I recall Yuttie and Me laffing at me back then.

[Lazie]

MUST slam Glazers over latest Utd figures

MANCHESTER United's anti-Glazer faction have claimed the controversial owners have landed the club with a £260million interest bill since they took control in 2005.

The staggering sum includes the £41.9million paid out in interest in the year to June 2009, which contributed to turning what would have been a huge profit of £91.3million into a 'mere' £48.2million - a sum bolstered by the world-record £80million transfer fee received from Real Madrid for Cristiano Ronaldo.

It means that while as a pure day-to-day business, United are more streamlined and profitable than any club in the world, their financial model is dragged down by the huge costs incurred when the Glazers completed their £790million buyout.

The Manchester United Supporters' Trust (MUST), who are regular critics of the Glazer family, have responded in predictable fashion.

"Most supporters have had enough," said MUST chairman Duncan Drasdo.

"Under their ownership the club has become liable for more than £260million in interest payments alone and the latest trading statement would have shown a substantial loss were it not for the sale of Ronaldo.

"The day the Glazers put the club up for sale you can expect celebration on the streets of Manchester."

United's announcement was accompanied by confirmation they intend to raise £500million in bonds to clear the club's loans.

It is thought the bond will be secured on most of the club's assets but not their impressive Carrington training ground.

Tellingly, it is also being suggested that United would also be able to use up to 50% of their cashflow to pay a dividend to the Glazer family.

That would provide an opportunity to repay payment-in-kind (Pik) loans lodged against the Glazer family that carry interest of 14.25%.

In addition, United are entering into a new revolving credit facility to allow the club to borrow an additional £75million, which could be used to help buy players.

Matchday, media and commercial revenues have risen, even though there is talk of a slump in corporate sales and various cost-cutting measures have been implemented to shave costs.

Transfer kitty

At the time of the Glazer takeover, it was suggested Ferguson would have an annual transfer kitty of £25million.

Yet that figure has not been reached in overall net spend, while so far Ferguson has spent only a quarter of the Ronaldo cash.

This has widely been interpreted as being due to a squeeze being imposed by the club's owners, although on Friday this was strenuously denied by Ferguson.

"I don't have any concerns about the financial situation," Ferguson said.

"There is absolutely no issue at all. I am really confident about that.

"Concerns of the supporters are down to the fact that I haven't moved in the transfer market. But that is nothing to do with the Glazers or with David Gill.

"It is simply because I am not going to pay £50million for a striker who is not worth it."

However, at a time when Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour is effectively writing off a £92million annual loss, United's situation is far more uncomfortable.

And while the Glazers could quite rightly point out the last three years - all of which have yielded the title and a minimum of a place in the Champions League semi-finals - have been among the most successful in the club's history, some fans fear for the future once Ferguson eventually steps down.

"If it were a race, then United are dragging their owners behind them like a broken tractor, while City's owners are providing rocket fuel," added Drasdo.

"It just shows what a fantastic job Sir Alex and the players have done that we are still ahead despite the deadweight of the Glazers' ownership.

"It is in everyone's interest for the Glazers to exit and make way for a new investor interested in working with the supporters to build a stronger football club and business together.

"Manchester United doesn't need a sugar daddy - we just need to get rid of the leeches."

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....st_utd_figures

[Me]

They are profitable, not at threat of defaulting and have been able to pay big money for players over the past few years. Don't see a problem.

[Peter R]

Better accountants than I can correct me, but if the Ronaldo sale were deducted then the profit would be reduced to £11.3M. Is that correct?...and based on revenues of at least £260M that is not exciting.

Please correct me if these figures are misinterpreted

[Dunny]

The deepest, darkest fears of Manchester United’s owners have been laid bare in a 322-page document circulated among potential investors in their proposed £500 million bond issue.
It acknowledges the threats posed to the club by factors as diverse as Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement, Uefa’s proposed “financial fair-play initiative”, the boundless spending of their rivals — and even terrorism.
The prospectus lays out United’s business strengths and their future strategy as the club look to ease the financial burden of the huge debts brought about by the Glazer family’s takeover in 2005.
But, as a warning to potential investors, United also acknowledge numerous risk factors that could affect the club’s financial wellbeing in the seven years before the bond would mature.
function slideshowPopUp(url){pictureGalleryPopupPic(url);re turn false;}Related Links

• Tévez shows Ferguson what he is missing

• United stake all on £500m bond issue

• Old Trafford’s big problem yet to be tackled

Multimedia

• Debate: Are United a ticking time bomb?

They are listed as a means of ensuring that investors are aware of the potential downsides of buying into United — the early indications, after the club’s “road shows” across Asia on Sunday and Monday, are that interest has been strong — but never before have such fears been recognised publicly by the club.
Ferguson and David Gill, the United chief executive, have always dismissed supporters’ concerns about the risks attached to the Glazer takeover, but the new document, seen by The Times, illustrates the precarious nature of success on and off the pitch.
For years, since Ferguson abandoned his planned retirement in 2002, the issue of the manager’s successor has been one that the United hierarchy has been only too willing to put off. Yet he is 68 and has maintained that he will not manage beyond the age of 70.
The firm expectation is that he will carry on next season, but, sooner or later, United are facing a moment that may take the club into a period of transition or, worse still, decline.
“We are highly dependent on members of our management, including our manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, and players,” the document reads. “Our ability to attract and retain the highest-quality players and coaching staff is critical to the first team’s success . . . and, consequently, critical to our financial performance.
“Any successor to our manager may not be as successful as he has been. A downturn in the performance of the first team may adversely affect our ability to attract and retain such coaches and players.”
Then there are the concerns about Uefa’s plans to introduce regulations by 2012 whereby clubs who operate at a loss could be excluded from European competition.
United should not fall into that category, but, after paying £41.9 million in interest on their debts in the past financial year, they required the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid to turn a £31.8 million loss into a £48.2 million profit. Michel Platini, the Uefa president, has frequently voiced his distaste at United’s debts, last recorded at £699 million.
The document reads: “Uefa has proposed certain spending restrictions on clubs participating in the Champions League and Europa League competitions. There is a risk that ... the ‘financial fair-play’ initiative could limit our ability to acquire or retain top players and ... materially adversely affect the performance of our first team.”
Concerns are aired about the big spending of some of United’s rivals, which presumably means Manchester City and Chelsea in the Barclays Premier League and Real on the European front. “In the Premier League, recent investment from wealthy team owners has led to teams with strong financial backing,” the document reads. “Other European football clubs are spending substantial sums on transfer fees and player salaries.
“Competition has led to higher salaries for our players as well as increased competition on the field. The increase in competition could result in our first team finishing lower in the Premier League . . . and jeopardising our qualification for or results in the Champions League, [which] could materially adversely affect our match-day, media and commercial revenues and our overall business.”
The harsh economic climate is also mentioned, with confirmation that 16 per cent of United’s corporate and executive tickets remained unsold as at September 30, 2009.
Most terrifying of all is the threat of terrorist activity, whether at Old Trafford or on the team’s pre-season tours. Those fears increased last July, when two bombs killed nine people in hotels in Jakarta, Indonesia — including the Ritz-Carlton, where the United squad were due to arrive the next evening.
“We are one of the highest-profile sports clubs in the world, with a global fanbase,” the document reads. “Our first team regularly tours the world for promotional matches, visiting various countries in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Some of those countries have a history of terrorism and civil unrest. As such, our club and our players could be potential targets of terrorism when visiting those countries.
“In addition, Old Trafford is an iconic stadium and a potential target for terrorism. We insure against certain acts of terrorism and other disasters and use security screening to protect fans and visitors.”
Many unhappy returns?
In the prospectus for Manchester United’s proposed £500 million bond issue, potential investors are warned of numerous risk factors that could affect their returns. These include:
Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement “Any successor to our manager may not be as successful as he has been. A downturn in the performance of the first team may adversely affect our ability to attract and retain such coaches and players.”
Proposed Uefa regulations on debt “There is a risk that, in conjunction with increasing player salaries and transfer fees, the ‘financial fair-play’ initiative could limit our ability to acquire or retain top players and, therefore, materially adversely affect the performance of our first team.”
Big spending of United’s rivals “In the Premier League, recent investment from wealthy team owners has led to teams with strong financial backing. The increase in competition could result in our first team finishing lower in the Premier League than we have in the past and jeopardising our qualification for or results in the Champions League.”
Economic climate “Continued weak economic conditions may adversely affect our match-day and media revenues and could eventually affect our commercial and sponsorship revenues, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.”
Threat of terrorism “Our club and our players could be potential targets of terrorism when visiting countries which have a history of terrorism and civil unrest. In addition, Old Trafford is an iconic stadium and a potential target for terrorism.”

[Lazie]

The Empire won trophies despite the new owners. They've started to achieve their objective ... suck the club dry.

[Me]

These people really kow how to build a story. Bout get hold of a document ... LOL

Every bond offering has to disclose the risk associated with a project. The majority of these never come true, but as to ensure they are legally covered they are all disclosed.

The new owners are definitely just there to make a profit for themelf and that will always be the case when looking for new owners.