₦airaland Forum

AP is still the best RB in the league. His problem is his unwillingness to admit that he has a problem holding on to the ball. Until he does, the Viking cannot win a SB, cos he will fumble the ball at critical times, and the more people know you are careless with the ball, the more often the will try to strip it.

The more I think about the matchup, the less I think of the Saints chances of winning. That saints defence is going to struggle against Manning and his spread offence. Without any shutdown DBs, they will have to play nickel coverage and '3 v 2' on Dallas and Wayne, which will again leave Garcon and Collie with single coverage and Addai with a LB coming out of the back field. I think Garcon will again provide the most difficult matchup for the saints, as he is big fast and physical, posing a deep threat that most top DB will have major difficulty to cover 1v1. Collie is just the X-factor, that tilts the balance when you feel you have everyone else covered. Without the crowd noise they used to their advantage in the superdome, and with only will smith as a quality pass rusher, they have almost no chance of getting to Manning without blitzing. Overall, Manning will likely score 30+ points against them. Last time they met in Indy, Colts scored 41.

So the question then is can the Saints put up 30+ pts against the Colts defence with the best bookends in the game. I doubt it, as brees hasn't faired well against elite rushers like Dallas and Miami. Saints don't have an elite receiver that can make big plays, and their passing game depends heavily on the accuracy of Brees throws. Being a 6ft pocket passer (compared to the likes of Rivers and Manning at 6-5), his games suffers when his O-Line collapse in on him as he cant see over the wall and has to air the ball a bit to get it over (or roll out which is not his forte), which makes an INT more likely.Their running game is mainly E-W finesse, and less N-S power, and this should play into the hands of the very fast colts defense. Its funny that the Colts defence dont get their due credit against the run. They averaged 4.3yds/A against the run and that is after facing 4 of the top 5 rushing teams, and facing 5 of the top 6 RB (with CJ and MJD 2x).

I do feel that reggie should be able to hurt the colts on special teams and give his team good field positions, though that antivirus boy, McAfee, has been consistent for Indy in putting the ball into the end-zone. Indy do have 2 of the best post season  kickers in the league in Adam and Stover. Those guys have ice in their veins.

Add the experience of having been to the SB before and thing are heavily in favor of Indy. While the Saints and their fans are still celebrating winning the NFC, the colts have likely started preparing for the SB. It was just a stark contrast in the way both teams celebrated their wins.

The Vikings shot themselves in the head with all their fumbles and turnovers. The Colts wont be so careless with the ball.

A crook is not a man of God.

For a science student who wants to study economics,  will Agric be accepted as a qualifying social science subject i.e English, Maths, Economics, Geography and Agric Sc.?

Information on specific universities (particularly those in Ogun state) is appreciated.

@J'Soul
Dont you think its time you revised your page-1 season predictions?

Good games today.

My blue ponies held the #1 rushing offense to 86yds (3.9yds/A) and scored 30pts against the #1 defense. Now all those Jets fans and the band wagon analysts can eat crow. I guess Rex Ryan should be shocked to death 

I think Vikings were the better team today. They did  much better than I expected playing at the superdome. Still they failed to protect their forty year old virgin quarterback, fumbled too many times and were too glad to turn it over. Someone failed to add super glue to AP's gloves. I was expecting the Brees and the Saints offense to light up the Viking's secondary, but they performed below expectation.

Its funny how this analysts always talk out of both sides of their mouth. Today they were criticizing Brett for the last INT, saying it is basic QBing that you dont throw across your body through the middle of the field, whereas last week against Dallas, when he made the same throw and connected, they were singing his praises saying that throw was the hallmark of a great QB

I am glad the saints won, in addition to being my sentimental favorite, they would be easier for the colts to beat. They have a pocket passer QB, an offense heavy on the pass, and a speed based running game, which match up well to our fast undersized defense and great bookends. Their defense is less stellar, having will smith as the key pass rusher, and with all their useless blitzing, I expect Manning to rip them apart. It should be a replay of their game against Dallas. The vikes on the other hand would have been major trouble with the power rushing of AP and Favre ability to bootleg and make plays.

~Sauron~:
It can be priced that way if they increase what they charge per bum.

By doubling the price? Well let them expand first before we debate the pricing of the seats.

Borrow now, pay later(after the expansion musta been completed).
The bonds have actually freed up funds to invest in new players and funds to start the stadium expansion project if the need be.

There are questions about your ability to service the current debt and you are talking about borrowing more money?
The bonds have not freed up any money. All they have done is postponed the evil day.

~Sauron~:
A stadium going into 96,000 can effectively manage 20,000 executive seats.
The objective is to make money. The Glazers are not morons, they did not become Billionaires overnight by being silly.

The question is not about if you can classify all 20K seats as executives, but that it cannot be priced and sold to raise the £200m you claimed

It doesn't have to happen this season, you dork.

so how does it help their short term cash crunch?

Cheese n Rice.
They don't have to WIN EPL/UCL to make money. Stop talking like a soccer illiterate.
Chelsea did not win the league last season, neither did they win the Champions League but they still made around £80 million.
The KEY is reaching the advanced stages of the UCL and coming either 2nd or 3rd in the league. . . .With the new improved TV deal, United can make £90 milla on prize money this season without winning a single title. United matches are shown more on TV than any other club as we speak.

It was you that brought up the issue of success on the pitch.

You are a disgrace if you dunno what DIC means. I know you are going to spin around it now and say you know em after you musta googled it.
Whatever you might decide to do, it's still a disgrace that you never knew DIC wanted to shell $1.5Billion on United in 2006.

I asked that you provide a source to backup your claim.
Their interest in Liverpool is well documented. The only link I have come across is unconfirmed references that they turned down the Glazer's offer to invest in the bonds.
so please provide a credible link to support your claim, else it is false like I stated.

United can increase the capacity and increase the match-day tickets. Fans will always buy.
I was saying despite the increase in size of the stadium and the constant increase in the prices since the Glazers took over, the stadium utilisation is still constant at 99%. Something the likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona have failed to achieve in the last 3 decades.

Lets wait and see how well they do with matchday revenue this season.

Like i have said, the Glazers are not retards.
Rather than let debt engulf their investments in Man Utd, they will do everything humanly possible to generate funds.
Getting an independent TV deal is imminent. It's only a matter of time.

Imminent?  There is no evidence that it would even materialize at all.

~Sauron~:
The 20,000 seats could add to the number of existing executive seats which charge way higher than normal seats.
Of course 20,000 seats can churn out £100 million in six months, it depends on the amount they charge per bum.

There are currently only 8,000 executive seats  and you think they can add 20,000 more? 
You think no matter how much they charge, someone will always buy. They are already having difficulty selling existing ones (with 16% of corporate and executive tickets unsold as at September 30, 2009). You are just saying nonsense.
Whatever, the expansion is not happening this season.

United are on top of the league and qualified from the group with 2 games to spare.
It has not been a bad campaign contrary to what retards thunk when Ronaldo left in the summer.

I have not said it was a bad campaign but that it is unlikely they would be more successful than they were last season, as it requires them to win both the EPL and CL.

DIC!!!!!!

typical response after a false claim 

They have been sticking with it since the takeover. . . . .
Despite this increase in capacity, average attendance for Premier League matches has remained approximately 99% for each season since the 1997/98 season.

Increase in capacity? I think u meant increase in prices.
The question is how high can they increase the prices before hurting revenue. The demand for ManU tickets is not perfectly inelastic.

Conveniently omitting La Liga that have been using this scheme to gain massive income for the top clubs in Spain.

La liga has been independent in the recent decades. while EPL has been collective. Both do not offer a fair comparison for which is better, as they didnt try the other method. The Serie A switched between both and thus offers a better comparison. Still I

RuuDie:
@ biina,

what happened to the last 2 paragraphs of the article that sounded nothing like the emboldened figures of doom and gloom which you so solemnly potray in your write-up!?

If you are referring to the FT article, I posted it to counter sauron's claims, and only made bold parts that supported my earlier statement on the conditions under which the PiK interest would increase.

Just to fulfill all righteousness, here is the rest of the article

One of the aims of the bond is to enable the Glazers to pay off Pik notes. The club's bond document says some £70m of £117m left on the balance sheet can be used by the family to pay down the Pik debt, though there are provisions for the Glazers to take out other sums including a 50 per cent dividend on net cash profits.
The accounts reveal that the club's overall debt has risen from £699m to £717m. The holding group paid £68.5m in interest in the year to June 30, and made an overall profit of £6.4m.
A spokesman for the family said: "The club has a £50m surplus to work with once the interest payments have been made."
The bond sale is understood to be oversubscribed, with investors guided to expect pricing at 8.75-9 per cent.
Official price guidance is expected to be set today, with pricing on Friday.

If the section in bold is what you are referring to, I dont see how it changes anything.
- Everyone knows that the bonds were successful and were issued at 9%
- I also made ref to the £50m surplus as united had earnings of £90m before paying the £42m interest bill. The problem is that that excess came after selling CR for £80m and collecting £40m upfront from Aon. Both of those income will not be repeated this season, so from where does united get £120m more?

coolG:
Did you just justify the bank tenure limit by asking why the limited tenure in political office? That's where the fundamental problem lies in your assessment. The principle of tenure limit in democratic government (usually at presidential and gubernatorial positions) is derived from equality under the law with the purpose being to stop any person at that position from oppressing the populace and/or level the playing ground with incumbents not participating. If you actually believed that comparison you made then there's a significant problem with the way both of us understand business as it is being practiced worldwide and in Nigeria till this week. You said "Tenure limits guards against engendering poor corporate governance". That is just completely false. Evidences do not support that statement. You will be hard pressed to see a prescribed tenure limit in the same industry in most countries of the world.
I don't understand what you mean by cabals they have in US running amok. That is a sweeping statement rooted in fiction.

Yes I did make a comparison to political office, as in the same vein that you want a fail safe mechanism to prevent incumbent political office holders manipulating the electoral process to perma-fix himself despite acting against the wishes of the people, you also do not want an individual to entrench himself in the office of a CEO of a bank while his actions are inimical to the depositor funds. If there were no public funds involved, then we can let the shareholders deal with the issue.
Tenure limit ensures a change in personnel. A lack of it will result in someone who is the majority shareholder being in office permanently, irrespective of him being biased to the shareholders (himself ) at the expense of depositors.

Pre-consolidation, I might have been on the other side, but the with limited number of banks we now have, steps need to taken to safe guard things. Prevention is better than cure.

One should be cautious when make relative comparison to foreign nations, as there is a reason we are struggling. The US academia operates a tenure track system, I would not approve of such for Nigerian lectures. The US senator are not tenure limited; I will not approve of such for Nigeria. 

I was only responding specifically to your question. Remember you asked if there's any northerner in the interim management of those banks. If you said in the hands of northerners, then the answer is No but the banks have not been sold yet. Besides even if the banks are sold to northerners i do not have complaints as long as the banks are appropriately valued. If you research well, you will discover that most CEOs do not consider banks ran by the current northern elites as competition. There's a reason for that.  I couldn't care less what people say about Sanusi, i am concerned about his plans, policies and actions to engineer development and growth in the country.

My question was 'How many are northerners?' and not ' If any were northerners' The question was posed to someone who accused Sanusi of social engineering, and was expecting an answer in support of this.

Check limit and narration on interbank transfer will make for a transparent sector that will inhibit future corrupt practices? how? Where did it contribute to the sacked CEOs self-enrichment? What the check limit policy is doing is to force the banks to use electronic clearing system of CBN or Nigeria Interbank more. The CBN electonic system was implemented by previous CBN chief to enhance the bank's efficiency and reduce operational risk. Information disclosure in financial statements was neither conceived nor instituted by the current CBN chief. The previous CBN chief instituted full disclosure and common year policy and gave the banks a deadline to comply. It is ironic that Intercontinental complied with information disclosure policy as at April 30, 2009 yet the ex-thief (sorry, ex-CEO) was still busy pilfering. Contrary to your observation, most policies were enforced but the frauds discovered in all these banks are what auditors call management override. If you ask around you will soon discover it is the most difficult fraud to identify. It took actual physical examination by a fairly honest CBN auditors and examiners to smoke the crooks. The problem has always been that the CBN auditors and examiners collude with the banks. For whatever reason they did their work last year.

Check limit and narration on interbank transfer will make for a transparent sector that will inhibit future corrupt practices because there will be  less money in limbo, thereby increasing transparency.
You can check the CBN circulars for details on the policy changes that Sanusi has made.
A policy is not enforced if the frauds 'discovered' were not acted upon. The police witnessing a crime does not constitute the enforcement of the law.

I did not state that as a fact. I said "I believe" and my reason is simple. It has no correlation to the problem at hand. 6 of the 8 CEO's removed had stayed less than 10 years with as many as 3 staying less than 5 years. More importantly, there is no correlation to the concept of corporate governance, which at its most basic definition is a way to conduct business with integrity as articulated by the board of directors and shareholders of a business as long as it is within the confines of the regulations of the industry. You can see why i said i do not believe it is illegal but rather a tool to achieve a purpose and does not belong in corporate governance.

Your believe is what you have decided is true (or is it not?)

If you are wondering how Jim Ovia being a bank CEO affect Sanusi, then you might want to consider that one of the oldest motivation to commit murder is jealousy. In this case, professional jealousy. It might look petty but it has been proven to be a powerful incentive. I am just answering your question.  Grin

Professional jealousy? that would be shocking as Sanusi was MD of one of the largest banks and is currently the CBN governor. The lesser envies the greater. Still one cannot know whats in people's hearts.

Per your last sentence:
You keep saying something that is fundamentally not true.  Banks are not public utility company. Banks are private sector business. People who put their money to start a business decide who should run their business and when the person should run their business. This is not a government post. The shareholders does not implement federal character in formation and running of their business. They do not pay their CEOs from a mandatory citizen tax. This is not national cake. It is not an equal participation business rather an equal opportunity employer. I clearly appreciate the role of CBN in regulating the sector, safeguarding depositors fund and the excesses of the CEOs but this policy is not one of them.
The notion of holding a life sway on public funds is a misconception.

Banks are not public utilities, nor are they your typical private institution. The shareholders cannot be left to act to protect their own interest at the expense of the depositors. The fact that the CBN ratifies executive appointment is evidence of this. This is simply an extension of that function.
I would rather we have a fixed tenure than the CBN vetoing or sacking executives on a case by case basis. This policy will not be a problem for those with diffused shareholders like FBN or UBA as they already have tenure limits. It is those banks that have an individual majority shareholder that will be affected more, and like I said I dont approve of a 'one-man' business being licensed to receive public funds either from the government or directly from depositors.

I do think you understand that policies and guidelines are instruments of supervision. If you drill down to the procedures of the supervision, you have returns rendering, reviews and examination (audits). So, splitting the function will make no sense.

I have heard both sides of the argument, and while some countries have unified entities, others (like the UK) have them split up. We have had the unified approach for a while with little to no success, and I feel we might do better. I would have liked to see what we could achieve with a Soludo+Sanusi, with one making the wholistic plans, while the other carries out the supervision and enforcement.

You think the bank consolidation is a waste? I only know few people who think the same. It is ironic that you think the previous CBN chief did nothing but when pressed for any change in policy that would have stopped the self-enrichment of the sacked CEOs, you extolled mostly policies that was conceived and instituted by him even though those policies were specifically to improve efficiency and reduce operational risk (and does not lend itself to issue at hand)

The consolidation of banks was a consequence of increased capitalization requirement. Soludo was not the first to increase bank capitalization nor will he be the last.
The problem of the Nigerian banking sector is primarily two fold: poor corporate governance, and, operating in a dead economy. Increased capitalization aims to make more money available for loans, but the Nigerian banks were not suffering from a lack of capital. Rather the problem was that the industry was not productive such that the banks were not guaranteed good returns on the loans. You have to ask yourself, does a big bank make a big economy, or a big economy makes a big bank. In the right economic environment, market forces would have grown the banks capital base, as the likes of FBN were then above the requirement and didn't need any mergers to meet the requirements. The size of a bank does no imply profitability else how do you explain all the big bank in the US that were distressed while several smaller ones were healthy. All we have done is put our eggs in a few baskets and now cannot afford to let them fail. Even the US is now seeking to limit the size of banks so that they will not be held to ransom again in the future.

If you still believe that it was not muslim fanatics that piloted the plane into those towers, then i must admit i underestimated you.

My point wasn't about the religious affiliations of the pilot, but simply that you cannot go from practicing on a 727 low level simulator to pulling the aerial stunts they reportedly carried out.

~Sauron~:
This is what happens when you put your nose in something you know nowt about.

RFJV Limited breached a convenant relating to the PIK loan which stipulated that Net Debt must be no more than six times that of EBITDA on June 30 2009. Net Debt was in fact 6.2 times that of EBITDA on that date which triggers an increase in the interest rate from 14.25% to 16.25% starting from August of this year.

My statement is backed up by http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/14bb9734-062d-11df-8c97-00144feabdc0.html

Manchester United faces having to pay more in interest to investors in its high-risk debt because it is in danger of exceeding a threshold measuring its leverage.
The Premier League champions are at risk of exceeding a threshold set in the payment-in-kind notes - an instrument allowing borrowers to roll over cash interest payments - which were issued as part of its £790m buy-out in 2005.
[b]Exceeding that threshold, where net debt to earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation becomes greater than five times, requires the group to pay 2 percentage points in additional interest.
In the club's accounts, released last week, that multiple stood at 5.2. The test for whether the threshold has been crossed comes up in August.
The Glazer family, owners of Manchester United, are directly responsible for the Pik loans, which since the 2005 takeover have been carrying an annual interest rate of 14.25 per cent and which have risen to £202m.
But the accounts issued yesterday for Red Football Joint Venture, the Glazers' ultimate holding company for Manchester United, reveal that the rate will rise in August to 16.25 per cent if the threshold is deemed to have been crossed.
The Pik note trigger underlines the need for the Glazers' £500m bond issue last week, which is nearing completion.
The threshold test comes on August 16, the fourth anniversary of the issue of the Pik notes, which were originally held by Perry Capital, Och-Ziff and Citadel, the hedge funds.[/b]

where is the evidence to backup your claims?

Another hogwash.
The fixed annual interest bill is £36 million since it's tax deductible.
Dust your accounting acumen. . . . .£504million x 9% x 0.8 (factor for tax relief) is approx £36million.
It is now £36 million(lower than the £41 million United were paying before the issue of bonds)

tax deductible? This is not personal income tax
The interest bill is always paid with pre-tax earnings. The tax is applied to the net profit
The bonds have a yield of 9% which means holders of the bonds are due £45m. There is no tax relieve associated with it or who do you thing will pay the £9m balance?

What a load of twaddle.
Arsenal charge about £94 per seat while United charge about £45 for ST holders.
Surely, there's a room for a 10%-30% increase in gate-takings.

How much room (if any) there is for ticket price increase is less dependent on the true price, and more on the fans willingness to pay for it. That margin will be put to test soon

£100 million is pea nuts if the expansion is going to add 20,000 more seats to Old Trafford.
There are no fears about the stadium utilisation which even places United higher than Real Madrid and Barcelona.
20,000 seats will generate more than £100 million in half-a-season at OT.

Total matchday revenue last season from the 76K seats was £108.8m, and you are now claiming that 20K seats will generate 2x that amount    
More importantly is that stadium expansion is not an overnight business, and will take over a year to complete. United do not have that kind of money to tie down.

This is no issue at all.
Apart from the CL and EPL, domestic cup games in England is as insignificant as the cash prize of the Globacom football league.
The money made from domestic cups last season was only £4 million. United will raise that from few transfers this summer.
Getting kicked out in the FA cup or Carling Cup means shyte to Man Utd. The big pie is the EPL and the money-spinning UCL.

Well then lets see if you will win the EPL and CL, cos that is the only way this season is more successful than the last

Liverpool are by no means a global brand.
They have a rich history in England but there's nothing to it after the shores of UK.
United are a global brand. As a matter of fact, a Billionaire offered the Glazers $1.5 Billion some few years ago but they refused to sell.
If you really think Man Utd(the world's most profitable football club) will go down like Leeds then you know nowt about football.

which billionaire? please provide source to back up your claim.

Unadulterated bollocks.
United were the most supported football club in Europe last season despite the increasing ticket prices.
I am also bold to say United became the richest club in the world during their trophyless period. . .This club is not reliant on trophies like most people tend to believe.

Again, we will soon see how willing the fans are to stick with a further price increase.

They can pull out.

They cant as the TV rights are owned by The Football Association Premier League Ltd. They will need the support of other clubs to do so, but unfortunately clubs like Chelsea support the collective rights. Also, while the collective right will pay the big clubs in the short term, the resulting widened disparity in finances will weaken the league and thus reduce the value of the individual rights in the future. The issue of individual vs collective media rights has been well researched, with good arguments on both sides. For example, Serie A tried the independent bargaining from 2007 but will be reverting back to collective TV rights this year.

Bond issue cost Man Untd £54 million

Manchester United's controversial bond issue has cost the Premier League champions 54 million pounds, reported The Sunday Times.
As part of the 500 million pounds in funds raised by United last week, the club had to pay 15 million pounds in fees and expenses to investment bankers and lawyers, the newspaper said.
The club had also taken a 39 million pounds hit from the unwinding of interest rate hedging arrangements on the debt that has been refinanced by the bond, The Sunday Times added.
Although the Glazer family, the American leisure tycoons who bought the club in 2005, have managed to defer payment of some liability, the club is still paying 11 million pounds of it up front, the newspaper report added.
No one was immediately available for comment at Manchester United.
News that the bond issue has cost United so much will further upset fan groups after it emerged last week the club is saddled with rising debt partly due to high interest payments.
Debts at parent company Red Football Joint Ventures Limited hit 716.5 million pounds in the year to June 2009, its accounts showed. Net interest for the period was 68.5 million pounds.
Saturday supporters demonstrated outside Old Trafford before the 4-0 Premier League victory over Hull City that saw United regain top spot in the standings. Fans were chanting "Glazers Out" even after Wayne Rooney opened the scoring.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/24012010/2/bond-issue-cost-man-untd-54-million.html

~Sauron~:
Of course, there are interest payments but they are fixed @ 9% unlike the 14%-16% United were paying before now.
The £500 million raised will pay off the senior debts and United can concentrate in reducing the PIK before 2017.
Na simple logic - Nateevs.

That is just pure misinformation. United were not paying 14%-16% on the loans.
manU debts prior to the Bonds were :
1. A £509.5m bank loan secured against the club's assets at about 5% above LIBOR which was equivalent to about 8.25% last year. The interest bill was £41.9m last year and this is the only loan the clubs has been servicing since the refinancing. These debts principal were due to be paid from 2013 to 2017.
2. A PiK loan of £202m at a rate of 14.25% (which will be increased to 16.25% by August if the debt/revenue ratio remain above 5x) and is due in 2017. The PiK loan is secured against the equity of the Glazers in ManU i.e. if they dont pay it, they will transfer control of the club to the edge funds. Under the loan structure, the bank loan above was the senior debt and the Glazers were not allowed to use money from the club to tackle the PiK loan and thus they havent paid up on it, but rather have been letting it rollover.

After the bonds:
1.£9.5m remaining from the bank loan as the money from the bonds have been used to pay off £500m from it. This is still at 5% above LIBOR rates but are expected to be cleared up in the coming weeks.
2. A £500m bonds at an interest rate of 9% giving a fixed annual interest bill of £45m (higher than that associated with the bank loan it replaced). The bonds are all due in 2017, though United can buy them back before then. The bonds, like the bank loan they replaced, are secured against the clubs assets.
3. The PiK loan of £202m which remains unchanged. What has changed is that with the bank loans now taken care of, the Glazers can now use money from the club to service their PiK loan essentially putting the PiK debt on the club. The PiK loan will attract an interest bill of £29m this year

In summary, after the issue of the bonds, the interest bill of the club is now £45m plus whatever the Glazers want to pay on the PiK loans. If they want to pay at least the interest on the PiK to stop it growing, the club will have to pay £74m total. The other detail is that the entire debt is still due by 2017.

One Ronaldo every season? This is insane.
What has the sale of Ronaldo gotta do with this?
What about revenue, stadium expansion and the success on the pitch? Duh!!!

United's revenue last year was £278.5 (which included about £40m upfront payment on the Aon sponsorship deal). The operating cost was £187.2 resulting in a profit before deductions of £91.3. United had deductions (depreciation and amortization) of £81.9m. This left a profit after deductions of £9.4m, which is all united would have had available for servicing the interest bill if they did not make a profit from player transfers. United made a profit of £80.7 on player transfers with £80 coming from selling CR.

United net profit = group profit before deductions - deductions + profit from player transfers - interest bill
which means that if the club is not in the red
Interest bill <= group profit before deductions - deductions + profit from player transfers
i.e. Interest bill <= Revenue + profit from player transfers - Expenses - deductions

Last year, with £80m sale of CR, the RHS was £90.1m, and united required at least a profit of £32.5 from player transfers to break even after paying the £41.9m interest bill.
Hence to be able to pay the larger interest bill of £45m-74m, United will have to increase their revenue and/or make substantial profit from player transfers again. This is with being optimistic that expenses and deductions will not increase even though they have in the past.

United's revenue will likely take a big hit as they will not be getting anymore upfront payment from Aon and unless the fans are silly enough to pony up for exorbitant ticket prices, dont expect much in increased ticket prices too.

Stadium expansion will cost ManU over £100 million and I doubt they can afford such a long term investment, when they need more money on the short term.

Last year united won the EPL and Carling cup, got to the final of the UCL, and got to the semi-final of the FA cup. This year they are already out of the FA cup, almost out of the Carling cup, and are less favored to win the EPL or the UCL. It will be wishful thinking to expect ManU to be more succesful this season than they were last year.

Do or Don't?
If they pay the interests, the organisation will tick on nicely and if they don't pay it. . . .the sharks might come for the Glazers and naturally, they will be forced to sell to another Billionaire from Dubai.
If a useless outfit like Citeh can attract a Billionaire owner, i am 1000000% confident United will attract more Billionaires in this world than any other club. It's a global brand - as popular as Coca Cola.

Until you can name that Dubai billionaire, you shouldn't get your hopes high. Billionaires that buy clubs often buy them as toys and not as profitable ventures, which makes United's brand value less important than the cost of acquisition.  Liverpool are yet to find that dubai billionaire and united also will soon find out they are more scarce than it would seem. The Glazer are more likely to sell to investors from the far east than the middle east.

Raising £500 million within a week is no joke.
It would take the best part of 2 years for other clubs in the PREM to raise half a billion pounds in bonds.

Raising mney through bonds is not as difficult as you make it seem. How much you can raise is mainly a function of your asset value (to secure it against) and the yield you are offering. Under the current climates, the sale of junk bonds has been booming. Examples
Virgin Media Inc. sold $2.4 billion
HeidelbergCement AG raised 1.4 billion euros
Fresenius Medical Care AG raised 750 million euros

Most of these bonds were sold below the 9% united had to offer. The reason other club might not be able to raise £500m is mainly because they dont have the assets to secure it.

They will.
Ticket prices will soar and United might soon break out of the collective TV deal they hold with the FA/SKY.

The Glazers have been increasing ticket prices, but face reduce sales, which means they are not far from zero marginal returns.Even if they get away with another increase, I doubt it would 'soar'.
The TV right have been sold up to 2013, and I doubt United can unilaterally pull out from it without huge financial and legal penalties.

RuuDie:
I've read a lot of arguments over this UTD-Glazer debt matter & it appears the crux of the entire issue is centered on the PIK loans. . . .  & from the UTD angle, as far as i understand this loans are solely in the name of the Glazers, not UTD. . . . . the only thing is the Glazers are using money from UTD to pay off some of these debts.
But as far as i know, there is nothing hindering them from stopping this and reverting to their other avenues of income to service those debts.

That was before the bonds issue. With the bonds issue, the Glazers have been able to make provisions so that the club's earnings can be used to pay the PiK loan. The Glazers have shown no intention of paying the PiK loan with their own money (else they wouldn't have let it balloon this much) and the bonds move confirms their intent to make the club pay.

So in addition to the £45m interest bill to be paid on the bonds, the clubs money will be used to pay the PiK which is going to attract an interest of £29m this year alone (and interest will likely increase to 16.25% in August) making a total of about £74m to just keep the debt principal value from growing further. In previous years, with all the success, united has only been paying the £40 - £50m associated with the senior debt (that will be refinanced with the bonds) and their accounts were in the red (except for last year when they sold CR).

A look at United's 2009 financial (£91.3m earnings before deductions, plus  £80.7m profit from player transfer, less £81.9m deductions in amortization, depreciation etc ), shows that without the profit from player transfers, United would have had a net profit of £91.3m - £81.9m = £9.4m available to service the loans.  In fact the raw earnings of £91.3m before deductions can barely cover the projected interest bill of £74m. Thus united cannot sustain servicing both loans without selling some assets and/or reducing expenses. A drop in revenue and consequently profit margin, and things could get messy real fast.

Nobody is questioning the brand appeal of united, but that brand appeal is not an infinite source of money. The glazers will service the PiK loan to save their own behinds, while either selling assets or taking loans against the club. By 2017, the PiK will be paid off making the Glazers debt free, while the club will likely be indebted well north of the present £716m or deprived of most of its key assets. The glazers will sell off the club, and let the hyenas feed on what is left.

Next year's financial will likely confirm most of these, as so far, all as played out as most unbiased onlookers expected.

tkb417:
so much ado over nothn

'cos of a £700k per annum sponsorship deal
wetin u wan take the money pay - refreshments?

For those that may feel I am touting Sanusi as being perfect - I am not. I am sure he has his flaws and affiliations like any other human being. In fact I will be shocked if he clamps down on the forex black market which is almost a pure northerners' gig.
Rather I am in support of his clearing out the rot in other areas, so that when his tenure is up, his successor (almost surely southerner) will be like him and clear out the remaining rot that Sanusi might have 'overlooked'.
I am less interested in the good/bad things you did not do, but in the ones you did. Beyond the rumour mongering and dooms prophecies by some, I have not seen anything inherently inimical in the policies of sanusi. While they might not be the best (as nobody knows it all), they are all a positive step from the status quo.

bawomolo:
lets leave the bears superbowl for next year. that's inevitable

The closest cutler will come to a super bowl next year is if he is a served a superbowl of eba with isi ewu and egusi soup

coolG:
Can you show any link between tenure limit and good corporate governance? Will this policy have stopped the enrichment of the sacked CEOs? If yes, how? I think apart from Ibru and Akingbola, all the other sacked CEOs were in their position for less than 10 years. Even in First Bank, their former CEO (S.O Asabia) was in that position for over 10 years, and so was Paul Ogwuma in Union Bank before becoming CBN Governor. So, the tenure limit is complete B.S and  known by everybody in financial services sector as targeting 2 people. The third guy (Skye bank) is what they call collateral damage.

Tenure limits guards against engendering poor corporate governance, by limiting the duration of effect. Else why do we have limited tenure in political office? why not let them be voted out by the populace?   while I agree that some people who could still be productive will be cut short, the risk is not worth the reward. It gives room for the injection of fresh blood and new ideas and not the stagnation that comes from unlimited tenure.The banking sector should be supervised defensively and not left to run amok like the cabal they have in the US. The interest of depositors should be ahead of the personal gain of the shareholder. It is not the responsibility of the CBN to make sure that a bank is making the most profit posiible, but rather that depositor are protected from poor management.   

There are a couple of northerners as EDs in the new interim management of the so-called distress bank or have you not noticed? Google for the interim management appointments in those bank.

So there should be no northerners in banking again?
People say sanusi has ulterior motive aka northern agenda, I have only asked that you provide evidence that any of the distressed bank are now in the hands of the northerners (by stating how many), and not if there were any northerners in the first place.

I am curious to know, do you know any policy that has been instituted or implemented by the current CBN that would have stopped the self-enrichment of some of the sacked CEOs?

It has never been a lack of policy but rather a supervisory oversight that allowed for the level of corruption in those banks. Still policy changes on such as check limits, narration on interbank transfer, information disclosure in financial statements etc all will make for a more transparent sector that will inhibit future corrupt practices. The enactment of a law does not stop crime, but the enforcement dissuades future offenders.

That said, i do not think the policy is illegal but i believe it is ill-contrived to remove the 2 targeted CEOs and does not and will not serve any single purpose in advancing any of the banks. It has nothing to do with the failings of the banks.

Without prove, you have decided that it is aimed solely at those two. How does Jim Ovia being a bank CEO affect  Sanusi?
The CBN has not said that the move is because those banks are distressed, but rather that it is better for the system if CEOs dont remain in office indefinitely. Under the current guise, a majority shareholder can remain CEO  for life and act in a manner that favors the shareholders (which in this case is mainly himself) at the expense of the depositors. The alternate solution is to bar anyone from having substantial shares in a bank, and I feel that would be unfair and moreso will likely require a review of the company act. The likes of Ovia can still own their banks and will ave a major say in who replaces them, they have just lost their executive powers. No individula should have a life sway on public funds, be it ina political office or otherwise.

Finally, this is just an observation: Have you noticed you have a pattern in positions you take. Starting from Ribadu (whom i like with all his flaws) to Sanusi and to Mutallab the terrorist. Have you gone back to read some of your statements in the early hours of the underwear bomber? It may seem as if you support persons or activities of a particular part of the country. Again this may not be representative of who you are but your cumulative statements are suggestive. I hope you do not see this as an insult but rather an opinion to reflect on.

If you think I am a northerner or pro north, then you are gravely mistaken. I just dont subscribe to using the ethnicity argument to make a point. I dont know which comments about Ribadu you are referring to, but for Sanusi, I supported his appointment and subsequent actions, because I feel he is the kind of governor the CBN needed.

The CBN serves as policy maker but also acts in a supervisory role, and it is the failings in carrying out the latter that has resulted in the mess that we call a banking sector (in fact I was hoping they would sack tunde lemo for his failings). All the increased capitalization carried out by Soludo and his predecessors were like pumping water into a leaking tank. Going forward, I actually think it would be better they split off the supervisory arm of the CBN so that we can have people that head each arm be more suited to their jobs, as we are yet to have one that is rounded in both.

As to the Mutallab issue, I at no point approved of his actions, and only wanted the facts made bare before people jumped to conclusions. I am sure you know about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or that someone who learnt to fly a bi-plane flew a 747 into the WTC, or all the numerous fictitious black man crimes. I am just not quick to condemn a man on the words of the media nor the US government. Also I do not subscribe to the notion of equating the actions of an individual or handful of people to the desires of an entire ethnic group. It was that line of thinking that led us to the civil war, when the actions of  handful of Igbos were equated to the wishes of the entire ethnic group. Most criticize the northerners for it and yet want to apply same MO. Mutallab is responsible for his action, and his immediate family, talk less of the entire northern region should not be held responsible for it, nor should his action be extrapolated beyond himself. People were quick to start generalizing on the issue, when the kid is not even the typical Nigerian, talk less a northerner.

It sad that it is only the masses that make issues about ethnicity, while the elites are busy embezzlement our money under the banner of one nation

bawomolo:
i would say it again jets vs saints for SB

Why not the bears will win the SB?
The Colts will beat the Jets like if they stole something 
The Chargers shot themselves in the head with their useless penalties. key ones include

1.  2nd and 6 at NYJ 18 PENALTY on SD-L.Tomlinson, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at NYJ 18 - No Play.
Took them out of the red zone and led to the missed FG

2. 4th and 8 at NYJ 17 S.Weatherford punts 40 yards to SD 43, Center-J.Dearth. D.Sproles to SD 43 for no gain (J.Ihedigbo, J.Dearth). PENALTY on SD-A.Cason, Face Mask (15 Yards), 12 yards, enforced at SD 43.
Negated a good field position and sent them back to their own 28yd line

3. 3rd and 7 at SD 45 M.Sanchez pass incomplete short right to J.Cotchery. PENALTY on SD-Q.Jammer, Defensive Pass Interference, 8 yards, enforced at SD 45 - No Play.
Kept the Jets drive alive and it eventually resulted in a FG for the jets which gave them believe.

4. 1st and 10 at NYJ 38 P.Rivers pass short middle to V.Jackson ran ob at NYJ 30 for 8 yards (D.Revis). PENALTY on SD-M.Floyd, Illegal Block Above the Waist, 10 yards, enforced at NYJ 30.
Tuned a 2nd and 2 into a 2nd and 12 and eventually led to the Revis INT

5. 1st and 10 at SD 16 S.Greene up the middle to SD 14 for 2 yards (J.Cesaire, L.Castillo). PENALTY on SD-S.Phillips, Unnecessary Roughness, 7 yards, enforced at SD 14.
Gifted the Jets a first and goal and negated a good stop.

6. 1st and 15 at SD 43 (Shotgun) P.Rivers pass deep right to V.Jackson pushed ob at NYJ 20 for 37 yards (D.Lowery). PENALTY on SD-V.Jackson, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, 15 yards, enforced at NYJ 20. New York Jets challenged the pass completion ruling, and the play was Upheld. (Timeout #2.)
Set them back 15yd when they should be in the red zone.

All these will not happen with the colts.

RuuDie:
Wonder. . . . whatever happened to the great, goalscoring extraordinaire Carlos Tevez last night

saw him put 2 goals past a bunch of useless obertans

The debt principal will not reduce until United can pay fully the interest associated. It will be interesting to see how they will come up with the at least £75m they need to pay only the accrued interest this year. More than that will be needed to pay any principal on the PiK.

I suspect Rooney and/or the training ground will be sold this summer to raise cash. They will likely transfer the training ground to the JV company and then lease it back to united, essentially creating a siphon pipeline directly from the club to the PiK loan.

The Glazers are not trying to payoff the debts, but rather trying to put it all on the club, which will allow them to make a profitable sale. The PiK currently stands in their way of making good profit on their meager investment.

The debt is at least 55% of the club's total (including brand) value, and you do not have the cash flow to service it (talk less of paying it off). If by August, the net debt exceeds 5x the profit before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization, the PiK loans will go up to 16.25% (current ratio is about 5.5x). So unless you get some major cash (like from selling the training ground and/or star players), the debt will continue to grow, while pulling down the value of the club, and unless your a deluding yourself that ManU will win the double this year, there will be less success on he pitch, further reducing the club's value.

@tkb417
United is such a green buck that most high yield accounts shunned it.  
Yet you miss the point that the bonds are secured against the clubs assets, thus while the bonds might not pan out for the 7-yrs total, the investor can still recover their funds. Also the bonds will be traded and so they can get their money and possible returns by trading it.

RuuDie:
biina,

all u've said boils down to UTD not being able to buy players in the future - nothing in your statement points to the fact that UTD might not be able to clear all the debts incurred thus far. . .  this is hardly a disastrous scenario u've painted cuz in the last 5 seasons, i think UTD have spent far less on acquiring players than the other top sides in the EPL (perhaps only Arsenal tops that) but still have managed to dominate.

Given all the recent success, the debt position has continued to worsen. I wonder what happens when the success stops? 
All united have done is being barely able to pay the interest on the loans. They have only been able to pay back £9m of the senior debt capital after receiving upfront almost half of the Aon sponsorship (which doesnt begin till august) and selling CR last year. Are they going to sell CR again this year? Go and look at the financial statements before you start deluding yourself like if your club is printing money. If you can barely pay your interest bill, means you cannot pay your debt.

United have been able to attain success with their existing roster, but as that roster wears down, they will need injection of world class players, and not useless Obertans, or do you think your current squad can win major trophies or that Giggs and scholes will play forever. The current united squad is definitely weaker than what you had when CR was still on the team.

tkb417:
lol so what are u saying?
a smart investor would look at the risk-reward ratio

tell me of any club who is more profitable than UTD?
the last time i checked, UTD's cashflow was supposed to be backed with a CDO to raise cash b4 going for this bond thingy
ol boi lets wait till SAF leaves or we stop winning, then we can now see if we'll become Leeds UTD

profitable? United was in the red in 2008, and if not for the sale of CR would have been in the red again this year. United like most of the other big clubs are not profitable.
United are already headed for 'trophylessness' this year: injury ridden in the defence, eliminated from the FA cup, on the brink of elimination in the carling cup, 3rd in the EPL and up against it in the CL.
But no worry, all will unfold in the coming years. First will be the sale of your training ground to pay debts.

tkb417:
i agree with this; in essence buying time for the first capital repayment is to free up funds for the club b4 the first lump sum payment due in 2013
thts ma point. Under the present scenario, interest payment would hinder SAFs plan for the team

I still dont see how you have reached the conclusion that the move makes more money available for SAF.
United essentially have two loans:
1. a bank loan of £509.5m, which was £518.7m in 2008 and required a net interest payment of £41.9m. This loan is secured directly against the clubs assets e.g Old trafford and is due from 2013 to 2017
2. a PiK loan of £202m at an interest rate of 14.25% compounded (and can increase to 16.25% if not service by august). This is secured against Red Football Joint Venture Ltd which is the vehicle for the Glazers' stake in the club and the notes are due in 2017.

Under the current terms,  the bank loan with its lower interest rates is the senior debt, and thus the Glazers are required to pay it off first before they can use any funds from the club to tackle the PiK loan. this is unworkable for the Glazers cos even if they manage to pay back the senior debt by 2017, the PiK would have ballooned to almost £600m.

Since the Glazer have shown no intention of bringing in external funds to pay the PiK, the intend to refinance/restructure the senior debt portion and change the terms to allow them tackle the PiK ahead of the bank loans. Enter the bonds issue.

The £500m bonds issue (which I believe was successful) will replace the bank debt and now allow them to give the PiK priority. The yield on the Bonds will be about 9% increasing the interest bill to £45m (as opposed to less than £41.9m that would have been paid  under the current structure) and will be due in 2017. In addition to the slight increase in interest bill, is that the glazers will now be able to use up to £70m to service the PiK loan. Current profit before amortization was £90m, so unless that profit is greatly increased, they can barely support the new interest bill, talk less of servicing the PiK loans.

The Glazers' game plan is obvious, they intend to pay off (or more likely refinance) the PiK loans (which is the main obstacle to them making a tidy profit from selling united) at the expense of the club, so that we all is said and done, the full £720m or more debt will be entirely on the club. There is no way SAF will have money to spend on top players unless united take on more debts.

Its annoying to hear all these jets fan who feel they have arrived simply because they won in san diego.
- Anybody that watched the game would know that San diego only have themselves to blame. they played poorly coming off a bye, gifting the jets 10 penalties for 87yds, a lot of them coming on key down. That will not happen in Indy.
- Chargers had 13 drives and could only score 2 TD, missing 3 FGs. That will not happen in Indy
- All the cost to coast traveling and blitzing will catch up to the Jets defence on Sunday
- The will be facing a full strength Colts team that will include five starters (Charlie Johnson, garcon, Mathis, Session, powers) that missed the December game
- The jets couldnt stop the colts then, and wont do it on sunday. Prior to being pulled, Manning was 14/21 for 192yds while addai was averaging 6.7yd on 6 carries

I really hope we give them a serious blowout + shutout.

tkb417:
lol
blind optimism call it anythn

if i can get you clearly, what ure saying is
> UTDs debt are spiralling out of control- Yes and No

Yes, in the sense that the bond is another debt instrument which adds to the existing debt/backlog interest payments

No, in the sense that the bond is being engineered to actually  reduce the interest payments and free up funds for the team

You are wrong. In exchange for increased interest payments, the bonds are being used primarily to buy time (the current debt capital are due from 2013) and to restructure the debt so that they can use funds from the club to tackle the 14.25% PiK loan which they cannot do under the current terms. A 3rd factor is that the bonds will be a fixed interests of no less than 8.5% (probably about 9%), while the current bank loans (which are the senior loans) are at about 8% currently but being fixed margin from libor makes them variable. One can argue either way for fixed v variable but only time will tell. With the bonds, ManU will be paying more than the 42m they paid last year

Oga, if uve not been following the trend of events in footie world then na u sabi. The arabs are out there to launder their cash and oh yeah footie especially England is the best place for that to happen. lest i forget, who told you the arabs are only interested in the mid size clubs?

launder cash? as if they got it illegally. as to who told me that the arabs are interested in only mid size clubs? History = fulham, portsmouth and Citeh. The closest to a big club buy was liverpool and that is yet to happen.

the only reason why the midsize clubs come handy is because of their cost of acquisition and relatively little or no ambition if you compare them with the top clubs in europe ( a club with lil or no ambition will not offer any resistance to a take over- West ham is an example)

while I agree with the cost of acquisition being a factor, ambitions are less inimical. With all their ambitions, liverpool would jump at the first arab prince that looks their way

fyi, Roman wanted Manchester United b4 but shying away from making steps to acquire it cos of the perceived inherent hostile atmosphere the investment in UTD would bring

roman is not arab, nor is usmanov. Still I have not heard that he showed any serious interest in buy ManU and would like you to provide a reference.

lets assume a debt ridden Manchester United would not be attractive to smart money holders, lemme point it to you that a suave and smart invester who has got the cash would prefer a debt ridden manchester united whose enterprise value is zero to a midsize club whose pedigree in the footie world is zero.

a debt ridden UTD would be a hotcake for any sane human being & the brand UTD cannot be bought

a club with an edifice like OT, a club with the largest fan base in the world, a club with money making machies spread across the globe would be worth every arab penny

A smart investor weighs the risk-reward ratio and looks at the cash flow of the investment vehicle. Football is becoming less and less of a profitable venture, and a look at the balance sheet of united buttresses this, as operating profit before amortization was £90m. Successful clubs are not selling clubs, and one should not expect ManU making much profits like this years £80m from player transfers (was £22m in 2008, £11m in 2007 and £12m in 2006). So very soon, you will have a club whose cash flow cannot service its debt. So any prospective buyer would have to pay off a substantial part of the debts to make the investment workable (otherwise he will be flushing money down the drain in a club he doesn't really own). All these were with ManU having record success in recent years, same will not be repeated in the near future.As if that wasn't bad enough, failure on the pitch and/or departure of SAF will further reduce revenue and goodwill, and its obvious that the more time united stay on this path, the closer they get to financial collapse.

good we agreed on one thing- the Glazers would sell when the right time and the right buyers come

I was never concerned with glazers, as they made their profit the moment the leveraged buyout was successful.

tkb417:
hahaha
in this era of arab money

its easier for DK to become prime minister of UK than for UTD to go extinct

if yawa gas, the Glazers will divest and a bigger billionaire writes off the chicken feed and take ownership

a billion dollars is what is giving u sleepless nights?
all dubai princes will die to own the club

I have always admired your blind optimism, as you seem to be the only one who knows these arabs who are willing to buy a debt ridden ManU whose value will soon be below its debt obligations.

The Glazers were able to buy a debtless manU for about £800m and I cant remember any arab prince being in contention (in fact I doubt you have ever had an arab as a major shareholder), now you think they will buy a club which is over £700m in debt. Even liverpool with their small debt (when compared to ManU) were unable to snag a saudi prince.

Billionaires that buy clubs for toys dont buy big clubs like manU, but rather midsize clubs like Citeh, Chelsea, Villa etc, where their investment can go directly into assembling their dream team, and not into paying off some useless debts.

Dont get me wrong, I think the Glazers are doing fine, after all their true investment is less than £300m, and after the bond refinancing, they will essentially move the PiK on to the clubs and all they have to do is sell the club for more than £300m (which shouldnt be too difficult) and they should walk away with a tidy profit. Its the club that faces being relegated to mediocrity, cos even with success on the pitch, it will be difficult to service an interest bill of about £100m every year.

But then what do I know. so no worry, just watch the plot unfold

naijaking1:
Guys, you seem to ignore the huge social engineering Sanusi wants to make with his position as CBN governor. From regional political equalization, to socialist uniformity, to religious conformity, to personal retribution, the Kano prince has done it all, except make progressive and futuristic financial plans for the country.

Social engineering? has he barred those banks whose CEOs are to be ousted by the tenure limit from being replaced by their kinsmen?
Of the interim management of the five distressed banks. how many are northerners?
The guy is making the kind of supervisory moves that the sector needs, but you would rather we continue with the old system of siddon look and then when things pafuka, we begin arrest dead body for suicide.

~Sauron~:
Just like Real Madrid are swimming in debt.

so Real madrid owes £509million (or the overall £716.5million owed by ManU's parent company)?
Your dear club is about to go belly up, and you are deluding yourself that all is well, by thinking madrid is in the same position. Madrid is in good financial health, have a president worth $1.8billion, and, the members and political clout to deal with any financial crisis. Abi you see Madrid running helter-skelter trying to raise a £500million bond to postpone the doomsday?
The bonds will raise your annual interest bill from £42m to at about £45m or more, while the Glazers will siphon money from the club into the parent company to service the 14.25% compounded PiK loan which has already grown to £202million (which means it will increase by £29m this year). Without another CR to sell and having collected advance payment on your shirt sponsorship, wont be surprising to see one or more of Rooney, Rio, Giggs, and Scholes departing from the club to reduce the wage bil and/or raise money.
Of course to the fanboi, I am obviously clueless, but no worry, na here we go all dey as your ManU is walked to the gallows. All that delude themselves that ManU is too big to fall will soon discover that the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
awon onigbese!!! Buncha useless Obertans!!!

bump