Record losses for the scum???

[Rae4685]

Can someone explain how they can make record profits of £100 mil at the same time as making record losses of £81 mil??? Probably simple but I don't get it

[moomey]

Operating profit is before interset and other finance costs on th debt/bond issue. Also expect before amortisation of transfer fees. Either way ther are f*cked!!!

[Manx Blue]

Can someone explain how they can make record profits of £100 mil at the same time as making record losses of £81 mil??? Probably simple but I don't get it

Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics

[Slim]

I am sure soccs can tell us this, but even though we lossed £133M because we bought a shitload of players and they lost £81M through debt, if the new regs were in tomorrow I am sure they'd be in the champions league and we wouldn't....at a guess.

[The Man In Blue]

These figure also do not include around £20million of debt their holding company owes. If I understand that swiss ramble fella correctly.

[The Man In Blue]

These figure also do not include around £20million of debt their holding company owes. If I understand that swiss ramble fella correctly.

[Socrates]

Operating Profit(or loss) is measured before taxation, amortisation, interest and finance costs are taken into account. It is a useful measure of the state of the core business. The costs of capital, investment and taxation (if any) are then deducted to give the headline profit(or loss). When you are heavily in debt, it is perfectly possible for the interest payments to turn an operating profit into an overall loss.

Under UEFA rules they would be nowhere near qualifying. They can strip out fixed asset depreciation and academy costs (interim period I think amortisation can be discounted too) but those amounts cannot possibly be £80m as they have spent relatively little on players in recent years - if that is the declared loss (holding company loss would actually take it to 100m if that figure is that correct?)

[john@staustell]

Under UEFA rules they would be nowhere near qualifying.

Somehow I dont expect the press to mention that little problem in every Scum story from hereon in, like they do with us.

[Beefymcfc]

Ahhh, don't worry about it.

[The Man In Blue]

Operating Profit(or loss) is measured before taxation, amortisation, interest and finance costs are taken into account. It is a useful measure of the state of the core business. The costs of capital, investment and taxation (if any) are then deducted to give the headline profit(or loss). When you are heavily in debt, it is perfectly possible for the interest payments to turn an operating profit into an overall loss.

Under UEFA rules they would be nowhere near qualifying. They can strip out fixed asset depreciation and academy costs (interim period I think amortisation can be discounted too) but those amounts cannot possibly be £80m as they have spent relatively little on players in recent years - if that is the declared loss (holding company loss would actually take it to 100m if that figure is that correct?)

Swiss ramble states £26million PIK notes attributed to the Glazers held by a different company connected to the rags.

[Beefymcfc]

Fuck me, Sky don't half confuse things! Have United made an overall loss of 80 mil or have they made a profit of 100 mil minus 80 mil which makes a 20 mil profit?

And why is it that they only owe 522 mil now, I thought they'd got 500 mil worth of bonds on top of the 700 mil they already owed?

I'm sure I know but they do make it difficult for the poor public.

[ronk]

Fuck me, Sky don't half confuse things! Have United made an overall loss of 80 mil or have they made a profit of 100 mil minus 80 mil which makes a 20 mil profit?

And why is it that they only owe 522 mil now, I thought they'd got 500 mil worth of bonds on top of the 700 mil they already owed?

I'm sure I know but they do make it difficult for the poor public.

What we're seeing is that United are looking like they won't be able to dig themselves out. Despite everything working for them in terms of revenue increases, reduced spending on wages and higher operating profits they're still sinking.

They lost £83.6m pre-tax. About £68m of that was one-off charges related to the bond issue.

Scum have about £160m in the bank at the moment. Much of that is likely to get drawn down to help the Glazers pay off (some of) their £225m personal debt which they're paying credit card interest rates on (16.25%) and making no payments.

[Beefymcfc]

Fuck me, Sky don't half confuse things! Have United made an overall loss of 80 mil or have they made a profit of 100 mil minus 80 mil which makes a 20 mil profit?

And why is it that they only owe 522 mil now, I thought they'd got 500 mil worth of bonds on top of the 700 mil they already owed?

I'm sure I know but they do make it difficult for the poor public.

What we're seeing is that United are looking like they won't be able to dig themselves out. Despite everything working for them in terms of revenue increases, reduced spending on wages and higher operating profits they're still sinking.

They lost £83.6m pre-tax. About £68m of that was one-off charges related to the bond issue.

Scum have about £160m in the bank at the moment. Much of that is likely to get drawn down to help the Glazers pay off (some of) their £225m personal debt which they're paying credit card interest rates on (16.25%) and making no payments.

Thought that was the case, but do you know what their overall debt is? I was under the impression that they owed approx 720 mil which included the 225 mil PiKs. They then went on to creat the Bond Scheme for a further 500 mil which was to be repaid in 7 years.

So, do they now owe 500 mil (+dividend) on the bonds as well as the 720 mil (PiKs and loans) previously reported, or is it just a flat rate 522 mil, or 522 bonds plus 225 PiKs now?

It's a strange one isn't it as I'd have thought they'd have paid off the previous bank debt with the issued bonds.

[ronk]

Fuck me, Sky don't half confuse things! Have United made an overall loss of 80 mil or have they made a profit of 100 mil minus 80 mil which makes a 20 mil profit?

And why is it that they only owe 522 mil now, I thought they'd got 500 mil worth of bonds on top of the 700 mil they already owed?

I'm sure I know but they do make it difficult for the poor public.

What we're seeing is that United are looking like they won't be able to dig themselves out. Despite everything working for them in terms of revenue increases, reduced spending on wages and higher operating profits they're still sinking.

They lost £83.6m pre-tax. About £68m of that was one-off charges related to the bond issue.

Scum have about £160m in the bank at the moment. Much of that is likely to get drawn down to help the Glazers pay off (some of) their £225m personal debt which they're paying credit card interest rates on (16.25%) and making no payments.

Thought that was the case, but do you know what their overall debt is? I was under the impression that they owed approx 720 mil which included the 225 mil PiKs. They then went on to creat the Bond Scheme for a further 500 mil which was to be repaid in 7 years.

So, do they now owe 500 mil (+dividend) on the bonds as well as the 720 mil (PiKs and loans) previously reported, or is it just a flat rate 522 mil, or 522 bonds plus 225 PiKs now?

It's a strange one isn't it as I'd have thought they'd have paid off the previous bank debt with the issued bonds.

£521.7m club debt (now mostly in bond form) + £225ish PiK debt.

£750m is a nice round number.

[Ted Hughes]

If the payments made that financial year were 'one off' payments & they don't have too many more similar ones to make, then I can't see them having any problem passing Platini's test, as their turnover is huge. Whether they can also replace their aging squad & stay competitive though? That's another case entirely.

[Beefymcfc]

Fuck me, Sky don't half confuse things! Have United made an overall loss of 80 mil or have they made a profit of 100 mil minus 80 mil which makes a 20 mil profit?

And why is it that they only owe 522 mil now, I thought they'd got 500 mil worth of bonds on top of the 700 mil they already owed?

I'm sure I know but they do make it difficult for the poor public.

What we're seeing is that United are looking like they won't be able to dig themselves out. Despite everything working for them in terms of revenue increases, reduced spending on wages and higher operating profits they're still sinking.

They lost £83.6m pre-tax. About £68m of that was one-off charges related to the bond issue.

Scum have about £160m in the bank at the moment. Much of that is likely to get drawn down to help the Glazers pay off (some of) their £225m personal debt which they're paying credit card interest rates on (16.25%) and making no payments.

Thought that was the case, but do you know what their overall debt is? I was under the impression that they owed approx 720 mil which included the 225 mil PiKs. They then went on to creat the Bond Scheme for a further 500 mil which was to be repaid in 7 years.

So, do they now owe 500 mil (+dividend) on the bonds as well as the 720 mil (PiKs and loans) previously reported, or is it just a flat rate 522 mil, or 522 bonds plus 225 PiKs now?

It's a strange one isn't it as I'd have thought they'd have paid off the previous bank debt with the issued bonds.

£521.7m club debt (now mostly in bond form) + £225ish PiK debt.

£750m is a nice round number.

Perfecto! So, they are in a little bit of a worse position than before and now making losses, in the main part due to their 60 mil interest rates, and will still have to pay up on the bonds when they are due.

I wonder if they'll make the Fair Play Rules ;-)

Edit: I seem to remember the scum having to pay another 20 odd mil last year on their PiKs, is this included in their figure. Also, I seem to remember them getting a larger cut than normal upfront from their sponsor; was it 40 mil or so, which will not be there in the future!?!

Would that make today's figures look even worse?

[ronk]

FIFA are really only interested in wages (+transfers) relative to turnover. They talk profit but that's not what they care about.

Scum are keeping themselves afloat through ever more energetic threading water. They've ditched weight that they can't really do without in the long term. Sooner or later they will have to dip into the transfer market in a big way, but with their settled squad they're capable of taking a year or 3 off before rebuilding (they've done it before). What happens then is that you start rolling higher odds (Bebe) to make up the losses, either that pays off (for a while) or you sink further faster.

TV revenue is up (like everyone else's), matchday has dropped a lot (but is still high) and commercial revenue is up (not surprising when their last sponsor went bankrupt). Matchday is trouble because there's a considerable lag in those. Once people give up season tickets because they're pissed off with the club it can take a few years to go back, even after the cause has disappeared. It's just how fans work.

[patrickblue]

Under UEFA rules they would be nowhere near qualifying.

Somehow I dont expect the press to mention that little problem in every Scum story from hereon in, like they do with us.

I'm sure they'll make an exception for the scum. Like a bit of Fergie time until they get it sorted.

[Beefymcfc]

Under UEFA rules they would be nowhere near qualifying.

Somehow I dont expect the press to mention that little problem in every Scum story from hereon in, like they do with us.

I'm sure they'll make an exception for the scum. Like a bit of Fergie time until they get it sorted.

It's the Murdoch affect.