Not convinced that this warranted a separate thread
Not convinced that this warranted a separate thread
Did it go down when Everton scored?
Did what Liam? I got his point on the Man Utd, saw his white text and knew he was taking the piss, but he still doesn't know which variation of the word "their, there, they're" to use though, and tonight I'm a member of the grammar police. Ok?
Or do you think he used the wrong word deliberately?
Have to agree with you their.
Bump.
A bit of a spike after Moyes' sacking (wish I put money, knew that would happen!), I'm thinking another spike after we announce the new shirt deal. Very tempted to invest...
Man Utd is the name listed on the stock exchange, this is what the OP is referring to.OMFG cant you address Man Utd as there proper name?
Why did you delete the white text from the post you quoted?Man Utd is the name listed on the stock exchange, this is what the OP is referring to.
Man Utd is the name listed on the stock exchange, this is what the OP is referring to.
Wasn't the spike created by the demand from that fund buying a significant share of United stock, more so than Moyes going, shirt deals etc. the valuation looks at the high end for me. We're coming off the back of unprecedented revenue growth and performance (on the pitch) and in business terms we have lost our CFO and CEO with no real succession plan.
Might want to invest down the bookies instead mr cole, more likely to pick up a decent return than on the utd stock right now.
It was a joke, see the white text. Everybody used to have a hard on over the Man Utd / Munich references, so I think that's what I was referencing.Man Utd is the name listed on the stock exchange, this is what the OP is referring to.
But obviously you saw the white text as you deleted it?No worries, white text on white background is hard to see.
The scoreboards on TV often shorted us to MNU or Man Utd or Man Utd, are people really saying they see this and ask "Well wtf does that mean?"
In some Hindu traditions, Man Utd is a title accorded to a progenitor of humanity.
In some Hindu traditions, Man Utd is a title accorded to a progenitor of humanity.
@redtilldead123 deleting the white text from that post is the weirdest thing in this thread though.
One of the directors of the company.Who are Man Utd?
Won't it just go down in a few months because we aren't playing in Europe?Bump.
A bit of a spike after Moyes' sacking (wish I put money, knew that would happen!), I'm thinking another spike after we announce the new shirt deal. Very tempted to invest...
Won't it just go down in a few months because we aren't playing in Europe?
Doesn't always work like that. When the quarterly shows a lesser income then the stock will drop a bit.That should already be priced in as everyone knows we haven't qualified for CL. Although it probably will go down for other reasons
Is there another thread on this? Our stock's down 6% today. Any ideas what's going on?
I'm surprised that wasn't already priced in. Was it a lot more than had already been widely reported?Results of the financial year were published.
Basically, people found out how much Moyes reign of terror cost us.
Is there another thread on this? Our stock's down 6% today. Any ideas what's going on?
Results of the financial year were published.
Basically, people found out how much Moyes reign of terror cost us.
Only if they feel we overpaid imo.Also probably related to the fact we spent £200m on players and probably another £250m on their wages over the course of their contracts and are expected to commit a serious amount again in the next couple of windows.
Investors aren't sports fans, they look at expenditures of £450m+ as being a bad thing. A very bad thing.
Only if they feel we overpaid imo.
It's like being a stock holder in a company that is losing market share. If the company makes no effort to regain market share, sales, etc. then I'd be more worried as a share holder than if management invested heavily to improve performance.
Considering our relative lack of expenditure over the past 10 years (following your example) long term investors may see this as reasonable though. This isn't a normal business and so expenditure isn't as simple to predict as it may be with your average NYSE company. That said, obviously not all investors follow the same investment strategies and those that are trying to make a quick buck, or generally have a more short term outlook, may well jump ship for the reasons you mention.Nope. That isn't how it works.
They want to invest in a company that brings in lots of money and has reasonable expenditure. Look at it over the course of 10 years and it might be reasonable in relative terms however having expenditure of nearly 25% of the company's actual worth in the space of 1 year is no reasonable in any way shape or form. There are very few companies on the NYSE who would actually do that. It's seen as high risk business and investors shy away from high risk business.
You're still looking at it from a sporting perspective and not a stock perspective how investors look at it. With expenses like this, when do you think the club will even start to think about paying out dividends?
Nope. That isn't how it works.
They want to invest in a company that brings in lots of money and has reasonable expenditure. Look at it over the course of 10 years and it might be reasonable in relative terms however having expenditure of nearly 25% of the company's actual worth in the space of 1 year is no reasonable in any way shape or form. There are very few companies on the NYSE who would actually do that. It's seen as high risk business and investors shy away from high risk business.
You're still looking at it from a sporting perspective and not a stock perspective how investors look at it. With expenses like this, when do you think the club will even start to think about paying out dividends?
Also probably related to the fact we spent £200m on players and probably another £250m on their wages over the course of their contracts and are expected to commit a serious amount again in the next couple of windows.
Investors aren't sports fans, they look at expenditures of £450m+ as being a bad thing. A very bad thing.
Hi, I'm quite new to reading and analysing Financial Statements (Just started University a few weeks ago). But may I ask how our squad having expenditure of nearly 25% of the company's actual worth not reasonable? Our Operating expenses are about 269.422m while our Revenue is at 336.943m, and profit for the 9 month period is at 29.661m. From what I understand, don't manufacturing firms operate similarly? For example, one of the largest plastic moulding firms in the world, Foxconn's expenses are about 20-30% of their firm's actual worth, which is in the hundreds of billions of dollars in terms of expenses. But their revenue exceeds it, and I would think that as an investor, Foxconn would be a relatively safe firm to invest in.
And from what I have read, many stockholders take priority in looking a firm's cash flows rather than the income/balance sheets. At 34.33m worth of available cash flows for the firm, I would think that our team is in a relatively healthy position? Isn't it good to note that our cash flows aren't too high, nor is it too low for a firm of United's size? (Not losing the opportunity cost of investing or lack of "rainy-day" funds that the fund may need to use in emergency situations)
That's just my first impression from what I currently know about Financial Statements and how I would personally assess a firm. Of course, there are major gaps in my knowledge, but United doesn't really sound like a high-risk investment to me.
Every investor has their own investment strategy and priorities though of course. I doubt your average investor is interested in sports clubs purely for financial reasons, as there must be better options elsewhere.In his 1979 letter to shareholders, Mr Buffett stated: “The primary test of managerial economic performance is the achievement of a high earnings rate on equity capital employed (without undue leverage, accounting gimmickry, etc) and not the achievement of consistent gains in earnings per share.”