General United Discussion

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

LEE TREVIS — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:39:42 GMT

pele 10:
LEE TREVIS:
Indeedy :)
Cheers also Pele, you too deserve a medal, you're on here as much as us doing just the same, I've rarely seen you dip into total muppet coursed frustration either lol :D
You should have seen my new levels of calm and diplomacy the other day in the transfer section with the ultimate delusional muppet that is Amada, holy smoly I don't know how folk can stomach the levels of self-righteous arrogance of some folk here like him, I think we all do extremely well lol :D
Never had the pleasure of a erh debate/discussion with him. The times I have read any of his comments he is usually trying to convince another poster and himself of his erh importance and knowledge. A regular legend in his own mind LEE.
I better watch that erh thing I think it´s contagious?NOT!!!

I doubt it's too contagious mate lol :D

We have actually agreed with each other twice today so the dust has settled somewhat, though I made it clear that it doesn't mean that I accept that he is "My King" lol :D

I've only ever seen him in Transfers tbh which is more of an infants playground and so easier to play bully in it seems for some lol :D

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

pele 10 — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:36:49 GMT

LEE TREVIS:
Indeedy :)
Cheers also Pele, you too deserve a medal, you're on here as much as us doing just the same, I've rarely seen you dip into total muppet coursed frustration either lol :D
You should have seen my new levels of calm and diplomacy the other day in the transfer section with the ultimate delusional muppet that is Amada, holy smoly I don't know how folk can stomach the levels of self-righteous arrogance of some folk here like him, I think we all do extremely well lol :D

Never had the pleasure of a erh debate/discussion with him. The times I have read any of his comments he is usually trying to convince another poster and himself of his erh importance and knowledge. A regular legend in his own mind LEE.

I better watch that erh thing I think it´s contagious?NOT!!!

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

LEE TREVIS — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:14:46 GMT

Indeedy :)

Cheers also Pele, you too deserve a medal, you're on here as much as us doing just the same, I've rarely seen you dip into total muppet coursed frustration either lol :D

You should have seen my new levels of calm and diplomacy the other day in the transfer section with the ultimate delusional muppet that is Amada, holy smoly I don't know how folk can stomach the levels of self-righteous arrogance of some folk here like him, I think we all do extremely well lol :D

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

pele 10 — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:21:59 GMT

steersyutd:
The only thing I take comfort from all of this that nobody can ever say that I am not interested in our club.

That´s what were all fighting for my friend just some of us more objectively the others.

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

steersyutd — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:14:54 GMT

pele 10:
steersyutd:
LEE TREVIS:
steersyutd:
LEE TREVIS:
steersyutd:
It is not really a precise thing as we can see.
Indeed Steersy mate and just like you said earlier to Bevninja, once we have got to the point of getting people to research beyond the media and blog BS we are still left with interpretation/opinion just a more educated opinion :D
I am sure like your good self along with Pele, Matt etc we are only trying to all gain information and making sure that the information out there is objective. I do not want to argue with people, I hate the thought of somebody thinking I am a Glazer *** or a a**hole. I have spent most of my adult life trying to continually educate myself and the finances of our club is just another small part of it. I do not pretend to know everything and these discussions/debates continually help to make you ask yourself questions which in turn makes you ask and find out more information.
None of us are in the inner circle and it is all logical but educated guessing at its best. May I continue to be able to discuss/debate with the like of yourself. pele, Matt, Rob and Bevninja as welll as the others but in a way that we are all learning and helping others to understand or have a more informed view of it all.
Indeed mate that's the mission anyway lol :D
I am afraid that I think the years of negative, unbiased reporting has stopped people from looking the the whole situation objectively.
The thing that amazes me is how many new people are buying into it and how many who were there from the beginning refuse to let it go or at least take a more objective view? Can´t they see the situation appears to be improving year on year.
I have to tell both of you. You deserve to be commended for the patience you show some of the posters on here. The amount of time you both spend addressing peoples concerns.

Thank you Pele, I am not at as diplomatic as some others at times but I strongly believe that everybody deserves to have the information on both sides of the coins. The problem is that I feel I am only ever giving or having to debate against the constant negativity. I would very much prefer to be able to produce posts that give both sides of the argument for people to be more educated on the situation of our club.

The only thing I take comfort from all of this that nobody can ever say that I am not interested in our club.

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

pele 10 — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:56:18 GMT

steersyutd:
LEE TREVIS:
steersyutd:
LEE TREVIS:
steersyutd:
It is not really a precise thing as we can see.
Indeed Steersy mate and just like you said earlier to Bevninja, once we have got to the point of getting people to research beyond the media and blog BS we are still left with interpretation/opinion just a more educated opinion :D
I am sure like your good self along with Pele, Matt etc we are only trying to all gain information and making sure that the information out there is objective. I do not want to argue with people, I hate the thought of somebody thinking I am a Glazer *** or a a**hole. I have spent most of my adult life trying to continually educate myself and the finances of our club is just another small part of it. I do not pretend to know everything and these discussions/debates continually help to make you ask yourself questions which in turn makes you ask and find out more information.
None of us are in the inner circle and it is all logical but educated guessing at its best. May I continue to be able to discuss/debate with the like of yourself. pele, Matt, Rob and Bevninja as welll as the others but in a way that we are all learning and helping others to understand or have a more informed view of it all.
Indeed mate that's the mission anyway lol :D
I am afraid that I think the years of negative, unbiased reporting has stopped people from looking the the whole situation objectively.

The thing that amazes me is how many new people are buying into it and how many who were there from the beginning refuse to let it go or at least take a more objective view? Can´t they see the situation appears to be improving year on year.

I have to tell both of you. You deserve to be commended for the patience you show some of the posters on here. The amount of time you both spend addressing peoples concerns.

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

steersyutd — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:49:32 GMT

LEE TREVIS:
steersyutd:
LEE TREVIS:
steersyutd:
It is not really a precise thing as we can see.
Indeed Steersy mate and just like you said earlier to Bevninja, once we have got to the point of getting people to research beyond the media and blog BS we are still left with interpretation/opinion just a more educated opinion :D
I am sure like your good self along with Pele, Matt etc we are only trying to all gain information and making sure that the information out there is objective. I do not want to argue with people, I hate the thought of somebody thinking I am a Glazer *** or a a**hole. I have spent most of my adult life trying to continually educate myself and the finances of our club is just another small part of it. I do not pretend to know everything and these discussions/debates continually help to make you ask yourself questions which in turn makes you ask and find out more information.
None of us are in the inner circle and it is all logical but educated guessing at its best. May I continue to be able to discuss/debate with the like of yourself. pele, Matt, Rob and Bevninja as welll as the others but in a way that we are all learning and helping others to understand or have a more informed view of it all.
Indeed mate that's the mission anyway lol :D

I am afraid that I think the years of negative, unbiased reporting has stopped people from looking at the whole situation objectively.

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

LEE TREVIS — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:07:58 GMT

steersyutd:
LEE TREVIS:
steersyutd:
It is not really a precise thing as we can see.
Indeed Steersy mate and just like you said earlier to Bevninja, once we have got to the point of getting people to research beyond the media and blog BS we are still left with interpretation/opinion just a more educated opinion :D
I am sure like your good self along with Pele, Matt etc we are only trying to all gain information and making sure that the information out there is objective. I do not want to argue with people, I hate the thought of somebody thinking I am a Glazer *** or a a**hole. I have spent most of my adult life trying to continually educate myself and the finances of our club is just another small part of it. I do not pretend to know everything and these discussions/debates continually help to make you ask yourself questions which in turn makes you ask and find out more information.
None of us are in the inner circle and it is all logical but educated guessing at its best. May I continue to be able to discuss/debate with the like of yourself. pele, Matt, Rob and Bevninja as welll as the others but in a way that we are all learning and helping others to understand or have a more informed view of it all.

Indeed mate that's the mission anyway lol :D

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

LEE TREVIS — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:05:02 GMT

manoob:
LEE TREVIS:
manoob:
lee how much more profit are we making now???? our revenue is up but how much profit we made last year and in 2001??? 2001 we paid 4-5 mill dividends. we wouldnt even pay half as 500 mill for the las 7-8 years in dividends even with revrnue going up for various reason like increased ticket prices more money coming in from tv...... good to be back havent been in the forums for few days..,:)
Hiya Manoob there is not really any need to look back for exact figures as anyone here can since Steersy has posted links to the official accounts year on year a few times now, I can tell you that final net profits in the 2001 to 2004 era were basically in the region of £11-20m after tax etc.
If you take our new revenues and say let's pretend we had no debts at all then our profits would be five times this level and as such our dividend pay-out would be substancially more.
I'm not trying to avoid your direct question and it's not that I CBA'd to get the exact figures from the accounts for you, it's that this is a hypothetical argument/discussion as it is impossible to know what board decisions on dividends and tranfers etc would have been or if the plc would have been able to get anywhere near these revenue streams. Therefore rough figures from memory I would say is adequate.
If we say that we paid as you say £4-5m dividend on £11-20m profits then we are possibly talking £30-40m at least at todays revenues/profits before debt management costs. I would say it would likely be a fair amount more than that if we didn't need to spend on players and were carrying a substantial bank balance. However like I say it's hard/impossible to say just how greedy our old major shareholders would have become if they were seeing such revenues roling in.
The point is, we have no evidence to suggest they would be any less bloodsucking than the Glazers have or will be.

the actual profit figures for last year would be on minus considering we spended mor than we earned. we bhought back bonds that alone costed around 70 mill of united reserve money. we got out of europe and didnt win any trophy which means less money. you said if we pretend we didnt have debt, but we cant do that since we have it and what is our actual profits than??? how much would we have to pay in dividends on that??
i understand your point but no matter how much revenue goes up the profit dosent than it wont matter.
the debt is money that goes in glazers pocket at the end since value of united goes up. its like you buy a house in chelsea, for 1 mill the value of that house goes up 20-35 % in 7 years and you turn one of the rooms in to 2 bedroom and the value goes further up. you have been renting the place in 7 years so it is paying its mortgates by that. the tenants are like us the fans paying those loans .and glazer hoping getting best value out of united.
i dont believe plc would be worse than glazers for a second. even if the loans were paid glazers wont any more money go to reinvestment in united than now.

Hi again Manoob and and hiya Pele, I've only got a Vimto but I'll do my best lol :D

I said 'if we pretend we have no debt, meaning if we are to try and think what the plc would be like now then we are assuming that we would be debt free, I didn't mean ignore that we have debts.

What I was really trying to say is that there are so many variables and unknown factors that it is impossible to make any real assessment of the true financial difference between the two (plc v Glazer ownership).

This point started off because I pointed out that the media and bloggers choose to totally ignore what costs the plc would have had in the same period when they talk of the so called 'Glazer cost' to United.

We can't say (infact it is unlikely) whether the plc could have got revenues up to the level they are now but if we assume they had done AND as a plc we were still debt free then I was making an estimate of possible dividend payouts.

You must understand there is no definate answer here because the board of the plc would decide how much to pay out to themselves and other shareholders but what we can say is that dividends were only less than £5m per year because our profits were relatively low back then.

Therefore if we take a revenue of around our current mark and pretend we are still the plc AND therefore pretend we have no debts then we could be looking at a profit figure of around £100m. So if dividends on £11-20m were £4-5m per year then by applying a similar percentage dividend pay-out then you are looking at £30-40m in didvidends.

Now this is hypothetical as I say and if we had a large cash surplus building up the board may have decided to raise the dividend percentage, they may have decided to pay themselves bonuses, we just don't know but if they were we could now have been looking at £50m going out in dividends and bonuses anyway.

Let me then introduce another aspect of cost that we would be looking at too, the amount left over would be subject to tax as we would be in the black, in profit with no debt this would be a further deduction in the region of £10-12m based on these estimated/imaginary figures.

So if we had been paying out £60m in dividends, bonuses and tax under the plc over the last few years and £30m on average for the four years prior to that (making up the 7 years of Glazer ownership) then it could be argued if the plc had gone on a similarly aggressive revenue raising campaign then the plc could have cost us around £300m over the same period that the Glazers have owned us anyway.

This amount taken from the media hyped 'Glazer cost' means that the actual cost of Glazer ownership so far would be only £200m not the £500m the media keep telling us.

Again Manoob I must repeat that this is all hypothetical, however this example must make you understand that the plc would have had it's own costs and if revenues had increased under the plc those costs would have also gone up in a way similar to this example.

If we are going to be realistic we cannot just pretend the plc would have been cost free like the media and bloogers so often do.

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

pele 10 — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:22:16 GMT

manoob:
LEE TREVIS:
manoob:
lee how much more profit are we making now???? our revenue is up but how much profit we made last year and in 2001??? 2001 we paid 4-5 mill dividends. we wouldnt even pay half as 500 mill for the las 7-8 years in dividends even with revrnue going up for various reason like increased ticket prices more money coming in from tv...... good to be back havent been in the forums for few days..,:)
Hiya Manoob there is not really any need to look back for exact figures as anyone here can since Steersy has posted links to the official accounts year on year a few times now, I can tell you that final net profits in the 2001 to 2004 era were basically in the region of £11-20m after tax etc.
If you take our new revenues and say let's pretend we had no debts at all then our profits would be five times this level and as such our dividend pay-out would be substancially more.
I'm not trying to avoid your direct question and it's not that I CBA'd to get the exact figures from the accounts for you, it's that this is a hypothetical argument/discussion as it is impossible to know what board decisions on dividends and tranfers etc would have been or if the plc would have been able to get anywhere near these revenue streams. Therefore rough figures from memory I would say is adequate.
If we say that we paid as you say £4-5m dividend on £11-20m profits then we are possibly talking £30-40m at least at todays revenues/profits before debt management costs. I would say it would likely be a fair amount more than that if we didn't need to spend on players and were carrying a substantial bank balance. However like I say it's hard/impossible to say just how greedy our old major shareholders would have become if they were seeing such revenues roling in.
The point is, we have no evidence to suggest they would be any less bloodsucking than the Glazers have or will be.

the actual profit figures for last year would be on minus considering we spended mor than we earned. we bhought back bonds that alone costed around 70 mill of united reserve money. we got out of europe and didnt win any trophy which means less money. you said if we pretend we didnt have debt, but we cant do that since we have it and what is our actual profits than??? how much would we have to pay in dividends on that??
i understand your point but no matter how much revenue goes up the profit dosent than it wont matter.
the debt is money that goes in glazers pocket at the end since value of united goes up. its like you buy a house in chelsea, for 1 mill the value of that house goes up 20-35 % in 7 years and you turn one of the rooms in to 2 bedroom and the value goes further up. you have been renting the place in 7 years so it is paying its mortgates by that. the tenants are like us the fans paying those loans .and glazer hoping getting best value out of united.
i dont believe plc would be worse than glazers for a second. even if the loans were paid glazers wont any more money go to reinvestment in united than now.

Nice to see you back manoob. I for one have really missed you.

Will that be a glass of red or a Vodka Gimlet LEE? I would try to answer but I´m not sure what is being asked.

I´m only guessing but whatever the questions they have probably been answered, re-answered and just for good measure re-answered again. That is with the exception of the question about the house in Chelsea. I really think it is important that one is addressed.

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

manoob — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:23:36 GMT

LEE TREVIS:
manoob:
lee how much more profit are we making now???? our revenue is up but how much profit we made last year and in 2001??? 2001 we paid 4-5 mill dividends. we wouldnt even pay half as 500 mill for the las 7-8 years in dividends even with revrnue going up for various reason like increased ticket prices more money coming in from tv...... good to be back havent been in the forums for few days..,:)
Hiya Manoob there is not really any need to look back for exact figures as anyone here can since Steersy has posted links to the official accounts year on year a few times now, I can tell you that final net profits in the 2001 to 2004 era were basically in the region of £11-20m after tax etc.
If you take our new revenues and say let's pretend we had no debts at all then our profits would be five times this level and as such our dividend pay-out would be substancially more.
I'm not trying to avoid your direct question and it's not that I CBA'd to get the exact figures from the accounts for you, it's that this is a hypothetical argument/discussion as it is impossible to know what board decisions on dividends and tranfers etc would have been or if the plc would have been able to get anywhere near these revenue streams. Therefore rough figures from memory I would say is adequate.
If we say that we paid as you say £4-5m dividend on £11-20m profits then we are possibly talking £30-40m at least at todays revenues/profits before debt management costs. I would say it would likely be a fair amount more than that if we didn't need to spend on players and were carrying a substantial bank balance. However like I say it's hard/impossible to say just how greedy our old major shareholders would have become if they were seeing such revenues roling in.
The point is, we have no evidence to suggest they would be any less bloodsucking than the Glazers have or will be.

the actual profit figures for last year would be on minus considering we spended mor than we earned. we bhought back bonds that alone costed around 70 mill of united reserve money. we got out of europe and didnt win any trophy which means less money. you said if we pretend we didnt have debt, but we cant do that since we have it and what is our actual profits than??? how much would we have to pay in dividends on that??

i understand your point but no matter how much revenue goes up the profit dosent than it wont matter.

the debt is money that goes in glazers pocket at the end since value of united goes up. its like you buy a house in chelsea, for 1 mill the value of that house goes up 20-35 % in 7 years and you turn one of the rooms in to 2 bedroom and the value goes further up. you have been renting the place in 7 years so it is paying its mortgates by that. the tenants are like us the fans paying those loans .and glazer hoping getting best value out of united.

i dont believe plc would be worse than glazers for a second. even if the loans were paid glazers wont any more money go to reinvestment in united than now.

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

steersyutd — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:13:19 GMT

LEE TREVIS:
steersyutd:
It is not really a precise thing as we can see.
Indeed Steersy mate and just like you said earlier to Bevninja, once we have got to the point of getting people to research beyond the media and blog BS we are still left with interpretation/opinion just a more educated opinion :D

I am sure like your good self along with Pele, Matt etc we are only trying to all gain information and making sure that the information out there is objective. I do not want to argue with people, I hate the thought of somebody thinking I am a Glazer *** or a a**hole. I have spent most of my adult life trying to continually educate myself and the finances of our club is just another small part of it. I do not pretend to know everything and these discussions/debates continually help to make you ask yourself questions which in turn makes you ask and find out more information.

None of us are in the inner circle and it is all logical but educated guessing at its best. May I continue to be able to discuss/debate with the like of yourself. pele, Matt, Rob and Bevninja as welll as the others but in a way that we are all learning and helping others to understand or have a more informed view of it all.

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

LEE TREVIS — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:39:06 GMT

steersyutd:
It is not really a precise thing as we can see.

Indeed Steersy mate and just like you said earlier to Bevninja, once we have got to the point of getting people to research beyond the media and blog BS we are still left with interpretation/opinion just a more educated opinion :D

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

steersyutd — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:16:23 GMT

LEE TREVIS:
manoob:
lee how much more profit are we making now???? our revenue is up but how much profit we made last year and in 2001??? 2001 we paid 4-5 mill dividends. we wouldnt even pay half as 500 mill for the las 7-8 years in dividends even with revrnue going up for various reason like increased ticket prices more money coming in from tv...... good to be back havent been in the forums for few days..,:)
Hiya Manoob there is not really any need to look back for exact figures as anyone here can since Steersy has posted links to the official accounts year on year a few times now, I can tell you that final net profits in the 2001 to 2004 era were basically in the region of £11-20m after tax etc.
If you take our new revenues and say let's pretend we had no debts at all then our profits would be five times this level and as such our dividend pay-out would be substancially more.
I'm not trying to avoid your direct question and it's not that I CBA'd to get the exact figures from the accounts for you, it's that this is a hypothetical argument/discussion as it is impossible to know what board decisions on dividends and tranfers etc would have been or if the plc would have been able to get anywhere near these revenue streams. Therefore rough figures from memory I would say is adequate.
If we say that we paid as you say £4-5m dividend on £11-20m profits then we are possibly talking £30-40m at least at todays revenues/profits before debt management costs. I would say it would likely be a fair amount more than that if we didn't need to spend on players and were carrying a substantial bank balance. However like I say it's hard/impossible to say just how greedy our old major shareholders would have become if they were seeing such revenues roling in.
The point is, we have no evidence to suggest they would be any less bloodsucking than the Glazers have or will be.

An £11 million pound ( think that was the amount) extra dividend payment was also deferred in 2004. It is not really a precise thing as we can see.

Re: Debt/Glazers/IPO, I need a "for dummies" guide book ;)

LEE TREVIS — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:07:40 GMT

manoob:
lee how much more profit are we making now???? our revenue is up but how much profit we made last year and in 2001??? 2001 we paid 4-5 mill dividends. we wouldnt even pay half as 500 mill for the las 7-8 years in dividends even with revrnue going up for various reason like increased ticket prices more money coming in from tv...... good to be back havent been in the forums for few days..,:)

Hiya Manoob there is not really any need to look back for exact figures as anyone here can since Steersy has posted links to the official accounts year on year a few times now, I can tell you that final net profits in the 2001 to 2004 era were basically in the region of £11-20m after tax etc.

If you take our new revenues and say let's pretend we had no debts at all then our profits would be five times this level and as such our dividend pay-out would be substancially more.

I'm not trying to avoid your direct question and it's not that I CBA'd to get the exact figures from the accounts for you, it's that this is a hypothetical argument/discussion as it is impossible to know what board decisions on dividends and tranfers etc would have been or if the plc would have been able to get anywhere near these revenue streams. Therefore rough figures from memory I would say is adequate.

If we say that we paid as you say £4-5m dividend on £11-20m profits then we are possibly talking £30-40m at least at todays revenues/profits before debt management costs. I would say it would likely be a fair amount more than that if we didn't need to spend on players and were carrying a substantial bank balance. However like I say it's hard/impossible to say just how greedy our old major shareholders would have become if they were seeing such revenues roling in.

The point is, we have no evidence to suggest they would be any less bloodsucking than the Glazers have or will be.