http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-guide-Premier-League-s-financial-health.html Its not UTD, they are 2nd
After all the excuses from arsenal about their so-called spending plan to become debt free... and we've now only 100m more debt than them.
clearly you didn't read the article - it states that "Healthy revenues easily cover ‘good debt’ borrowed for stadium", which means it is tied to an asset that is worth more thann the debt [stadium is worth approx £400m]. whereas your debt is not tied to your stadium purchase/rebuild but was taken out solely to enable Glazer to proceed with their United take over [hence "Debt lingers from Glazer deal"] and is classed as 'bad debt' in financial terms. Most of the capital used by Glazer to purchase Manchester United came in the form of loans, the majority of which were secured against the club's assets, incurring interest payments of over £60 million per annum. The remainder came in the form of PIK loans (payment in kind loans), which were later sold to hedge funds. Manchester United was not liable for the PIKs, which were held by Red Football Joint Venture and were secured on that company's shares in Red Football (and thus the club). The interest on the PIKs rolled up at 14.25% per annum. Despite this, the Glazers did not pay down any of the PIK loans in the first five years they owned the club. In January 2010, the club carried out a successful £500 million bond issue, and by March 2010, the PIKs stood at around £207 million.[1] The PIKs were eventually paid off in November 2010 by unspecified means.[2] In August 2012, as part of further refinancing, the Glazers sold a number of shares in Manchester United in an initial public offering (IPO) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).[3] Some Manchester United fans opposed Glazer's takeover of the club, particularly once they realised the level of debt that the club would have to take on after having been debt-free for so many years. basically if United had been taken over by anyone else you would have had £800m more to spend on players ! as it is you have still to pay off £342m and the interest alone costs you about £60m a year. in financial terms you got fisted. whereas Chelsea who claim to be debt free are £958m in debt, they don't owe the money to their russian mafioso boss, it is their holding company that does, and the holding companies only assert ? you guessed it Chelsea FC. so all those chavskis that say we are the best run club FFP are talking bollocks, because if their billionaire owner wants his money back then they are ****ed as they will never be able to repay !
Your argument about healthy revenue covering good debt applies just as much to United. You're right about the way Glazers went about things and the loan they put on the club. But for all that essay you've written, the bottom line is after 9 yrs you're not debt free, we're only £100m more in debt and during that period won a fck of a lot more. Arsenal in the same period have rinsed their fans and lined the pockets of their shareholders and that is all they've done.
Err not quite, we have moved into a brand new stadium at a cost of £400m, the debt is financially neutral as the debt we owe is offset by the property assets that we have that are in the books at nil yet worth over £150m. to be able to stay competive and stay in the top 4 during a decade of financial prudence is remarkable, your lot fell out of top 4 just one season after being Champions and could again end out of top 4 at the end of another trophy less season. United still owe £342m to the banks for letting Glazers put United in hock. They will no doubt splash the cash again to get in some new players, but who they will attract if not in CL is debatable !
Yeh we really struggled last year... The chances of us not making the top 4 is also starting to look very slim. No worse than Arsenal or Citys tbh.
Man Yoo are ****ed if they miss out on CL again and as for the chavs £958m in debt ! ****ing shambles. As I've said before, without Roman's juice, they would still be a two bit yo-yo club like Millwall.
Pure waffle. Who cares what is offset against what, it's all debt plain and simple. Yours is £240m, ours is £340m. We had more than double that 9/10 years ago. In that time all we ever heard was how arsenal's curb in spending was part of some master plan to make you debt free. You sacrificed success in order to achieve that, which would have been admirable...except you achieved neither. In the same period United have spent big, reduced their debt quicker and had considerably more success. Anything else is just misdirection and denial on the part of gooners tbh.
Yep, a couple of weeks ago they wrote Arsenal were going to win the league, and now he believes that too (genuinely)
In simple terms, there is secured debt ( which is far cheaper to finance) and unsecured debt, which is more expensive. The Glazer's buyout of United was what is known as leveraged buyout. Leverage is a posh word for incurring debt!...or borrowing, to put it in simple terms.
The quibble most Utd fans have with the Glazers is that they have effectively used the club's own money to buy it for themselves. For that reason alone, their involvement with the club is less than satisfactory. However, in managing the club's finances they have recognised that they can't shy away from spending on players, including wages for the club to be competitive and generate substantial profits. How much credit they deserve is a moot point, but Utd have become stronger and stronger financially, irrespective of the debt the Glazers created.
which is part of what i said originally "basically if United had been taken over by anyone else you would have had £800m more to spend on players ! as it is you have still to pay off £342m and the interest alone costs you about £60m a year". unlike Chelsea and City who have been given vast sums of money, most fans understand United earn their money ! Arsenal's move to the Emirates will help us match United's Match Day Income, and we have some way to go to match their other incomes. to me the whole point of FFP was that clubs could only spend what they earn and not get massively in debt, or have massive injections of cash from oil rich princes or russian gangsters.
