ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
ralphie88 said:
No, I'm merely stating that prior to 2005, Manchester United essentially funded itself, minus a pretty small dividend payment. When you paid your increased ticket prices, you saw the vast majority of it invested back into the club - whether it was in wages, transfer fees or stadium redevelopment.

The vast majority of Manchester United's income is now spent on servicing the Glazers' debt.
Click to expand...

:eek: Did MUST tell you that? What have I told you about MUST?

I know what you're main point up there is and it's completely valid. I won't argue with it but it's a bit like "Back in the old days, you could leave your door open". Yeah, yeah, yadda, yadda. Times have changed. Things have changed. Are you going to change with them or continually hark back to the rose tinted days when this was all trees and life was so much better?
 
ralphie88 said:
The vast majority of Manchester United's income is now spent on servicing the Glazers' debt.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert, but isn't Man Utd's income around £300m annually? And the Glazer incurred debts cost what, £60m or so annually? That's not the 'vast majority of income' whichever way you look at it. It's a minority percentage of income.

The financial situation of the club is a concern for me, and I do like to try and understand the finances, but posting totally over-exaggerated figures sort of defeats the point of any debate. It's just rubbish, there are genuine issues without making stuff up.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I'm no expert, but isn't Man Utd's income around £300m annually? And the Glazer incurred debts cost what, £60m or so annually? That's not the 'vast majority of income' whichever way you look at it. It's a minority percentage of income.

The financial situation of the club is a concern for me, and I do like to try and understand the finances, but posting totally over-exaggerated figures sort of defeats the point of any debate. It's just rubbish, there are genuine issues without making stuff up.
Click to expand...

It's pointless turning over hundreds of Millions if at end of each financial year we end up owing more than we started.
 
Sultan said:
It's pointless turning over hundreds of Millions if at end of each financial year we end up owing more than we started.
Click to expand...

Yes. I was just picking Ralphie up on a point which seemed to me to be totally false. There's no need to make stuff up.
 
Sultan said:
It's pointless turning over hundreds of Millions if at end of each financial year we end up owing more than we started.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that, Sults? The Bond debt isn't increasing, and the PIK's can quite easily be stabilised (might already have been); our owners have the finances well under control.
 
ralphie88 said:
The money is there (or was there). That's different to saying it's there for investment on players. I did think around £30m was available, but that was a hunch and personally I'm beginning to wonder. The chances of us reinvesting the Ronaldo money on the squad are getting slimmer with each passing "no value in the market" transfer window.
Click to expand...

Fergie will spend when the time is right - 4 players are close to retirement and will need replacing, until then I feel we have a very strong squad and am excited about the future potential of the team!
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I'm no expert, but isn't Man Utd's income around £300m annually? And the Glazer incurred debts cost what, £60m or so annually? That's not the 'vast majority of income' whichever way you look at it. It's a minority percentage of income.

The financial situation of the club is a concern for me, and I do like to try and understand the finances, but posting totally over-exaggerated figures sort of defeats the point of any debate. It's just rubbish, there are genuine issues without making stuff up.
Click to expand...

You're pretty much correct in what you say there. Ralphie's comment was straight out of the MUST handbook of lies and misinformation.

The last known figures for Manchester United showed £278million revenues.

The Bond interest is £45million and the Glazers are entitled to £25million dividends now (we assume they will take them and that they will use them to pay off their personal loans which were incurred during the purchase and subsequent refinancing of their takeover).

That's £70million.

It doesn't take a maths degree to see that this is a long way from "the vast majority of our income".
 
Rood said:
Fergie will spend when the time is right - 4 players are close to retirement and will need replacing, until then I feel we have a very strong squad and am excited about the future potential of the team!
Click to expand...

What I find slightly funny is the argument that Scholes needs replacing at the same time as most United fans seem to think he is in the form of his life.

For sure he will need replacing when he is gone but do you replace a perfectly working lightbulb in your house because it's been in there for three months?
 
Sultan said:
It's pointless turning over hundreds of Millions if at end of each financial year we end up owing more than we started.
Click to expand...

That would be the crux of the matter, making millons each year to pay the personal debt of people who sit with big bored faces and Manchester United ties when they make one of their few(too many for some of us) visits to a Manchester United match. They are determinded to stay here for as long as they are able to milk the cow and then clear off when are able to make a huge profit on their purchase price. Sadly that might be a while
 
Crerand Legend said:
That would be the crux of the matter, making millons each year to pay the personal debt of people who sit with big bored faces and Manchester United ties when they make one of their few(too many for some of us) visits to a Manchester United match. They are determinded to stay here for as long as they are able to milk the cow and then clear off when are able to make a huge profit on their purchase price. Sadly that might be a while
Click to expand...


Like any normal businessmen.

I can understand you feelings and I don't like their agressive ticketpolicy but what is the alternative if we don't find a megarich sugardaddy with passion for Uniteds supporters? As businessmen the Glazers know what thay are doing. Compare them to Hicks&Gillette.
 
7even said:
Like any normal businessmen.

I can understand you feelings and I don't like their agressive ticketpolicy but what is the alternative if we don't find a megarich sugardaddy with passion for Uniteds supporters? As businessmen the Glazers know what thay are doing. Compare them to Hicks&Gillette.
Click to expand...

Sadly yes we are owned by businessmen not very good ones but better than H&G. I cant agree that they know what they are doing like the rest of their business interests it is one mess up after another and they have survived here only by the fact they have kept SAF on board. Without his support and team success things would not be too rosy for the yanks
 
Crerand Legend said:
Sadly yes we are owned by businessmen not very good ones but better than H&G. I cant agree that they know what they are doing like the rest of their business interests it is one mess up after another and they have survived here only by the fact they have kept SAF on board. Without his support and team success things would not be too rosy for the yanks
Click to expand...

Shine on you crazy diamond. :)

You do make me smile, Crerand.
 
Crerand Legend said:
Sadly yes we are owned by businessmen not very good ones but better than H&G. I cant agree that they know what they are doing like the rest of their business interests it is one mess up after another and they have survived here only by the fact they have kept SAF on board. Without his support and team success things would not be too rosy for the yanks
Click to expand...

I think you make a good point, Crerand; an important factor in the Glazers continued ownership has been that they've kept the manager happy by giving him everything he's asked for to build his squad; as SAF says, the Glazers are excellent owners in this respect and have always fully supported him with funds in the transfer market whenever he's requested them. Had they not done this, then you're right, the situation would likely be pretty dire for both the Glazers and United.

In SAF's own words...

“There’s nothing wrong with protest. The supporters have shown their unhappiness about who owns the club. That’s always been there since I’ve come to the club, first with the Edwards family, then when we went plc, now the Glazers. There’s always an element of supporters who feel they own the club; that’s understandable because they have fantastic loyalty to the club. I can understand where they are coming from. My take is that the Glazers have supported the team very, very well. They don’t interfere, they let us get one with the job and when we’ve asked for a player, we’ve got it. What more can we ask?”
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
If you want a debt to get really annoyed about, consider that the Public Sector debt is currently over £1 TRILLION and it costs us £120million per DAY in interest alone.

Bloody socialists... gotta love 'em. :lol:
Click to expand...

You dumb ass!.... a trillion pounds of public debt is about £15000 per person and the interest is about £2 per day each using your numbers ......Curiously a billion pounds of glazer debt also amounts to about £15000 per fan ( assuming a typical 68,000 crowd ) and that doesn't seem to bother you so much? wonder why- (maybe you prefer to be fecked by the ruling class)
Oh! and that £45million in interest you are paying per year amounts to about £10 for every one of those 68000 fans at every single game per season.
And good luck buying a glazer pie at your next match for that £2 you'd rather not spend on the public debt.

Bloody glazer stooges...gotta hate 'em. :lol:
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I'm no expert, but isn't Man Utd's income around £300m annually? And the Glazer incurred debts cost what, £60m or so annually? That's not the 'vast majority of income' whichever way you look at it. It's a minority percentage of income.

The financial situation of the club is a concern for me, and I do like to try and understand the finances, but posting totally over-exaggerated figures sort of defeats the point of any debate. It's just rubbish, there are genuine issues without making stuff up.
Click to expand...

Fair point, didn't post what I intended, probably due to Duvel.
 
Rood said:
Fergie will spend when the time is right - 4 players are close to retirement and will need replacing, until then I feel we have a very strong squad and am excited about the future potential of the team!
Click to expand...

That's pure speculation. We've no idea how much money there will be to do that.
 
robertsoncrusoe said:
You dumb ass!.... a trillion pounds of public debt is about £15000 per person and the interest is about £2 per day each using your numbers ......Curiously a billion pounds of glazer debt also amounts to about £15000 per fan ( assuming a typical 68,000 crowd ) and that doesn't seem to bother you so much? wonder why- (maybe you prefer to be fecked by the ruling class)
Oh! and that £45million in interest you are paying per year amounts to about £10 for every one of those 68000 fans at every single game per season.
And good luck buying a glazer pie at your next match for that £2 you'd rather not spend on the public debt.

Bloody glazer stooges...gotta hate 'em. :lol:
Click to expand...

Hey, there's no need to get all aggressive and start calling me names.

Just work on getting your figures straight. We're not in £1billion worth of debt and never have been.
 
ralphie88 said:
Oh fecking behave. I don't speak for MUST and it was merely a beer-inspired error.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that's no excuse, ralphie.

A lot of fans don't follow the financial situation and take their limited knowledge of the situation from third parties.

If comments such as "The vast majority of Manchester United's income is now spent on servicing the Glazers' debt." were allowed to go unchallenged but picked up by fans just passing through here then it could be taken as fact by that fan and then he tells his mates and they tell their mates etc etc etc.

Then when we draw to Sunderland, these fans start to believe that the reason is because we can't afford to buy decent players because the vast majority of our income is spent on servicing debts instead.

This then leads to further, unjustified resentment towards our owners and then we get loonies using this resentment to encourage boycotts and stuff and that kind of stuff really is detrimental to our financial situation.

Less money comes in meaning that Fergie has less money to spend and then we don't get the big signings and the team goes downhill and we stop winning trophies and the world explodes and we all die. Probably.

And not because "The vast majority of Manchester United's income is now spent on servicing the Glazers' debt" but because ralphie was pissed up one night and decided to pluck "facts" from out of his arse.
 
ralphie88 said:
That's pure speculation. We've no idea how much money there will be to do that.
Click to expand...

Yes it is speculation, but that is my opinion.
Even on a worst case scenario that we have none of the £100m cash pile left, there is a £75m RCF at the very least - which is more than enough to bring in a couple of top names if needs be.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
Hey, there's no need to get all aggressive and start calling me names.

Just work on getting your figures straight. We're not in £1billion worth of debt and never have been.
Click to expand...

You're figures concerning national debt are correct, TMRD. Crusoe's figures concerning United's debt and how much it costs the matchgoing fan on the other hand, are not.

It's best to ignore crusoe. He's one of those who likes to shout very loud about the way of things, but when it comes to gaining an accurate picture of the reality of the situation, his enthusiasm fails; he's not interested in the least in researching, analysing or discussing the various facets of the club's financial situation, he chooses instead to just believe in and shout loudly about whatever random bit of baseless ignorance pops into his mind at any given moment. He's nothing but an annoying background noise; let those who have an interest in following the debate engage in it, and simply ignore those who do not; save your responses for those who deserve to be heard.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I'm no expert, but isn't Man Utd's income around £300m annually? And the Glazer incurred debts cost what, £60m or so annually? That's not the 'vast majority of income' whichever way you look at it. It's a minority percentage of income.

The financial situation of the club is a concern for me, and I do like to try and understand the finances, but posting totally over-exaggerated figures sort of defeats the point of any debate. It's just rubbish, there are genuine issues without making stuff up.
Click to expand...

Shouldnt this discussion end right about here?
 
e.cantona said:
Shouldnt this discussion end right about here?
Click to expand...

Probably and that was a very good post by MikeUpNorth but then you get someone who comes along and says, "The vast majority of Manchester United's income is now spent on servicing the Glazers' debt." and it just sort of kicks it all off again.

Some of us can't help ourselves! :lol:
 
ciderman9000000 said:
You're figures concerning national debt are correct, TMRD. Crusoe's figures concerning United's debt and how much it costs the matchgoing fan on the other hand, are not.

It's best to ignore crusoe. He's one of those who likes to shout very loud about the way of things, but when it comes to gaining an accurate picture of the reality of the situation, his enthusiasm fails; he's not interested in the least in researching, analysing or discussing the various facets of the club's financial situation, he chooses instead to just believe in and shout loudly about whatever random bit of baseless ignorance pops into his mind at any given moment. He's nothing but an annoying background noise; let those who have an interest in following the debate engage in it, and simply ignore those who do not; save your responses for those who deserve to be heard.
Click to expand...

Cheers, I'll take your advice on board cider. Wise words, mate.

Now. How long until someone comes along and tells you to be quiet while the "adults" are talking? :D
 
ciderman9000000 said:
I think you make a good point, Crerand; an important factor in the Glazers continued ownership has been that they've kept the manager happy by giving him everything he's asked for to build his squad; as SAF says, the Glazers are excellent owners in this respect and have always fully supported him with funds in the transfer market whenever he's requested them. Had they not done this, then you're right, the situation would likely be pretty dire for both the Glazers and United.

In SAF's own words...

“There’s nothing wrong with protest. The supporters have shown their unhappiness about who owns the club. That’s always been there since I’ve come to the club, first with the Edwards family, then when we went plc, now the Glazers. There’s always an element of supporters who feel they own the club; that’s understandable because they have fantastic loyalty to the club. I can understand where they are coming from. My take is that the Glazers have supported the team very, very well. They don’t interfere, they let us get one with the job and when we’ve asked for a player, we’ve got it. What more can we ask?”
Click to expand...

I think yesterdays performance answered what the Glazers have done for the quality of playing staff at Manchester United, you cannot afford to let Tevez/Ronaldo quality leave for financial purposes and expect to win the big prizes
 
Crerand Legend said:
I think yesterdays performance answered what the Glazers have done for the quality of playing staff at Manchester United, you cannot afford to let Tevez/Ronaldo quality leave for financial purposes and expect to win the big prizes
Click to expand...

You just don't have a clue at all do you?

That is rhetorical.
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
Is he wrong though? Chelsea were worse than usual last year and still beat us to the league. We went out earlier than we had the previous two seasons with Tevez and Ronaldo in the Champions League.
Click to expand...

No, he's absolutely correct. The fact that we didn't win four consecutive league titles when, as we all know, we used to do this regularly is all down to the Glazers.

As is the fact that we generally got to at least the semi-final in the CL every season prior to 2005 and there was absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not reaching three successive CL finals.

I think you need to get a grip. Chelsea didn't only beat us to the PL last season, they beat every other team to it as well. They can't have been THAT bad. Their points tally in the end (86) wasn't too shabby (although it wouldn't normally be enough to win a league) but I do think they set a new record for goals scored, if I recall correctly.

The problem with all this is that when you win a CL and a PL one season, it is impossible to go "up" from that, isn't it? The fact that you cannot possibly stay at exactly the same level every season doesn't necessarily mean an overall decline though, does it?

The Ronaldo and Tevez situations have been done to death and I'm not going into it all over again. Time to move on now; in footballing terms, they're ancient history now as a whole season has passed since they left and we're well into another now.

Crerand just won't let them go though and to the point where it is almost comical. I think he'll still be talking about them in ten years' time.
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
Is he wrong though? Chelsea were worse than usual last year and still beat us to the league. We went out earlier than we had the previous two seasons with Tevez and Ronaldo in the Champions League.
Click to expand...

I am right and their weak replies proves that
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
No, he's absolutely correct. The fact that we didn't win four consecutive league titles when, as we all know, we used to do this regularly is all down to the Glazers.

As is the fact that we generally got to at least the semi-final in the CL every season prior to 2005 and there was absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not reaching three successive CL finals.

I think you need to get a grip. Chelsea didn't only beat us to the PL last season, they beat every other team to it as well. They can't have been THAT bad. Their points tally in the end (86) wasn't too shabby (although it wouldn't normally be enough to win a league) but I do think they set a new record for goals scored, if I recall correctly.

The problem with all this is that when you win a CL and a PL one season, it is impossible to go "up" from that, isn't it? The fact that you cannot possibly stay at exactly the same level every season doesn't necessarily mean an overall decline though, does it?

The Ronaldo and Tevez situations have been done to death and I'm not going into it all over again. Time to move on now; in footballing terms, they're ancient history now as a whole season has passed since they left and we're well into another now.

Crerand just won't let them go though and to the point where it is almost comical. I think he'll still be talking about them in ten years' time.
Click to expand...

Prove me wrong then, you cant and I feel my suspicions are totally correct and so do most fans now. The truth wont go away even in 10 years time
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
No, he's absolutely correct. The fact that we didn't win four consecutive league titles when, as we all know, we used to do this regularly is all down to the Glazers.

As is the fact that we generally got to at least the semi-final in the CL every season prior to 2005 and there was absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not reaching three successive CL finals.

I think you need to get a grip. Chelsea didn't only beat us to the PL last season, they beat every other team to it as well. They can't have been THAT bad. Their points tally in the end (86) wasn't too shabby (although it wouldn't normally be enough to win a league) but I do think they set a new record for goals scored, if I recall correctly.

The problem with all this is that when you win a CL and a PL one season, it is impossible to go "up" from that, isn't it? The fact that you cannot possibly stay at exactly the same level every season doesn't necessarily mean an overall decline though, does it?

The Ronaldo and Tevez situations have been done to death and I'm not going into it all over again. Time to move on now; in footballing terms, they're ancient history now as a whole season has passed since they left and we're well into another now.

Crerand just won't let them go though and to the point where it is almost comical. I think he'll still be talking about them in ten years' time.
Click to expand...

Why try and throw a smokescreen up?

Is he wrong that the team is worse off for the departures of Ronaldo and Tevez?
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
Why try and throw a smokescreen up?

Is he wrong that the team is worse off for the departures of Ronaldo and Tevez?
Click to expand...

He is correct that we are worse off without them. No one can deny that. But they werent sold (Tevez wasnt even sold) for financial reasons as he is trying to suggest for maybe the 1000th time in this thread.
 
Crerand Legend said:
Prove me wrong then, you cant and I feel my suspicions are totally correct and so do most fans now. The truth wont go away even in 10 years time
Click to expand...

What would constitute "proof" though Crerand? A signed letter from all concerned published on here? You'd probably still say it was a forgery.

I don't think you made a very good job of proving yourself right, really because your arguments ignored all the known facts of the matter - especially with regard to Ronaldo.
 
Yesterday's performance showed us only that a few of our major players are out of form. Stupid fecking Glazers! Why haven't they paid for Rooney, Evra, Fletch and Carrick to have a better start to the season?!
 
To be fair to Crerand, it's not rocket science to know if you don't reinvest when you're at the top, you're not going to stay there

When you already have a cracking playing squad, which has been heavily invested in prior, of course those effects aren't going to be instant

With Rooney out of form, imagine if Berbatov hadn't finally stepped up this season, or Scholes age caught up with him like it would a normal mortal... the buffer we have keeping us at the top above over teams is wearing thinner than before

You can't draw conclusions off one away game mind. I know my expectations aren't particularly high this season though, I'd take a good cup run, a decent fist of a title challenge and finishing above City and be very happy indeed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.