
I'm fairly certain both Lyon and Benzema himself confirmed it. But, he chose Real, and that has worked out well for him.
Your correct, they did, we clearly did make a bid, all parties concerned confirmed it.
I don't recall Lyon confirming we put in an offer - can you find me a link? I do recall Fergie saying we weren't willing to pay £30m for Benz though.
Ill have me a look, give us a sec, i also do recall a Lyon spokesperson being interviewed at the time on Sky sports news confirming they had received a 30 million euros bid and it wasn’t from Real Madrid, they said it was an English bid and we all knew who but it was doomed to failure as the player only dreamt of Madrid.
But yeah ill see if i can dig up some quotes.
Karim Benzema joins Real Madrid after snubbing Manchester United - Telegraph
Lyon confirm Benzema bid
Best i can find at the moment.
Lyon confirm Benzema bid
Best i can find at the moment.
They don't say much to be fair. I think we knew from very early on that he was only interested in Real. Hence the late Tevez bid.
Yeah agreed, once Madrid went in for Benzema it was game over for us no matter what we offered.
I agree and in fact the reality is that there is currently no viable alternative anyway.
Good question.
I suppose that certain people find it difficult to accept/understand the real facts behind our financials as it goes against everything they have been told for the past 5 years.
At first they try to question the logic behind any analysis which doesnt fit their view of the world (which is fair enough) but eventually they realise that many of the conclusions are irrefutable. At this point the people with an open mind start to accept that things might not be as they thought, but others stay in denial and set about trying to discredit the sources by tarring them with the unwanted 'proGlazer' brush.
It is the same old muppets everytime who come out accusing people of being Glazerapologists etc - it has become quite boring really but Im sure it will keep happening.
Ironically there was one very interesting and perhaps relevant point raised in that Guardian article yesterday which I didn't fully appreciate at the time:
Now the interesting thing with this mobile phone content is that unlike pretty much everything else it doesn't fall within the Premier League's collective rights deal. So is the Glazers ultimate plan, when technology has developed sufficiently, to sell United's live match rights to mobile phone users around the world and use telecom companies as partners in the various different territories to achieve that objective? Remember all of these ''sponsorship agreements'' which United have already signed with many telecom companies in different parts of the world. It looks to me like there's a long term plan here and if it works and a reasonable amount of people are willing to watch live games on their mobile phones then the financial benefits could potentially be extraordinary. But would it work? What do people think?
It's no wonder they've been keeping these plans, if true, very quiet though. They would ultimately be devaluing the PL's collective rights deal if they went ahead with this and it would create a shit storm.
Maybe this is the gold at the end of the rainbow?
Now the interesting thing with this mobile phone content is that unlike pretty much everything else it doesn't fall within the Premier League's collective rights deal. So is the Glazers ultimate plan, when technology has developed sufficiently, to sell United's live match rights to mobile phone users around the world and use telecom companies as partners in the various different territories to achieve that objective? Remember all of these ''sponsorship agreements'' which United have already signed with many telecom companies in different parts of the world. It looks to me like there's a long term plan here and if it works and a reasonable amount of people are willing to watch live games on their mobile phones then the financial benefits could potentially be extraordinary. But would it work? What do people think?
It's no wonder they've been keeping these plans, if true, very quiet though. They would ultimately be devaluing the PL's collective rights deal if they went ahead with this and it would create a shit storm.
Maybe this is the gold at the end of the rainbow?
So we werent prepared to pay an extra £5m or so for Benzema, but we "negotiated" our bid for Berbatov up from an alleged £20m to around £32m when pressured by City?
Not that im making this about Berbatov, simply that it seems very inconsistent paying an extra £12m for Berbatov - which apparently represents value, but not being prepared to cough up an extra £5m or so for Benzema. Of course there would be no guarantee he would choose us over Madrid, but if the bid was accepted that would say enough.
Mobile TV streaming is definitely something on the rise. I do have a Sky Subscription on my iPhone for £6/month that gets me all the Sky Sports channels plus ESPN, and the quality is excellent.
Once the phone networks provide nice high data limits I expect we will see a big increase in this.
Thing is - isnt this going to be the same for every other big club?
No mention of the spurious ''£66m loss'' in the Financial Times' article on the latest financial results by the way. Surprise surprise.
And to think the other publications used that figure as the headline for their articles on the results.
That brings me onto an excellent point that I remember Roodboy making not too long ago. And that was, why are so many people so quick to automatically accept the accuracy of negative media articles about the club's finances when they take the exact opposite position by treating with great scepticism the media articles about other aspects of the club and its players?
I don't think he ever got an answer.
And to think the other publications used that figure as the headline for their articles on the results.
That brings me onto an excellent point that I remember Roodboy making not too long ago. And that was, why are so many people so quick to automatically accept the accuracy of negative media articles about the club's finances when they take the exact opposite position by treating with great scepticism the media articles about other aspects of the club and its players?
I don't think he ever got an answer.
why am I not surprised
Well yes. But in terms of brand value and appeal United is clearly far and away the biggest club in the Premier League. So the value of this opportunity to us would be much greater than it would to others.
Interesting info in the rest of your post, cheers. It is reported that some of the telecom companies are paying United up to £4m per year over a 3-4 year period and to my knowledge United also have profit sharing agreements in place separate to those payments.
It's worth noting that the likes of Budweiser and Betfair pay United around £1.5m a year for their run of the mill sponsorship deals. So it would appear that the value of these mobile phone rights are pretty significant anyway. And I guess the question is, just how much more significant will they become in years to come?
The same reason why a load of journalists were chuffed to bits that United lost to Barcelona in Rome. The same reason why our papers love building someone up to rip them down. It's all to do with our culture. We prefer to watch the destruction and pick over the ruins. For journalists they can get more milage out of United doomed they they can by saying it's all ok. We the readers lap it up.
Thats only because we sold Ronaldo.
For the love of god......
Right from the beginning of the takeover in 2005 it hit me that there where two things that where undeveloped.
Internet and access via cell-phones.
Internet-access was the obvious one. Subscribe to OneUnited or develop a new service. If there are millions of United supporters out there it's simple maths. Just imagine 30-40m of supporters pay £??/year. That was easy to predict.
Looking at a stream in a cell-phone was, at 2005, not a hit. The picture was blurred and the stream was slow like syrap. Today it's scary what you can see in a cell-phone. All this new phones like Android and iPhone together with 4G is a revolution. HD stream and excellent view, for example HTC Desire or the new SE Experia X10. Just to pick a few. The idea of watching a match in a cell-phone is today reality. I pay for example £60 a month with free access to everything and can see YouTube in a perfect view.
What is going to happened with technology in five more years?
If United can be pioneers in this area we will have an huge advantage. The market is beyond belief.
The trouble with this argument is that nobody ever describes what exactly happened to United's finances in the period between paying large net amounts of money for players in 2007 and 2008 to then not being in a position to pay large amounts of money for players in 2009. We clearly didn't ''plan'' the sale of Ronaldo as we were desparate for him to stay and if anything the sale of Ronaldo and the fact that profits increased during the 2007-09 period concerned would surely make it more likely that there is a great deal of money to spend on players?
Maybe Fergie and Gill have been telling the truth all along?
Great info, cheers. The trouble with the internet is that it is included within the Premier League's collective rights deal. The signifcance of the mobile phone content is that it isn't included in the collective agreement so that's exactly what we should be focussing on.
As you can probably tell I haven't got a clue about the actual technology involved in this. I'm just surprised we haven't seen more information in the media about this potentially very significant opportunity for United in the years to come.
Too busy copying and pasting MUST's press releases I suspect.
So let me sum this up.
GCHQ, Rood, PExbo et al feel the Glazers have run the club well or are making good of a the situation at hand and feel the debt and balance sheet are nothing to get too concerned about because we are increasing revenues.
Whilst Fred, Crerand et al are concerned that the massive debts were put on United for no benefit to the club and that circa £430m has left the club in interest and other financing costs.
GCHQ, Rood, PExbo et al feel the Glazers have run the club well or are making good of a the situation at hand and feel the debt and balance sheet are nothing to get too concerned about because we are increasing revenues.
Whilst Fred, Crerand et al are concerned that the massive debts were put on United for no benefit to the club and that circa £430m has left the club in interest and other financing costs.
The obvious problem for United with this mobile phone content is that you'd expect that a number of Premier League clubs would push for mobile phone rights to be included in the next round of the PL's collective rights sale starting in 2013/14. The genie though would already be out of the bottle so to speak by then and well they do say that possession is nine tenths of the law.
How many subscribers are there of MUTV?
Forget the technology for the moment - the issue is what exclusive content that people will actually want to buy?
Technology is the medium with which United can connect with its supporters but it has to offer something that they want.
After subscribing to MUTV I ditched it - it got boring in the end.
Forget the technology for the moment - the issue is what exclusive content that people will actually want to buy?
Technology is the medium with which United can connect with its supporters but it has to offer something that they want.
After subscribing to MUTV I ditched it - it got boring in the end.
Increasing revenues AND cash profits. Yes.
The debt does provide some benefit for the club in so much as the interest payments are tax-deductible so the club saves a great deal on corporation tax as a result. If the PLC was still here and the club was achieving the same profits as we are now then the amount of cash tax would be very significant indeed (£86m saving according to Andersred). And we should also remember that the Glazers have as yet not taken a dividend out of the club as the shareholders took every year when the club was a PLC (£38m saving according to Andersred).
There are also various items within that £430m of interest and other financing costs that I would suggest shouldn't be included.
Firstly, £83m interest accrued on the PIK loan which isn't secured against the club's assets and therefore isn't the responsibility of the club. Clearly it hasn't ''left'' the club, far from it.
The £13m management fees taken out is basically cancelled out by the specific cost savings of not being a PLC any longer.
The £10m loan has left the club but it will be paid back and a competitive interest rate is being charged by the club.
So £86m + £38m + £83m + £13m + £10m = £230m
So you can take that £430m figure of yours down to £200m.
We're talking about LIVE match content here. Something that MUTV obviously can't offer.
I also believe that Andersred has over estimated the cash interest paid for the current year by £15m.
So we're down to £185m now...
Oh and only £12.7m of the interest rate swap loss has been paid and therefore has left the club as of today.
So we're now down to £162.3m...
So we're down to £185m now...
Oh and only £12.7m of the interest rate swap loss has been paid and therefore has left the club as of today.
So we're now down to £162.3m...
- Status