a bit of advice please

Re the rags - at the moment, with capacity crowds and regular appearance in the later stages of the CL knock-out they can produce enough income to service their debt but there's not a lot left over. However that's mostly interest - they have to find an extra £1.1bn between 2013 and 2017 to repay the capital on the bank loans and the PIK notes.

The key bit of information is their cashflow statement. This tells you how much cash they actually generate and spend without accounting transactions. In the last accounts (2008) they spent £12.3m more than they earned and that would have been more except they borrowed a bit more. They had to pay £60m in interest but their total interest payable was £70m as they don't pay the interest on the high interest PIK notes but add it to the outstanding amount. That year also included a profit on the sale of players of over £20m mainly from selling their younger players like Pique, Rossi, Shawcross & Richardson.

They won't have that in the next accounts (Ronaldo was sold in this financial year) so they will have spunked away something like £40m of cash. That's whay Ferguson won't be spending the rest of the Ronaldo money - they needed it to replace this level of loss.

Also, the football club is profitable but the group isn't. If you look at their holding company (the one where all the subsidiary companies are consolidated) they only just made an operating profit in 2008 (£926k). Out of that they had to deduct nearly £70m of interest (although not all of that was actually paid) leaving them with a £43m loss.

If they start losing income by not getting to the last 8 or further and their corporate match day income starts drying up then they are going to have more trouble meeting their interest repayments. Plus they have a lot of key players that will need replacing (Scholes, Giggs, Neville, Van Der Sar, Ferdinand) and they can maybe afford £20m a year in transfers. They will increasingly have to rely on selling younger players they've brought through the ranks to supplement that.

As for us wer're at an early stage in our business cycle. It's like an owner setting up a factory and buying a lot of expensive machines in the hope that he can generateenough revenue to pay for them. Their revenue was nearly 3 times ours (257m v 87m) yet our loss was £90m as against their £43m. He's right that it will get worse before it gets better but we don't have to find huge interest payments and won't be spending big money every season so that will settle down.

Eventually the investment will pay off and (if we get regular CL football) our income will go up and our costs will level off. Liverpool's income was around £160m in the same year and something like that's probably achievable within 3 years.

However, they are possibly at the peak of their earning power; ticket prices are as high as they can go (they're not filling the ground for cup games) and they've appeared in two consecutive CL finals. If they don't qualify for the CL then alarm bells will ring very loudly.

Our squad is getting stronger but theirs is getting weaker.

Someone may buy them but they will need to be very wealthy. Their value is reckoned to be around $1.4m (£900m) but their current debt is something like $1.2m and rising.
 
"Yes, it is clear that the Glazers cannot hold on for much longer, that day will come sooner rather than later.

- is probably true. However they're reliant on the odd ball Glazer bunch realising they've got to ship out, in a global economy which is far from flush.

The point is though that as the worlds biggest and most commercially profitable club only united could survive this debt ridden business model.

Ultimately we will be sold and in the current climate it will not be a debt purchase (the banks will no longer fund such purchases).

Liverpool was probably the last club to be purchased with such a debt .

United will be bougt by a very wealthy organisation using equity and at a price which will just clear the Glazers debt, as this is the only escape route for the Glazers.

- It' remains a possibility. United will only appeal to anyone who wants the most expensive of premier league football club toys. Clearing the debt, at current levels, assuming not a sausage of extra money is found for playing staff will take 10 years. Only then does any incoming buyer start to see a return. They're significantly more mature in realising potential income streams than just about any other club, because their marketiong machine, that has no small part to play in the 'global brand' thing, is older and more succesful than any other clubs. Which begs the question, why would anyone invest £700m to buy the club, if there's no propsect of improving significantly on the current levels of profitability? They might be picked up as a vanity purchase, but the international fashion for english football club ownership is clearly on the wane when the global ecobnomy is in bad health. What happens then, raggity? Ouch.

United and possibly Real Madrid are the only 2 clubs in the world who can service massive debt and any new purchaser will always get a profitable return on using their own money, so their is no real worry other than in the short term not much money being released for new players.

- As above. What if their playing staff is, as now, perhaps not of the quality that it typically has been? Say it takes 3 years for the situation to improve. How long does baconface last? All of that time? And what if he doesnt? Is a new manager approached but offered zero transfer funds in any attempt to fill the bastard's boots? Good luck.

Coming back to City, they have just posted a record loss for a premier league club of over £90m, outstripping even Chelseas losses. These losses will increase next year to well over £100m due to the ever spiralling debt created by increasing salaries and inflated transfer fees. City have to pay over the odds salaries, transfer fees and agents fees to try and get quality players to what is a very small club in glabal terms.This will always be the case.

- Am I right in thinking that Chlesea posted a loss of £132m one year? 'Will always be the case' - Yeah, wishful thinking. If City start winning trophies, the tourists and their wallets will come, same as they've gone to Trafford and Liverpool before them.

Now you will say that these losses do not matter because the Arabs convert the losses into equity each year and that is so until the day that they do not. That is when it will all end in tears because as Blackburn found out when their benefactor died, the revenues will never match their costs and when no one is there to bail out the losses ,then the ship will sink.

- We're beholden to the Sheikh as it stands. However, the investment has resulted in assets, which will offset that loss. Perhaps the chap needs to take our word on it that the Sheikh might still be here in 10 years time, and possibly even longer. As a note on Emirati culture, I believe the economy is planned up to 25 years in advance.

That is the big difference City will never produce a business model that produces more revenue than their inflated costs whereas United can and always will.

- United's revenue streams are pretty much mature. City's are not. That's in a pure footballing sense. Before we worry about that, perhaps we should explore two pieces of evidence which suggest that the business plan at City at present is not (currently) one aiming primarily for profitablity. The first is the reduction in the price of tickets to go to games. The second is the City website, which is (for what it is) expensive cutting edge technology, and broke the football industry standard when a football club website ceased to require a subscription to access premium online content, ie video. Is there any other football club in the world that doesnt require people to pay extra for these things? I'd suggest that the primary motivation is one for footballing success, at pretty much all costs- even dumping a billion into City over a 10 year period is, as we know, small fry to one of the biggest soverign wealth funds on the planet. So what are the motivations of ADUG and Sheikh Mansour? Perhaps he wants a high profile loss leader to 'market' the Abu Dhabi brand and is seeks to compete with it's Emirati neighbour, Dubai, and attempts to shore up its national pension for when its oil runs out. Perhaps he's got an eye on dozens of acres of land around SportCity (Google search: 'Clayton Aniline') and is wondering what sort of wonderfully profitable business ventures he can build and run on them. Perhaps he has ideas of using City as a brand outside of football, as a springboard for creating his own Virgin super-brand based around CITY. Garry Cooke, I understand, wrote a 300 page dossier, once upon a time, dealing with the prospects of doing exactly this. At the end of the day, though, City are one of the Sheikh's highest profile investments, and yet probably one of the cheapest. He made £1bn out of Barclay bank shares, in 3 months, at the end of 2008- he bought then sold 18% of the company, and made this profit in the midst of the biggest banking crisis in a hundred-plus years. £billions is a 'normal' investment, incidentally.

Chelsea are the perfect example for you, they have won the title twice amongst numerous other trophies and are stalwarts of the champions league yet they continue to post huge losses and Kenyon was sacked after admitting that they could never break even due to the club having no global fan base and thus commercial revenues as basically they have no history, L;iverpool and Arsenal are bigger global brands and Abramovich knows this and is now refusing to put in the ridiculous amounts of money he once did.

- Chelsea's supporter base is enormous. As we've established, it perhaps doesnt actually matter if City ever turn a profit. ADUG could buy City a million times over, with change to spare.

The Arabs are used to instant success and whilst City are clearly going to be more succesful with their money, they will soon tire and the day they leave is the day the Administrators move in!

- dealt with above, I believe

Watch this space......"

- indeed. We all know colour the future is... And it aint orange.
 
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1241995/Ben-Foster-sale-Edwin-van-der-Sar-returns-Manchester-United.html?ITO=1490" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... l?ITO=1490</a>
 
Please feel free to copy:

"Alright mate, do you think the Glazers are really 'clinging on'? You suggest there's some kind of power struggle; which there clearly isn't. Why do you think they keep such a low profile and visit the ground infrequently? They know full well that their 'business model' is built entirely without consideration to the average fan of United (of which there are a precious few left) and they know full well that as soon as the performances on the pitch get shaky the fans will turn. I'll have you a bet, the Glazer family will not visit OT on a match day EVER again. Tenner? Yes or no?

Why do you presume that a) the Glazers will sell; and b) someone will buy something with £800m of toxic debt attached to it? Just because the years since 1993 have been great for you it doesn't mean it will last for ever. In fact, history would suggest that your reign, just like Liverpool's domination of the 70s and 80s, is now coming to an end. When Fergie goes that could be it for another 20 or 30 years. Can we have your banner when we win the League Cup this year?

All I can say is this, I pray to God that you have truly celebrated United's recent successes and not held back because it would be awful to think that you will look back on the last 17 years with regrets. Imagine being mid-table in a few seasons and thinking "Why did I act like such a c*nt when we were winning things? I can't stand the abuse from the Blues much longer. If they get that 4th Champions League trophy on Wednesday I'm going to kill myself."

As for our owners, if you can point me in the direction of some evidence which suggests they want instant success it would be appreciated. Face it mate, they're in it for the long haul and that badge of honour you've worn for nearly two decades "Manchester United Fan - Vicariously Living The Dream" is tired.

Shame really. Matt was a good Blue and will be turning in his grave"
 
fuck me lads some of you know your stuff thanks gonna go back to him with some of this ill let you know what he has to say
 
I'm pretty sure in saying that another billionaire would not be willing to take them on, purely because of their level of debt.

Also, the returns that your friends speak of are hardly a fantastic return anyways, when someone could go and buy say British Gas (or whatever the hell they're called nowadays) shares for a lot greater return. The people likely to buy them wouldn't be doing it for a return, but as a trophy so that argument of his fails spectacularly. Besides which, their operating profit which I think was £72M last year, only just covered their interest repayments of £69M. Source, the Sunday Times article last weekend, if my memory serves me well those figures are correct I quote.

I find it quite laughable the argument he puts forward that Sheikh Mansour will up and do one and can't even be bothered to dignify it with a response.

I think I read recently how THEY had a banner up at the Liverpool game which read 'Living in history, whilst we're making history' or words to that effect. I cannot wait until the day that happens to us and them if you get my gist.

I hope the above makes sense as I've had a glass or two of vino!
 
fuck it ,im just enjoying the ride..
my bro in law keeps saying it will all end in tears too. But ive had lots of tears down the years so i really dont give a shit .lets just enjoy it..
 
MikeF said:
I'm pretty sure in saying that another billionaire would not be willing to take them on, purely because of their level of debt.

Also, the returns that your friends speak of are hardly a fantastic return anyways, when someone could go and buy say British Gas (or whatever the hell they're called nowadays) shares for a lot greater return. The people likely to buy them wouldn't be doing it for a return, but as a trophy so that argument of his fails spectacularly. Besides which, their operating profit which I think was £72M last year, only just covered their interest repayments of £69M. Source, the Sunday Times article last weekend, if my memory serves me well those figures are correct I quote.

I find it quite laughable the argument he puts forward that Sheikh Mansour will up and do one and can't even be bothered to dignify it with a response.

I think I read recently how THEY had a banner up at the Liverpool game which read 'Living in history, whilst we're making history' or words to that effect. I cannot wait until the day that happens to us and them if you get my gist.

I hope the above makes sense as I've had a glass or two of vino!


it does mate but iv had a few to, i wonder if he will reply after my onslought so much info on here to hit him with as you can tell by his e mail he is an educated rag not your usual blind prick
 
LongLang said:
"no global fan base"???
the very fact that the sheik has payed into us has opened the door to the middle east, which was an un-tapped market up until now. all new recruits. i know its not what city are supposed to be about, (were a local club for local people, theres no room for you here), and from there we spread outwards. we were already a big name in asia due to sun jihai and then the thaksin takeover opened up even more.
i seem to remember us playing everton a couple of years back and getting one of the most watched sporting events in tv history due to the fact that sun jihai and li tie were on the pitch.
globally we are in the same boat as we are at home, in that we are a developing club. scum fans tend to believe they were successful overnight. (football was invented in 1993) but it took them time to grow into what they are now. We know they are a bigger club and a bigger franchise than we are, we have never disputed that, but as they say, rome wasn't built in a day. its the ushited fans that keep bringing up the "little City" snipes, which are about as pointless as shouting "you don't even own your own ground" every 5 minutes.
in my humble opinion your friend seems to be trying to get a parting shot at "ickle City" before the rags sink into mid-table obscurity.


on another note, i have the "pleasure" of working for 2 scousers. every time we talk football we get into the same old tired routine. they say were not good enough. i say they aren't top 4 material anymore. they say quite epically "you don't even own your own ground". i say your skint, you will have to sell us torres. they say "DONT TALK ABOUT HISTORY, YOU AINT GOT NO HISTORY" this is where i walk away laughing at a dying club.



ooh actually let them talk about history. let them talk and talk about the past.

then change the subject to the future.
 
Lord BLue said:
LongLang said:
"no global fan base"???
the very fact that the sheik has payed into us has opened the door to the middle east, which was an un-tapped market up until now. all new recruits. i know its not what city are supposed to be about, (were a local club for local people, theres no room for you here), and from there we spread outwards. we were already a big name in asia due to sun jihai and then the thaksin takeover opened up even more.
i seem to remember us playing everton a couple of years back and getting one of the most watched sporting events in tv history due to the fact that sun jihai and li tie were on the pitch.
globally we are in the same boat as we are at home, in that we are a developing club. scum fans tend to believe they were successful overnight. (football was invented in 1993) but it took them time to grow into what they are now. We know they are a bigger club and a bigger franchise than we are, we have never disputed that, but as they say, rome wasn't built in a day. its the ushited fans that keep bringing up the "little City" snipes, which are about as pointless as shouting "you don't even own your own ground" every 5 minutes.
in my humble opinion your friend seems to be trying to get a parting shot at "ickle City" before the rags sink into mid-table obscurity.


on another note, i have the "pleasure" of working for 2 scousers. every time we talk football we get into the same old tired routine. they say were not good enough. i say they aren't top 4 material anymore. they say quite epically "you don't even own your own ground". i say your skint, you will have to sell us torres. they say "DONT TALK ABOUT HISTORY, YOU AINT GOT NO HISTORY" this is where i walk away laughing at a dying club.



ooh actually let them talk about history. let them talk and talk about the past.

then change the subject to the future.

Exactly mate. if you look at us, ushited and the dippers in terms of a human life, its fairly well fitting:

i would have to put us at 21, growing into manhood, about to become all we can be, our best years are ahead of us and we cant wait to get there.
the rags are pushing 50, their prime is behind them, but they still have a year or two left in them for a surprise or two, maybe a league cup here or there.
the dippers are 85, talking about the war, eating food with a spoon and generally just waiting for the inevitable to happen. they cant trade on the 80's for much longer.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.