Very aware of that and it is not what I was referring to
You realise that every time they fly to England, for example, it’s costing the club around £300k per Glazer?
Nothing to do with dividends. They’ll still be using club money
Club Ownership | INEOS responsible for the football side
- Thread starter Solius
- Start date
- Status
You realise that every time they fly to England, for example, it’s costing the club around £300k per Glazer?
Nothing to do with dividends. They’ll still be using club money
Right, so that will probably cost us a grand total of £0 moving forward. They barely attended anything previously, let alone now. Even if Jim hasn’t put a stop to that, it’s a drop in the ocean compared to previous dividends and interest, when we’re paying players £4 million per week in wages.
Just because they arent taking dividends right now, doesn't mean they won't in the future - they only stopped because they knew how bad the optics of taking out more cash when we had FFP issues, even they have some limits
They have of course pocketed around £1bn from the share sale anyway so I'm guessing they won't be struggling to pay the bills for a while
They have of course pocketed around £1bn from the share sale anyway so I'm guessing they won't be struggling to pay the bills for a while
I stand corrected. I thought that was the entire balance. Didn’t realise it had gone that high.
It’s like you’re trying to talk down to me but it’s not working at all. I’m sticking to my point and your acceptance of the Glazers penny pinching does nothing to change it
I think it’s about 25m gbp per season at this point.
I’d have to look it up. I think it was in the region of 455m ish.
Then there was 260m in revolving debt of which 120m has just been paid off. Leaving 140m.
Then around 350m in transfer debt I believe.
Approximately. I know it was about a billion in total debt, now down to 900m ish.
All of it.
No way, a Caf poster who actually understands basic finance. It's a miracle!
That's so. Any amounts relating to the RCF is principal only. Interest payable is added to other interest to get to an overall interest charge. The RCF is generally used to meet liquidity needs in the short term where there are timing differences between revenues and receipts. Covid hit revenue and heavy player expenditure since has had the club treating the RCF as a medium term borrowing instrument. In that instance, it's difficult to manage regular pay down on each of 3 credit cards while maintaining ongoing cash availability. The investment from JR was always going to be tapped up.
Transfer debt (as in the difference between total instalments due to other clubs for players already acquired less that due to the club for players sold) stands at around £290m. That's significant- over the next 3 years, the club will have an average net spend of 100m per year to cover players already at the club. A new batch of players will add to that.
Compliance with the various forms of FFP is an issue but cash flow is probably the biggest concern for management. The club really needs to boost revenues and control costs.
We usually pay off the credit facility when the money comes in at seasons end if I'm remembering correctly.
Hopefully this just means we'll have a healthier bank balance come the summer as there won't be the full amount to pay off like previous seasons.
Hopefully this just means we'll have a healthier bank balance come the summer as there won't be the full amount to pay off like previous seasons.
Is the easiest way to understand a revolving credit facility to think of it like my credit card. Up to an agreed limit I can take money, return some (or all) at a time of my choosing and then potentially take again?
Although, I was incorrect in saying the revolving credit facility was now fully paid off. Apparently there remains a significant balance of over 100m.
I believe so, if it’s the same as what other companies in the corporate world use. It’s a buffer in case we need it.
Cheers. I’d be interested to know how the interest rate compares to mine. I’m pretty sure they won’t have an 18 month zero interest promo like mine!
No, it's a ~300m quick access credit facility for when we need to get or fix cash flow, it needs to be cleared by June anyway.
No. I’m trying to explain that you clearly don’t know the inner workings of the takeover. There is news in the last day or two that Ineos are doing full audits, which include business expenses and wages. Do you genuinely think that he’s going to be letting the Glazers take money out of the club for private jets, while auditing all departments to eliminate waste.
There’s a reason that the takeover took so long, there will be contracts set out on all of this stuff.
Well, I'll be damned. I'm in the wrong profession.
#mufc’s interim financial report disclosed that Richard Arnold walked away with a £5,529,000 severance fee when he formally resigned from his position as CEO of the club.
@hirstclass
#mufc’s interim financial report disclosed that Richard Arnold walked away with a £5,529,000 severance fee when he formally resigned from his position as CEO of the club.
@hirstclass
If you say so. I see no evidence of that or any evidence that Ineos can stop the glazers using club money for things like that. There’s no clear line and it’s a weird thing to call me up on when you have no evidence
So initially the $200m plus $100m in December 2024 was for a new training ground and now we find out it was to pay off some of the revolving credit.
The brazen nature of the Glazers really doesn’t surprise any of the fan base and certainly goes a long way in making us understand why Sir Jim insisted on complete control of all Football Matters.
The truth is now coming out that the Glazers were on their asses financially and literally couldn’t spend one penny.
This should be put into perspective however this doesn’t mean that the club can only spend £120-160m of their existing credit. Very few transfers are now paid in one instalment and most of our summer transfers will be amortised by 4 to 5 year contracts so if we signed Michael Olise for £55m on a 5 year contract with wages of £6m per year.
The club would need to pay £11m as a first payment in the summer but also free up £6m on wages. If the club sold M Geeenwood for £30m, Pellistri for £15m and DVB £10m, the club would probably receive the same £11m a year from other clubs in amortised payments and free up £75k MG, 15kFP, £120k DVB so we would save £10m on wages - £6m for Olise Wages would mean the club is actually better off in a cash position and 4m per year in annual wages, that’s why Omar Berada and Ashworth are so critical to our summer activities?
The sooner they start the better, the thought of John Murtough running the show this summer is scarier than Ed Woodward returning !
The brazen nature of the Glazers really doesn’t surprise any of the fan base and certainly goes a long way in making us understand why Sir Jim insisted on complete control of all Football Matters.
The truth is now coming out that the Glazers were on their asses financially and literally couldn’t spend one penny.
This should be put into perspective however this doesn’t mean that the club can only spend £120-160m of their existing credit. Very few transfers are now paid in one instalment and most of our summer transfers will be amortised by 4 to 5 year contracts so if we signed Michael Olise for £55m on a 5 year contract with wages of £6m per year.
The club would need to pay £11m as a first payment in the summer but also free up £6m on wages. If the club sold M Geeenwood for £30m, Pellistri for £15m and DVB £10m, the club would probably receive the same £11m a year from other clubs in amortised payments and free up £75k MG, 15kFP, £120k DVB so we would save £10m on wages - £6m for Olise Wages would mean the club is actually better off in a cash position and 4m per year in annual wages, that’s why Omar Berada and Ashworth are so critical to our summer activities?
The sooner they start the better, the thought of John Murtough running the show this summer is scarier than Ed Woodward returning !
You’ve made an assumption that’s all. Of course none of us know the inner workings of the contracts, but it has been well reported how thorough this has been. Jim is not going to be putting in his own money and cost saving measures to have the Glazers siphoning it off again, he’s not an idiot.
Anyway, the initial conversation started because it sounded like you were talking about regular dividend payments. I’m not arsed about talking about £350k private jets been used every couple of years. We spent £80 million on Antony
Im no FFP expert but I think the amortisation is only for FFP purposes no? Transfer fees and how they are structured are very unlikely to be equally spread across a 5 year period. Many release clauses are upfront payments (unless teams negotiate otherwise, eg. pay slightly more but in instalments which I think Chelsea did for Enzo maybe?) and many teams also need cash quickly so will sell for a slightly lower fee for the upfront cash.
Now I understand why people are so wrong about Barcelona's economy.
Yes, amortisation is for financial fairplay. Afterwards, the payment of the money between the clubs is agreed between them: amounts, deadlines, etc.
His weekly salary is about 200k isn't it? Average UK salary is what 33k? It's like six people's yearly salary a week.
It’s called cash flow. Paying this debt down reduces interest owed, and will come back round to the club in reduced payments. It also means funding for the training ground and stadium can be borrowed at a lower interest rate.
Let’s be honest, $300m was never going to be enough to fund large capital investments on its own. Stop writing fan fiction like it’s fact!
It’s not even that, the recent government release of that being the average wage has been shown to be untrue and it’s actually a lot less than that. More like 7-8 people on his weekly wage.
Oof. It felt quite high to me.
That can still be the case. The interest on the revolving credit facility is likely higher than it would be on a long-term loan. Paying that off in the short-term means the interest liability is lower, and it reduces the overall leverage i.e. there is space on the balance sheet for a longer-term, lower interest loan that can be used for infrastructure spending.
288 x average yearly salary for a less than a average PL player. Let that sink in.
There won't be any promos but the interest rate will be very good (prime + 1 to 3 percent) very unlike a credit card that charges at least 20%, unless you qualify for a low interest card.
My understanding is that the Raine fee is payable by the Glazers as it was their shares that were sold. Not payable by the club nor can be loaded onto the club. Or so I believe. I’d imagine they took their fee as part of the transaction.
Is he putting a contract on the Glazers?
It was a club transaction, not a Glazer transaction
Nope the club pays $31.5m to Raine for the privilege of handing £1bn to the Glazers
https://theathletic.com/5208429/2024/01/17/manchester-united-raine-ratcliffe-takeover/
I’m worried about £350k private jets (and that’s not what their penny pinching outside of dividends was limited to, see the post above mine regarding lawyer costs) when that’s the differences between us getting a striker on loan or not, or the difference between players like Russo leaving the womens team or not. There’s also less cost expected on the fan if they just kept the club money inside the club. They’re making up the difference through us tooYou’ve made an assumption that’s all. Of course none of us know the inner workings of the contracts, but it has been well reported how thorough this has been. Jim is not going to be putting in his own money and cost saving measures to have the Glazers siphoning it off again, he’s not an idiot.
Anyway, the initial conversation started because it sounded like you were talking about regular dividend payments. I’m not arsed about talking about £350k private jets been used every couple of years. We spent £80 million on Antony
I’ve posted the link to a guy on Twitter a few times (a United fan who’s a corporate lawyer)… other people have posted stuff too. His tweet does a legal dissection of the contract clauses
There’s a short term ban on any Divs (3 years?).
The only way the Glazers are getting money short term is if someone comes in and meets their requirements for all their shares… and if they do, Jim has first refusal to match that bid and his bid then wins.
They’ve had a chunk of money and they’ll get another chunk in c3 years when Ratcliffe has the majority/the lot. And they’ll be gone
As I explained to the other guys, their penny pinching wasn’t limited to dividends. They take money out constantly for “business costs” that only benefit themselves
Honestly I don't think any of us is competent enough to judge complicated financial juggling like this. Just treat it as positive / neutral and move on.
- Status