Financial Times summary of Red Football accounts (with link)

Originally Posted by Welly

You talk like these things need to happen for the Glazers to £#%&! up.

When these things happen we have never made more than £ 30 million in profit yet the loan payments are £62 million.

Preserving the status quo won't save the Glazers.

They need to increase revenues, of course they do. They're probably targetting more than just the new TV deal as well - let's hope so, eh.

I just do not get the comparison with Leeds at all. I don't see the point of it. It's just plain daft. They failed to qualify for the CL once and the whole thing went pop. United failed to make it out of their group last season, but this year they have record breaking attendances and are in the semi-finals. It's just not in the same league. That's all I'm saying. It's like comparing Ryan Giggs with Ralph Milne.

The thing is throb, if the interest payments are greater than the profit then it is only a matter of time before the Glazers have to give up.

I'm happy to be educated but it seems to me that we're sliding around £30m further in to debt each year.

Originally Posted by tatty

The thing is throb, if the interest payments are greater than the profit then it is only a matter of time before the Glazers have to give up.

I'm happy to be educated but it seems to me that we're sliding around £30m further in to debt each year.

Sorry, but you won't be educated by me

But here's a link to that Beeb programme from last year: In Search of Glazer

http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/sear...47&Search.y=22

Not that I'm saying you'll be educated by that either btw, but it's as close as there seems to be to any kind of genuine insight into how the Glazers go about these things, the 2nd part probably moreso than the first but it's all good.

A spokesman for the Glazer family said the accounting losses had "absolutely no bearing on the strong underlying financial performance of Manchester United, which is presently enjoying record revenues.

"The Glazer family is committed to continuing to invest in the club's future . . . "

not only is the first bit rubbish, but the second bit is a £#%&!ing joke as well.

Originally Posted by Cantona's collar

I might be being a bit thick here (very likely) but when the profits where announced a few months ago (£30+ million if i remember correctly) wouldn't they have taken into account the loan payments?

Not being thick in the slightest, in fact it took me a while to get my head round the structure of the various Glazer companies set up around the takeover.

We are owned by a company called Red Football, which was set up by the Glazers purely and simply to buy us. In effect Red Football bought all the plc shares. The Glazers own Red football, and hence us. The interest payments on the debt are paid from Red football, so our accounts are pretty well as they were before in terms of profit/loss.

Apart from the £44m 'loan' from MUFC to Red Football. But as it was a loan, it doesn't show as a reduction in this year's MUFC profits, as it is assumed it's going to be paid back.* The article I put the link to though shows that Red Football has no money with which to pay us back. So either the Glazers put their own money into Red Football, or MUFC eventually write the loan off.


Unfortunately the only asset of Red Football is Manchester United Football Club. So if it defaults, then the consequencies fall upon us. That's why it's so worrying that Red football's debt is higher than any commentators expected. I didn't even consider it being over £100m tbh.

Hope that helps a little.

*feel free to correct me on this anyone if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by tatty

The thing is throb, if the interest payments are greater than the profit then it is only a matter of time before the Glazers have to give up.

I'm happy to be educated but it seems to me that we're sliding around £30m further in to debt each year.

That's how I understand it as well and like you am happy to be told different. Right from the outset of the take over (and I am no finance expert) the figures did not seem to add up to me. The only way I can see them clearing vast amounts of debt is either by selling and releasing old trafford or selling the re-naming rights. Either that or Nike buying a stake as they are allready linked via players and so on

come all ye faithful, joyful and triumphant

Originally Posted by tim887

Not being thick in the slightest, in fact it took me a while to get my head round the structure of the various Glazer companies set up around the takeover.

We are owned by a company called Red Football, which was set up by the Glazers purely and simply to buy us. In effect Red Football bought all the plc shares. The Glazers own Red football, and hence us. The interest payments on the debt are paid from Red football, so our accounts are pretty well as they were before in terms of profit/loss.

Apart from the £44m 'loan' from MUFC to Red Football. But as it was a loan, it doesn't show as a reduction in this year's MUFC profits, as it is assumed it's going to be paid back.* The article I put the link to though shows that Red Football has no money with which to pay us back. So either the Glazers put their own money into Red Football, or MUFC eventually write the loan off.


Unfortunately the only asset of Red Football is Manchester United Football Club. So if it defaults, then the consequencies fall upon us. That's why it's so worrying that Red football's debt is higher than any commentators expected. I didn't even consider it being over £100m tbh.

Hope that helps a little.

*feel free to correct me on this anyone if I'm wrong.

Cheers for that.

Basically Glazers/Gill e.t.c. can hid behind the "profits are up" "record revenue" spiel because technically that is correct for United, what they fail to mention is the fact that the company that owns United (and relies solely on United for its revenue) is making record losses

Originally Posted by Cantona's collar

Cheers for that.

Basically Glazers/Gill e.t.c. can hid behind the "profits are up" "record revenue" spiel because technically that is correct for United, what they fail to mention is the fact that the company that owns United (and relies solely on United for its revenue) is making record losses

Not exactly no. Think of it more along the lines that the mere fact of increased revenues has been used to renegotiate the original interest repayment deal. The fact Red Football shows high losses was expected, and next year's figures could prove far more telling (is there a limit on how many times a debt can be refinanced?, or to the benefit of further refinancing if there isn't tim887 do you know, please?) Some argue (Gill) that the present interest figure of £60m is not significantly greater than that of tax and dividends under the plc and that this increase is worth it (to be rid of the likes of Coolmore) in the quest for stability. Others claim that that is nonsense, and that the club never had any debt (visible or otherwise - dividends being said to have been technically voluntary) before the Glazers took over. Future revenue streams look likely to be good, with prospects for the success of the team very good. Whether the debt itself will be paid off at all is open to question - just a tad! This seems to be the situation. What have I left out?

Originally Posted by tim887

Lol. You're confusing 'revenue' and 'profit.'

No he's not. You are.

Increased revenues provide scope for higher expenses (such as interest payments). Overall expenses and other financial write downs (such as the £39m pa goodwill cost) determine profit.

You state that you are surprised the losses for Red Football were more than £100m. That demonstrates perfectly your confusion over revenues, profits and accounting losses.

Posting a good link to the figures doesn't mean you understand them. Quite clearly, you don't.

Don't get me wrong though, the Glazers are £#%&!ing bad news and have put us on a financial knifedge.

Originally Posted by helmet

No he's not. You are.

Increased revenues provide scope for higher expenses (such as interest payments). Overall expenses and other financial write downs (such as the £39m pa goodwill cost) determine profit.

You state that you are surprised the losses for Red Football were more than £100m. That demonstrates perfectly your confusion over revenues, profits and accounting losses.

Posting a good link to the figures doesn't mean you understand them. Quite clearly, you don't.

Don't get me wrong though, the Glazers are £#%&!ing bad news and have put us on a financial knifedge.

u seem clever. can you explain it in peasants term please?

this all means nothing to me. so much for my economics a-level.

Originally Posted by Smiling Bastard

Anyone else have a mental image of Enoch Powell denying he's a racist?

Only if he regulalry changed what people said to make out that they were though.

The fun you could have with a name like Roger Blitz.

Originally Posted by Wafty Crank

Open to debate. Well, the 'successful' part is. The 'sensible' part isn't, because they most certainly aren't that. Do some research. Start with "zap.com".

"Between 1998 and 2000, Zapata tried to position itself as an internet media company under the "zap.com" name. The company's stock boomed and crashed along with other dot-coms, and in 2001 the company conducted a 1 for 10 reverse stock split. The venture was cited by many investment journalists as an example of a company jumping on the internet bandwagon without any relevant experience. Zapata also built up a controling stake in Safety Components International at this time."

why do we bother looking into the debt? No-one is going to do anything about it, are they?

I'm not going to put blinkers on my eyes,lie down in a darkened room, and wait for the world to end.[/quote]

I wish you would with Uncle Malkenstein hanging out your arse end.

knew exactly what he was doing.



Whether he was a racist himself or not, he deliberately and with aforethought advanced their cause and acted as a lightning rod for their bigotry.



If he wasn't a racist (in the sense we understand it here), you could argue that makes his actions even less forgivable.



I mention it because it matters in and of itself, and not because of any parallels to a silly WUM on a smallish message board.

Originally Posted by Mr. Rosewater

I have asked you one question recently - what did you do to try to stop the Glazers?

I have asked him this twice before and not had an answer. He must go to a University thats so high-ferluting that they don't even have to read to be educated.

I'll tell you what, using the 'ignore' function for the first time is just like getting Sky Plus. Don't know how I survived without it.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0b2053ee-ea2...hp%3Ft%3D22707

Link not working for me!