The valuations are from Forbes - but the debt quoted by Forbes is massively wrong for Arsenal - like I've shown you on the most recent company accounts, Arsenal owes no more than 400m, and if you factor in the cash reserves, that is further reduced to 300m.

Utd however owe 650m as we speak against 1.8bn and the holding company is making a loss, while Arsenal's is making a profit.

tkb417:

did you see the indicative term sheet?

IBs in London have been hawking Utd's debt around like fried akara - if you go to Elephant and Castle you'll see the term sheet used to sell boli and epa.

like u said an enterprise value of 1.8 billion with debt/mez of 650 million looks less favourable to arsenals 1.2billion valuation and 300m debt

That is the fact - Sharon cannot deny the 650m debt, neither can he contest Arsenal's debt level.

The problem is, Utd's revenue must continue to be as high as it currently is, while STILL paying down the debt for things to improve. Go look at the Tampa Bay team also owned by the Glazers - they are being starved of funds now so hope Utd doesn't go down that route.

Can anyone on the planet guarantee continued CL final/semi-final appearances to generate the big revenue? I don't think so! Ronaldo's sale has buffered things for now, but the next set of results will be interesting.

ritchboy:

Is Sauron talking about the same club that couldnt raise money to buy a youngster AFTER the deal had been AGREED?!

United couldn't nail the youngster because his work permit application got declined by the Home Office.
It has nothing to do with money cos United had already paid half of his fees when Tosic joined.

debosky:

Spambot  - i'll get it reported.
to summarize - Arsenal's holding company are making a profit - i.e paying off it's loans as and when due with something left over. Utd's holding company are making a loss.

United have not made any loss since The Glazers took over in 2005.
Stop fibbing, there's a big difference between RFJV and Man Utd.
RFJV was set up when the Glazers took over. It's income balance from the start was £800 million(debt).

A bond is still a debt, regardless of who owes it.

No one is disputing that.

Furthermore, I have every reason to doubt the debt to value ratio of forbes - If Utd is worth $1.8bn and owes £650m, and Arsenal is worth $1.2bn and owes ~£300m  (debt of ~£400m and cash reserves of ~£100m) then that Forbes ratio is definitely faulty somewhere or massively outdated.

Outdated?
Those calculations were made based on the statements of accounts posted by all the football clubs in Europe.
Your debt is more than £300 million. The amount expected from selling the flats at the Emirates diminished cos the housing market is in a mess.

Utd makes more revenue - there is no doubt about that, and the income before taxes and interest and co is still greater, BUT once you take out taxes and the massive interest payments that Utd need to make, what you end up with is a LOSS. Arsenal on the other hand, after paying all it owes ends up with a PROFIT.

You are talking bollocks.
Go and learn the meaning of operating income. . . . .United's EBITDA is massive.
You are mixing Red Football with Man Utd. . . . .They are 2 different organisations.

There is no clearer measure than that right there.

Quote your EBITDA, Operating Profit and Operating Income and let me quote mine and letz see who's in a bigger mess?

Quote your EBITDA, Operating Profit and Operating Income and let me quote mine and letz see who's in a bigger mess?

whats UTDs EBITDA and the EBITDA margin abeg?

United have not made any loss since The Glazers took over in 2005.
Stop fibbing, there's a big difference between RFJV and Man Utd.
[b]RFJV was set up when the Glazers took over. It's income balance from the start was £800 million([/b]debt).

cool

do u have anythin on that?

~Sauron~:

United have not made any loss since The Glazers took over in 2005.
Stop fibbing, there's a big difference between RFJV and Man Utd.
RFJV was set up when the Glazers took over. It's income balance from the start was £800 million(debt).

No one is disputing that.

The debt is against the assets of Man Utd - if they fail to pay, the assets can be sold. True or false?  

Outdated?
Those calculations were made based on the statements of accounts posted by all the football clubs in Europe.
Your debt is more than £300 million. The amount expected from selling the flats at the Emirates diminished cos the housing market is in a mess.

I have posted the latest accounts - the debt in total is circa £400m. If you factor in the cash reserves of £93m, the net debt level is circa £300m. Challenge this information with FACTS and not dumb, blind allegiance to faulty Forbes figures. Those are the current debt levels, and will be further reduced given that over 400 of the 600+ flats have now been sold.

You are talking bollocks.
Go and learn the meaning of operating income. . . . .United's EBITDA is massive.
You are mixing Red Football with Man Utd. . . . .They are 2 different organisations.

You are a confused person - if the person who owns a car is in debt, can the car not be sold off to pay for the debt? Utd is the car but Red Football loaned the money with Utd as collateral.

Quote your EBITDA, Operating Profit and Operating Income and let me quote mine and letz see who's in a bigger mess?

The key here is BEFORE interest, taxation,depreciation and amortisation (ITDA). After you pay what you owe, you have NOTHING left and are actually owing MORE than you started with.

Utd makes more earnings but it's earnings cannot currently meet it's interest obligations, while Arsenal more than meets it's interest obligations and is actually reducing it's debt.

If I make 20m EBITDA but have ITDA of 30m, it is worse than making 10m EBITDA and having ITDA of 5m, because I have a net profit after all is said and done.

The key here is BEFORE interest, taxation,depreciation and amortisation (ITDA). After you pay what you owe, you have NOTHING left and are actually owing MORE than you started with.

Utd makes more earnings but it's earnings cannot currently meet it's interest obligations, while Arsenal more than meets it's interest obligations and is actually reducing it's debt.

If I make 20m EBITDA but have ITDA of 30m, it is worse than making 10m EBITDA and having ITDA of 5m, because I have a net profit after all is said and done.

so does anyone has any info on the 2 clubs PBT?

lets leave EBITDA for PBT since that can lead to some ambiguity?

and besides i tot i saw something like UTDs EBITDA to be around 240m? is that correct?

if thats correct, then how can and EBITDA of 245m be insufficient for ITDA of less than 100m

things dont tie up here, i need figures ooo

TKB - these are the relevant figures:

So the total annual interest bill was just under £70m (including rolled-up interest).

That compares with a net cash inflow from operating activities (largely profit before interest and taxation) of £88m.

So in that year, if Man Utd did not want to increase its overall level of debt, it had less than £20m to spend on players and other investments.

In fact, it spent £43m - so its indebtedness increased, by just under £33m to £699m gross in total.

Utd is profitable - making £88m is no joke, but when interest ALONE is £70m, how much can you possibly spend?  

hmm
wow

earnings of less than 90milla and obligations of 70m
sauron is that correct?

i tot i saw ebitda of 245m somewhere on this thread

na wa o

@ TKB

Look at the holding company results: Utd's holding company made a loss of £44.8 m, while Arsenal's made 35.2m after all said and done.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7987603.stm

http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/_a/arsenal_money_rolling_in_as_club_releases_financial_results/

debosky:

@ TKB

Look at the holding company results: Utd's holding company made a loss of £44.8 m, while Arsenal's made 35.2m after all said and done.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7987603.stm

http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/_a/arsenal_money_rolling_in_as_club_releases_financial_results/

thanks

and my bad; the revenue was 255m not ebitda

ive seen them o; lets see how the bond will ameliorate the burden in terms of interest payments

debosky:

TKB - these are the relevant figures:

So the total annual interest bill was just under £70m (including rolled-up interest).

That compares with a net cash inflow from operating activities (largely profit before interest and taxation) of £88m.

So in that year, if Man Utd did not want to increase its overall level of debt, it had less than £20m to spend on players and other investments.

In fact, it spent £43m - so its indebtedness increased, by just under £33m to £699m gross in total.

Utd is profitable - making £88m is no joke, but when interest ALONE is £70m, how much can you possibly spend?  

United have spent more money since the takeover than what they have spent before their arrival.

You are lumping RFJV with Man Utd which is delusional. The holding company and United are 2 different entities.
The reports you keep printing about United spending £43 million is grossly incorrect.
--------------------------------------------
Earnings/Revenue - £257m

Cash expenses - £147m

EBITDA - £110m

Depreciation - £10m

Amortisation - £40m

Profit on disposal of players - +£20m(This value was before Ronaldo's sale)

Pre-tax profit - £80m
---------------------------------------------
Fergie will spend if he finds a good player out there but he wouldn't spend out of panic.
Besides, most selling clubs know Ronaldo's £80 milla is burning a hole in SAF's butt pocket and any player United wanna buy now will be overpriced.

P.S. This weather is getting unbearable, CHRIST!!!!!
Who can get me Iraqi visa?

~Sauron~:

United have spent more money since the takeover than what they have spent before their arrival.

You are lumping RFJV with Man Utd which is delusional. The holding company and United are 2 different entities.
The reports you keep printing about United spending £43 million is grossly incorrect.

What is delusional about it - by the same token, Arsenal Holdings is different from Arsenal FC? That's simply missing out on the crucial fact that, IF RFJV were to default, OT could be sold to recoup the loans. That means till RFJV either pay off the debt completely or remove the debt connection to Utd's assets, they are inextricably linked.

--------------------------------------------
Earnings/Revenue - £257m

Cash expenses - £147m

EBITDA - £110m

Depreciation - £10m

Amortisation - £40m

Profit on disposal of players - +£20m(This value was before Ronaldo's sale)

Pre-tax profit - £80m
---------------------------------------------

figures as true -that means, BEFORE paying interest Utd had £80m as profits. The crucial question is WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS PROFIT? It was used by the Glazers to part pay for the loan interest and part spent on players and other things (Berba’s purchase). The end result is a £44m LOSS for the holding company overall.

Of what value is a profit that gets swallowed up by interest payments? RFJV own 100% of Utd so any debt they owe is Utd debts by default.

What isn’t clear at the moment is the level of cash reserves held by Utd.

If I was interested in playing this silly game with you, I’d claim that Arsenal FC made £62.7m profit on the football aspect of things and claim that is the club’s profit, neglecting to factor in debt repayments that are made annually for the stadium debt.

Only a joker would believe the separation you are trying to feed us here - the BBC article (News article not Peston’s opinion piece) quotes RFJV’s group turnover as £256.2m (identical to the figure you quote) £21.8m profit on player transfers. These go to show that they are one and the same in terms of finance. The parent company of Utd is RFJV so you cannot separate the accounts at present.

The ONLY difference is that a portion of RFJV’s debt is tied to the Glazer family assets, while about £514m is tied to Utd’s assets. Either way, RFJV is using profit from the football operations to service BOTH debts, since the £70m interest was paid from the £80m profit.

Let's even accept these
Fergie will spend if he finds a good player out there but he wouldn't spend out of panic.
Besides, most selling clubs know Ronaldo's £80 milla is burning a hole in SAF's butt pocket and any player United wanna buy now will be overpriced.

That might well be, OR maybe the Glazers want to pay down some of the debt with that figure.

P.S. This weather is getting unbearable, CHRIST!!!!!
Who can get me Iraqi visa?

See me at 6pm at Canada Square with your £5000 in used banknotes.

Sauron ive been reading your arguments and its all being propped up by the fact that the holding company is different from the Clubv. As far as club finances go, that is a bogus claim. The holding company ran debts to high heavens to acquire the club. The debt is being serviced through the earnings of the club. So really how seperate is the holding company from the club.

Sadly the Glazers are not Abrahamovic that can just right off the debt because this debt is acctually owned to financial institutions. servicing it is becoming a problem in this current financial climate. The sharks are looking for ways to make their money back hence the bond issue. Dont be deceived by the big names JP Morgans and what not. the debt is still very much real. And if not serviced accordingly, MAN Us finances, inocmes and spending will be determioned solely by the suits who have no iota of allegiance to the club. Exactly what is happening to Portsmouth. And if that time comes, you will only be able to buy Aibeen Dere because he's some hot star in the middle east. Make no mistakes, they want their money back. £800b s no joke.

Luckily Man U seems to be a decent footballing side and quite popular in some markets so good showing on the pitch may generate income to put the sharks at bay, but just. Thre is a reason Fergie is mad at early exit form the cup. Revenue, not the relatively small token you get from winning, but the substantial gate takings on match day.

debosky:

What is delusional about it - by the same token, Arsenal Holdings is different from Arsenal FC? That's simply missing out on the crucial fact that, IF RFJV were to default, OT could be sold to recoup the loans. That means till RFJV either pay off the debt completely or remove the debt connection to Utd's assets, they are inextricably linked.

IF RFJV were to DEFAULT. . . . is a big hypothetical statement.
How can they ever default? Stadium expansion project continues this year, OT is going 85,000.
United's debt is like a regular Joe with a mortgage. If he defaults, they will take his house but what if he doesn't?
By the same token, 98% of house owners in the UK/USA are debtors and are in CRISIS.

figures as true -that means, BEFORE paying interest Utd had £80m as profits. The crucial question is WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS PROFIT? It was used by the Glazers to part pay for the loan interest and part spent on players and other things (Berba’s purchase). The end result is a £44m LOSS for the holding company overall.

The profit was used to improve the club.
Young players were acquired and some of them were used to pay for the loan interest.
This now is the parent company using what United made to service it's debt. As long as United keep making money, they are SAFE!!!!

Of what value is a profit that gets swallowed up by interest payments? RFJV own 100% of Utd so any debt they owe is Utd debts by default.
What isn’t clear at the moment is the level of cash reserves held by Utd.

Are you saying United are better off without it's profits?
If the profit has no value then try a LOSS. . . . .Of course, the profit is keeping United afloat and as long as fans and TV companies are interested, United will forever be a goldmine.

If I was interested in playing this silly game with you, I’d claim that Arsenal FC made £62.7m profit on the football aspect of things and claim that is the club’s profit, neglecting to factor in debt repayments that are made annually for the stadium debt.

Arsenal FC made £62.7m profit.
What the owners decided to do with this profit is a different matter entirely.
The fact is Arsenal FC are generating profit.

Only a joker would believe the separation you are trying to feed us here - the BBC article (News article not Peston’s opinion piece) quotes RFJV’s group turnover as £256.2m (identical to the figure you quote) £21.8m profit on player transfers. These go to show that they are one and the same in terms of finance. The parent company of Utd is RFJV so you cannot separate the accounts at present.

That article is senseless and this was why i called it lazy journalism.
See a different version here. . . . On the surface things look rosy enough. United remain the most effective money-maker in the world's richest league, generating record turnover of £256 million in 2007-08, a wonderful season on the pitch that ended with retention of the Premier League title and victory in the Champions League final.

Those titles generated a 50 per cent increase in media revenues to £90.4 million, augmented by £101 million in match-day revenue from Old Trafford, up around 10 per cent on 2007, and commercial income rose by 14 per cent to £64 million. Taken together this generated an operating profit in the football club accounts of £66 million

While the football club showed an operating profit, Red Football Ltd recorded a loss of £21.4 million, and Red Football Joint Ventures Ltd a loss of £44.8 million, due in large part to interest costs during the year of £68.8 million.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you now understand the accounts of RFJV and MUFC are 2 different entities.

See me at 6pm at Canada Square with your £5000 in used banknotes.

Is that 5000 Biafran Pounds?

slimshay:

Sauron ive been reading your arguments and its all being propped up by the fact that the holding company is different from the Clubv. As far as club finances go, that is a bogus claim. The holding company ran debts to high heavens to acquire the club. The debt is being serviced through the earnings of the club. So really how seperate is the holding company from the club.

Sadly the Glazers are not Abrahamovic that can just right off the debt because this debt is acctually owned to financial institutions. servicing it is becoming a problem in this current financial climate. The sharks are looking for ways to make their money back hence the bond issue. Dont be deceived by the big names JP Morgans and what not. the debt is still very much real. And if not serviced accordingly, MAN Us finances, inocmes and spending will be determioned solely by the suits who have no iota of allegiance to the club. Exactly what is happening to Portsmouth. And if that time comes, you will only be able to buy Aibeen Dere because he's some hot star in the middle east. Make no mistakes, they want their money back. £800b s no joke.

You are talking via your arse. . . . . .RFJV and Man Utd are 2 different organisations.
They both run independent accounts.

Luckily Man U seems to be a decent footballing side and quite popular in some markets so good showing on the pitch may generate income to put the sharks at bay, but just. Thre is a reason Fergie is mad at early exit form the cup. Revenue, not the relatively small token you get from winning, but the substantial gate takings on match day.

Revenue in Cups is bullshit.
How much did United make in all their cup runs last season including FIFA club world cup? £4 million.
So, we are saying CC + FA Cup + Community Shield + FIFA trip to Japan = £4 million.
Getting kicked out of FA cup cannot be more than £1.5 million. . . . . Fergie can raise that by selling Foster to Arsenal.

^^^^^
I see you're back.
Nothing like a good rest after that devastating loss.

BlueDiva:

^^^^^
I see you're back.
Nothing like a good rest after that devastating loss.

What is devastating in losing a cup tie?
Chelsea got kicked out of CC by a lowly-rated Blackburn FC. Was that a devastating loss?
United have bigger priorities. . . . .EPL and the UCL. Other competitions are just a bonus.

Funny you compare BB to a league one side.
Anyways, i guess you guys can face the EPL and the UCL squarely.

Who want's that "worthless" FA cup anyways? . . .

United is due for an Arab takeover.

Taken together this generated an operating profit in the football club accounts of £66 million. While the football club showed an operating profit, Red Football Ltd recorded a loss of £21.4 million, and Red Football Joint Ventures Ltd a loss of £44.8 million, due in large part to interest costs during the year of £68.8 million.

Common Sauron do the mathc. Man U made £66 mill, and it was used to service the interest of RFJVL and one is different from the other? Wake up man, if infact Man U is a cash cow, it is a cash cow that is being used to service the debt the Glazers are incurring in other business ventures. And now we know why £80mill for R7 didnt go back to player investments.

The price money alone is £2mill, TV earning per match more than quater a mill, each win is about £100,000,  man U gate takings goes into millions so please your £1.5mill here doesnt wash.

When you are wallowing in as much debt as you are, every kobo counts, so i advise you flog foster out too. Though whether u will get £750,000 for him is highly debatable.  

BlueDiva:

Funny you compare BB to a league one side.
Anyways, i guess you guys can face the EPL and the UCL squarely.

Who want's that "worthless" FA cup anyways? . . .

We walked out on the competition in 2000.
That was after winning it in 1999. .Fergie and his lads went to Brazil to play a needless competition at the expense of the [b]F[/b]uck [b]A[/b]ll Cup.

United is due for an Arab takeover.

Abu Dhabi, please!!!!

slimshay:

Common Sauron do the mathc. Man U made £66 mill, and it was used to service the interest of RFJVL and one is different from the other? Wake up man, if infact Man U is a cash cow, it is a cash cow that is being used to service the debt the Glazers are incurring in other business ventures. And now we know why £80mill for R7 didnt go back to player investments.

Can you please get some perspective?
Firstly, you came here to say the accounts are the same and i have showed you where MUFC made profits and RFJV made losses.
How can the same account make Profit and Loss in the same financial year. . . . .

The price money alone is £2mill, TV earning per match more than quater a mill, each win is about £100,000,  man U gate takings goes into millions so please your £1.5mill here doesnt wash.

You are talking crap.
Last season,

United made £52.3million on EPL,  £33.7million on UCL and £4.0million on other cups to record £90.0m
Chelsea made £48.4million(EPL) £27.7million(UCL) and  £5.1million(FA Cup winners/CC) to cop £81.2m
So you are telling me because United lost to Leeds FC, they are in crisis? Are you high on Shepe?

When you are wallowing in as much debt as you are, every kobo counts, so i advise you flog foster out too. Though whether u will get £750,000 for him is highly debatable.  

We got £750,000 on a geriatric Silvestre.
Surely, Foster's market value should be about £5 million.

~Sauron~:

We walked out on the competition in 2000.
That was after winning it in 1999. .Fergie and his lads went to Brazil to play a needless competition at the expense of the [b]F[/b]uck [b]A[/b]ll Cup.

Fair enough.
Let me not hear you brag about ever winning the FA cup o.

Abu Dhabi, please!!!!

They'll be over glad to come aboard.

BlueDiva:


United is due for an Arab takeover.

amen!!!

Auction at Old Trafford talk to Razaq Okoya or Dr Akintunde Ayeni of YEMKEM to buy your club

~Sauron~:

IF RFJV were to DEFAULT. . . . is a big hypothetical statement.
How can they ever default? Stadium expansion project continues this year, OT is going 85,000.
United's debt is like a regular Joe with a mortgage. If he defaults, they will take his house but what if he doesn't?
By the same token, 98% of house owners in the UK/USA are debtors and are in CRISIS.

Wrong comparison dude - how many mortgage holders are unable to meet interest payments with their mortgage GROWING yearly instead of reducing? That is unsustainable. Utd's revenues will not rise forever - a blip will occur sooner or later. . . .what then?

The profit was used to improve the club.
Young players were acquired and some of them were used to pay for the loan interest.
This now is the parent company using what United made to service it's debt. As long as United keep making money, they are SAFE!!!!

Utd’s debt is not even being serviced properly - it’s GROWING - it is only if Utd profits keep GROWING to meet this growing debt is when you can rest assured. The MUST is not as confident as you are - they are worried about softening ticket demand.

Are you saying United are better off without it's profits?
If the profit has no value then try a LOSS. . . . .Of course, the profit is keeping United afloat and as long as fans and TV companies are interested, United will forever be a goldmine.

No I’m not silly - but it’s foolishness to rejoice if you make a pound on a single aspect of your business when you need 5 pounds to pay off your expenses.

Arsenal FC made £62.7m profit.
What the owners decided to do with this profit is a different matter entirely.
The fact is Arsenal FC are generating profit.

If this profit is continually used to pay only interest and the debt grows, sooner or later the creditors will come calling.

I hope you now understand the accounts of RFJV and MUFC are 2 different entities.

Different entities yes, but inextricably linked - RFJV’s default means MUFC’s assets can be sold to recover the debts. If they are completely distinct entities, the loss from one aspect cannot be recovered by penalising the other. However this is NOT the case - RFJV’s loans are secured against MUFC’s assets.

This is the crucial difference in Arsenal’s set up - the property development loans are completely ring fenced from the football aspects of the business. If the property business goes bust, AFC, The Emirates, and Colney keep going untouched. In your case, RFJV goes bust and £500m of their debts will be recovered by selling OT, Carrington etc till the money is recovered.

Getting kicked out of FA cup cannot be more than £1.5 million. . . . . Fergie can raise that by selling Foster to Arsenal.

Back to sender

dayokanu:

Auction at Old Trafford talk to Razaq Okoya or Dr Akintunde Ayeni of YEMKEM to buy your club

just pay the debt and give 500m to the glazers, then you can have the club

and a bank balance to show you can spend 500m on player acquisitions for the next 5-7 years

if you have that, come and take UTD

debosky:

Wrong comparison dude - how many mortgage holders are unable to meet interest payments with their mortgage GROWING yearly instead of reducing? That is unsustainable. Utd's revenues will not rise forever - a blip will occur sooner or later. . . .what then?

United's revenue will rise FOREVER. . . . . .Look at the past 5 seasons since the Glazers joined.
TV deals keep improving. More football fans are watching.
Setanta Sports/ESPN are selling EPL matches to gullible Americans who are paying through their nose to watch Rooney and Arshavin.
There's no END to this. . . . .until 1 billion football fans in the world lose interest in football entirely. . .do you really see that happening?

We have not even factored United breaking away to sell their own games to independent broadcasters like Real Madrid, have we?

Utd’s debt is not even being serviced properly - it’s GROWING - it is only if Utd profits keep GROWING to meet this growing debt is when you can rest assured. The MUST is not as confident as you are - they are worried about softening ticket demand.
No I’m not silly - but it’s foolishness to rejoice if you make a pound on a single aspect of your business when you need 5 pounds to pay off your expenses.

The MUST are retarded. Useless individuals that are suffering from Xenophobia.
If we factor their fears from day one, United woulda been relegated. They have predicted all gloom and doom but United have had their best run in the club's history under the Glazers. 3 EPL titles on a bounce and 2 UCL finals is unprecedented.
The MUST should go hug a transformer in Yaba.

If this profit is continually used to pay only interest and the debt grows, sooner or later the creditors will come calling.

Have you even seen this statement?
Are you aware the Glazers haven't paid the hedge funds + the accrued interest and are only due to pay em until June 2010, which accounts for the difference in interest owed and paid.
That's the payments schedule in the agreement but you and the MUST crew choose to portray that as missed payments.
I am 100% certain this is something that you obviously didn't pick up when you read the accounts.

~Sauron~:

United's revenue will rise FOREVER. . . . . .Look at the past 5 seasons since the Glazers joined.

We shall see when this year's figures are released. Only a deluded person will feel the recession will not impact club finances.

TV deals keep improving. More football fans are watching.
Setanta Sports/ESPN are selling EPL matches to gullible Americans who are paying through their nose to watch Rooney and Arshavin.

Will those revenues rise forever? It's adverts that pay for the enormous revenues - if the companies involved are affected by the recession and cut down advertising, don't you realise that will impact how much sky and co can offer for TV rights?

There's no END to this. . . . .until 1 billion football fans in the world lose interest in football entirely. . .do you really see that happening?

Not an end, but a dip in the next 2-3 years as the recession takes it's toll on football.

We have not even factored United breaking away to sell their own games to independent broadcasters like Real Madrid, have we?

We shall see if that is feasible - and this option is not only open to Utd, but to any of the top 4 clubs as well.

The MUST are retarded. Useless individuals that are suffering from Xenophobia.
If we factor their fears from day one, United woulda been relegated. They have predicted all gloom and doom but United have had their best run in the club's history under the Glazers. 3 EPL titles on a bounce and 2 UCL finals is unprecedented.
The MUST should go hug a transformer in Yaba.

Premature judgments my friend - the largest chunk of income still comes from stadium takings - if the £100m takes a hit, the club will be affected. Their concerns are genuine.

Have you even seen this statement?
Are you aware the Glazers haven't paid the hedge funds + the accrued interest and are only due to pay em until June 2010, which accounts for the difference in interest owed and paid.
That's the payments schedule in the agreement but you and the MUST crew choose to portray that as missed payments.
I am 100% certain this is something that you obviously didn't pick up when you read the accounts.

I'm not talking about missed payments - no payments have been missed IMO, but the debt is GROWING, and if Utd's debt grew in probably it's most successful season commercially till date that is WORRYING. If you can't begin to pay down debt when you're at the very top what happens when the inevitable dip in performance occurs?

No one remains at the top forever, not even Utd - the failures of the early 00's show that qualifying for the latter stages of the CL and winning the trophy is not guaranteed for Utd. When that doesn't happen, coupled with reduced takings from softer ticket demand, the pinch will be felt.

debosky:

We shall see when this year's figures are released. Only a deluded person will feel the recession will not impact club finances.

This year's figures will be higher.
The TV deal was re-engineered and the league winner will take a better pay package than last season's Champions.
The EPL is a goldmine. . . . . . .It can't be touched.

Will those revenues rise forever? It's adverts that pay for the enormous revenues - if the companies involved are affected by the recession and cut down advertising, don't you realise that will impact how much sky and co can offer for TV rights?

Man Utd is a global brand.
Without any shadow of a doubt, 80% of foreign TV companies pay to watch Man Utd.
Arsenal and Chelsea are just benefiting from a collective TV deal and i hope the Glazers break out and sell their matches independently.

Not an end, but a dip in the next 2-3 years as the recession takes it's toll on football.

It's the consumers that will suffer, not the club.
Match tickets will sky-rocket and Merchandise will become designer gear.

We shall see if that is feasible - and this option is not only open to Utd, but to any of the top 4 clubs as well.

Who wants to watch the Arses?
Your lack of trophies have disabled your chances of hitting the global status.
The Asians are keen on watching Evra and Ji Sung Park.

Premature judgments my friend - the largest chunk of income still comes from stadium takings - if the £100m takes a hit, the club will be affected. Their concerns are genuine.

This is where i am 100% certain Arsenal and United can NEVER be affected.
There are more than 4 million Man Utd fans in queue for season tickets. 80% of them have been waiting for 3 years.
Naija fans in the UK will fill the terraces of the Emirates every given week if the stadium expands to 120,000(never mind other nationals).
Football is a religion in this country. No amount of recession can affect the top clubs.

I'm not talking about missed payments - no payments have been missed IMO, but the debt is GROWING, and if Utd's debt grew in probably it's most successful season commercially till date that is WORRYING. If you can't begin to pay down debt when you're at the very top what happens when the inevitable dip in performance occurs?

Debosky amuses me. Are you a member of MUST?

Don't intertwine United and Red Football accounts as if United's asset value, revenues or operating profits depended upon Red Football. They don't. It's the other way around. Again, if I were buying United, I'd negotiate with Red Football but the deal would be to remove Red Football from the equation, not retain them and their debts. So again, the important thing for an investor is how are United doing? Not how are the vendors doing?

Red Football depend entirely on United being profitable over the medium term (at least as long as the loan term plus some), so that they can pay off the loans and then turn a profit themselves. To continue to make sufficient profits United need to be sucessful on the park and it is therefore inconceivable that they would do anything to seriously jeopardise that. They would be lessening their potential to pay the loans off, they'd be reducing the revenues, operating profits and asset values of Red Football's only real assets. That isn't going to happen.

Emperoh:

Enough of this money talk and some footie pls
How much of these dough do u and i get?

Pls some footie talks abeg!!

UK weather have sabotaged this week's football issues.
Lets talk about money or letz talk about Berbatov's mercurial skills.

@ Sharon

the point of my post is this - Arsenal is in a healthier position than you are - the only asset tied to a long term loan is the stadium at the Emirates, but even that is being serviced and the debt being reduced. In that regard, even if we were to suffer a drop in revenues, it would not threaten our stadium as it were since we have been servicing debts as when due and REDUCING them.

No one is saying Utd will go bust - the crux of the matter is that the debt level is getting out of hand - even the Glazers recognise this and is the primary reason why they are seeking out a bond so the debt gets more manageable.

~Sauron~:

This year's figures will be higher.
The TV deal was re-engineered and the league winner will take a better pay package than last season's Champions.
The EPL is a goldmine. . . . . . .It can't be touched.

TV earnings will pay more, but if you have a significant dent in commercial income and gate takings, it will cause issues.

Man Utd is a global brand.
Without any shadow of a doubt, 80% of foreign TV companies pay to watch Man Utd.
Arsenal and Chelsea are just benefiting from a collective TV deal and i hope the Glazers break out and sell their matches independently.

How daft - they pay to watch Utd play itself? If Arsenal also break off, we will be able to make comparative revenues from our TV rights as well.

It's the consumers that will suffer, not the club.
Match tickets will sky-rocket and Merchandise will become designer gear.

If ticket prices sky-rocket and the fans are unable to pay, Utd's gate takings will reduce and that WILL be a problem. Given the recession and job losses, we might not see the effects of the recession on ticket sales till the next set of season-ticket renewals.

Who wants to watch the Arses?

A heck of a lot of people - the day Arsene agrees to an Asian tour, Man Utd's dominance there is finished.

Your lack of trophies have disabled your chances of hitting the global status.
The Asians are keen on watching Evra and Ji Sung Park.

Without trophies we remain the third most valuable football franchise - with the new team of Ivan Gazidis working hard to improve the club with top marketers from Fox Sports and others on board, the sky is the limit for Arsenal FC.

This is where i am 100% certain Arsenal and United can NEVER be affected.
There are more than 4 million Man Utd fans in queue for season tickets. 80% of them have been waiting for 3 years.
Naija fans in the UK will fill the terraces of the Emirates every given week if the stadium expands to 120,000(never mind other nationals).
Football is a religion in this country. No amount of recession can affect the top clubs.

Don't be so sure - we need to watch the next year or so before being so gung-ho. The next set of season-ticket renewals will be key.

Don't intertwine United and Red Football accounts as if United's asset value, revenues or operating profits depended upon Red Football. They don't. It's the other way around. Again, if I were buying United, I'd negotiate with Red Football but the deal would be to remove Red Football from the equation, not retain them and their debts. So again, the important thing for an investor is how are United doing? Not how are the vendors doing?

That is if someone is seeking to buy. If someone isn't, the argument above is irrelevant. The Glazers have already said they aren't looking to sell so let's discount that.

Red Football depend entirely on United being profitable over the medium term (at least as long as the loan term plus some), so that they can pay off the loans and then turn a profit themselves. To continue to make sufficient profits United need to be sucessful on the park and it is therefore inconceivable that they would do anything to seriously jeopardise that. They would be lessening their potential to pay the loans off, they'd be reducing the revenues, operating profits and asset values of Red Football's only real assets. That isn't going to happen.

This is in two parts - they need Utd to keep being successful, but the power to do that does NOT lie solely in their hands. As Real has shown, they can up their game MASSIVELY and threaten the dominance of the premiership clubs. If Citeh gets their act together, they'll challenge Utd's dominance in England, not mentioning Arsenal and Chelski.

Yes they need to support revenue generation, but IF they cannot do so due to constraints in the external market - i.e too expensive to lend money or the banks want increased payments, they get into a quandry - hold on to a depreciating asset or sell off some portions of it in order to relieve the debt? It's happened before - Real had to sell it's training centre. Once you start selling off aspects of the club it loses some of it's allure.

debosky:

@ Sharon
the point of my post is this - Arsenal is in a healthier position than you are - the only asset tied to a long term loan is the stadium at the Emirates, but even that is being serviced and the debt being reduced. In that regard, even if we were to suffer a drop in revenues, it would not threaten our stadium as it were since we have been servicing debts as when due and REDUCING them.

Arsenal are nowhere healthier than Man Utd.
You have humongous debt hanging around your neck and if the Emirates don't sell those flats, your future is bleak.
United on the other hand have a serviceable debt. . . . .Stadium expansion projects would commence this season and the winning mentality is still there. Nothing has changed!!!

No one is saying Utd will go bust - the crux of the matter is that the debt level is getting out of hand - even the Glazers recognise this and is the primary reason why they are seeking out a bond so the debt gets more manageable.

They are seeking out a bond because of the clampdown UEFA/FIFA are about to initiate on Club Owners.
Roman has written off Chelsea's debt. . . .
Just this morning, Abu Dhabi converted Citeh's debt to equity.
Something is about to happen and this is why club owners are active all of a sudden.

TV earnings will pay more, but if you have a significant dent in commercial income and gate takings, it will cause issues.

It won't. . . . .stop predicting gloom and doom.
We have been here before.

How daft - they pay to watch Utd play itself? If Arsenal also break off, we will be able to make comparative revenues from our TV rights as well.

How profitable was your Arsenal TV on SKY when it was launched.
Is it still functioning? The TV station was starved to death!!!

If ticket prices sky-rocket and the fans are unable to pay, Utd's gate takings will reduce and that WILL be a problem. Given the recession and job losses, we might not see the effects of the recession on ticket sales till the next set of season-ticket renewals.

There are more than 100,000 United fans ready to pay £500 to see a match at OT!!
If the ticket prices sky-rocket, the die-hard fans will only be priced out by the prawn-cracker brigade fans.
That is happening already. . . . .The last time i went to OT, there were more tourists with their digicams than the OT faithfuls.
As long as money is made, who cares?

A heck of a lot of people - the day Arsene agrees to an Asian tour, Man Utd's dominance there is finished.

I laugh in Ijesha.
United didn't get there in one night. . . . .It took decades to arrest the Asian market.
Arsenal should start from Africa.

Without trophies we remain the third most valuable football franchise - with the new team of Ivan Gazidis working hard to improve the club with top marketers from Fox Sports and others on board, the sky is the limit for Arsenal FC.

You don't spend big in the transfer market and you don't win titles.
The club cannot grow in this circumstance and the brand itself adds no value.
Football fans have given up on Arsenal. . . .Y'all are better off breaking away from the league. . .Y'all should be playing STRICTLY exhibition games.

Don't be so sure - we need to watch the next year or so before being so gung-ho. The next set of season-ticket renewals will be key.

I know for certain there are millions of fans waiting to cop their season-tickets.
When the regular fans get priced out, money bags will replace them.

That is if someone is seeking to buy. If someone isn't, the argument above is irrelevant. The Glazers have already said they aren't looking to sell so let's discount that.

The Glazers have their work cut out.
If the Glazers continue to pay their debts United will tick along nicely as they are now. If they find that they can't, they'll sell for a profit, pay off all Glazer-related debts and, assuming the buyout isn't as highly leveraged, United's debt payments will be reduced or removed.

United have huge operational profits, great cashflow, are well managed and stable.
Red Football have the debts and if they can't pay or want to cash in they will do so without significantly affecting the club.
It's quite clear that there are plenty of potential buyers willing to stump up the best part of a billion for United.

This is in two parts - they need Utd to keep being successful, but the power to do that does NOT lie solely in their hands. As Real has shown, they can up their game MASSIVELY and threaten the dominance of the premiership clubs. If Citeh gets their act together, they'll challenge Utd's dominance in England, not mentioning Arsenal and Chelski.

I heard the same thing when Roman took over in 2003. . . . .
Money can't buy class and history.
This is Man Utd we are talking about. . . . .not Arsenal!!!!
SAF halted the Roman machine as soon as there was parity in the quality of both teams. . . . . .United is a giant!!!

Yes they need to support revenue generation, but IF they cannot do so due to constraints in the external market - i.e too expensive to lend money or the banks want increased payments, they get into a quandry - hold on to a depreciating asset or sell off some portions of it in order to relieve the debt? It's happened before - Real had to sell it's training centre. Once you start selling off aspects of the club it loses some of it's allure.

If they cannot support revenue generation - they will sell United at a profit to another potential buyer.
Letz face it. . . .If a spastic club like Citeh can attract Abu Dhabi. . . . .Think about the calibre of Billionaires Man Utd will attract.

@Mancs
This continuous debt talk is so uninteresting . . . . . . . .


'Heard from the news that Man utd and Arsenal are after a 17yr old highly rated Adam Matthews of Cardiff city . . . . . Does anyone have a dossier on the guy?