If we weren't in the CL the estimation is that Ebitda would decrease by 15million. A situation we could cope with, dropping out of Europa would have a more severe impact.
are Man U going the same way as Liverpool?
- Thread starter 233
- Start date
If we weren't in the CL the estimation is that Ebitda would decrease by 15million. A situation we could cope with, dropping out of Europa would have a more severe impact.
god knows, I'll link you to it in the morning. I assume it's in the same way that H&G would still have largely have gone **** up even if you'd qualified for the CL last time round. They've brought the Europa closer but again I'll find the working on the morrow.
It's not a problem of spending power. It's a big club that makes a lot of money, and the new UEFA financial ruling would have suited them better than anyone were they not straddled with monkey owners and an obscene amount of debt. If by some miracle the debt vanished and the ruling came in they wouldn't be in a bad position at all (Not including any pitch/managerial problems of course). They don't have the spending power to compete in the here and now, but that time could well be coming to an end.
They need to increase their revenues by at least 25% (and that's assuming that's pure profit) to start being able to pay the yearly interest payments without going further into debt. Let's not forget, this year they had a record turnover and they still were losing money hand over fist! Using EBITDA just conviniently ignores the interest payments, all that shows is that Man Utd without the debt would be ok.
Sorry so your working out is that we'd need to make 70million pure profit to pay the fixed 45 million interest charge? So 280million isn't enough we'd need 350million?
See my working out is that when you ignore accounting practices the simple fact of the matter is that we made 280mill, we paid the 45 million interest we paid a one off 40mill (that won't be repeated) along with all our other day to day running costs in the club and yet we managed to increase the cash we had in the bank. How exactly did that work if we need to find another 70million pure profit just to cover the 44million interest?
You did read about the none cash losses didn't you? that's part of the reason investors use Ebitda so they can sort the wheat from the chaff. A more simplistic view would be to look purely at the cash flow though. Despite having paid more than we normally would we've now got more money sitting in our bank than last year, and this is without the 25million increase you think we need.
See my working out is that when you ignore accounting practices the simple fact of the matter is that we made 280mill, we paid the 45 million interest we paid a one off 40mill (that won't be repeated) along with all our other day to day running costs in the club and yet we managed to increase the cash we had in the bank. How exactly did that work if we need to find another 70million pure profit just to cover the 44million interest?
You did read about the none cash losses didn't you? that's part of the reason investors use Ebitda so they can sort the wheat from the chaff. A more simplistic view would be to look purely at the cash flow though. Despite having paid more than we normally would we've now got more money sitting in our bank than last year, and this is without the 25million increase you think we need.
Yes, EBITDA gives a good sign of the underlying business, but then it ignores interest payments on debt altogether which is fine and dandy for someone looking to buy the club who can expect the value of the debt to be offset by the assets in the value of the club. At a time when they have the highest turnover ever and a cash surplus of £100million they then incurred £180million in costs that are excluded from EBITDA. Yes £45million was a one off, but what about the rest?
Since the Glazers took over Man Utd have paid out something like £500million in debt charges and interest and the actual debt is still £750million.
Since the Glazers took over Man Utd have paid out something like £500million in debt charges and interest and the actual debt is still £750million.
the rest is a set payment of £45 million a year in interest? no more than that. What other interest costs are there? and the total debt that is Uniteds responsibility is £521mill the only provision for more money to be taken out of the club is a carve out of 70mill and the Glazers' yearly dividend (and a management fee) all of which is unclaimed.
Here's a breakdown of the various losses beyond the ongoing £45million interest payment:-
http://andersred.blogspot.com/
He even mentions that the Glazers haven't taken any money out yet to pay their personal debt as part of the Man Utd deal so that's likely still to come at some point.
http://andersred.blogspot.com/
He even mentions that the Glazers haven't taken any money out yet to pay their personal debt as part of the Man Utd deal so that's likely still to come at some point.
Arsenal have about as much spare cash as man u and Liverpool except Arsenal got a new Stadium out of it
MW
Yep but the breakdown you posted doesn't indicate in any way we need to increase our profit by 70million just to cover the debt rising? He's been predicting them taking the carve out for a while now and he's confused that they haven't but he even says:
and he's said on the caf that there's no danger of united going bust, cost control is exceptional and these are undeniably good results for the Glazers.
You've drawn from Andersred so here's his comments from yesterday for you:
The swap loss is a one off and won't be repeated. that's where they got stung by the markets crashing.
Last edited:
No he says they're good results for Man Utd, spoiled by the debt drag of the Glazers. It's not just the £40million in interest payments that are going out, but several other fees on the various finiancial vehicles that have been used to refiance the debt to 2017 etc. These might not be cash this year but they will have to be paid at some point, only that they are shown as negative cash flow from now to when the actual payment needs to be made. If the business side of things wasn't so well run then they would be in immediate trouble but longer term, as he points out, the low investment in players is going to cause problems.
Man Utd will not be able to maintain the same level of performance on the pitch as a result of a weaker squad with the subsequent loss of incomes from the champions league, lower gates, media rights and international deals which will have them lurch towards trouble.
Man Utd will not be able to maintain the same level of performance on the pitch as a result of a weaker squad with the subsequent loss of incomes from the champions league, lower gates, media rights and international deals which will have them lurch towards trouble.
the Premier League should have a rule, that if you have to borrow all or most of the money to buy a club. then you are not allowed to buy.
this would stop the stupid situation of buying a profit making club, and immediately plunging them into debt.
It's quite possible they took out all they're entitled to, they just did it after June. This was widely speculated on at the time and considered to be highly likely as it was more efficient.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,071
- Location
- Shepley
But there's a note in the accounts for the 8.3m removed to buy Bebe after 30th June - surely if they took out 90m for themselves it would also be documented?