egafd.com

Sam Slater wrote:

> Robches, did you read my post and see the numbers?
>
> Man Utd brought in nearly ?400m in revenue last year (their
> worst year on the pitch in over 25 years). They still had ?140m
> profit after servicing the debt and players' wages. They're
> hardly 'running on fumes', and if they are, I wouldn't mind a
> business running on fumes too. Give me some of that.


I think those figures actually refer to the 2012/13 season - when Man Utd were the Premier League champions and were not having their worst year on the pitch in over 25 years.

The operating profit was actually non-existent, as a loss was incurred of ?9m. Fortunately the Glazer family transferred a ?155m credit from their US companies which converted the operating loss into an overall profit of ?146m.

These are the actual figures:

Revenue 363,189
Expenses (301,175)
Operating Profit 62,104
Interest (70,807)
US Credit 155,212
Overall Profit 146,509

JamesW:

Thanks for those figures. As I said, if Utd were doing so well, the Glazers would not have sold part of it on the NYSE. I understand that they kept half the proceeds, and used the other half to pay down some of the debt. Hence my comment that their plan to pay off the debt is to sell to a greater fool.

From The Guardian, based on an article/interview in The Independent


QUOTE:
Scholes also said he felt the structural problems at United were long-standing. ?I suppose I should have realised that the very fact I was still playing for United at 38 years old was a sign that there was not enough pressure on us senior players from those coming into the side."



So Scholes thinks the problems are long standing. That rules out Moyes being entirely to blame. Still what does Scholes know compared to Messers Johnson and Slater?

[quote]They are happy to trumpet huge sponsorship deals with Chevrolet and the like, but who gets to see the contracts? Does the money keep coming in if the club does not qualify for the CL? There must be break clauses, but you don't get to hear about them, only the $750 million or however much it is, as if it is all paid out on day one. The Glazers are bullshitters whose only goal is to bleed Utd white and then flog it on to another muppet.[/quote]

Just to be clear........we agree on the Glazers, just not the prediction it's going to go tits up, right?

I do not know if the figures are right. Neither do you. I can only base my judgements on the reported figures otherwise I'm basing everything on speculation like you are now.

Personally, how can a prospective owner of Man Utd be a 'muppet'? If you had to choose to own an English football club, would you be more of a muppet owning one that you had to pump your own money into or one where the club made enough of it's own to keep it going?

You see, it's terms like 'muppet' and 'desperation' on this thread that show people aren't really thinking with their heads. It doesn't make sense. The Glazers will get much more out of Man Utd if it becomes debt free. It's in their interests to make the club debt free.

Of course, things can go wrong, but at the moment they bring in more than they owe. The debt is going down and it's manageable. Until this isn't the case I'm not solid ground.

Thanks for those numbers.

Mine were from the BBC, and the figures were for the year 2013 (ending 1st Jan 2014) so not the '12/13' season exactly.

Do you know if those expenses included the Glazers cut?

[quote]Hence my comment that their plan to pay off the debt is to sell to a greater fool.[/quote]

If you are a fool to buy Man Utd, what's that say about the owners of Chelsea and Man City who have bankrolled the clubs?

Abramovich has spent over ?700m of his own money in 10 years.
Sheikh Mansour has spent over ?500m of his own money in 6 years.
Glazers have spent ?0 of their own money in 9 years.

Just who are the 'muppet' and 'fool' owners here?

Sam Slater wrote:


> If you are a fool to buy Man Utd, what's that say about the
> owners of Chelsea and Man City who have bankrolled the clubs?
>
> Abramovich has spent over ?700m of his own money in 10 years.
> Sheikh Mansour has spent over ?500m of his own money in 6
> years.
> Glazers have spent ?0 of their own money in 9 years.
>
> Just who are the 'muppet' and 'fool' owners here?
>


The difference between Abramovich and the Glazers is that the Glazers bought United as a business investment, while Abramovich bought Chelsea as a "toy", so you're not really comparing like with like.

Sam Slater wrote:




>
> You see, it's terms like 'muppet' and 'desperation' on this
> thread that show people aren't really thinking with their
> heads. It doesn't make sense. The Glazers will get much more
> out of Man Utd if it becomes debt free. It's in their interests
> to make the club debt free.
>
> Of course, things can go wrong, but at the moment they bring in
> more than they owe. The debt is going down and it's manageable.
> Until this isn't the case I'm not solid ground.
>

It is in the Glazers' interests to screw as much money as they can out of Utd without putting a penny in. If it ever came to the day they had to put their hand in their pocket they would sell it to a greater fool (you may not be familiar with the term, I don't know).

If the Glazers were really bringing in more than they owe, they could have paid off the debt. As long as they can bleed Utd without killing it, they will. As far as I can see, they paid some of the debt down with some of the money from the NYSE floatation, and I do consider the people who bought non-voting shares in a company controlled by the Glazers to be greater fools.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Thanks for those numbers.
>
> Mine were from the BBC, and the figures were for the year 2013
> (ending 1st Jan 2014) so not the '12/13' season exactly.
>
> Do you know if those expenses included the Glazers cut?


The last published yearly accounts for Man Utd cover the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013.

These accounts show that no fees or dividends were paid to the Glazer companies during that year (compared to ?13m paid the year before).

However, the share offer which took place during the year raised $233.3m. Costs of $14.1m reduced that figure to $219.2m which was then split between paying off Man Utd debt and payment to the Glazer companies. So although the Glazer companies took no cut as such in 2012/13, the share sale benefited them to the tune of $109.6m.

And De Gea's girlfriend doesn't like him playing outside Spain....so he could be off off to warmer climes...wonder if Scholes is still fit?