MUFC: The Biggest Club In The Cayman Islands

[Alex Sapphire]

Just looking at the accounts it is hard to tell the true story -surprise surprise

Manchester Untied Ltd appear to have paid £65m in taxes in the last three years

Their parent company though, Red Football Ltd only report taxes of £45m in the last three years but their parent company

Red Joint Venture Ltd and their parent, Red Football Shareholder Ltd seem to have have tax rebates totalling about £5m in the last two years and to have paid only £10m in taxes in total in the last three years.

Seems they have got to grips with the system and are now getting the UK taxpayer to help fund the Glazers too!

you make it sound so complicated. Their actual proposed structure is very simple (and no doubt tax efficient):



whatever happened to MUFC? One of the "various operating subsidiaries" no doubt

[Beefymcfc]

On a sidenote what's happening behind the scenes. Just read that Fryers could be off the Spurs and with them losing Pogba and Morrison from their up and coming there seems to be an air of 'Sinking Ship' going on. Seems nobody wants to take up their offers.

Manchester United defender Ezekiel Fryers is on the verge of completing his move to Tottenham after deciding not to sign a new deal with the Champions League side.

This is odd.

And good.

It's probably all quite simple really, I think. For the last few years United have chosen (been forced) to spend very little, in part aided by Rooney's payrise. We've seen big guns like Tranny move away while pocketing 80 mil and not re-invested in key areas. Last season was an eye-opener for many, not because of the preferential refereeing decisions that brought them back into contention, which most could see was a big part of their comeback, but due to them failing to get out of the group stages in the CL against very average sides and furthmore, their lacklustre displays in the Europa.

These young players, who have come to the end of their youth contracts, are expecting to see a decent payrise, afterall, that is the carrot that United offer them when they sign. When they are offered similar deals to what they are already on now, knowing that United are penny pinching, would make any person think twice. Combine this with Scholes and Giggs getting another year and Nani not being able to renegotiate his contract due to the Glazer's inability to pay a decent wage then you'd have to look at yourself and ask where this is all leading to.

History is one thing but the promise of a future is a lot more desireable. These kids are telling us something and it's not what the Rags will want to hear. Their history is just that, history. Something to look back on when things get a little too much. That's why this flotation is essential to their survival, they just simply need the money otherwise they could find themselves dropping down the pecking order faster than a hooker on a 50 bob blow-job.

[bigblue]

Also it seems pretty accorded with the whole history of the Glazer's ownership: a shrewd, cynically planned, drainage of financial potential of the Rags' brand.

I'm starting to like the Glazers. Would love it if Malcolm drains the scum of all their value, only to reveal that he's a City fan. Then watch all the rags heads explode.

[blues-clues]

Also it seems pretty accorded with the whole history of the Glazer's ownership: a shrewd, cynically planned, drainage of financial potential of the Rags' brand.

I'm starting to like the Glazers. Would love it if Malcolm drains the scum of all their value, only to reveal that he's a City fan. Then watch all the rags heads explode.

Hee hee you are a bad man! Be even funnier if it turned out the the financial institution lending the money to the Glazers at extortionate interest rates was actually....no no no that would be too much. The Sheikh would not stoop so low or take such a risk!

[john68]

The ghost of Peter Swales reigns at the swamp...

[DoomMerchant]

United -- what used to be a football club is now a Ponzi Scheme, backed by club debt of nearly USD$700M

City -- what used to be a football club is a global enterprise development company, backed by personal wealth estimated at USD$30B

i know which i'd prefer for my club

cheers

[feedthegreek]

just read this.
http://www.footballtransfertavern.com/2 ... -explained

[RodneyRodney]

Beautiful.
So . . . does all this mean that , maybe not this year , or next year, but in , say 5 years time , we could be looking at the next Leeds/Portsmouth/Glasgow Rangers . .. ? anyone ?
(Theye're going to be well up the creek when Ferguson goes)

[steveo_88]

Beautiful.
So . . . does all this mean that , maybe not this year , or next year, but in , say 5 years time , we could be looking at the next Leeds/Portsmouth/Glasgow Rangers . .. ? anyone ?
(Theye're going to be well up the creek when Ferguson goes)

There's only one manager with the nerve to take over from Taggart and be successful and that's Mourinho and he ALWAYS needs money to spend! Happy days!

[chips]

There's only one manager with the nerve to take over from Taggart and be successful and that's Mourinho and he ALWAYS needs money to spend! Happy days!

By the time we're finished with the rags, mourinho won't touch them with a barge pole.

[RodneyRodney]

...Agent Glazier is doing a damn good job !!

[Ted Hughes]

The best thing for us is that these blokes stay there as long as possible.

If they were forced to sell up, a new owner clearing the debt would leave the rags with much more money to spend in the transfer market than us & push us into conflict with Platini if we wanted to compete.

This gives us breathing space to catch up with their earnings (by fair means or foul), so by the time the Glazers do sell up or pay off the debt, we should be in a position of real global power & able to fight any challenge from a re-vamped rags on an even keel.

If the Glazers manage to totally fuck them up, keep them in debt, & stay in charge forever, then happy days.

[Alex Sapphire]

To any of you stock market types; would I be correct in reading this particular move as having a hint of desperation about it ?

the more you look at this the more the answer's "yes".

some bullets:

it turns out the IPO paperwork includes "out of date" (2010/11) accounts and Scum were given special dipensation to do that. Obviously the cynics (and sharp cookies) point out that this years figures would have made it much less attractive because...

Scum's cash (their bank balance) has fallen from 150m to 23m in 12 months. that means if they spend at the same rate, they will have a zero balance within 3 months

They made a (much talked about) profit of £12m last season, but UEFA's announcement this week of CL TV money distribution shows they went down from 53m to 35m (Euros). In other words, all things being equal they will lose money this year

The argument that they are reducing debt isn't a strong one when you consider they are spenfing cash like this. In net terms they are £26m worse off this year than last, so their "net debt" is increasing. they could really do with a quick 100mill

Oh and aren't they spending money on players?
Not so rosey.

[Im_Spartacus]

the more you look at this the more the answer's "yes".

some bullets:

it turns out the IPO paperwork includes "out of date" (2010/11) accounts and Scum were given special dipensation to do that. Obviously the cynics (and sharp cookies) point out that this years figures would have made it much less attractive because...

Scum's cash (their bank balance) has fallen from 150m to 23m in 12 months. that means if they spend at the same rate, they will have a zero balance within 3 months

They made a (much talked about) profit of £12m last season, but UEFA's announcement this week of CL TV money distribution shows they went down from 53m to 35m (Euros). In other words, all things being equal they will lose money this year

The argument that they are reducing debt isn't a strong one when you consider they are spenfing cash like this. In net terms they are £26m worse off this year than last, so their "net debt" is increasing. they could really do with a quick 100mill

Oh and aren't they spending money on players?
Not so rosey.

Sorry mate, but wherever you have got all that from, it is blatently untrue. The latest full year audited accounts are used, and there is also reference to comparative financial positions based on 9 months to april for the last two years, including this year.

[Alex Sapphire]

the more you look at this the more the answer's "yes".

some bullets:

it turns out the IPO paperwork includes "out of date" (2010/11) accounts and Scum were given special dipensation to do that. Obviously the cynics (and sharp cookies) point out that this years figures would have made it much less attractive because...

Scum's cash (their bank balance) has fallen from 150m to 23m in 12 months. that means if they spend at the same rate, they will have a zero balance within 3 months

They made a (much talked about) profit of £12m last season, but UEFA's announcement this week of CL TV money distribution shows they went down from 53m to 35m (Euros). In other words, all things being equal they will lose money this year

The argument that they are reducing debt isn't a strong one when you consider they are spenfing cash like this. In net terms they are £26m worse off this year than last, so their "net debt" is increasing. they could really do with a quick 100mill

Oh and aren't they spending money on players?
Not so rosey.

Sorry mate, but wherever you have got all that from, it is blatently untrue. The latest full year audited accounts are used, and there is also reference to comparative financial positions based on 9 months to april for the last two years, including this year.

Several sources. Here's one:

GUARDIAN

OR THIS

AND HERE

Are you saying the IPO prospectus has the April 2012 numbers in it? If so I agree these articles are all wrong

BTWthe reduction is Cash and Champs league Money are FACTS

[mcfc1632]

It was widely reported that the IPO was using the previous years figures - something acceptable in the Cayman Islands but not elsewhere - lets say more 'mainstream'

[blues-clues]

Cant post a link cos its the Times but in the paper version this morning is an analysis of the IPO saying they are already downgrading expectations of how much it will raise and everyone connected with it saying "Why would investors buy a share that offers no dividend, no control and is virtually guaranteed to lose value immediately the latest set of accounts are released?"

Also saying old figures used to launch the IPO and questioning the legitimacy of the use of referencing the company as a high growth new opportunity venture.

[Alex Sapphire]

Cant post a link cos its the Times but in the paper version this morning is an analysis of the IPO saying they are already downgrading expectations of how much it will raise and everyone connected with it saying "Why would investors buy a share that offers no dividend, no control and is virtually guaranteed to lose value immediately the latest set of accounts are released?"

Also saying old figures used to launch the IPO and questioning the legitimacy of the use of referencing the company as a high growth new opportunity venture.

yeah, reports are saying they're looking for 300m USD rather than 500m now (although the press reported it as 100m originally and that's what the Prospectus says!)
They have claimed a new status as an "Emerging Growth" company which is something Obama seems to have created (under the "JOBS" Act to "cut the beaurocracy" (?they don't have to have AGMs or report quite so much/so soon as established companies?)
It's also been suggested that they are listing in US because in UK they couldn't issue shares which are as different as these are (1/10th voting rights for example)

that said, the Prospectus which is here:PROSPECTUS does indeed include numbers to March 12. These show a small dip but maybe not the full impact of CL money (announced July) . They do confirm that theyve gone through 125mill in cash in 9 months though.
I think the fact is theyve used the most flattering figures they possibly could and claimed a number of immunities so as to replace the spent cash without giving up anything

Whole story (or one person's version of it) HERE

[Florida Blue]

Flo,
What do you mean by "SHORTING THE MARKET" ?

...And THANKS Spartacus, Those explanations were excellent.

Sorry John, I missed this.

Shorting the market. Basically it is selling a stock you do not own at a price that you think is too high and then buying it back whenit drops.

For example: I sell some Rag 100 shares of MUFUCK at 100. It drops to 40 and I buy it on the open market at 40, so I profit 60. It is ONLY a good idea if you are sure it is going lower. If it goes higher your risk is essentially infinite.

In this case a pretty reasonable bet, right?

[john68]

Flo,
What do you mean by "SHORTING THE MARKET" ?

...And THANKS Spartacus, Those explanations were excellent.

Sorry John, I missed this.

Shorting the market. Basically it is selling a stock you do not own at a price that you think is too high and then buying it back whenit drops.

For example: I sell some Rag 100 shares of MUFUCK at 100. It drops to 40 and I buy it on the open market at 40, so I profit 60. It is ONLY a good idea if you are sure it is going lower. If it goes higher your risk is essentially infinite.

In this case a pretty reasonable bet, right?

Thanks Bryan, That explains it Mate.