18-01-2010, 10:49 PM
19-01-2010, 07:37 AM
More bad news filtering into the papers. This was in the Sun today:
According to The Sun, the Glazer family has asked Manchester United's stars to dig into their pockets and contribute some cash to the club's dwindling coffers.
It is well known now that the Red Devils are desperate to wipe out their debts, with the owners presently in the process of gathering together £500 million via bond issues.
The Americans have also published a prospectus for potential investors, which stated that the club may be forced to sell off the Carrington training complex or even Old Trafford to make ends meet.
Now it has come to light that the United players and staff were among those to receive that revealing booklet, much to their bewilderment.
"The players don't know what to make of it, really," an anonymous source is quoted as saying.
"Most are bemused that the people who pay their wages are basically trying to find out if they can have some back.
"A few of the lads know a good investment when they see one, but not too many seem prepared to put their money where their mouths are!"
Source: Goal.com (I can't view the Sun from work!!)
I guess that this maybe isn't so bad as them asking the players for a wage cut, etc. but is asking them to loan the club money, as an option to maybe make a little bit extra in a few years. I guess the only positive I can take from that is that if any player should take the option, then at least they have a stake in the club and it is in their interests for it to do well? Still, it doesn't sit well, does it?
According to The Sun, the Glazer family has asked Manchester United's stars to dig into their pockets and contribute some cash to the club's dwindling coffers.
It is well known now that the Red Devils are desperate to wipe out their debts, with the owners presently in the process of gathering together £500 million via bond issues.
The Americans have also published a prospectus for potential investors, which stated that the club may be forced to sell off the Carrington training complex or even Old Trafford to make ends meet.
Now it has come to light that the United players and staff were among those to receive that revealing booklet, much to their bewilderment.
"The players don't know what to make of it, really," an anonymous source is quoted as saying.
"Most are bemused that the people who pay their wages are basically trying to find out if they can have some back.
"A few of the lads know a good investment when they see one, but not too many seem prepared to put their money where their mouths are!"
Source: Goal.com (I can't view the Sun from work!!)
I guess that this maybe isn't so bad as them asking the players for a wage cut, etc. but is asking them to loan the club money, as an option to maybe make a little bit extra in a few years. I guess the only positive I can take from that is that if any player should take the option, then at least they have a stake in the club and it is in their interests for it to do well? Still, it doesn't sit well, does it?
20-01-2010, 04:52 AM
Nah mate not at all. Doesn't look good if players are asked to give money.
20-01-2010, 06:58 PM
Hahaha this CANT get worse this is really a joke!
BUYYYY US SOME ONE COMMMMMME ONNNNNN
BUYYYY US SOME ONE COMMMMMME ONNNNNN
20-01-2010, 08:46 PM
Seriously. It can't go on like this!!!
Debts at the parent company of Manchester United have increased to £716.5m ($1.17bn), according to its latest accounts.
The company, called Red Football Joint Venture, is owned by the Glazer family and secures its debts against the football club.
The accounts, for the year to June 2009, show United's debts passing £700m for the first time.
The club's fans have recently protested against the Glazer's ownership.
After last week's revelation that the club was considering raising £500m through a bond issue to refinance its debts, supporters held up a banner saying "Love United, Hate Glazer" at Saturday's home match against Burnley.
Mark Longden, chairman of the Independent Manchester United Supporters Association, said then that United was being "driven to oblivion".
Interest payments
The accounts of Red Football Joint Venture also showed that more than £69m was paid out in interest alone over the year.
Despite the debts, the club turned a profit of £6.4m for the year.
This was a marked improvement on the £47m loss reported at the end of the 2007/08 season.
The accounts also show that player sales brought in a profit of £80.7m - the price paid by Real Madrid for Cristiano Ronaldo in the summer.
Source: bbc.co.uk
Debts at the parent company of Manchester United have increased to £716.5m ($1.17bn), according to its latest accounts.
The company, called Red Football Joint Venture, is owned by the Glazer family and secures its debts against the football club.
The accounts, for the year to June 2009, show United's debts passing £700m for the first time.
The club's fans have recently protested against the Glazer's ownership.
After last week's revelation that the club was considering raising £500m through a bond issue to refinance its debts, supporters held up a banner saying "Love United, Hate Glazer" at Saturday's home match against Burnley.
Mark Longden, chairman of the Independent Manchester United Supporters Association, said then that United was being "driven to oblivion".
Interest payments
The accounts of Red Football Joint Venture also showed that more than £69m was paid out in interest alone over the year.
Despite the debts, the club turned a profit of £6.4m for the year.
This was a marked improvement on the £47m loss reported at the end of the 2007/08 season.
The accounts also show that player sales brought in a profit of £80.7m - the price paid by Real Madrid for Cristiano Ronaldo in the summer.
Source: bbc.co.uk
20-01-2010, 08:57 PM
It's insane mate. Just read ita little while ago.
21-01-2010, 07:59 AM
Just out of interest and some of you might have seen this, but one of our biggest rivals is heading in the other direction, in terms of finance:
Chelsea Football Club has said it is now "virtually debt-free".
The company made the announcement along with its full-year results. It said it had turned almost all its debt into equity.
The debt was an interest-free loan of £340m ($537m) from its parent company, which is controlled by wealthy Russian Roman Abramovich.
Chelsea also announced reduced losses for the fourth year in a row. Losses fell to £44.4m ($70m) from £65.7m.
Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck said: "The club's debt load has been reduced almost to nil in order to provide more long-term stability for the club. It will also enable the club to comply with any regulations on debt levels which are being discussed by the football community."
'Disciplined management'
Chelsea needs to be debt-free to comply with future Uefa rules. Uefa's president, Michel Platini, wants to ban clubs from the lucrative Champions League after 2012 unless they break even on football-related business.
The club said that "disciplined management" of capital expenditure had reduced the cash spend from £107.4m to £16.9m.
It added that revenues remained stable despite the economic climate, reflecting the strength of the team, its continued success and the attractiveness of the FA Premier League "allied with the continued allegiance of our fans and commercial partners".
Net capital expenditure fell from £85.1m to £4.2m following the completion of major capital projects such as the training centre at Cobham.
The results include exceptional items of £12.6m related to compensation payments to a first team manager and three coaching staff.
Souce: bbc.co.uk
Compare that with the news yesterday about United's GROWING debt.
Chelsea Football Club has said it is now "virtually debt-free".
The company made the announcement along with its full-year results. It said it had turned almost all its debt into equity.
The debt was an interest-free loan of £340m ($537m) from its parent company, which is controlled by wealthy Russian Roman Abramovich.
Chelsea also announced reduced losses for the fourth year in a row. Losses fell to £44.4m ($70m) from £65.7m.
Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck said: "The club's debt load has been reduced almost to nil in order to provide more long-term stability for the club. It will also enable the club to comply with any regulations on debt levels which are being discussed by the football community."
'Disciplined management'
Chelsea needs to be debt-free to comply with future Uefa rules. Uefa's president, Michel Platini, wants to ban clubs from the lucrative Champions League after 2012 unless they break even on football-related business.
The club said that "disciplined management" of capital expenditure had reduced the cash spend from £107.4m to £16.9m.
It added that revenues remained stable despite the economic climate, reflecting the strength of the team, its continued success and the attractiveness of the FA Premier League "allied with the continued allegiance of our fans and commercial partners".
Net capital expenditure fell from £85.1m to £4.2m following the completion of major capital projects such as the training centre at Cobham.
The results include exceptional items of £12.6m related to compensation payments to a first team manager and three coaching staff.
Souce: bbc.co.uk
Compare that with the news yesterday about United's GROWING debt.
21-01-2010, 11:47 AM
im a very very worried red, i dont no if anyone can explain how this bond issue works but id be interested to hear if someone could simplize it!
will the money recived from the bond issue directly wipe out some of the debt?
also does it mean if someone wants to buy 500m worth of the bonds to himself he has a controlling share of the club????
a very confused and worried red, where would we all be if the club we would all give our lifes for ever folded ??
will the money recived from the bond issue directly wipe out some of the debt?
also does it mean if someone wants to buy 500m worth of the bonds to himself he has a controlling share of the club????
a very confused and worried red, where would we all be if the club we would all give our lifes for ever folded ??
21-01-2010, 12:01 PM
Coz of his other companys... The Debt increases more! to 716 million(recent news)
god! Glazers putting their own burden over Manutd again and again!
god! Glazers putting their own burden over Manutd again and again!
21-01-2010, 12:17 PM
(21-01-2010, 11:47 AM)Bennthered Wrote: [ -> ]im a very very worried red, i dont no if anyone can explain how this bond issue works but id be interested to hear if someone could simplize it!
will the money recived from the bond issue directly wipe out some of the debt?
also does it mean if someone wants to buy 500m worth of the bonds to himself he has a controlling share of the club????
a very confused and worried red, where would we all be if the club we would all give our lifes for ever folded ??
Without loans, most of us wouldn't be able to afford things like a car, a home or education. And, just as people borrow money to help them succeed, so do businesses. Businesses often need loans to fund operations, move into new markets, innovate and grow in general. But the amount they need often surpasses what a bank can provide. So another useful way for corporations to raise the necessary funds is to issue bonds to whoever wants to buy them.
But that's all a bond is -- a loan. When you buy a bond, you're lending money to the organization that issues it. The company, in return, promises to pay interest payments to you for the length of the loan. How much and how often you get paid interest depends on the terms of the bond. The interest rate, also called the coupon, is typically higher with long-term bonds. These interest payments are usually doled out semiannually, but they can also be sent out annually, quarterly or even monthly. When the bond reaches the date of maturity, the issuer repays the principle, or original amount of the loan.
For the lender, a bond is a kind of investment, like a stock. The difference is that stocks aren't loans. Rather, stocks represent partial ownership in a company, and the returns represent a share in profits. For that reason, stocks are riskier and more volatile -- they closely reflect the success of a company. Bonds, on the other hand, often have a fixed interest rate. Some bonds, however, are floating-rate bonds, meaning their interest rates adjust depending on market conditions.
Like stocks, bonds can be traded. When someone sells a bond at a price lower than the face value, it's said to be selling at a discount. If sold at a price higher than the face value, it's selling at a premium.
Source: howstuffworks.com
For more (and there is lots more) detail, see:
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-...bonds1.htm