#broadcast 26.4
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Visit Tumblr Blog
Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.
Last Seen Tumblr Blogs
Fun Fact
Tumblr has 411 employees.
Note
why in the world would they do that? that's just a waste of dye! the sheep where you're from must be really weird
LuxF: I mean LuxF: I guess they really would be if you're coming from a world like this LuxF: probably a lot of things that would seem weird LuxF: there's a lot of things here that are kinda weird to me here LuxF: and other things that should be even if they don't feel like it
1 note
·
View note
Text
Harper Zilmer: A Social Media Sensation Taking Tiktok By Storm
Harper has taken the world of Tiktok by storm with her infectious energy, hilarious sense of humor, and undeniable talent. On her Tiktok account, she has a variety of funny videos. She has a unique talent for engaging with her followers and creating content, which is how she has grown her influence and built an empire of followers.
Intro
A TikTok star who is fast becoming a new social media sensation. Zilmer has more than 2 million followers on TikTok. Along with a huge number of followers, Zilmar has got more than 26.4 million likes on TikTok. The creator’s material largely revolved around singing, lip-syncing to popular music, skits, and the occasional makeup tutorial.
Zilmer began his Tiktok career in January 2023. In just a few months and with only 34 videos broadcast, she amassed an incredible number of followers and likes, which appears almost miraculous. But in reality, it is not a miracle, it is only possible by her outstanding talent and skills.
Her entire content is made up of random funny things she does in her daily life. It’s just her natural acting and voice that have people adoring her. This girl has a vibe that will brighten your day.
Zilmer frequently performs live performances for charitable organizations like the Oasis outside of TikTok. The Campbell Agency represents the young TikTok celebrity, who also had her headshots taken.
Harper Zilmer Family
Harper Zilmer lives with her father, mother, and sister. The father’s name is Dan, the mother is Brownen, and the sister is Reese Zilmer.
Aside from Harper, Reese has the second largest Instagram following, with over 2.8K followers. Reese is 15 years old and a member of the volleyball team at Marcus High School.
Brownen Hyden Zilmer, Harper’s mother, is well-known online but on a separate social media network. On Facebook, Brownen has over 1.5K fans, and there, she frequently shares photos of herself with her daughters and husband.
Harper Zilmer Career
She began posting content on TikTok in January of 2023. One of her “get ready with me” TikTok’s became viral in February 2023 and had more than 5 million views. She gave a viral lip-sync performance to a song by the rap group OutKast.
On February 28, 2023, Harper reached her first significant milestone when she gained one million followers on her TikTok account. She shared a video on TikTok in which she expressed her joy, and she even cut a cake with the message, “Congrats on 1 million followers Harper.”
Her rapid growth in popularity is evidence of her talent and the high quality of the stuff she creates. It will be interesting to observe how her career develops in the next years.
Read Complete Biography: Click Here
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
ASK AJIT: Are these stocks good to hold for one year?
ASK AJIT: Are these stocks good to hold for one year?
‘Should I hold , exit or accumulate in 1-3 months short term and 1+ year long term?’
Ajit Mishra, vice president, Research, Religare Broking, answers your queries:
Chidambarasamy Manickam: Can you let me know if I should hold or exit the below scripts please?
Ajit Mishra:
Company No of shares Price Recommendation HCL Info Systems 1,905 Rs 18.50 Exit Indian Railway Finance Corporation 575 Rs 26 Hold ONGC 85 Rs 145 Hold Sun TV 255 Rs 566 Exit South Indian Bank Limited 3,360 Rs 18.50 Prefer ICICI Bank TV18 Broadcast Limited 1,575 Rs 36 Exit Yes Bank 225 Rs 55 Exit if not under lock-in
Sriparna Mondal: I have the following stocks for the past 4-5 years. Other than the ETF, almost all are down 50 per cent from the purchase price. Does it make sense to hold the stocks any longer or how should I exit and what stocks I can buy in lieu? Please advise.
Ajit Mishra:
Company No of shares Price Recommendation BSE 90 Rs 1,013 Hold ICICI ETF 1,152 Rs 113 NA (Which ETF?) JK Tyre 250 Rs 173 Hold SML Isuzu 50 Rs 1,006 Prefer Ashok Leyland Tata Motors 100 @442 Prefer Ashok Leyland
Deepti Ambadipudi: Bought 100 shares of Bambino Agrotech at Rs 211. Should I hold, exit or add? Please guide me.
Ajit Mishra: Exit
Srinu Kodi: I have been seeing your opinion on many people’s portfolios and I am thankful for your unbiased review.
Recently, I have purchased these stocks with some conviction, wrt long term like 2-3 years as of now or more. I would like to have your view once if possible.
I am not in panic mode looking at market conditions as of now as I know these are quality stocks I have invested in.
Note: I purchased Gland Pharma for the short term recently as I see some potential till the time Covid is there, as it is doing vaccine manufacturing for Sputnik. I am thinking about profits for Gland Pharma.
Could you please tell me if I can hold this or sell after it reaches Rs 2,800 level? Please tell me if I can hold this for the long term.
Ajit Mishra: Yes, one can hold for long term
Company No of shares Price Recommendation AUBANK 20 Rs 1,008.40 Hold BAJFINANCE 3 Rs 4,411.30 Hold DFM 56 Rs 333.86 Prefer Britannia DIXON 14 Rs 3,643.18 Hold DMART 9 Rs 2,854.99 Hold GLAND 39 Rs 2,542.81 Hold HDFCBANK 15 Rs 1,399.54 Hold ICICIGI 29 Rs 1,354.63 Hold INDIAMART 5 Rs 7,873.97 Hold JUBLFOOD 7 Rs 2,757.75 Hold MCDOWELL-N 51 Rs 513.71 Hold MUTHOOTFIN EVENT 17 Rs 1,129.30 Hold NAUKRI 10 Rs 4,622.06 Hold RELIANCE 12 Rs 1,911.23 Hold SYNGENE 70 Rs 602.38 Hold
Sukanta Mandal: Need your suggestion on these — whether to hold, exit or accumulate — in 1-3 months short term and 1+ year long term. Awaiting your thoughts and views.
Ajit Mishra:
Company Recommendation Ashok Leyland Hold JK Tyre Hold Bank of Baroda Prefer SBI HDFC bank Hold Shree Digvijay Cement Prefer Ultratech/Ambuja Coal India Exit Gujarat Mineral Development Co Hold Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Hold Jaiprakash Power Exit NTPC Hold NHPC Hold HFCL Ltd Hold United Spirits Hold EIH Exit JSW Energy Ltd Hold
Rohith Adiga: I am a starter in the stock market and trading from the last six months. Below is the list of stocks I have purchased. Advise me about buying additional stock, or holding or selling.
I am also looking for a short term plan of 6-10 months starting from June. Please suggest from my existing stock list or a new stock for short term gain. Also would like to know when to purchase the additional stock, when it’s growing or when it dips.
For example, I purchased 50 shares of Tata Motors @ Rs 124, then added another 25 when it went to @ Rs 185 and again purchased 10 @ Rs 290. Now my average pricing is @ Rs 244.
Ajit Mishra:
Company No of shares Price Recommendation HAL 5 Rs 1,100.96 Hold BIOCON 1 Rs 459 Hold ZEEL 5 Rs 224.4 Exit ITC 5 Rs 210.45 Hold HDFCBANK 1 Rs 1,377.60 Hold and buy on dips L&TFH 15 Rs 84.62 Hold ASIANPAINT 3 Rs 2,039.53 Hold HCLTECH 6 Rs 758.96 Hold AXISBANK 6 Rs 547.89 Hold RELIANCE 5 Rs 1,720.75 Hold TATAMOTORS 25 Rs 244.71 Hold for 2-3 years at least KOTAKBANK 5 Rs 1,369.65 Hold INFY 10 Rs 972.27 Hold TCS 5 Rs 2,318.60 Hold BAJFINANCE 2 Rs 3,636.00 Hold
Jasminkumar Maheshbhai Gajjar: I have been following your posts on a regular basis. I have invested for long/mid-term. Request you to advise for the below stocks held by me.
Ajit Mishra:
Company No of shares Price View Recommendation Alok Industries 350 Rs 22.78 Mid-term Exit Bandhan Bank 50 Rs 348.43 Long-term Hold Bharat Elec Ltd 75 Rs 134.71 Mid-term Hold Biocon 30 Rs 410.81 Mid-term Hold Burger King 50 Rs 132.38 Long-term Hold Cyient 15 Rs 690.22 Mid-term Hold Firstsource Sol 80 Rs 116.64 Mid-term Hold India Cements 60 Rs 168.43 Mid-term Hold Inox Leisure 30 Rs 332.34 Mid-term Hold J K Tyre 50 Rs 118.32 Long-term Hold Laurus Labs 20 Rs 468.02 Mid-term Hold Manappuram 50 Rs 159.96 Mid-term Hold Motherson sumi 40 Rs 236.75 Mid-term Hold NMDC 50 Rs 157.46 Long-term Hold Spicejet 130 Rs 86.35 Long-term Hold Sun Pharma Adv 50 Rs 183.02 Mid-term Hold Sundaram Fin ltd 6 Rs 2,528.45 Long-term Hold Tata Chemicals 15 Rs 690.82 Long-term Hold Tata Power 75 Rs 92.85 Long-term Hold Tata Steel BSL 100 Rs 96.18 Long-term Hold Time Technopl 75 Rs 84.34 Mid-term Exit Zen Tech 100 Rs 86.60 Long-term Exit
Rajkumar Dhyani: Namaskar. I’m a small investor who looks for mid and small-cap scrips to invest in. I can invest Rs 5-10K monthly in stocks. I’m looking for a long-term vision, probably 1-2 years vision. Can you please suggest few important scrips which match my requirement?
Ajit Mishra: One can invest in Finolex Industries, Ashok Leyland, INOX Leisure, Exide Industries, Kansai Nerolac.
Marshall: Please review my portfolio, if I can hold, accumulate or exit from these stocks. I’m not sure of the period if I have to hold these stocks. Please advise.
Ajit Mishra:
Company No of shares Price Recommendation Balaji Amines 20 10 @ Rs 824 and 10 @ Rs 2,500 Hold Laurus Labs 100 50 @ Rs 400 and 50 @ Rs 490 Hold Sun Pharma 10 Rs 60 Hold Wock Pharma 10 Rs 590 Hold Eicher Motors 10 Rs 2,520 Hold Titan 10 5 @ Rs 1,126 and 5 @ Rs 1450 Hold Tech Mahindra 10 Rs 1,000 Hold TataSTLBSL 50 Rs 100 Hold Poly Cab 10 Rs 1,480 Hold SUN TV 10 Rs 520 Exit Adani Power 100 Rs 100 Exit Larsen and Turbo 10 Rs 1,450 Hold
Rane Tushar: I hold following stocks. Which should I hold and which should I exit?
Ajit Mishra:
Company No of shares Recommendation IOB 60 Exit URJA 5,000 Exit TTML 700 Hold for 2-3 years DHFL 203 Exit GMBREW 85 Hold GRAPHITE 96 Hold NOCIL 942 Hold PRAKASH 965 Exit
Sunil: I want to invest Rs 2 lakhs rupees for long term. Please suggest and guide me about some good equity shares.
Ajit Mishra: Bharti Airtel, ICICI Bank, Nippon AMC, Britannia Industries, Maruti Suzuki
GOPAL CHAKRABORTY: I am holding the following mentioned stocks for the long term. Kindly advise.
Ajit Mishra:
Company No of shares Price Recommendation Tata Steel 220 Rs 470 Hold Suzlon Energy 2,300 Rs 5.70 Exit Tilaknagar Industries 600 Rs 72 Exit Clariant Chemicals 59 Rs 598 Hold NCC Ltd 213 Rs 67 Exit Suven Lifescience 175 Rs 62 Hold HCC Ltd. 180 Rs 57 Exit Andhra cements 1,200 Rs 23 Prefer Ultratech Educomp 2,200 Rs 190 Exit Yes Bank 2,500 Rs 17.50 Exit Gufic Bioscience 135 Rs 167 Hold
Shyam Kannacham Veettil: I would like to have hold/exit strategy for following stocks. I can hold long term
Ajit Mishra:
Stock Unit holding Average price Recommendation Bandhan Bank 30 Rs 303 Hold Federal Bank 500 Rs 57 Hold HDFC AMC 60 Rs 1,733 Hold HDFC Standard Life 260 Rs 300 Hold SBI Card 30 Rs 770 Hold Yes bank 1,000 Rs 116 Exit if not under lock-in. Dixon Tchnology 100 Rs 917 Hold Havells 600 Rs 302 Hold V guard 550 Rs 185 Hold L&T 105 Rs 1,117 Hold Tata consumer products 160 Rs 367 Hold Varun Beverages 380 Rs 435 Hold Jubilant food 25 Rs 1,846 Hold First source solutions 1,000 Rs 55 Hold Tata elxi 30 Rs 851 Hold IRCTC 20 Rs 1,309 Hold Berger Paints 90 Rs 560 Hold Petronet LNG 925 Rs 115 Hold Adani Port 100 Rs 230 Hold
Rajesh Nair: I have 50 shares of Dixon Technologies at an average price of Rs 3,742. If I am looking at holding these for a horizon of three years, should I hold/accumulate or exit these ?
Ajit Mishra: Hold the stock. Accumulate on dips only.
Nitesh Shah: I have these shares. Can you advise if I can hold, sell or buy more?
Ajit Mishra:
Stock Average of investment price Recommendation Aarvee Denim Rs 19.4 Exit AB Capital Rs 59.9 Exit Aditya Birla F Rs 136 Prefer Titan AFL Rs 13.7 Exit Aishwarya Tech Rs 34.3 Exit Albert David Rs 464 Exit Alok Industries Rs 60.9 Exit Amara Raja Batteries Rs 873 Hold Arvind Rs 55.8 Exit Arvind Smart Rs 91 Exit Ashtavinayak Rs 6 Exit Aster DM Health Rs 174 Hold Avenue Supermarts Rs 299 Hold Bajaj Consumer Rs 316 Hold Bandhan Bank Rs 340 Hold Bank of Baroda Rs 46.5 Exit BEML Rs 762 Exit Berger Paints Rs 160 Hold Bharti Airtel Rs 537 Hold BHEL Rs 37.5 Exit Binani Cement Rs 85 Exit Canara Bank Rs 168 Exit Cigniti Tech Rs 430 Exit Cipla Rs 474 Hold Coal India Rs 143 Exit Cosmo Films Rs 633 Exit CreditAccess Grameen Rs 702 Hold Cummins Rs 732 Hold Dalmia Bharat Rs 789 Hold Deepak Nitrite Rs 668 Hold Digjam — BSE Rs 26.4 Exit Diligent Media Re 1 Exit Dishman Carbogen Rs 161 Hold Divis Labs Rs 2,484 Hold D-Link India Rs 113 Exit Dollar Industries Rs 450 Hold Endurance Technologies Rs 1,444 Hold Eveready Industries Rs 374 Hold Fortis Health Rs 108 Hold Ganesha Ecosphere Rs 18.7 Exit General Insurance Rs 456 Prefer ICICI Lombard Glenmark Rs 515 Hold Godawari Power Rs 201 Exit Granules India Rs 343 Hold Grasim Rs 667 Hold GTL Infra
Rs 80.5
Exit GV Films Rs 7.75 Exit GVK Power Rs 35.1 Exit HBL Power Rs 57.7 Exit HCL Tech Rs 348 Hold HDFC Rs 1,217 Hold HDFC Life Rs 688 Hold HFCL Rs 27.9 Hold Hindustan Construction Rs 43 Exit Hindustan Zinc Rs 218 Hold HUDCO Rs 82.9 Hold ICICI Lombard Rs 661 Hold ICICI Prudential Rs 402 Hold IDFC First Bank Rs 57.8 Exit IFCI Rs 18 Exit IKF Tech – BSE Rs 6.93 Exit Indian Acrylics Rs 10 Exit Indo Count Rs 85.5 Exit Indostar Capita Rs 572 Hold Infomedia Press Rs 24.4 Exit Infosys Rs 555 Hold Interworld Rs 3.89 Exit IOB Rs 42.4 Exit IOC Rs 125 Hold Ion Exchange Rs 677 Hold IRFC Rs 26 Hold ITC Rs 216 Hold Jenson Nicholson Rs 16.2 Exit Jindal SAW Rs 80.8 Hold JSW Steel Rs 228 Hold Kajaria Ceramics Rs 422 Hold L&T Finance Rs 82.8 Hold Larsen Rs 837 Hold LIC Housing Finance Rs 353 Hold M&M Financial Rs 165 Hold Maharashtra Seamless Rs 500 Exit Marathon Realty Rs 67.6 Exit Maruti Suzuki Rs 6,632 Hold Max Healthcare Rs 78.9 Hold Max India Rs 391 Hold Mirc Electronic Rs 51.1 Exit MOIL Rs 156 Hold Munjal Showa Rs 61.4 Exit Nahar Poly Film Rs 48.1 Exit National Steel Rs 27 Exit Network 18 Rs 33 Exit New India Assurance Rs 400 Prefer HDFC Life Newgen Software Rs 245 Hold NHPC Rs 31.5 Hold Nippon ETF Gold Rs 35.5 Hold NOCIL Rs 157 Hold NTPC Rs 146 Hold ONGC Rs 139 Hold Paramount Communications Rs 28 Exit Pennar Industries Rs 23.3 Exit Pidilite Industries Rs 1,773 Hold Power Grid Corporation Rs 145 Hold Precision Electricals Rs 14.7 Exit Precision Wires Rs 80 Exit Raj Oil Mills Rs 10 Exit Rajapalayam Rs 348 Hold RBL Bank Rs 526 Hold Reliance Rs 1,482 Hold Reliance Communications Rs 2.55 Exit Reliance Power Rs 232 Exit Rico Auto Rs 38 Exit Saregama India Rs 767 Exit SBI Rs 270 Hold SBI Life Insurance Rs 700 Hold SGN Cable Rs 0.42 Exit Siti Networks Rs 32.5 Exit South Indian Bank Rs 25.8 Exit Sumeet Industries Rs 14.2 Exit Sun Pharma Rs 893 Hold TAEL Rs 0.24 Exit Talbros Auto Rs 307 Exit TCS Rs 198 Hold Tech Mahindra Rs 574 Hold Terruzzi Fercalx Rs 50.7 Exit Tirupati Foam Rs 10 Exit TV18 Broadcast Rs 48.1 Hold Unitech Rs 1.95 Exit Usha Martin Rs 1.25 Exit Usha Martin Edu Rs 1.25 Exit UTI AMC Rs 554 Prefer HDFC AMC or Nippon AMC Varroc Engineer Rs 421 Hold Vascon Engineer Rs 46.7 Exit Visa Steel Rs 53.5 Exit VRL Logistics Rs 432 Hold Wipro Rs 254 Hold Zee Media Rs 41.1 Exit
Please mail your questions to [email protected] with the subject line ‘Ask Ajit’, along with your name, and Mr Ajit Mishra will offer his unbiased views.
Disclaimer: This article is meant for information purposes only. This article and information do not constitute a distribution, an endorsement, an investment advice, an offer to buy or sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any securities/schemes or any other financial products/investment products mentioned in this QnA or an attempt to influence the opinion or behaviour of the investors/recipients.
Any use of the information/any investment and investment related decisions of the investors/recipients are at their sole discretion and risk. Any advice herein is made on a general basis and does not take into account the specific investment objectives of the specific person or group of persons. Opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice.
Feature Presentation: Ashish Narsale/ Rediff.com
. Source link
0 notes
Text
Nikola Jokic, Giannis Antetokounmpo lead first team
Nikola Jokic, Giannis Antetokounmpo lead first team
Milwaukee Bucks ahead Giannis Antetokounmpo, Denver Nuggets heart Nikola Jokić and Golden State Warriors guard Stephen Curry had been the main vote getters of the All-NBA workforce, the league introduced Tuesday. The All-NBA Group was chosen by a worldwide panel of 100 sportswriters and broadcasters that cowl the league. Jokić, the league’s Most Beneficial Participant, averaged 26.4 factors, 10.8…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Text
TuneIn Radio Pro - Live Radio Mod 26.4 Apk [Unlocked]
New Post has been published on https://www.allmoddedapk.com/tunein-radio-pro-mod-apk/
TuneIn Radio Pro - Live Radio Mod 26.4 Apk [Unlocked]
TuneIn Radio Pro – Live Radio 26.4 Mod Apk – Online and live radio application with full features of Android, the purchased version is offered to you for $ 9.99
As you know, radio was the first popular media among the people, and now, after many years and the increase of video media, it has a special popularity among the people and has its own fans. This popularity has gone so far that Android developers are thinking of launching an online and live radio that anyone can connect to the desired station with their smart device. TuneIn Radio Pro – Live Radio is a live online radio with a set of great features developed by TuneIn Inc. for Android It has been published. All popular radio stations are available in this software and you will be able to have full access to the largest popular radio frequencies. Both FM and AM waves are covered by this radio, and radio stations are available in global, regional, and national categories in addition to categorizing according to user needs. The existing search function enables anyone to find the radio station of their choice in just a few seconds with a smart search and add it to the favorites list. One of the most important features of TuneIn Radio Pro is channel recording; Record streaming programs so you can listen to them offline at any time. In addition, the software has the ability to connect to Chromecast and provides a unique experience for radio playback in family environments for its users.
Some features and capabilities of TuneIn Radio Pro – Live Radio Android app:
Support for Yi AM and FM radio stations
Access to popular radio stations
Categorize radio stations based on various topics
Search for your favorite stations among the hundreds of thousands of available stations
Classification of radio stations by regional, global and national
Access to over 40,000 audiobooks
600 free music stations
Ability to record currently playing programs to run offline
Support for broadcasting stations in Chromecast
Share what you listen to on social networks and email services
0 notes
Photo
New Post has been published on https://techcrunchapp.com/us-trade-deficit-falls-to-63-9-billion-in-september-national-news/
US trade deficit falls to $63.9 billion in September | National News
FILE – In this Nov. 4, 2019, file photo, cargo cranes are used to take containers off of a Yang Ming Marine Transport Corporation boat at the Port of Tacoma in Tacoma, Wash. The U.S. trade deficit rose in August to the highest level in 14 years. The Commerce Department reported Tuesday that the gap between the goods and services the United States sells and what it buys abroad climbed 5.9% in August to $67.1 billion.
FILE – In this Nov. 4, 2019 file photo, John Deere tractors made by Deere & Company are shown as they are readied for export to Asia at the Port of Tacoma in Tacoma, Wash. The U.S. trade deficit fell in September 2020 after hitting a 14-year high in August as exports outpaced imports. The Commerce Department reported, Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2020, the gap between what the U.S. sells and what it buys abroad fell to 63.9 billion in September, a decline of 4.7% from a $67 billion deficit in August.
By MATT OTT AP Business Writer
SILVER SPRING, Md. (AP) — The U.S. trade deficit fell in September after hitting a 14-year high the previous month as exports outpaced imports.
The gap between what the U.S. sells and what it buys abroad fell to $63.9 billion in September, a decline of 4.7%, from a $67 billion deficit in August, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday. September exports rose 2.6% to $176.4 billion, while imports ticked up 0.5% to $240.2 billion.
Year to date, the goods and services deficit has jumped $38.5 billion, or 8.6%, to $485.6 billion. The total deficit for goods and services for the same period in 2019 was $447.1 billion. Total exports are down 17.4% this year from 2019, while imports have declined by 12.4% as the coronavirus pandemic has sabotaged global commerce this year and disrupted global supply chains everywhere.
The politically sensitive deficit in the trade of goods with China fell about 8% in September to $24.3 billion from $26.4 billion in August. Exports to China in September of $11.5 billion were the highest since March of 2018.
When Donald Trump campaigned for president in 2016 he pledged to sharply lower the country’s large trade deficits, especially with China, which for years has been the country with the largest trade surplus with the United States.
But despite Trump’s confrontational approach on trade with China and a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, America’s trade deficits have remained stubbornly high.
Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Get local news delivered to your inbox!
0 notes
Text
Sanders wins primaries in New Hampshire
Sanders wins primaries in New Hampshire
[ad_1]
KATHERINE TAYLOR
The left-wing US Senator Bernie Sanders has won the area code in New Hampshire.
This result resulted in extrapolations of the broadcasters based on the counting of almost 90 percent of the votes. After counting the votes in two thirds of the polling stations, Sanders had already reached around 26.4 percent on Tuesday evening (local time). He was followed by…
View On WordPress
0 notes
Photo
Turkey to increase fixed exchange rate for pharma products by 26.4 percent: NTV ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkey increased on Wednesday the fixed exchange rate by 26.4 percent for pharmaceutical products that are imported, Health Minister Fahrettin Koca was reported as saying by broadcaster NTV.
0 notes
Text
Why Chip Kelly failed in the NFL and what it means for UCLA
The differences between college and pro football aren’t as big as you’ve been led to believe, but they were big enough.
Chip Kelly’s return to the college ranks is exciting — the sport is better when better coaches are involved. But there are a lot of questions regarding what a Kelly offense looks like after his time in the pros and how his philosophy has shifted in the six years since he left Eugene. From my 2018 UCLA preview:
He went 46-7 as Head Duck, and now he’s at a school with a much higher recruiting ceiling. It appears he is integrating some of the basic concepts — “It’s a lot of read option, dish-and-dunk kind of stuff” — and he’s breaking in some of the sports science techniques (GPS devices and whatnot) that he’s become known for.
I’m curious about the philosophical changes Kelly’s offense seemed to undergo in the NFL, just how much his new college offense will look like his old one, and most of all, whether he can do what no UCLA coach since Terry Donahue has done: win consistently.
Kelly’s NFL tenure started out like a house afire.
His 2013 Eagles ranked third in offensive DVOA and improved from 4-12 to 10-6. They pushed tempo as far as you can in the NFL (they averaged one snap every 23.9 seconds in 2013, then one every 22.2 in 2014, both tops in the league). They scored 30-plus points eight times, and they lost in the playoffs only via last-second field goal.
Photo by Rich Schultz /Getty Images
LeSean McCoy and Nick Foles were key components in a devastating 2013 Philadelphia offense.
Even into his second year, as the magic began to fade (they ranked 13th in offensive DVOA), the Eagles went 10-6.
By 2015, the magic was gone. Philadelphia fell to 26th in offensive DVOA and 7-9 overall, and Kelly was fired. He took over a horrid roster in San Francisco in 2016, went 2-14, and became a TV commentator for 2017.
As Kelly was preparing for his lone year in San Francisco, Smart Football’s Chris B. Brown penned the definitive take on Kelly’s devolution. The gist:
Defenses grew more sophisticated in handling tempo.
NFL officials don’t let you go as quickly as Kelly wanted.
Having the QB run is terrifying for a pro team that’s invested millions of dollars in the position. An injury could wreck your season even more than it could in college.
Without that run threat and with immobile QBs like Mark Sanchez and Sam Bradford, Kelly’s play-calling was predictable.
And perhaps his preferred philosophy (which included the elements of what you might call an optimal college football offense) wasn’t as suited in a pro environment that features more adaptable coaching and fewer talent advantages. As the Washington Post’s Mark Maske noted, Kelly was given far too much control of personnel decisions in Philadelphia. GM Kelly perhaps screwed head coach Kelly out of success.
Still, I would add one more thing to the list of factors against him in Philadelphia and San Francisco.
Close your eyes and picture Kelly’s Oregon offense.
Maybe you’re flashing back to that Statue of Liberty against Michigan. But more likely, it’s some dam-bursting, 70-yard explosion. Kelly’s Ducks wore you out with tempo and then sliced you vertically.
If there’s a singular difference between college and pro football, it’s that big plays are a lot harder to come by in the NFL. A lot harder.
Football is a “game of inches.” We hear that on broadcasts, from coaches, and out of our own mouths. We understand how tight the margins are in this sport.
But as games and seasons pass, the gray area disappears. The narrative says you either won, or you lost. You succeeded, or you failed.
Want to see how blurry the lines are between success and failure in football, though?
Below is a chart that features two pieces of data:
The distribution of gains for Kelly’s unstoppable Oregon offenses.
The distribution of gains for Kelly’s failed NFL offenses.
The data is presented cumulatively, so that by the time you get to the far right, you’re accounting for 100 percent of plays. As you can see, there was very little difference here between Kelly’s college and pro offenses.
Broken out into yardage ranges, that data looks like this:
There are but meager differences.
Kelly’s NFL teams suffered more zero-yard plays — completion rates were 62 percent at each level, but Kelly did call more passes at the NFL level, which meant more incompletions — but also suffered fewer negative plays: 9 percent vs. 11 percent.
For any offense, a large percentage of your plays gain between one and six yards. At both levels, Kelly’s offenses did this about 35 percent of the time.
Twenty-two percent of his Oregon plays gained between seven and 14 yards, while 20 percent did in the NFL.
One in 27 plays (3.7 percent) gained 30-plus yards for the Ducks. Only one in 38 did (2.6 percent) in the NFL.
That last one doesn’t sound like much of a difference, but considering differences in tempo (his Oregon offenses averaged 75.2 plays per game, and his NFL offenses averaged 66.9), that’s 2.8 explosions per game versus 1.7, one more easy score per game.
A lack of explosive big plays might’ve made all the difference.
We know there is less scoring in NFL games, but we don’t necessarily think about why.
College offenses are about as efficient as pro offenses, on a down-by-down basis. The average success rate for college offenses from 2009-17 was 42.1 percent, and in the pros, it’s 41.2 percent.
As much as anything, it’s the explosive plays that define the difference between college and pro.
A coach once told me that when watching Kelly’s Philadelphia offenses, one or two 19-yarders per game would make him think, “That would have gone to the house at Oregon.”
In college since 2009, 2.7 percent of plays gained at least 30 yards. In the NFL, it was 2.4 percent.
Combined with differences in tempo (college games averaged 72.7 plays per game to NFL’s 63.1), that means two big gashes per game to the NFL’s 1.5. That, plus slight differences in efficiency and turnovers (1.55 per game in college to 1.49 in the pros), accounts for most of the difference in scoring (26.4 points per game vs. 22.5).
These margins are tiny. But they add up.
Think of it this way: the college-vs.-NFL difference of 0.9 percentage points of success rate over 66.9 plays per game means 0.6 fewer successful plays per game. The average successful play gains about 12 yards in both college and pro, so losing about half a successful play means gaining about seven yards fewer per game.
Meanwhile, removing half of a single big play per game could subtract those seven yards plus another 25 or more yards from a box score. Missing 30 yards from a single play could drop your per-play average over the course of a game by about 0.5 yards.
For an offense like Kelly’s, so defined by big plays at Oregon, you can see how costly this difference could be. Removing a single huge gain can change a game much more than taking away a couple chain-movers, for obvious reasons.
Granted, things worked brilliantly for a while.
His first year in Philly produced a higher big-play rate than at Oregon — 9.8 percent of plays gained at least 20 yards compared to 7.7 percent at UO.
But that shrank quickly, to 6.8 percent in 2014, 6.1 in 2015, and 4.7 in 2016.
According to data in the Football Outsiders Almanac, the extremes in Kelly’s philosophy were evident each year, even with the 49ers:
Kelly’s NFL offenses ranked first in percentage of snaps out of the shotgun/pistol every year: 86 percent in 2013-14, 94 percent in 2015, and 99 percent with SF in 2016.
They lined up in a single-back formation at least 92 percent of the time each year — the most in the NFL from 2013-15 and second most in 2016.
They did attempt balance on first downs, but they ran more on second-and-long than anyone (at least 41 percent of the time each year, ranking no lower than third), almost always ran in power situations (ranking second or higher three of four times), and attempted as much play-action as anyone (fourth or higher three of four times).
Combined with tempo, this all sounds like what Kelly wanted to do at Oregon.
The genius of his run-heavy system at Oregon was that you could create big plays without big risk. The Ducks’ tempo made defenses scatterbrained, and backs like Jeremiah Johnson, LaMichael James, Kenjon Barner, and De’Anthony Thomas — guys speedy enough to combine for six yards per carry in the pros — made them pay. And when they overcompensated, quarterbacks Marcus Mariota, Darron Thomas, and Jeremiah Masoli would keep the ball.
Photo by Jonathan Ferrey/Getty Images
De’Anthony Thomas was a lightning bolt in Eugene.
In the NFL, his run game was always at least above average in explosiveness, but “explosive” means something different there, particularly on the ground. Big NFL plays almost all come through the air.
You eventually have to be able to throw, so after Kelly’s initial NFL surge, his philosophy became less and less of a fit.
He’s now back in his college comfort zone, though.
Through recruiting, you can build more permanent talent and speed advantages here, and you can run the ball with great effect, especially if you are less afraid of getting your QB hit.
If Kelly’s got anything in his first year at UCLA, it’s options at QB.
Former Michigan starter/statue Wilton Speight is available, in case NFL experience scared Kelly away from running the QB as much. Kelly certainly tried to sell Speight on his NFL offense.
Kelly pitched Speight on a system like the one the coach ran in the NFL, where he turned to pocket-passers such as Nick Foles, Sam Bradford and Mark Sanchez. Foles was named to the 2013 Pro Bowl while leading the league in yards per pass attempt and passer rating. Sanchez, the former USC star, personally vouched for Kelly’s offense as the two quarterbacks trained together.
Still, your opponent’s math changes if it has to account for a mobile quarterback. At Oregon, Kelly had guys who could throw (especially Mariota) and punish defenses for over-pursuing against a hand-off.
One would assume a tie would go to a more mobile guy like freshman Dorian Thompson-Robinson or a split-the-difference QB in Devon Modster, who can run but also completed 65 percent of his passes filling in for Josh Rosen. Betting odds favor Modster.
Photo by Harry How/Getty Images
Devon Modster might be the bridge Kelly is looking for between NFL-style passer and college-style dual-threat.
As Brown wrote, Kelly’s NFL legacy will end up more like a Hal Mumme than a Bill Walsh.
The NFL’s Kelly was an innovator who paved the way for others to innovate and succeed more than he did.
As the new coach of the San Francisco 49ers, the man who was at one time football’s leading innovator seeks redemption in the heart of Silicon Valley, America’s current cradle of disruptive innovation, a fitting landing spot given that it appears Kelly is seemingly hurtling toward being the next victim of the “Innovator’s Curse.” [...]
The second idea behind the Innovator’s Curse is that, having once innovated, it’s increasingly difficult for the innovator to continue innovating. To use Silicon Valley examples, there are countless IBMs, Xeroxes, and Yahoos: one-time disruptors whose cultures and ideas ossified and who eventually became the disrupted.
The NFL indeed evolved toward Kelly’s vision. Teams are lining up in the shotgun more and using more one-back, three-receiver sets. The Super Bowl, won by the Eagles, was full of college offense. Plus, research suggests play-action is the way to go if you’re looking for easy yards. And Kelly made defenses improve at adjusting to tempo.
There are worse legacies. And at only 54 years old, Kelly’s got a time to add another chapter in Westwood.
0 notes
Text
SBS's "K-Pop Star 6" Makes It Rain With Impressive Earnings From Advertisements
SBS’s “K-Pop Star 6” Makes It Rain With Impressive Earnings From Advertisements
After six years of broadcast, SBS’s “K-Pop Star” wrapped up its final season on April 9. Throughout the years, the popular audition show left its mark on television as it maintained popularity and hype even with the recent fade out of audition programs.
Shortly after, it was reported that the show, having immense brand power, had earned 30 billion won (approximately $26.4 million) from…
View On WordPress
1 note
·
View note
Text
China’s Domestic Anime and Manga Market Surpasses 2.6 Trillion Yen in 2018
An article from Yahoo! Japan states that according to a report from a Chinese research company, the Chinese anime and manga amrket in 2018 has grown to 171.2 billion yuan (about 2.6 trillion yen or US$26.4 billion). The latest figures from Japan, from the 2018 Anime Industry Report that chronicled the anime market in 2017, reported that the anime market had grown to 2.15 trillion yen (US$20.4 billion). The figures for 2018 will be released in December 2019.
Unlike the Chinese report that combines the Chinese animation and manga market, there is no report from Japan that combines the anime and manga market, nor does the manga report combine the domestic Japanese market and the international markets like the Japanese anime report does. For the sake of comparison, the domestic report values the manga industry in Japan at 441.4 billion yen (US$4.2 billion) for 2018, and in the USA, the Society for the Promotion of Japanese Animation reports the manga market is valued at US$130 million.
The increase in the Chinese market has almost doubled since 2013, where the industry was valued at 88.2 billion yuan (1.3 trillion yen, or US$12.4 billion). This has been attributed to the rise of consumer sites in China that freely publishes Chinese made series, and the growth of a younger demographic that is more interested in anime-style animation and manga.
One of the biggest sites is run by Tencent, who posts Chinese-created manga to the site for free. The creators of the series get paid by the amount of views the series get. The site reportedly has over 150 million registered members, which is more than the population of Japan, and half the population of the United States. The series that get the most views on the site are then made into anime from Tencent Animation. Over 200 published works on the site have been read a billion times according to the Anime and Manga Business Manager for Tencent, speaking to Yahoo! Japan.
Growth from the domestic industry has also come from a government level, with the Chinese Government placing guidelines over how overseas anime can be broadcast and sold. In 2008, a restriction was placed on showing overseas anime on TV during the primetime hours of 5PM - 9PM. This move spurred a growth in domestic productions to meet broadcast demands for anime during those hours.
In 2015, the series Death Note and Attack on Titan, among 38 other series, were banned in China to “protect the healthy development of youth”, the Ministry of Culture official Liu Qiang told a local newspaper (via Kotaku).
Another avenue of growth in the domestic Chinese market come from Chinese animated films that have been taking advantage of the growth of the film industry in China and its growing middle-class. While Spirited Away made shy of US$70 million in China when it was released for the first time in June 2019, according to Box Office Mojo, Chinese-backed Nezha has already made US$641 million since its release in July 2019, making it the 8th highest grossing film of 2019 (ahead of How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World) before its release in the United State on August 29.
Who knows how much the Chinese anime and manga industry will grow in the future, especially with series such as Fox Spirit Matchmaker being produced and Tencent announcing 47 animated works in production!
Source: Yahoo! Japan, AJA, Box Office Mojo, Society for the Promotion of Japanese Animation, Kyodo via Kotaku, AJPEA
----
Daryl Harding is a Japan Correspondent for Crunchyroll News. He also runs the YouTube channel about Japan stuff called TheDoctorDazza, tweets at @DoctorDazza and posts photo of his travels on Instagram.
0 notes
Text
Manchester United plc 2019 Second Quarter Results
Q2 RECORD REVENUES OF £208.6 MILLION
Q2 RECORD ADJUSTED EBITDA OF £104.3 MILLION
Q2 OPERATING PROFIT OF £44.0 MILLION
MANCHESTER, England--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Manchester United (NYSE: MANU; the “Company” and the “Group”) – one of the most popular and successful sports teams in the world - today announced financial results for the 2019 fiscal second quarter ended 31 December 2018.
Highlights
Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and Mike Phelan returned to Old Trafford to manage the remainder of the 18/19 season
Agreed new contracts with Anthony Martial, Ashley Young, Chris Smalling, Phil Jones and Scott McTominay
Record revenue and EBITDA for the quarter of £208.6m and £104.3m
Announced partnership with Harves to open a series of Manchester United Entertainment and Experience Centres in China
Announced global partnership with Remington
Commentary
Ed Woodward, Executive Vice Chairman, commented, "The appointment of Ole and Mike as caretaker manager and assistant manager, working with Kieran, Michael and Emilio, has had a positive impact throughout the club. We are delighted with the improvement in the team’s performances since December and we look forward to a strong finish to the 18/19 season."
Outlook
For fiscal 2019, Manchester United continues to expect:
Revenue to be £615m to £630m.
Adjusted EBITDA to be £175m to £190m.
Key Financials (unaudited)
£ million (except earnings/(loss) per share) Three months ended
31 December
Six months ended
31 December
2018
Restated(1)
2017
Change
2018
Restated(1)
2017
Change
Commercial revenue 65.9 65.3 0.9% 141.8 145.8 (2.7%) Broadcasting revenue 103.7 75.2 37.9% 146.5 116.0 26.3% Matchday revenue 39.0 36.9 5.7% 55.3 59.3 (6.7%) Total revenue 208.6 177.4 17.6% 343.6 321.1 7.0% Adjusted EBITDA(2) 104.3 81.2 28.4% 133.7 120.5 11.0% Operating profit 44.0 42.2 4.3% 57.9 60.1 (3.7%) Profit/(loss) for the period (i.e. net income/(loss))(3) 26.8 (19.7) - 33.4 (10.1) - Basic earnings/(loss) per share (pence) 16.27 (12.00) - 20.31 (6.17) - Adjusted profit for the period (i.e. adjusted net income)(1)/(2) 46.3 23.9
93.7%
53.3 31.8 67.6% Adjusted basic earnings per share (pence)(2) 28.13 14.56
93.2%
32.40 19.38 67.2% Net debt(2)/(4) 317.7 328.6 (3.3%) 317.7 328.6 (3.3%)
(1) Comparative amounts have been restated following the implementation of IFRS 15 – see supplemental note 5 for further details. (2) Adjusted EBITDA, adjusted profit for the period, adjusted basic earnings per share and net debt are non-IFRS measures. See “Non-IFRS Measures: Definitions and Use” on page 5 and the accompanying supplemental notes for the definitions and reconciliations for these non-IFRS measures and the reasons we believe these measures provide useful information to investors regarding the Group’s financial condition and results of operations. (3) The US federal corporate income tax rate reduced from 35% to 21% following the enactment of US tax reform on 22 December 2017. This necessitated a re-measurement of the existing US deferred tax position in the period to 31 December 2017. As a result the loss for the three and six months ended 31 December 2017 included a non-cash tax accounting write off of £49.0 million.
(4)
The gross USD debt principal remains unchanged.
Revenue Analysis
Commercial
Commercial revenue for the quarter was £65.9 million, an increase of £0.6 million, or 0.9%, over the prior year quarter.
Sponsorship revenue for the quarter was £40.3 million, an increase of £1.0 million, or 2.5%, over the prior year quarter;
Retail, Merchandising, Apparel & Product Licensing revenue for the quarter was £25.6 million, a decrease of £0.4 million, or 1.5% over the prior year quarter.
Broadcasting
Broadcasting revenue for the quarter was £103.7 million, an increase of £28.5 million, or 37.9%, over the prior year quarter, primarily due to the new UEFA Champions League broadcasting rights agreement and playing one additional UEFA Champions League game.
Matchday
Matchday revenue for the quarter was £39.0 million, an increase of £2.1 million, or 5.7%, over the prior year quarter, primarily due to playing one additional UEFA Champions League home game.
Other Financial Information
Operating expenses
Total operating expenses for the quarter were £160.3 million, an increase of £24.1 million, or 17.7%, over the prior year quarter.
Employee benefit expenses
Employee benefit expenses for the quarter were £77.9 million, an increase of £8.2 million, or 11.8%, over the prior year quarter, primarily due to investment in the first team playing squad.
Other operating expenses
Other operating expenses for the quarter were £26.4 million, a decrease of £0.1 million, or 0.4%, over the prior year quarter.
Depreciation & amortization
Depreciation for the quarter was £3.0 million, an increase of £0.3 million, or 11.1%, over the prior year quarter. Amortization for the quarter was £33.4 million, a decrease of £3.9 million, or 10.5%, over the prior year quarter. The unamortized balance of registrations at 31 December 2018 was £309.1 million.
Exceptional items
Exceptional items for the quarter were £19.6 million, relating to compensation to the former manager and certain members of the coaching staff for loss of office. Exceptional items for the prior year quarter were £nil.
(Loss)/profit on disposal of intangible assets
Loss on disposal of intangible assets for the quarter was £4.3 million, compared to a profit of £1.0 million in the prior year quarter.
Net finance costs
Net finance costs for the quarter were £6.3 million, an increase of £1.9 million, or 43.2%, over the prior year quarter, primarily due to unrealized, non-cash foreign exchange losses on unhedged USD borrowings compared to gains in the prior year quarter.
Tax
Tax expense for the quarter was £10.9 million, compared to £57.5 million in the prior year quarter. The US federal corporate income tax rate reduced from 35% to 21% following the enactment of US tax reform on 22 December 2017. This necessitated a re-measurement of the then existing US deferred tax position in the period to 31 December 2017. As a result the prior year quarter included a non-cash tax accounting write off of £49.0 million.
Cash flows
Net cash used in operating activities for the quarter was £42.4 million, a decrease of £2.0 million over the prior year quarter.
Net capital expenditure on property, plant and equipment for the quarter was £2.4 million, a decrease of £1.7 million over the prior year quarter.
Net capital expenditure on intangible assets for the quarter was £16.2 million, an increase of £4.4 million over the prior year quarter.
Overall cash and cash equivalents (including the effects of exchange rate changes) decreased by £57.1 million in the quarter, compared to a decrease of £60.9 million in the prior year quarter.
Net debt
Net debt as of 31 December 2018 was £317.7 million, a decrease of £10.9 million over the year. The gross USD debt principal remains unchanged.
Dividend
A semi-annual cash dividend of $0.09 per share was paid on 4 January 2019. A further semi-annual cash dividend of $0.09 per share will be paid on 5 June 2019, to shareholders of record on 26 April 2019. The stock will begin to trade ex-dividend on 25 April 2019.
Conference Call Information
The Company’s conference call to review second quarter fiscal 2019 results will be broadcast live over the internet today, 14 February 2019 at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time and will be available on Manchester United’s investor relations website at http://ir.manutd.com. Thereafter, a replay of the webcast will be available for thirty days.
About Manchester United
Manchester United is one of the most popular and successful sports teams in the world, playing one of the most popular spectator sports on Earth.
Through our 141-year heritage we have won 66 trophies, enabling us to develop what we believe is one of the world’s leading sports brands and a global community of 659 million followers. Our large, passionate community provides Manchester United with a worldwide platform to generate significant revenue from multiple sources, including sponsorship, merchandising, product licensing, broadcasting and matchday.
Cautionary Statement
This press release contains forward-looking statements. You should not place undue reliance on such statements because they are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties relating to the Company’s operations and business environment, all of which are difficult to predict and many are beyond the Company’s control. Forward-looking statements include information concerning the Company’s possible or assumed future results of operations, including descriptions of its business strategy. These statements often include words such as “may,” “might,” “will,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “seek,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “continue,” “contemplate,” “possible” or similar expressions. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are based on our current expectations and estimates of future events and trends, which affect or may affect our businesses and operations. You should understand that these statements are not guarantees of performance or results. They involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Although the Company believes that these forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, you should be aware that many factors could affect its actual financial results or results of operations and could cause actual results to differ materially from those in these forward-looking statements. These factors are more fully discussed in the “Risk Factors” section and elsewhere in the Company’s Registration Statement on Form F-1, as amended (File No. 333-182535) and the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F (File No. 001-35627).
Non-IFRS Measures: Definitions and Use
1. Adjusted EBITDA
Adjusted EBITDA is defined as profit for the period before depreciation, amortization, profit on disposal of intangible assets, exceptional items, net finance costs, and tax.
Adjusted EBITDA is useful as a measure of comparative operating performance from period to period and among companies as it is reflective of changes in pricing decisions, cost controls and other factors that affect operating performance, and it removes the effect of our asset base (primarily depreciation and amortization), material volatile items (primarily profit on disposal of intangible assets and exceptional items), capital structure (primarily finance costs), and items outside the control of our management (primarily taxes). Adjusted EBITDA has limitations as an analytical tool, and you should not consider it in isolation, or as a substitute for an analysis of our results as reported under IFRS as issued by the IASB. A reconciliation of profit/(loss) for the period to Adjusted EBITDA is presented in supplemental note 2.
2. Adjusted profit for the period (i.e. adjusted net income)
Adjusted profit for the period is calculated, where appropriate, by adjusting for charges/credits related to exceptional items, foreign exchange gains/losses on unhedged US dollar denominated borrowings, and fair value movements on embedded foreign exchange derivatives, adding/subtracting the actual tax expense/credit for the period, and subtracting the adjusted tax expense for the period (based on a normalized tax rate of 21%; 2017: 35%). The normalized tax rate of 21% is the current US federal corporate income tax rate.
In assessing the comparative performance of the business, in order to get a clearer view of the underlying financial performance of the business, it is useful to strip out the distorting effects of the items referred to above and then to apply a ‘normalized’ tax rate (for both the current and prior periods) equivalent to the US federal corporate income tax rate of 21% (2017: 35%). A reconciliation of profit/(loss) for the period to adjusted profit for the period is presented in supplemental note 3.
3. Adjusted basic and diluted earnings per share
Adjusted basic and diluted earnings per share are calculated by dividing the adjusted profit for the period by the weighted average number of ordinary shares in issue during the period. Adjusted diluted earnings per share is calculated by adjusting the weighted average number of ordinary shares in issue during the period to assume conversion of all dilutive potential ordinary shares. There is one category of dilutive potential ordinary shares: share awards pursuant to the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Equity Plan”). Share awards pursuant to the Equity Plan are assumed to have been converted into ordinary shares at the beginning of the financial year. Adjusted basic and diluted earnings per share are presented in supplemental note 3.
4. Net debt
Net debt is calculated as non-current and current borrowings minus cash and cash equivalents.
Key Performance Indicators
Three months ended Six months ended 31 December 31 December
2018
Restated(1)
2017
2018
Restated(1)
2017
Commercial % of total revenue 31.6% 36.8% 41.3% 45.4% Broadcasting % of total revenue 49.7% 42.4% 42.6% 36.1% Matchday % of total revenue 18.7% 20.8% 16.1% 18.5% Home Matches Played PL 7 7 10 11 UEFA competitions 3 2 3 3 Domestic Cups - - 1 1 Away Matches Played PL 6 7 10 10 UEFA competitions 2 2 3 4(2) Domestic Cups - 2 - 2 Other Employees at period end 937 923 937 923 Employee benefit expenses % of revenue 37.3% 39.3% 45.1% 43.5%
(1) Comparative amounts have been restated – see supplemental note 5 for further details.
(2) Includes UEFA Super Cup final following UEFA Europa League win in 2016/17.
Phasing of Premier League gamesQuarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Total 2018/19 season* 7 13 12 6 38 2017/18 season 7 14 10 7 38
*Subject to changes in broadcasting scheduling
CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT(unaudited; in £ thousands, except per share and shares outstanding data) Three months ended
31 December
Six months ended
31 December
2018 Restated(1)
2017
2018 Restated(1)
2017
Revenue208,612 177,415 343,638 321,080 Operating expenses (160,269) (136,252 ) (303,849) (279,288 ) (Loss)/profit on disposal of intangible assets (4,349) 1,013 18,079 18,292 Operating profit 43,994 42,176 57,868 60,084 Finance costs (7,131) (4,533 ) (12,946) (5,534 ) Finance income 785 170 1,474 388 Net finance costs (6,346) (4,363 ) (11,472) (5,146 ) Profit before tax37,648 37,813 46,396 54,938 Tax expense(2) (10,878) (57,510 ) (12,980) (65,065 ) Profit/(loss) for the period 26,770 (19,697 ) 33,416 (10,127 ) Basic earnings/(loss) per share: Basic earnings/(loss) per share (pence) 16.27 (12.00 ) 20.31 (6.17 ) Weighted average number of ordinary shares outstanding (thousands) 164,526 164,195 164,526 164,195 Diluted earnings/(loss) per share: Diluted earnings/(loss) per share (pence)(3)16.26 (12.00 ) 20.29 (6.17 ) Weighted average number of ordinary shares outstanding (thousands) 164,663 164,585 164,663 164,585
(1) Comparative amounts have been restated – see supplemental note 5 for further details. (2) The US federal corporate income tax rate reduced from 35% to 21% following the enactment of US tax reform on 22 December 2017. This necessitated a re-measurement of the then existing US deferred tax position in the period to 31 December 2017. As a result the prior year period tax expense included a non-cash tax accounting write off of £49.0 million. (3) For the three and six months ended 31 December 2017 potential ordinary shares are anti-dilutive, as their inclusion in the diluted loss per share calculation would reduce the loss per share, and hence have been excluded.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET(unaudited; in £ thousands) 31 December
2018
Restated(1)
30 June
2018
Restated(1)
31 December
2017
ASSETS Non-current assets Property, plant and equipment 246,910 245,401 246,673 Investment property 13,772 13,836 13,901 Intangible assets 739,472 799,640 770,076 Derivative financial instruments 2,559 4,807 1,192 Trade and other receivables 10,387 4,724 10,560 Tax receivable 547 547 1,882 Deferred tax asset 57,636 63,332 77,500 1,071,283 1,132,287 1,121,784 Current assets Inventories 2,610 1,416 1,918 Derivative financial instruments 625 1,159 2,704 Trade and other receivables 124,232 168,060 123,027 Tax receivable 598 800 - Cash and cash equivalents 190,395 242,022 155,312 318,460 413,457 282,961 Total assets 1,389,743 1,545,744 1,404,745 (1) Comparative amounts have been restated – see supplemental note 5 for further details. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (continued)(unaudited; in £ thousands) 31 December
2018
Restated(1)
30 June
2018
Restated(1)
31 December
2017
EQUITY AND LIABILITIESEquity Share capital 53 53 53 Share premium 68,822 68,822 68,822 Merger reserve 249,030 249,030 249,030 Hedging reserve (35,693) (27,558 ) (23,944 ) Retained earnings 170,544 136,757 184,529 452,756 427,104 478,490 Non-current liabilities Trade and other payables 46,644 104,271 70,331 Borrowings 502,576 486,694 474,748 Deferred revenue 32,952 37,085 32,704 Deferred tax liabilities 33,302 29,134 35,801 615,474 657,184 613,584 Current liabilities Tax liabilities 5,771 3,874 3,704 Trade and other payables 180,588 267,996 182,965 Borrowings 5,492 9,074 9,160 Deferred revenue 129,662 180,512 116,842 321,513 461,456 312,671 Total equity and liabilities 1,389,743 1,545,744 1,404,745 (1) Comparative amounts have been restated – see supplemental note 5 for further details.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS(unaudited; in £ thousands)
Three months ended 31 December
Six months ended
31 December
2018 2017 2018 2017 Cash flows from operating activities Cash (used in)/generated from operations (see supplemental note 4) (41,019) (38,440 ) 82,337 (11,489 ) Interest paid (1,734) (1,621 ) (9,507) (9,639 ) Interest received 722 170 1,355 388 Tax paid (376) (4,530 ) (1,810) (5,768 ) Net cash (used in)/generated from operating activities (42,407) (44,421 ) 72,375 (26,508 ) Cash flows from investing activities Payments for property, plant and equipment (2,414) (4,243 ) (7,318) (8,587 ) Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment - 75 - 75 Payments for intangible assets (16,418) (12,000 ) (145,056) (129,121 ) Proceeds from sale of intangible assets 255 256 25,183 32,442 Net cash used in investing activities (18,577) (15,912 ) (127,191) (105,191 ) Cash flows from financing activities Repayment of borrowings - (106 ) (3,750) (206 ) Net cash used in financing activities - (106 ) (3,750) (206 ) Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents(60,984) (60,439 ) (58,566) (131,905 ) Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 247,505 216,236 242,022 290,267 Effects of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents 3,874 (485 ) 6,939 (3,050 ) Cash and cash equivalents at end of period 190,395 155,312 190,395 155,312
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
1General information
Manchester United plc (the “Company”) and its subsidiaries (together the “Group”) is a professional football club together with related and ancillary activities. The Company incorporated under the Companies Law (2011 Revision) of the Cayman Islands, as amended and restated from time to time.
2Reconciliation of profit/(loss) for the period to Adjusted EBITDA
Three months ended
31 December
Six months ended
31 December
2018
£’000
Restated(1)
2017
£’000
2018
£’000
Restated(1)
2017
£’000
Profit/(loss) for the period26,770 (19,697 ) 33,416 (10,127 ) Adjustments: Tax expense 10,878 57,510 12,980 65,065 Net finance costs 6,346 4,363 11,472 5,146 Loss/(profit) on disposal of intangible assets 4,349 (1,013 ) (18,079) (18,292 ) Exceptional items 19,599 - 19,599 - Amortization 33,440 37,335 68,571 73,389 Depreciation 2,970 2,755 5,779 5,329 Adjusted EBITDA 104,352 81,253 133,738 120,510
(1) Comparative amounts have been restated – see supplemental note 5 for further details.
3Reconciliation of profit/(loss) for the period to adjusted profit for the period and adjusted basic and diluted earnings per share
Three months ended
31 December
Six months ended
31 December
2018
£’000
Restated(1)
2017
£’000
2018
£’000
Restated(1)
2017
£’000
Profit/(loss) for the period26,770 (19,697 ) 33,416 (10,127 ) Exceptional items 19,599 - 19,599 - Foreign exchange losses/(gains) on unhedged US dollar borrowings 1,316 (1,328 ) 1,535 (6,824 ) Fair value movement on embedded foreign exchange derivatives 25 291 (56) 845 Tax expense 10,878 57,510 12,980 65,065 Adjusted profit before tax 58,588 36,776 67,474 48,959
Adjusted tax expense (using a normalized US statutory rate of 21% (2017: 35%))
(12,303) (12,872 ) (14,170) (17,136 ) Adjusted profit for the period (i.e. adjusted net income) 46,285 23,904 53,304 31,823 Adjusted basic earnings per share: Adjusted basic earnings per share (pence) 28.13 14.56 32.40 19.38 Weighted average number of ordinary shares outstanding (thousands) 164,526 164,195 164,526 164,195 Adjusted diluted earnings per share: Adjusted diluted earnings per share (pence) 28.11 14.52 32.37 19.34 Weighted average number of ordinary shares outstanding (thousands) 164,663 164,585 164,663 164,585
(1) Comparative amounts have been restated – see supplemental note 5 for further details.
4Cash (used in)/generated from operations
Three months ended
31 December
Six months ended
31 December
2018
£’000
Restated(1)
2017
£’000
2018
£’000
Restated(1)
2017
£’000
Profit/(loss) for the period 26,770 (19,697 ) 33,416 (10,127 ) Tax expense 10,878 57,510 12,980 65,065 Profit before tax 37,648 37,813 46,396 54,938 Depreciation 2,970 2,755 5,779 5,329 Amortization 33,440 37,335 68,571 73,389 Loss/(profit) on disposal of intangible assets registrations 4,349 (1,013 ) (18,079) (18,292 ) Net finance costs 6,346 4,363 11,472 5,146 Profit on disposal of property, plant and equipment - (75 ) - (75 ) Equity-settled share-based payments 161 618 371 1,203 Foreign exchange losses on operating activities (95) 9 182 1,000 Reclassified from hedging reserve 1,536 3,587 2,844 7,468 Changes in working capital: Inventories 56 156 (1,194) (281 ) Trade and other receivables (30,303) (37,282 ) 39,293 (25,437 ) Trade and other payables and deferred revenue (97,127) (86,706 ) (73,298) (115,877 ) Cash (used in)/generated from operations (41,019) (38,440 ) 82,337 (11,489 )
(1) Comparative amounts have been restated – see supplemental note 5 for further details.
5Restatement of prior periods following implementation of IFRS 15
The Group adopted IFRS 15 ‘Revenue from contracts with customers’ with effect from 1 July 2018. The implementation of IFRS 15 had an impact on the Group’s financial statements as at 1 July 2018 and consequently prior year amounts have been restated. The table below shows the retrospective impact on revenue for the four quarters ended 30 June 2018. Note 34 to the interim consolidated financial statements for the three and six months ended 31 December 2018 contains tables and notes which explain how the restatement affected the consolidated income statement, consolidated statement of comprehensive income, consolidated balance sheet, and consolidated statement of cash flows.
Commercial revenue
IFRS 15 focuses on the identification and satisfaction of performance obligations and includes specific guidance on the methods for measuring progress towards complete satisfaction of a performance obligation therefore revenue on certain commercial contracts is recognized earlier under IFRS 15. The effect of the retrospective application is an increase in cumulative revenue recognized over the financial years up to and including the year ended 30 June 2018 including a reduction to the amount of revenue recognized during the financial year ended 30 June 2018 only.
Broadcasting revenue
Following adoption of IFRS 15, certain performance obligations are satisfied over time as each Premier League match (home and away) is played – accordingly revenue is recognized evenly as each Premier League match (home and away) is played. Broadcasting merit awards were previously recognized one share in the first quarter with the remainder being recognized when they were known at the end of each football season. Merit awards represent variable consideration and therefore, following adoption of IFRS 15, are estimated using the most likely amount method based on management’s estimate of where the Club’s finishing position will be at the end of each season. Broadcasting equal share payments were previously recognized evenly as each Premier League home match was played. Note, these changes only affect the amount of broadcasting revenue recognized in each quarter, they do not affect the amount of broadcasting revenue recognized for the financial year as a whole.
Matchday revenue
Adoption of IFRS 15 has no impact on the recognition of matchday revenue.
£’000 Three months Three months Three months Three months Twelve months
ended
ended ended ended ended 30 September 31 December 31 March 30 June 30 June
2017
2017 2018 2018 2018 Commercial revenue Reported 80,544 65,366 66,673 63,516 276,099 Adjustment (66 ) (66 ) (66 ) (66 ) (264 ) Restated 80,478 65,300 66,607 63,450 275,835 Broadcasting revenue
Reported 38,082 61,628 39,674 64,753 204,137 Adjustment 2,751 13,519 9,656 (25,926 ) - Restated 40,833 75,147 49,330 38,827 204,137 Matchday revenue Reported 22,354 36,968 31,122 19,342 109,786 Adjustment - - - - - Restated 22,354 36,968 31,122 19,342 109,786 Total revenue Reported 140,980 163,962 137,469 147,611 590,022 Adjustment 2,685 13,453 9,590 (25,992 ) (264 ) Restated 143,665 177,415 147,059 121,619 589,758
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190214005343/en/
Manchester United plc Investor Relations: Cliff Baty Chief Financial Officer +44 161 868 8650 [email protected]
Manchester United plc Media: Charlie Brooks Director of Communications +44 161 868 8148 [email protected]
Sard Verbinnen & Co Jim Barron / Devin Broda + 1 212 687 8080 [email protected] [email protected]
Source: Manchester United
Source link
https://www.manutdnews.online/manchester-united-plc-2019-second-quarter-results/
0 notes
Text
Can Oklahoma Survive The Opening Half To Compete With Alabama?
One year ago, the Oklahoma Sooners fielded the worst defense to ever qualify for the College Football Playoff. Under first-year head coach Lincoln Riley, and behind Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback Baker Mayfield, Oklahoma took a 17-point lead on Georgia, the eventual national runner-up, before losing in the Rose Bowl semifinal. Twelve months later, Riley has another Heisman-winning quarterback in Kyler Murray and has piloted another one-dimensional Sooners team to a playoff berth.
The reward — a date with Alabama, college football’s lead power broker — seems more like a punishment. The Tide, long a defensive force under coach Nick Saban, now boast what’s likely the best offense in program history. Las Vegas oddsmakers cared not for Oklahoma’s three-game winning streak against the Tide and opened with Alabama as two-touchdown favorites. According to FiveThirtyEight’s college football prediction model, Alabama has a 41 percent probability of winning the national title. Oklahoma faces much taller odds, with an 11 percent probability of winning it all.
Here’s what to look for the when the two programs meet in the Orange Bowl semifinal Saturday at 8 p.m. Eastern.
Will Tua Tagovailoa or Kyler Murray win the QB showdown?
Seldom do a Heisman winner and his runner-up meet after the winner is crowned. Even given that rarity, this may be the best postseason clash of college quarterbacks we’ve ever seen. Both are coming off of historic regular seasons, with each in line to trump the record for Total Quarterback Rating, which ESPN has tracked since 2004 and is measured on a scale of 0 to 100.
But it’s not just the quarterbacks. In terms of offensive efficiency, this is the best matchup since the playoff began in 2014. Oddsmakers have taken notice, setting a points over/under total that’s unprecedented in the playoff era.
It seemed logical that the departure of Mayfield, the No. 1 pick in the 2018 NFL draft, would abate Oklahoma’s offensive horsepower. That 2017 team had the most efficient offense ever tracked, according to the ESPN Stats & Information Group.1 But in Murray’s first full season as a starting college quarterback, the Sooners’ offense has actually improved. “Kyler Murray has accomplished more in one season and had more impact on the Sooners’ tradition in one season than any other player in our history,” former Oklahoma coach Barry Switzer told The Athletic. “He’s broke all the damn records.”
The Sooners have gotten better under Murray
Oklahoma’s offensive production in 2018, with Kyler Murray at quarterback, vs. 2017, with Baker Mayfield at quarterback
Metric 2018 2017 Offensive points per game 47.0 43.6 Yards per play 8.8 8.3 Percentage of first downs or TDs per play 41.0% 37.6 Percentage of first downs or TDs per pass attempt 51.1% 49.4 Percentage of plays for zero or negative yards 25.6% 26.6
Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group
As if spring-loaded, Murray’s legs have minced opposing defenses. On a 75-yard touchdown run against Kansas, a broadcaster declared, “You’re not going to catch him,” before Murray had passed the 40-yard line. The junior is the country’s pre-eminent dual-threat wizard, whose 892 rushing yards place him seventh among all Football Bowl Subdivision quarterbacks this year.
At the same time, Tagovailoa has been the figurehead of the Tide’s offensive ascension since replacing Jalen Hurts in last season’s national championship game. Saban has been in Tuscaloosa since 2007, and this year’s offense has been his best in terms of, well, everything.
This is Saban’s most dominant Alabama offense
Alabama’s offense by season under head coach Nick Saban
Per play Per Game Season Yards Yards Passing Yards 1st Downs Offensive Points 2018 7.92 527.6 325.5 24.6 43.9 2017 6.59 444.1 193.4 22.2 36.1 2016 6.47 455.3 210.3 21.0 31.9 2015 5.89 427.1 227.1 21.9 30.1 2014 6.66 484.5 277.9 24.3 36.3 2013 7.15 454.1 248.5 23.2 34.2 2012 6.95 445.5 218.0 21.6 37.2 2011 6.46 429.6 215.2 21.6 32.1 2010 6.96 444.1 261.2 22.1 33.4 2009 5.96 403.0 187.9 20.6 30.1 2008 5.52 355.8 171.1 18.8 25.6 2007 5.05 373.8 224.5 22.6 26.4
Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group
Both Murray and Tagovailoa are having little difficulty stretching the field. If they keep up this pace during the playoffs, each would rank in the top three among all QBs since 2004 in single-season passing yards per attempt, with Murray’s current 11.92 mark in line to set the all-time record.
They won’t, however, be competing against equally proficient defensive units. Murray will be staring down a top-flight fortress that spent the past few months razing offensive lines and leveling quarterbacks. The Crimson Tide rank second in defensive efficiency, behind Clemson, and they lead the country in adjusted defensive quarterback rating, which accounts for the strength of the opposing quarterback. The Tide ranks among the 15 best teams in opponent completion percentage (51.8 percent) and yards allowed per pass attempt (5.86).
Tagovailoa will have the luxury of playing against a defense that might seem as though it’s providing Alabama an escort to the end zone. Oklahoma ranks 92nd in defensive efficiency, unseating last year’s squad as the new worst defense to make it to the playoff; the Sooners have allowed 56 touchdowns this year, 13 more than Alabama has allowed since the beginning of the 2017 season. Uninspired performances led to the midseason firing of defensive coordinator Mike Stoops. But the unit’s play hasn’t improved. After giving up 39 first downs to Oklahoma State, the most allowed by any FBS team this season, interim defensive coordinator Ruffin McNeill found room to praise his team for making “critical stops.”
Pass defense, in particular, has been ghastly for the Sooners. No FBS team allows more passing yards per game (291.4), and only five allow more completions (22.3). The Sooners love to give up the long play, having allowed 56 passing plays of 20-plus yards, the fourth-most by any team.
It’s unlikely that the turnover margin will favor the Sooners — even though Tagovailoa threw as many interceptions in his last outing as he did the rest of the season total. Oklahoma has generated 11 takeaways all season, the fewest of any qualifying team in the playoff era. Alabama has forced 11 since the beginning of October — and 21 in total.
On the opening drive of the SEC championship game, Tagovailoa suffered a high ankle injury, which required surgery the following day. The sophomore has said that he’ll be unencumbered come game time, and given how little he rushes — generating just the 89th-most rushing yards among QBs — he won’t need much mobility. Even a pocket-locked Tagovailoa can still shred an opposing defense.
Can Oklahoma survive Alabama’s first-half avalanche to win the second half?
Players come and go, and each season carries idiosyncrasies, but the narrative arcs of the Sooners’ two previous playoff appearances were seemingly penned by the same author. In both, a lead evaporated and a dominant first half gave way to a second-half dud.
In those appearances — in the 2015-16 Orange Bowl and the 2017-18 Rose Bowl — the Sooners outscored opponents 48 to 33 in the first half and were pummeled 49 to 14 in the second.2 Those losses, Riley said,3 could be traced to physical opponents and conservative play-calling.
Rewriting the script, then, will be paramount this time around for Oklahoma.
Offensively, the Sooners seem to have the first half covered. No team puts up more first-half yardage than Oklahoma, which averages 313.4 yards a game. The team racks up 9.5 yards per first-half play — nearly a first down on each play. Riley’s offense is outscoring opponents by an average of 11.3 points in first halves this season, the eighth-best mark in the country.
Of course, what separates Alabama from Oklahoma is its defense. The Tide allow 7.9 points per game in first halves, 12th-fewest in the nation and 7.9 fewer points than the Sooners. Alabama doesn’t just shut the door on its opponents in the opening 30 minutes — it packs their bags, shuttles them to the airport and ushers them through TSA. Remember when the Tide turned Tiger Stadium into a morgue by the third quarter of November’s top-five showdown with LSU? Or when the Tide took a trip to Oxford, watched Ole Miss score on its opening play and then blitzed the Rebels with 62 unanswered points, including 49 in the first half?4
LSU and Ole Miss aren’t alone. Saban’s squad is outscoring opponents 388 to 103 in first halves this season. On average, the Crimson Tide enter the locker room at halftime with a 21.9-point lead, the second-biggest margin by any team since at least 2004, the first year for which data is available.5 Ninety-three teams have scored fewer total touchdowns than Alabama has scored in first halves. Only four teams in the past 15 seasons have scored more first-half touchdowns than the Tide’s 53.
These lopsided first halves mean that the Tide hardly ever fall behind on the scoreboard. The average college football team this season played 178.6 first-half offensive snaps when trailing. Alabama played 18 — 32 fewer than the next-closest team.
Bama rarely plays from behind
Total first-half snaps when trailing for this year’s playoff participants
Team Offensive Snaps Defensive Snaps Alabama 18 12 Clemson 63 24 Notre Dame 69 40 Oklahoma 128 54 National average 177 129
Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group
Coming into the SEC title game, teams had run a combined 388 first-half plays against the Tide defense. They didn’t have the lead on any of them. Georgia finally broke through in the SEC championship; the Bulldogs ran 43 first-half offensive plays against the Tide and led for 12 of them.
The nightmare doesn’t end for Alabama opponents in second halves: Then they’re outscored by a touchdown and a half, on average. In second halves, teams score 0.92 touchdowns per game against the Tide, tied for the sixth-fewest.
Conversely, Oklahoma’s dominance tapers off considerably in the final two quarters, when it outscores opponents by only 5.2 points, which ranks 24th nationally.
Little if any of that decline is attributable to the offense, which roars from start to finish. But defensively, the bottom seems to fall out for the Sooners after halftime, as they allow an average of 2.23 touchdowns per game in second halves, the most by any team in the Big 12 and tied for the 20th-most nationally. Riley’s defense has allowed 29 second-half touchdowns, the most by an Oklahoma defense since at least 2004.
However, should Oklahoma keep the game close down the stretch, it has a peerless crunch-time quarterback in Murray. The Sooners have played seven games decided by 14 or fewer points, while Alabama has played only one. In the fourth quarter, when the scoring margin is within 14 points, Murray has a nation-leading quarterback rating of 99 — that’s on a 1-to-100 scale, mind you.
There’s an argument to be made that Oklahoma is better equipped — certainly more experienced — to handle high-leverage situations.6 But Alabama has been so dominant that it simply hasn’t mattered.
from News About Sports https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-oklahoma-survive-the-opening-half-to-compete-with-alabama/
0 notes
Text
Man Utd quarterly revenue grows by 8%
Manchester United has seen its third quarter revenues rise by 8.1% to £137.5m, from £127.2m a year before.
The Old Trafford club, which plays against Chelsea in the FA Cup final on Saturday, also recorded a small profit for the quarter of £100,000.
Despite defeat by Spain’s Sevilla in the Champions League the club has stuck to its revenue targets for the current year, of £575m to £585m.
The club finished second in the Premier League behind rivals Manchester City.
Ed Woodward, executive vice chairman, said: “As another season nears its close, we have achieved our highest number of points and finish since 2012-13 and we look forward to another trip to Wembley.
“We anticipate another successful summer tour in the United States in preparation for the 2018-19 season.”
Broadcast revenues were up 26.4% at £39.7m. Commercial revenues were slightly higher, and matchday income was 6% higher at £31.1m.
New deals
Four sponsorship deals were signed during the three months to April including new deals with Chinese insurance firm PingAn and sports nutrition firm Science in Sport.
A deal with South Korean pharmaceuticals company Cho-A-Pharm was renewed, and one with Chinese mattress maker Mlily was extended.
However, total sponsorship revenues for the quarter were down by 0.2% to £41.7m compared with a year before.
Wages for the quarter were £75.1m, an increase of £8.6 million, or 12.9%, “primarily due to player salary uplifts related to participation in the Uefa Champions League”.
But other operating expenses for the quarter were £26.3m, a decrease of £4.4m, or 14.3%, reflecting lower home domestic cup gate share costs, reduced travel costs and a reduction in foreign exchange losses.
Net debt at the end of March stood at £301.3m, a decrease of 17.7% over the year.
BBC Sport – Football
Man Utd quarterly revenue grows by 8% was originally published on 365 Football
0 notes
Text
Victoria Secret’s Secret
Body image is constantly up for debate. One might contemplate true beauty and the perfect body due to the approach advertising businesses take on promoting what is deemed to be perfect. Victoria Secret is perhaps one of the most profitable lingerie companies worldwide that promotes the ideal perfect body. This wealthy lingerie line has expanded to selling clothing, sportswear, lotions, bathing suits, and more. However, there is no secret to what impression Victoria Secret convey’s as the perfect body through their advertisements.
Unfortunately, what young girls and women view from these advertisements may lead them to believe that they need to live up to this idealized perfect body beauty standard promoted by Victoria Secret.
Victoria Secret advertising is plastered outside their stores, inside their stores, in magazines, online, on social media, and on television, where CBS hosts their annual Victoria Secret Fashion Show; serving as their biggest profit making promotion.
(Google)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdOzaxO2yA4
These advertisements are created for one reason only: the profit they bring to the company. Unfortunately, the profit overshadows the physical, mental, and emotional well-being concerns faced by many young girls and women.
Victoria Secret promotes the idealized perfect thin body because of the millions they gain from their advertisements and then purchases of their merchandise. The corporate media create a standard that most girls and women cannot live up to through their advertising, disregarding the potential harm to young girls and women.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtrN-7AIQu4
Victoria Secret is owned by the American fashion retailer, Limited Brands. L Brands was founded by Leslie H. Wexner in 1963. As the retailer grew, the well-known lingerie company Victoria Secret launched in 1977. Roy Raymond an American businessman, founded the famous VS that is now a success in many different countries. However, the success of VS outweighs the potential damage it has brought upon young girls and women that view these advertisements.
Roy Raymond & Leslie Wexner. (Google)
The advertisements VS create and promote are all fairly similar in the way they look. Beautiful, thin, tan, flawless women with not one imperfection. The annual Victoria Secret Fashion Show is just another extravagant way to promote their lingerie. “It was the most expensive fashion show ever — estimated to cost more than $26.4 million according to the New York Times — more than 100 times what an ordinary (and still expensive) fashion show would normally cost.” (Yee, 2017). The VS Fashion Show spends so much time, money, and effort because of the success it has brought to VS. Why does so much money go into the VS Fashion Show? “Sharon Turney, President and CEO of Victoria’s Secret, says the cost is all justified. “It’s not as much as you would think and it actually pays for itself five times over,” she told Forbes.” (Yee, 2017). As the VS fashion show approaches, CBS, one of the 6 corporations that control 90 percent of the media, is sure to be the channel to air the marketable fashion show. Not only does the VS Fashion Show promote their line of lingerie, but any commercial aired during breaks of the fashion show gain recognition which they are paying CBS for. The whole advertising promotion is a give and take from the elite to gain the greatest amount of profit.
The models themselves are being controlled by corporate media with what is in the best interest for VS regarding profit. The models are too thin and malnourished as they are posing sexy in their lingerie. Young girls and women viewing these advertisements may question their real beauty while comparing their bodies to the idealized VS models. A study done by Broadcast Education Association found “As predicted, attraction to thin/provocative media personalities positively predicted general eating disorder symptomatology (EAT score), drive for thinness, anorexia, bulimia, perfectionism, and ineffectiveness, whereas attraction to average and heavy media personalities did not.” (Broadcast Education Association, 1997). Wealthy white male billionaires continue to profit off of VS and CBS will not miss their chance to gain views and make a profit off of the fashion show either. The corporate media exploit the VS models while making a profit and causing potential severe damage to young girls and women that crave to be like the beautiful VS models, all for a buck.
Harrison, K. (1997). Does interpersonal attraction to thin media personalities promote eating disorders? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41(4), 478-500. doi:10.1080/08838159709364422
W. (2017, November 20). The insane cost of putting on the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2017/11/20/the-insane-cost-of-putting-on-the-victorias-secret-fashion-show/
https://nypost.com/2017/11/20/the-insane-cost-of-putting-on-the-victorias-secret-fashion-show/
https://www.forbes.com/profile/les-wexner/
Les Wexner & family. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/profile/les-wexner/
0 notes