Re: Manchester United Supporters Thread.
Sigh! right firstly show me one post where im buying into the paper talk regarding transfers..... the point i was making is that there is no money!!!!
In the accounts for Red Football Joint Venture Ltd 2006-2007 you made a loss of 58.2million 2007-2008 you made a loss of 47m 2008-2009 you made a profit of 6.4m which also showed a 80.7m profit on disposal of players ie ronaldo
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/20/manchester-united-glazers-debt-ronaldo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8470595.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_united/article6995329.ece
If you would like to educate yourself further the full acounts for last year in full can be seen at companies house or downloaded here:-
http://andersred.googlegroups.com/w...ADBe1Hmw8ajbStKHNoRpBIVg98yaRS05ZvrN292js8LYQ
As for the direct quotes from Fergie its called spin they say what the fans want to hear it doesnt mean its true its just like politics!
I was talking more in regards to United fans. Why would you be interest into it anything positive involving our potential transfer when fans like yourself thrive in the vain hope other clubs will collapse so one day City will eventually win something?
As regards to the finicial situation your talking out of your arse and posting obvious links showing we are 730million in debt which is pure media exaggeration and spin which is exactly the same thing you apparently dont buy into.
The facts aer at the close of the last financial year, 30 June 2009, the senior debt was £501,707,000, drawn out over four loans which attract an interest rate of LIBOR + a variable rate between 2.125% - 5%. As we know, this debt has now been refinanced using the bond issue and will now stand at a fixed rate of around 7%, this is what was advertised in the bond prospectus. Meaning, the interest payments will now remain constant.
As security for the loans, £557million is secured against the assets of Manchester United Limited and Manchester United Football Club Limited.
The PIK notes, despite what MUST would like you to believe, aren't being paid by club debt. Well, at least they weren't last financial year, therefore the increase in interest rate on the doesn't matter to the club as long as it stays as it was last year. Also, it is not the Glazer's personal money that buys players anyway, the club is still run as a business in the same way it was before the Glazer's bought it. Generated turnover is what runs the club, that is why it remains profitable, unlike Chelsea and City who make huge losses.
The other thing the article shows is that £300 odd million of the Glazer's personal debt are mortgages held against their shopping malls, most businessmen would buy properties like this would they not? How many people buy a house outright? They get a mortgage, it's just the way the Glazers choose to finance things.
Since the Glazers actually bought the club, turnover has increased year on year, especially commercial turnover. That is why United will be fine with the new Uefa rules as they will continue to break even at least.
I'm not pro glazer, I don't agree with the exessive management fees etc. they take, however, I also think that any right minded businessman would take similar amounts, including the Red Knights. Do people really think the Edwards family, John Magnier and all the other old shareholders never took any money out of the club for personal gain?
The fact remains that the only way to avoid this is to have some Arab or Russian etc. oil billionnaire take over. But at the same time, I dislike along with many other true supporters d ridicule Chelsea and City for doing this, meanwhile it seems most plastic 'fans' want us to go the same way so we can sign the likes of kakas, hamsiks, ozil,suarez,gourcuff messi,villa. Its short sighted and it comes with all its own problems.
At the end of the day, United is still profitable, they are still successful on the pitch and they still have cash reserves in the bank. It'll also take next years actual accounts being published before I change my views, if they are similar to this years I still believe there is not a serious problem, it's simply the way the Glazers choose to finance things
Your main point here is that there hasn't been any profits since the glazers took over.I doubt we will have to pay any tax this year as I'm sure losses can be carried and offset against future profits (this is the case with private individuals I'm not 100% sure it counts in the corporate world and it's been a while since I took my tax exams). The club still have credit lines where the nature of the credit facility means the Glazers can draw on that facility again should they need it to invest in transfers. If they manage to refinance nad increase revenue again then they still have 30-40M to spend every year on players. They can still even make a loss every year like most all the other football clubs.
The media and recent accounts say the club owes over 700M, even if that was true the club is worth over 1bn.. Thefact is we have plenty of excess cash at the moment but the Glazer are using it to pay off the expensive PIK debts (14%+pa interest) and replacing it with this new cheap debt (something like 4%pa)
Loans under the new revolving credit facility bear interest at a rate per annum equal to LIBOR (or in relation to a loan in euro, EURIBOR) plus the applicable margin and any mandatory cost. The applicable margin means 3.5% per annum." I'm not pro-Glazer however I’m not one to be influenced by hysteric fans and media reports of doom and gloom. I'm encouraged that things are going in a better direction than this time last year.
Here is a more accurate account of the whole story of the takeover and the total debt at the time of the takeover which goes into detal and explains there'll always be funds made avaible,
Pre 2003, Malcolm Glazer was a minority shareholder with Manchester United PLC
26th September 2003 Malcolm Glazer in formed Manchester United that he now owned 3.17% of the club, a statment he was legally bound to make.
Speculation was tife in the media about one or more takeover bids being tabled.
20th October 2003 Glazer has increased his shareholding to 8.93%, by 29th November 2003 it was reported this had almost doubled to 15%. He had by now met David Gill to inform him of his intentions.
12th February 2004 Glazer increases his share to 16.31%, on 13th February 2004 The Financial Times reported that he had made enquiries with Commerz Bank to explore a takeover bid, on the back of that report the cluub shares rose by 5%, which gave the club a value of £741m, In June 2004 Glazer again increased holding to over 19%, over the next few months his holding inthe club increased to nearly 30% by October 2004. If he reached 30% he would have to formally declare a takeover bid.
12th May 2005 It was reported that Glazer had reached an agreement with JP McManus and John Magnier to purchase their combined 28.7% stake in United, which in effect would give him control of the club, however he also secured the shares of the third largest stakholder, Harry Dobson, a Scottish mining entrepeneur, this took his total to 62%, further gains of 9.8% from smaller holders took his ownership to 71.8%.
16th May 2005 His holding now increased too 75%, this was a crucial point, it allowed him to end the clubs PLC status and so de-list it from the stock exchange, which he did on 22nd June.
28th June 2005 He increases his shareholding to 98% by buying out the larger of the small shareholders, this gave him the legal clout for a compulsory buyout, those 2% of shares remaining had to be sold to Glazer, fans holding on to shares had no choice, the could no refuse to sell. The final valuation of the club from shares purchased at the takeover rate waas £800m ($1.5bn).
2006, Malcolm Glazer appoints his other two sons, Kevin and Edward Glazer, along with his daughter, Darcie Glazer, to the Manchester United board as non-executive directors.
July 2006
this statement was issued on the news that several of the loans were being re-financed
The initial debt taken on by the Glazers to finance the club was split between the club and the family, approximately £256 million is secured against Manchester United's assets. The total amount will be £660 million, on which interest payments will be £62 million a year.
The club stated, "The value of Manchester United has increased in the last year, which is why lenders want to invest in the club... 'This move represents good housekeeping and it ensures that Sir Alex Ferguson will be provided with sufficient funds to compete in the transfer market."
The Manchester United Supporters Trust responded, "'The amount of money needed to be repaid overall is huge... 'The interest payment is one thing but what about the actual £660million? It is difficult to see how these sums can be reached without significant increases in ticket prices, which, as we always suspected, means the fans will effectively be paying for someone to borrow money to own their club. It is thought that under the terms of Glazer's financing, in the event that Glazer is unable to repay bondholders, majority control of Manchester United will pass to three New York hedge funds in August 2010. The three hedge funds are Citadel, Och-Ziff Capital Management Group and Perry Capital.
The point out is that there is a difference between not wanting to spend 50 million on 1 player, and not having 50 million to spend. There funds are there avaible its why in the past seasons when we’ve lost profit we still managed to sign players such as , nani,Anderson,Hargreaves, Berbatov, Valencia, Diouf, Hernandez, De silva twins, Smalling, Tosic and Obertan. None of those players came free and were relatively high priced. If the club did not have any money those signings would not have happened.
we are staying true to our roots and nurturing young talent, even if it is overseas talent? United's tradition is built on youth mixed with current experience whether its the babes or the fledglings. Many short sighted ignoramus united fans and jump on board city fans like yourself who get all giddy when they see City signing everyone under the sun forget after next season there’ll be 25 sqaud limit with 8 player homegrown under 21 rule so clubs like city, real who live and buy beyond their means and operate as would playing football manager, cant keep throwing money at every little problem.
The truth is if the market shows huge inflation you don't just carry on spending blindly saying "well everyone else is doing it".
If clubs demand inflated prices, then we do well to look the other way. If we buy a 30 on an up and coming rising star who then flops then it will be much money wasted and his resale will decrease. The same situation we now have our hands with berbatov.
Also, you say fergie is playing politics to appease ''gullible'' united fans, but what is Benzema's motives with coming out comfirming that United made an offer for him? Or is he too playing politics to protect the glazers?
