Posts Tagged ‘MU’

MU: The real tragedy

In Footie on 25/09/2019 at 7:41 am

Not that the MU has had a terrible and difficult start to the season: losing two of its first six matches in the league and has already fallen 10 points behind leaders Liverpool. (Btw, can’t stop laughing that executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward said the primary focus was “winning trophies”, after it posted record annual revenues over the 2018-2019 season despite the team’s recent travails.)

The tragedy for the controlling shareholder is that MU predicted yesterday revenues would fall during this season for the first time in more than a decade, with chronic underperformance on the pitch limiting the future growth of its business.

The Palestinians and other Muslims are no doubt cheering MU’s current failures on the pitch because the controlling shareholder donates to Zionist causes in Israel and Palestine. If it fails to do well, he’ll have less money to donate.

Wonder what MU’s Muslim fans think? If it has any.

When MU nexts meets Sity

In Footie on 12/02/2018 at 4:33 am

Before next derby match againt Sity, MU’s African players should ask to be allowed to sacrifice an ox for luck. Against Sity MU needs all the luck it can get. Sity has Allah cheering it on.

Egypt football champions sacrifice ox for luck

After losing one match and drawing another, staff at Al Ahly in Egypt have sacrificed an ox and distributed the meat to the poor in the hope that it will reverse their fortunes.

The defending champions suffered their first league loss since June 2016 when they finished 3-2 away to Misr Al Makassa earlier this month.

Last Friday, they drew 1-1 with hosts Tanta.

Al Ahly are currently third in the Egyptian Premier League after 11 games – they are four points behind the leaders Ismaili who have played two more matches than Al Ahly so far.

BBC report

Maybe Everton did this? It has lots of Players from Africa, had a string of bad results but juz won 3-1.


MU: Thrilled I’m sure fans are

In Footie, Investment banking, Malaysia on 14/09/2016 at 2:33 pm

MU  has become the first British football club to earn more than half a billion pounds in a year.

Manchester United has recorded record revenues of £515.3m for the 2016 financial year, the first UK football club to do so.

In a year when it won the FA Cup, the Old Trafford club also signed 14 sponsorship deals, and saw commercial, matchday and TV revenues all rise.

It is now predicting 2017 revenues of up to £540m, even though it is not in the Champions League this season.

The club’s accounts up until 30 June 2016 confirm that the Premier League club was the first British team to break the half-billion mark, but the figure is short of Barcelona’s €679m (£570m) revenue revealed in July.

The Premier League giants also revealed operating profits of £68.9m, and adjusted core earnings of £191.9m, both also records.

“Our record fiscal 2016 financial performance reflects the continued underlying strength of the business and the club is on target to achieve record revenues in 2017, even without a contribution from the Champions League,” said executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward.

A very Jewish achivement.

Too bad about the major trophies and playing in Europe. )))))

Lest I be accused of anti-Semtisim, I’m proud of the fact that I worked in Rothschild S’pore and shook the hand and had dinner with the then owner, Sir Evelyn. Actually it is the firm that in hindsight I regretted leaving for greener pastures. It was a really nice place to work in. Too bad about the pay though.

Btw, Rothschilds is the regular adviser to MU, and at times to its owners, the Glazers. The relationship to MU predates the Glazers.  Rothschild has had an office in Manchester since the 19th century.

And btw2, I’m sure you have read that Goldman Sachs made good money in M’sia before running into problems with the US marshalls.

Well in the 1970s when Dr M became PM and started buying ownership of plantations and mines from UK-based investors, Rothschild was the go-to bank for M’sia. It wasn’t that Dr M was supportive of the Jewish houses in London. But the central bank governor, Tun Ali, had good ties with the London Rothschilds. He was btw also a brother-in-law of Dr M. A character. Shook his hand and helped look after him during one of his visits here for a conference.

MU’s woes foreshadow S’pore’s woes post PAP

In Footie, Political governance on 24/05/2016 at 4:54 pm

José Mário dos Santos Mourinho Félix will according to a FT reader, based in his track record, do the following

year 1, build the team and squad that you want and get the players to bend to your will; year 2, win lots of trophies and years 3 or 4, move on. With the possible exception of Madrid, it’s worked every time.

I bet it won’t work for MU too. MU. like Barcelona, Bayern, Real and Milan, are in a different universe From Chelsea, Porto and Inter. The fotmer are clubs that have a history of success since year zero or thereabouts. Mourinho is a great manager of clubs with lesser traditions of success. Real shows he can’t manage the really great clubs.

Interestingly the FT just carried an interview with Munich-bound Carlo Ancelotti. He likes working in “family” footie clubs like Milan (where he won honours — Champions League, Serie A — as a player and manager) and Bayern. Surely that term fits MU?

I always tot he’d be good for MU.  But would MU be good for him? That I doubt because MU is rebuilding after a long period where one man dominated.

In MU. we can see what will happen to S’pore post PAP rule. A real hard slog for S’poreans with lots of trips down blind alleys, and lots of u-turns. And a lot of heart ache and loss of prosperity.

But keeping the status quo (i.e. PAP hegemony based on LKY’s Hard Truths as modified by the natural aristocrats to keep the S’porean rabble contented which is what is happening already what with the increases in spending of the rabble’s own money to keep them from voting for the Oppo) which Ferguson tried with Moysie is not a solution.

Everything has its shelf-life. Ask the USSR communist party or the US Republican Party. Even LKY expressed doubts that the PAP could like Old Man River keep on rolling.

He knows his history. The only party that has survived and thrived for centuries is the Conservative Party of the UK. It had been in power for long periods in the 19th and 20th centuries, and returned to government in 2010. It is successful partly because it had, time and time again, to reinvent itself or become irrelevant. Liberal democracy forced it to change. We know don’t we that the Hard Truths and liberal democracy are incompatible?


For MU fans desperate for home win

In Footie on 02/01/2016 at 1:05 pm

“Man U sales pitch” – the Sunday People describes a squad of former Manchester United footballers “desperate for a home win” as they put their multi-million pound mansions on the market

“Sity wonton, United nil.”

In China, Footie on 20/10/2015 at 7:59 am

The Sun on Sunday focuses on her husband, or at least his football preferences. The paper claims President Xi has had a “dream Manchester United trip thwarted” by council chiefs who’ve arranged a tour of local rivals Manchester City’s Etihad Stadium. “Council leader Sir Richard Leese is an avid City fan and lobbied Downing Street for the switch,” it reports, before adding that the visit will take in a redevelopment site around the stadium.

As the paper puts it, the score was “City wonton, United nil.”

(Think Stomp and New Paper when thinking of Sun on Sunday)

The FT reports that the real reason is that members of royal family of Abu Dhabi own City, so Xi favours them. btw, MU is owned by American Jews who are 100% behind Israel.

Why Alex Fergurson is a financial genius

In Financial competency on 15/05/2014 at 4:16 am

Sir Alex Ferguson, who retired as Manchester United’s manager last year, was remarkable in his outperformance: over 19 seasons his teams gained 15 points more on average than would have been expected given the amount the club spent on wages. These margins matter. Had he been an average manager, he would have won just one title. Instead, he won eleven.

No wonder the Jewish owners worshiped him enough to allow him to choose his successor, another thrifty Scots who did better than the stats would predict. Too bad the successor was promoted beyond his ability and failed to win games.

What I don’t understand is why he changed MU’s training regime, annoying players and staff. It was a well oiled machine.


Is MU right to sack Moysie?/ Long ball is betterest

In Financial competency, Financial planning, Footie on 23/04/2014 at 4:43 am

Yes say I: The choice facing the owners (Jewish and Zionists and mortgaged to their eyeballs) BTW) was stark

Would they really back Moyes for the long term by handing him a transfer kitty worth as much as £100m to invest in rebuilding the squad?

Or would they decide giving all that money to him was too big a risk?

Would anyone sensible trust Moysie with that kind of $ based on this season’s performance which was the mother of nightmares? BTW, I waz happy he was the Chosen One. What was or went wrong: everything

No, say the stats and SAF’s cardinal rule of footie mgt.

Ter Weel analysed managerial turnover across 18 seasons (1986-2004) of the Dutch premier division, the Eredivisie. As well as looking at what happened to teams who sacked their manager when the going got tough, he looked at those who had faced a similar slump in form but who stood by their boss to ride out the crisis.

He found that both groups faced a similar pattern of declines and improvements in form.

While Ter Weel’s research focused on Dutch football, he argues that this finding is not specific to the Netherlands. Major football leagues in Europe, including England, Germany, Italy and Spain also bore out the same conclusion – teams suffering an uncharacteristic slump in form will bounce back and return to their normal long-term position in the league, regardless of whether they replace their manager or not.

And his theory seems to work if you look at what happened to other clubs in the English Premier League last season. The same week in March which spurred Sunderland to change the personnel in charge, Aston Villa were sitting at 17th in the table, struggling against relegation.

In the same way that water seeks its own level, numbers and series of numbers will move towards the average, move towards the ordinary.”

David Sally, co-author of The Numbers Game


In finance, this is called reversion to the mean.

This what AlexF said on the opening night of Ferguson’s book tour, on an October evening at the Lowry theatre, and what he told his audience about the management profession. “It’s a terrible industry. When clubs sack a manager there is no evidence it works. But there is evidence, and it’s hard evidence, that sticking with your manager does work. This is an important issue and it is something I believe in, very strongly. Sacking a manager does not help.”

Well obviously MU isn’t listening. Some serious money (borrowed I may add) is at stake.

Related article: Long ball is betterest:

His data suggested that most goals were scored from fewer than three direct passes, and he therefore recommended the widely-despised “long-ball” game.

In other words, the ugliest type of football imaginable. Hoof the ball forward, hope you get a lucky break, and poke it into the net.

“Unfortunately it kind of brought statistics and football into disrepute,” says Chris Anderson, author of The Numbers Game, an analytical and historical look at the use of data in football.

Now, behind the biggest football teams in the world, lies a sophisticated system of data gathering, metrics and number-crunching. Success on the pitch – and on the balance sheet – is increasingly becoming about algorithms.

The richest 20 clubs in the world bring in combined revenues of 5.4bn euros ($7.4bn, £4.5bn), according to consultancy firm Deloitte. And increasingly, data is being seen as crucial to maximising that potential income by getting the most from football’s prized investments – the players.

Footie: When team losing, don’t sack mgr

In Footie on 30/03/2014 at 10:13 am

MU owners and fans are still behind Moysie despite a season that is worse than the worst nightmares. Nice of fans to cheer him at Old Trafford last night. And they may be right to remain sanguine.

Graph comparing performance

Ter Weel analysed managerial turnover across 18 seasons (1986-2004) of the Dutch premier division, the Eredivisie. As well as looking at what happened to teams who sacked their manager when the going got tough, he looked at those who had faced a similar slump in form but who stood by their boss to ride out the crisis.

He found that both groups faced a similar pattern of declines and improvements in form … he argues that this finding is not specific to the Netherlands. Major football leagues in Europe, including England, Germany, Italy and Spain also bore out the same conclusion – teams suffering an uncharacteristic slump in form will bounce back and return to their normal long-term position in the league, regardless of whether they replace their manager or not.

As PM now watches the LionsXII (at least when they are winning), he may use this “fact” as a Hard Truth on why we shouldn’t give the PAP the sack.

MU’s woes attract a Bear

In Footie on 13/12/2013 at 4:57 am

 The British hedge fund manager Crispin Odey is making a multimillion-dollar bet that MU’s shares will fall. Moysie will prove him wrong!

Is MU a short?

In Footie on 11/05/2013 at 4:29 pm

By conventional financial yardsticks, the club is grossly overvalued at $3bn (£1.9bn) while also carrying £368m of debt. Now that the most reliable asset is giving up front-line duties, the stock deserves to be a double “sell.”

The valuation issue is basic: revenues were only £320m last year and half that sum was paid straight out as salaries. At the operating level, profits were only £44.9m. That entire sum was then consumed by finance costs of £49.5m, leading to a pre-tax loss of £4.7m. Naturally, there was no dividend …

Ferguson kept the club in the Champions League every season and collected trophies. In doing so, he made the Glazers’ optimistic financial assumptions work.

For the record, I admire Moysie’s track record at the Toffees and respect MU for choosing him, not not some European super star manager management consultant who only know how to spend money to win trophies. MU bought homegrown talent, not FT.

Double confirm, MU’s Jewish

In Footie, Humour on 21/08/2012 at 6:15 pm

The billionaire investor George Soros has bought a stake in Manchester United football club, a US regulatory filing showed.

Mr Soros’ investment fund bought about 3.1 million Class A shares in the club, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission …

His shares equate to a 1.9% stake in the entire club, worth about [US]$40.7m (£25.8m) at Monday’s closing price.

So with Sity owned by the Arabs, EPL title is shaping up to be another Arab-Israeli conflict. Or Allah versus Yahweh. Last season, Allah won, but only because manager and strikers went to mass (Roman Catholic version).

MU shares worth only US$5?

In Footie on 18/08/2012 at 5:38 am

MU’s purchase of Robin van Persie caused a little wobble in its share price because analysts said he cost too much.

MU’s shares are worth just US$5, well below the US$14 they IPOed at recently, according to an unknown US reseach team.

It’s Official: MU tells SGX to f***off

In Corporate governance, Footie on 04/07/2012 at 7:16 am

MU has applied to list on NYSE.

So much for SGX’s prostitution of its principles. Three cheers for the central bank.

Related posts:,

You won’t read this in our MSM: MU frustrated with SGX

In Footie on 14/06/2012 at 2:36 pm

“IFR said the club and its owners had become frustrated with long delays in approval from Singapore.”

Why are the Glaziers like the PAP?

In Corporate governance, Footie, Political governance on 22/09/2011 at 8:08 am

The antics of the Glaziers (the owners of MU, in case you are not into footie) in trying to ensure that post-IPO, they can “fix” minority shareholders reminds me of the PAP’s attempts in the late 1980s to restrict the choice of voters.

When faced with the possibilty of losing more than a few seats in Parly, they resorted to Group Representative Constituencies (GRCS), where voters were forced to vote for a group of MPs headed by one (possibly two) cabinet ministers, not an individual MP. Over the years, the system was used to introduce such MPs like Rin Tin Tin (aka Kate Spade), “Waz so great abt NS?” Puthu, and “No money, no dignity” Lim. GRCs worked for the PAP until this year, when the PAP lost a GRC, losing five seats. Two cabinet ministers and one junior minister lost their seats in Parly.

Well the attempt to introduce two classes of shares (with different voting rights) and when that failed, to issue non-voting preference shares (that unusually do not carry a dividend that is fixed and cumulative*) indicates that the Glazers are just as concerned as the PAP about the consequences of the unwashed masses having the vote to push them around.

Too bad for conspiracy theorists that the Glaziers are Jews. Otherwise, it could be spun that they are related to one Harry Lee, the master architect of the GRCs.   

But seriously, there is a link that conspiracy theorists can spin around. Our very own SGX that has been assidiously courting, then faciltating the Glazers, is 23.5%  owned by Temasek. Temasek cannot vote its Temasek shares, but that’s only a detail to conspiracy theorists. After all, a senior SGX official was from Temasek. And Temasek’s president was SGX’s ex-CEO. And conspiracy theorists know who owns Temask, don’t they?

*These characteristics make them more like common shares. The reason why preference shares carry fixed dividends and why dividends are cumulative is to make them safer investments. And to compensate holders for the absence of voting rights, and the inability to share in the gains that can accrue to ordinary shareholders. Absent  dividends that are fixed and cumulative; they are like common shares absent the voting rights and the potentially unlimited upside.

To be fair though,  if the company is liquidated, the preferential shareholders will have priority over ordinary shareholders when assets are divided. Unless the Glaziers have gotten rid of this too,

MU’s net profit

In Footie on 06/09/2011 at 8:13 am

I was searching high and low for this figure, given all the publicity on all other types of other numbers, EBITA, revenues, operating profit etc which ran into hundreds of millions. Example

It is only sterling 9.8m (S$19.1m).

Why MU is listing here

In Investments on 19/08/2011 at 1:49 pm

Unlike in HK, a loss-making co can list here.

Uniquely S’porean.

How a gd analyst (an MU fan) works

In Uncategorized on 19/06/2010 at 5:27 am

Or the reason why no new stars are required at MU?

Andy Green (an analyst in the City of London)  is the Manchester United supporter who first uncovered the extent of the Glazers’ debts. They are £1.1bn in debt – £400m more than previously known – after borrowing extensively against their shopping mall business, he believes to provide equity for their MU bid. It’s like using an overdraft or credit card to pay for the equity portion of yr mortgage.

First Allied is a private business and its accounts are not publicly available. But Mr Green discovered that the Glazers’ shopping mall mortgages had been bundled with other loans as Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities.

Those bundles are publicly traded and therefore require the Glazers to provide detailed information on all the mortgages, which are then publicly available in the US.

Mr Green found mortgages – confirmed by the BBC – on 63 of 64 First Allied shopping centres, totalling £388m ($570m).

Most of those were taken out with Lehman Brothers before the US investment banking giant went bankrupt, triggering the global banking crisis in 2008.

‘Watch list’

While Lehmans collapsed, the Glazers’ mortgage debt lived on and many of those shopping centres are not generating enough income to keep up with interest payments.

With falling commercial property values, many are also now in negative equity.

Banks have put 28 of the shopping centres on a watch list, meaning they are worried about the loans.

Four shopping centres – one each in Ohio, New Mexico, Texas and Georgia – have already gone bankrupt.

When they bought Manchester United in 2005, the Glazer family borrowed £500m and paid the remaining £272 million in cash.

Mr Green found that the Glazers had remortgaged 25 of their shopping centres in the six months before the takeover.

He believes the family borrowed against their US properties to pay for United: “At the time when they had to present a huge amount of cash over here in the UK they borrowed a huge amount of extra money in the US and publicly they didn’t buy anything else that year.”

A spokesman for the family did not respond to questions about the mortgages taken out by First Allied.

But with properties now worth about £380m ($550m) but mortgages valued at £395m ($570m), the shopping mall company now appears to be worth next to nothing.

‘Commercial expertise’

That financial picture has analyst Mr Green questioning how the Glazers will service their £1.1bn debt.

BBC Online article

Gold & Green: Waz the point?

In Uncategorized on 15/05/2010 at 11:04 am

The Red Knights have said that they will not overpay for MU. The group of wealthy businessmen is believed to value the club at no more than £1bn … talks with potential investors “have reinforced our belief it is wrong to offer above fair value”. BBC story

So waz the point of continuing with their plans to bid for MU.? The Glazers have already reportedly rejected a £1.5bn bid from some Arabs.

But at least the Red Knights are spending their own money, unlike, one can reasonably assume on what has been made public, the independent directors of Sino-Environment who went around making sure the corporate governance boxes were ticked while the company was collapsing around them.

Gold & Green: Glazers give finger to fans

In Uncategorized on 08/05/2010 at 5:02 am

The revelation [that the Glazers had turned down a £1.5bn bid by an Arab consortium late last year] represents depressing news for those fans who have been campaigning for the Glazers’ removal and had hoped that the hostility shown towards the Americans would help to persuade them to sever their ties with the club. More than 150,000 people have joined the Manchester United Supporters’ Trust, the group co-ordinating the anti-Glazer movement, and the protests have become increasingly voluble since the release of a bond prospectus in January that laid bare the Glazers’ business model.

The Glazer family are said to be unmoved by the animosity and thick-skinned enough not to allow it to affect their planning. They are described as enjoying the prestige of being associated with a winning team. That paints a bleak picture for the former United director Jim O’Neill, now the chief economist at Goldman Sachs, who had been hoping to move into power at Old Trafford via the Red Knights, the group of “high net value individuals” that also includes the former Football League chairman Keith Harris.

An offer from the Red Knights is anticipated in the coming weeks but, even if it is substantially higher than the £800m initially discussed, the Glazers will reject it out of hand and offer no indication of a price that might tempt them to consider a sale. This could be seen as a negotiating tactic, but the Glazers’ message is “thanks but no thanks”.

..the Glazers are already thinking far enough ahead to be talking about refinancing their debts in 2017. They accept they could have been more open with the supporters and are aware of the misgivings about the £700m worth of debts they have brought to the club. They also hope to be at Old Trafford more next season. Avi Glazer has been a regular visitor but his brother Bryan has found it harder because his children are younger.

Full story from Guardian.

MU: Mgt “clarifies”finances but bond investors are sceptical

In Uncategorized on 07/02/2010 at 5:40 am

The CEO  stressed that United’s debts of £500m are a “misconception” because the club has about £140m in cash available, over half of which was generated by Cristiano Ronaldo’s world record £80m transfer from United to Real Madrid last summer.

And he confirmed manager Sir Alex Ferguson can spend all £80m on new players, should he wish to expand the squad.


Err but how come the price of the junk bonds that MU issued recently have collapsed? Days after they were were issued they fell five percentage points.  Buyers are looking at a loss, if they sell.

Previous posts on MU

On Pool

MU: bye bye trophies?

In Uncategorized on 23/01/2010 at 5:53 am

Why MU may have no money for new players even though it raised £504m via  junk bonds. The bonds were sold in two tranches, one of £250m with a coupon rate  of 8.75%, and another tranche of US$425m with a  rate of 8.375%

“Glazers could take £130m out of Manchester United next year

• Small print in bond offer reveals shock provisions

• Owners able to get cut of money from player sales”

And an MU fan and journalist  puts the knife into the Glazers.

MU — Why defeat to Leeds could matter

In Uncategorized on 09/01/2010 at 5:21 am

If no regular decent runs in Champs League and FA Cup could end up bit like Leeds.  Third run KO is not a decent run.

But isn’t Liverpool a better candidate to be another Leeds? Relegated to Europa League, not challenging for EPL top 4 position, no $ for players. The problem is MU’s debt: more than £700m, bigger than that of any other EPL club. And growing: it could amount to  £1.1b by 2017 according to a Guardian piece (Warning: not an easy read if not into finance.). By contrast Liverpool’s debt is only £350m (though like MU’s rising).

It’s all because of the $ owing to three hedge funds. By the time that debt is due for repayment, in August 2017, the accumulated capital will have risen from an initial £138m when the Glazers refinanced in August 2006, to £580m. Then there is another £524m of bank and other borrowings which United owed at June 2008.

MU analysed in this  article (warning: another boring read if not into finance) by Robert Peston, BBC’s financial editor. So that footie fans can focus on games, the impt bits of his analysis:

“One banker with a close knowledge of the club put it like this to me: Manchester Utd as a business is a delicately balanced financial machine, which works when the team is winning and revenues are pouring in, but where there is not much of a financial cushion to absorb the inevitable occasional flop.

‘He said that the huge debt that was taken on when the Glazer family bought the club was predicated on the basis that Man Utd would have decent runs in the Champions League and FA Cup in most years – which of course is typically what has happened.”

To whom do directors owe their duties to?

In Corporate governance on 22/12/2009 at 10:48 am

As lawyers who are fans of MU should know,when MU (when it was a listed company) became the target of a highly leveraged buy-out offer by the Glazers, the directors sought legal advice on their duties towards shareholders and MU.

They were advised that directors owe a duty to the company and not its individual shareholders. In many instances, the distinction is not significant, since what is good for the corporation will also benefit its shareholders. Maximising the return to shareholders (or creating “shareholder value”), in many cases, does not conflict with the interests of the company.

But there may be situations where the interests of the company and shareholders may conflict.

The interests of shareholders may lie in realizing a short-term gain on their investment, something which the directors may decide is not the in the interest of the company in the long term. For example, the debts that MU incurred in going private, might have prevented the club from buying the players MU needed to win trophies. It didn’t happen at MU; despite its debts MU has the wagga (dosh) to buy players. But the example of Liverpool FC shows that this fear was reasonable and legitimate.

The interests of majority shareholders may not also be the same as the interests of the company. Controlling shareholders may want the corporation to take certain action that may be in its interest, but not necessarily in the best interests of the corporation. Hedge funds, with a controlling stake, may want the company to pay a high dividend because they (the controlling shareholders) want to maximise the returns to their investors. But the company may need the cash to expand its production lines.

The correct answers to these kinds of issues depend very much on the facts of each situation: something the independent directors of Sin0-Environment are finding out the hard way.