Is it bad to get a tingle when there is a discussion about the scums finances ?
I see the United ladies' team were the first to feel the cut-backs ;-
Is it bad to get a tingle when there is a discussion about the scums finances ?
I assume they burnt through all that cash whilst signing their stellar new players in the summer?Net debt is as meaningless as net spend. It's just total debt minus cash. Clubs get loads of cash at the end of the season, from UEFA & the PL, so cash balances are generally high at year-end, meaning net debt is lower. As they start to spend that cash, on transfers, wages and other operating expenses, it goes higher. Their total debt is almost certainly still the same.
UEFA have been very sneaky about the way they report on levels of debt under FFP. For one thing they only use net debt, taken from year end accounts. As I've explained, it's not a great measure & is generally at its lowest then. Then they report it as a percentage of revenue. So if total revenue across UEFA's clubs in 2010 was €10bn and net debt was €6bn, it'll be reported as being 60% of revenue. If in 2018 total revenue has increased to €18bn and net debt is still €6bn, it'll be reported as 33% of revenue and UEFA will claim it's fallen to nearly half the level it was in 2010. Yet the absolute level of net debt hasn't changed by a penny.
Update: Just checked their financial statements and their gross USD debt remains unchanged. However they've burned through £170m cash in the 3 months to Sep 2019, compared to a small net increase for the same period in the previous year. Not getting even into the Europa League next season could cost them another £100m cash easy.
Tick fucking tock.
At least they are spending it on football players and agents rather than using it all to service the debt and enhance Glazier family fortunes.I assume they burnt through all that cash whilst signing their stellar new players in the summer?
Still waiting fella. Tell you what; I'll give you another few hours to come up with the link you promised. How's "Nyon", by the way?Im still here. I will provide an external link at the latest Monday midday. I will look forward to the twitter storm.
looks like the Sir Rednose stand has had a make over.I see the United ladies' team were the first to feel the cut-backs ;-
Spill jimboStill awaiting this link from "Nyon".
Fascinating what map coordinates can reveal.
#justsayinglike
It's a common problem among blokes. According to my mate.Spill jimbo
Thanks PB, informative as usual. We missed your expertise when you were away.Net debt is as meaningless as net spend. It's just total debt minus cash. Clubs get loads of cash at the end of the season, from UEFA & the PL, so cash balances are generally high at year-end, meaning net debt is lower. As they start to spend that cash, on transfers, wages and other operating expenses, it goes higher. Their total debt is almost certainly still the same.
UEFA have been very sneaky about the way they report on levels of debt under FFP. For one thing they only use net debt, taken from year end accounts. As I've explained, it's not a great measure & is generally at its lowest then. Then they report it as a percentage of revenue. So if total revenue across UEFA's clubs in 2010 was €10bn and net debt was €6bn, it'll be reported as being 60% of revenue. If in 2018 total revenue has increased to €18bn and net debt is still €6bn, it'll be reported as 33% of revenue and UEFA will claim it's fallen to nearly half the level it was in 2010. Yet the absolute level of net debt hasn't changed by a penny.
Update: Just checked their financial statements and their gross USD debt remains unchanged. However they've burned through £170m cash in the 3 months to Sep 2019, compared to a small net increase for the same period in the previous year. Not getting even into the Europa League next season could cost them another £100m cash easy.
Tick fucking tock.