Manchester United Talk banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Why the other thread was locked before people had chance to reply with facts seemms a bit silly to me. Censoring debate is never a good thing as it stops people hearing others opinions.
So to clear a few things up here are some facts in reply to the other thread.

Before anyone says United have spent £70m+ on players the facts are they havn't actually spent £70m. ( dont forget he Glazers have spent absolutly zero pounds ).


http://sport.independent.co.uk/footb...cle2739697.ece

United buy now but pay later to stay on budget
How have Manchester United, laden with £660m of debt, suddenly managed to find £71m in one summer to outspend their rivals? It's the question that some fans are asking. And the simple answer is: they haven't.
The headline figures of United's transfer window are £17m, £17m, £17m and £20m. Those are amounts United have agreed to pay for Anderson, Nani, Owen Hargreaves, and, perhaps, Carlos Tevez.
This is not the whole story. The Glazers' expenditure may be below the £25m they originally promised Sir Alex Ferguson.
How? Tevez, 23, will arrive on a two-year loan deal, and although that might cost a yearly fee of £4m to £8m, buying him outright can be deferred to a future year's accounts, if they exercise their option.
Brazil's Anderson, 19, and Portugal's Nani, 20, are being bought effectively on HP. United are understood to have paid £7m and £8m up front, and will pay the rest over the terms of the deals.
And while Hargreaves, 26, has cost a chunk up front, he became a United player only on 1 July, and the outlay falls into next year's accounts.
So instead of £70m, United have spent only £20m already.
Nick Harris

Also take in account the amount of money that has come in from the sale of players and you'll find that we've actually spent virtually nothing at all.

.
 

·
has been served
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
Yeah. And the fact that United makes over 70mil a year from ticket sales, merchandise sales and tv rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
The bloke was questioning teenagers abilities before they have even touched a ball in the league, its reactionary shite and it deserve locking.

Now if you want to discuss expenditures then feel free to do so, just stay on topic.

There's opinions and there are wind ups just to annoy people.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
unitedred said:
The bloke was questioning teenagers abilities before they have even touched a ball in the league, its reactionary shite and it deserve locking.

Now if you want to discuss expenditures then feel free to do so, just stay on topic.

There's opinions and there are wind ups just to annoy people.
Fair enough reply mate, although i dont 100% agree, as i think every one is entitled to their opinion even if it does not agree with everyone elses. If someone were to say SAF is a crap manager i'd hope there was enough sensible people to post facts and figures to prove how great he's been, and change the others mind a bit. By locking a thread you are never going to change that persons view. ( no more from me on this, feel free to PM mate if you wish :) ).

Anyway to get back on topic...

Justice, I think you'll find that most of the £70m is used to pay the yearly interest on the £600m+ debt that United have.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
Regarding the debt, I think I read somewhere last season that the debt is around the £400m mark, Some have also said £300m and £500m. Guess we'll just have to trust the people running the club, they are the professionals after all and there's a reason they're in charge of United and not us.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Facts and Figures on the Glazer debt..

The Glazers may sensibly be keeping their personal profile low and letting the team do United's talking but these price rises are connected to their takeover and the need to pay off the massive £660m debt with which it has saddled United. The Glazers moved last summer to repay those original borrowings with other loans at less stinging interest and to attract the banks they promoted the current season's 14% price increase. In refinancing documents circulated in the City, which I have seen, the club promised that with the extra money from fans, along with increased TV income, boosted sponsorship deals with AIG and others and the drive to make more money from United's estimated 75m fans globally, the club would be able to repay the debts.

The documents show that the Glazers paid a total of £831m for United - £790m for the club and £41.3m in fees to banks and other professional firms. The family paid only £272m of their own money, borrowing the other £559m. Of the latter, £284m was arranged by the merchant bank JP Morgan and £275m came in much riskier "preferred securities" from three hedge funds, Citadel, Och-Ziff and Perry Capital, charging eye-wateringly high interest.

When the Glazers refinanced, after only a year, those hedge funds had accumulated a further £79.1m in interest and other payments, meaning the total owed to them had swollen to £354.1m. The family managed last summer to negotiate £525m in new loans at lower interest - still over 8%, about £42m a year. That replaced the money they originally borrowed to finance the takeover, except for £138m still owed to the hedge funds. The interest on that is running at 14.25% - £19.66m a year. That makes the total borrowed by the Glazers £663m, more than six times the loans which have proved the ruin of Leeds United. The annual interest alone adds up to £62m.

The warning by the supporter groups about this kind of "leveraged" takeover turned out to be true: the debt borrowed was then loaded on to United itself. The legendary football club, previously - famously - the only English club free of debt, now has to service £663m borrowings and annual interest of £62m. The season-ticket price increase now being charged to fans will go, partly, to service that, the cost of a takeover none of them wanted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
That's one view but as I said there are several different figures being spouted about and nobody else bar those connected to the club know about it.

Have to I can understand ticket prices rising because we had some of the cheapest in the Prem but the Auto Cup Scheme takes the piss and is just ripping off the fans.

I hope we don't get any home cup games now. :p
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
unitedred said:
That's one view but as I said there are several different figures being spouted about and nobody else bar those connected to the club know about it.

Have to I can understand ticket prices rising because we had some of the cheapest in the Prem but the Auto Cup Scheme takes the piss and is just ripping off the fans.

I hope we don't get any home cup games now. :p
Sorry mate but yes they do. As Manchester United is now a PLC ALL figures MUST be open and above board. Try the Financial times or the money Guardian or the financial pages of the Telegraph You'll find the same facts and figures.

The Family Business

£663m
Total debts taken on by Manchester United to pay for the Glazer family takeover

£70.4m
The total spent on banks' and professionals' fees to arrange the takeover and 2006 refinancing

£62m
United's interest payments a year


14%
Season ticket price rise next season

£300- £500
Possible additional cost - if United progress to later stages of cups - of 2007-08 season tickets because buying cup tickets becomes compulsory.

And you are not alone in hoping we dont get any home cup games. How many more REAL fans are going to be priced out if things carry on the way they are? How long before Old Trafford becomes a " day trippers only " place ?

No appologies but...L.U.H.G.

.MUFC ....NOT ...MUPLC.

.
 

·
Smeghead Moderator
Joined
·
13,665 Posts
Salford Red

Your 1st post in this thread is exactly how I was going to respond to the other thread until I noticed it was locked.

The Glazers will be quite happy to let the fans think they are splashing out in the transfer market and the media are happy to use these high transfer fees in their headlines because it sells better.

The positive thing is that this means United are building a great squad on a tight budget.
 

·
has been served
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
unitedred said:
The bloke was questioning teenagers abilities before they have even touched a ball in the league, its reactionary shite and it deserve locking.

Now if you want to discuss expenditures then feel free to do so, just stay on topic.

There's opinions and there are wind ups just to annoy people.
You should let people post there own opinions freely. If there shit, we can rip the piss out of them =]
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
SALFORD RED said:
Sorry mate but yes they do. As Manchester United is now a PLC ALL figures MUST be open and above board. Try the Financial times or the money Guardian or the financial pages of the Telegraph You'll find the same facts and figures.

The Family Business

£663m
Total debts taken on by Manchester United to pay for the Glazer family takeover

£70.4m
The total spent on banks' and professionals' fees to arrange the takeover and 2006 refinancing

£62m
United's interest payments a year


14%
Season ticket price rise next season

£300- £500
Possible additional cost - if United progress to later stages of cups - of 2007-08 season tickets because buying cup tickets becomes compulsory.

And you are not alone in hoping we dont get any home cup games. How many more REAL fans are going to be priced out if things carry on the way they are? How long before Old Trafford becomes a " day trippers only " place ?

No appologies but...L.U.H.G.

.MUFC ....NOT ...MUPLC.

.
How can United be a PLC ??

The Glazers own it !!!
 

·
has been served
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
carlyluvsunited said:
How can United be a PLC ??

The Glazers own it !!!
Exactly! Dont know what your thinking about but its not United. United were a PLC but the Glazers took over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
carlyluvsunited said:
How can United be a PLC ??

The Glazers own it !!!
Precisely, its a privately owned company hence we dont have to comply with the stock market and thats why there are so many figures laying about.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
unitedred said:
Precisely, its a privately owned company hence we dont have to comply with the stock market and thats why there are so many figures laying about.
The transfer fees and the personal deals they make with Nani and Anderson were undisclosed so no one knows the facts and figures involved here.....or maybe Malcolm Glazer was bored on Sunday morning and he telephone The Independant and tell them everything to do with his own private business !!! (I dont think he do this).

And the debt ?

Imagine if I see a shop in my town that is owned in full by another girl and I want to buy this shop......and it is worth 250,000 pounds.

I go to my bank and I ask for mortgage to buy the business. My bank manager he say yes to me and I have bought the business.

Now this shop (business) is in debt for 250,000 pounds.

If this shop now goes wrong and make no money who is responsible for the money to be paid back to the bank ?

I am - me and only me - I take out this loan so I am responsible for it !!!!

Now take the above story and substitute the shop for Manchester United......and substititute me for Malcolm Glazer !!!

All this facts and figures is nonsense - Mr Glazer and his accountants know the truth and they dont need to disclose these things to anyone - I can assure you they dont disclose anything too !!!

United is not a PLC and therefore do not have to comply with anything the stock market says - its a private business and they are the only one to know the truth.

All the scare mongers and 'bored' journalists make up some stories to sell papers and people believe it all.

Glazer bought a business with a mortgage - like 1000s of people do every day in the week - so whats the big deal ?
 

·
Smeghead Moderator
Joined
·
13,665 Posts
It does not matter which set of figures are closer to the truth because either can be used to back up an argument.

If the 'United spend £70m' reports are true then the Glazers can claim they are backing the manager in the transfer market whereas detractors can say that the Glazers are spending money that should be used to service the huge debts the club faces.

If the 'United spend £20m' reports are true then the Glazers can claim they are managing the club sensibly and have improved the squad at a low cost. Detractors can say that they are not backing United in the transfer market as much as we think and that the reason is because of the huge debt the Glazers are responsible for.

'Facts' can be manipulated to support your own argument.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
reddwarf said:
It does not matter which set of figures are closer to the truth because either can be used to back up an argument.

If the 'United spend £70m' reports are true then the Glazers can claim they are backing the manager in the transfer market whereas detractors can say that the Glazers are spending money that should be used to service the huge debts the club faces.

If the 'United spend £20m' reports are true then the Glazers can claim they are managing the club sensibly and have improved the squad at a low cost. Detractors can say that they are not backing United in the transfer market as much as we think and that the reason is because of the huge debt the Glazers are responsible for.

'Facts' can be manipulated to support your own argument.
But nobody can verify any figure is fact - this is my point !!!

20 mill.....70 mill.....27p........nobody knows - simple as.........
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
reddwarf said:
He meant MULTD ;)
Thats what you get posting at 4.34 am working night shift since 6pm.

As for the rest of peoples posts, forget it, the blind can't see and the deaf can't hear .
 

·
has been served
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
The copious amounts of East Asian people who buy United shirts means that we can spend all we like and still make a profit.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top