i made a pre tax profit of £3.28 last year. Oh no actually I spent that too. So a slight loss net - i went fishing
I bought my shopping in Sainsbury's this morning but I am really concerned that they are no longer the country's leading grocer and that their shares are performing badly. I know I will not enjoy my supper tonight knowing this. I want my grocer to be financially solvent and successful. That is the only reason I shop there.
“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
That's unfortunate. My bank announced new fees on my savings account, so I'm over the moon; if they can nick a few more dollars off myself and their other customers, they could well break last year's profitability numbers.
That's news to me, the impression I got when the Gao's bought the club was that they bought it out of their own pockets This puts a very different slant on our situation especially if we get relegated as the interest on £210m is about £12.5m a year which would be "challenging" on Championship incomes.Mmmmmmm!
Our company owes its entire net value to me and my wife. If I sell it to you, it owes its net value to you. All companies are always in debt to their owners. So we owed our net value to our owner, Markus Liebherr. He almost certainly owed it to either Liebherr group or a bank. He died and passed the club onto Kat. At that point we owed our net value to her. She almost certainly owed it to either Liebherr group or a bank. She's sold it to Gao. At that point we owe our net value to Gao. He, in turn, owes that to Macquarie. Do people really think that companies are bought with money found down the back of the sofa? The net worth of the club is unchanged whether her loan is repaid or not. If the loan hadn't been repaid before the sale we'd have had an asset of £11m in the bank and a liability of £11m. As it is, our assets are £11m lower, as are our liabilities. It makes no difference unless you were expecting us to go bust and never repay her. Vin
The more information I am given, the less I know or understand. I was always under the impression that the bank loan was just being used for the day to day running of the Club, using the projected income to service it. The loan is charged to SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED, the owners operate under ST MARY'S FOOTBALL GROUP LTD which has a separate entry at Companies House. The former group acts under the control of the latter, the latter group is under the control of Lander Sports (UK) International Investment Co., Ltd. (Gao?). Confused?
Most owners have some liquidity to offset the necessity of immediate repayment; they can instead allow the asset value to rise, knowing that they can sell for a profit at a later time. Some even invest considerable sums beyond the purchase price. Gao, it appears does not have any liquidity, at least outside of China, and thus we're on the hook for £210m plus interest. If what SaintDon posted is correct, if we get relegated, we are in an absolute heap of trouble. That £11m was redirected in the FY prior to the sale. It could have been left as cash on hand; it could have been used to further the team. Depending on results, it might have had a positive or negative overall effect on our asset value. It was instead used by Liebherr to get a little extra cash out early to ensure that she maximized the amount of money she received.
He definitely didn't buy it out of his own pocket. Bloomberg reported at the time that the vast majority of the money came via a loan from a bank in Hong Kong; this is the first I've heard of MacQuarrie fronting the bulk, though.
The way I see it is, we were on the brink, then in the yellow. Markus died and we slipped into the orange, then Gao came along along and we joined the red club. Simple.
profit not worth **** to me i dont see any of it I just want a good team and manager that is competitive
You make a fair points and looking at it in isolation without context what you say makes an awful lot of sense. However, since the buy out my (and plenty of others), concerns relates to how the club seems to have been purchased with a loan borrowed against the company itself. In a similar sense to how the glazers financed their purchase of United... Except that strategy is much easier (never mind safer) to do with a club the size of Manchester United. Of course none of us know the details for sure so it's all speculation for now, but I've learnt over the years to trust my gut feeling, and with this I've always felt something isn't quite right with the Gao takeover. The only facts we have right now is that the takeover when it was originally fronted through their/his company(can't remember name) was turned down by the powers that be... and that even after it was sanctioned through Gao personally, the PL/FA almost instantly changed their takeover rules in the immediate aftermath. Don't know about anyone else but that still screams alarm bells to me tbh.
But that's not so. Keeping it simple by excluding all extraneous factors and assuming the entire club was sold: Before the sale the club was worth £210m net, made up of assets of £221M and a debt to Kat of £11m. 1. Actual situation: Club pays back £11m to Kat. Club is still worth £210m (assets now of £210m, no debt) and is then sold. Kat receives total of £210m. Total received by Kat = £221m, club worth £210m. 2. Your preferred option: Club sold as is by Kat. She receives £210m. Club then repays Kat £11m debt. Total received by Kat = £221m, club worth £210m. Nothing's been maximised, the position at the end is literally identical. Vin
Actions speak louder than words... and since the takeover we sold our best player and didn’t replace him. That says a lot to me. Although, hoping that will be addressed in the summer. We are in for some interesting times, whatever the owners plans.
Again, this is assuming that the only two options are to sit on the money, or hand the money back to Kat several months to a year in advance of the sale. Rather, the point is that she took the money out of the club rather than having it available to the club, having directed the club to begin repaying the loan to her in the year prior to the sale (and with the process of finding a buyer already underway). This occurred at a time when she would have known that the end result of the process would be a nine-figure windfall. She still determined that the £11m was better suited to her pocket than in aiding the club. And no, given the odd way that assets are handled with football clubs, spending that £11m on a player would not result in a wash.
I have to say I do agree. I don't trust him to have a penny in his back pocket. He has a poor history in business and I think football clubs are being used by the chinese for political power. Xi Jinping is known to be football mad, so I think the slow Chinese takeover of football is something to do with gaiing favour with the most powerful man in China as much as anything else. All I'm trying to say is that people who buy businesses for millions of pounds always owe the cash to someone. And it's always borrowed against the company. Owing the money to someone is not the problem for me; it's the fact that he's a shady bugger with a dodgy past. Vin
How much debt did the owners of Manchester United owe against the ownership of that club, at the time of purchase?
