Oh. My. God.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
shit. This is no good news
Bleeding us dry
I just read this. I know that under the terms of the bond issue they are trying to float they have to give the worst case scenario, but this is getting worse by the day. If only part of what is being said is true you wonder if there will be anything left once the Glazier's pick the club clean.
It's not all that far fetched/outrageous, if true. The club will be trying to offer the bonds to as many wealthy individuals as they can, and if they've got a couple of dozen millionaires in-house, it more than makes sense.
It could be a good thing for the club if players do take the offer up, because obviously it mean the players would have a long term (well, ten years or whenever it is the bonds reach maturity) financial interest in the club.
It could be a good thing for the club if players do take the offer up, because obviously it mean the players would have a long term (well, ten years or whenever it is the bonds reach maturity) financial interest in the club.
Meaningful only for the players' financial health, would have no impact whatsoever on the performance of the team. The players are already expected to play every game at breakneck pace and with maximal effort, and being professionals at the height of their powers playing for the league chamions, that's exactly what they do.
If you're looking for some added incentive to play well, it's just not there.
Possibly, but I was thinking more along the lines of not fecking the club off if things started to go tits up. Players would naturally be more inclined to stay if they had money at stake.
Their money wouldn't be at stake. They'd be investing in bonds, not stocks
the caf - believing any bit of journalism when it's something they want to believe, and denouncing it when it's something they don't want to hear.
Of course their money would be at stake. If things went tits up, they would lose out, financially. The bonds are obviously secured on most of our assets, but they are still relatively high risk bonds, hence the high interest (compared to your aveage bond) they will be paying out.
You don't need to have a stake of ownership in a business for your money to be 'at stake'.
raping the club....just sell and leave already.
I just cannot believe those thieving, souless cnuts...
Something has to be done. The Premier League should block our membership and force a sale.
Everyone should come together to boycott matches. Stop paying the cnuts.
Something has to be done. The Premier League should block our membership and force a sale.
Everyone should come together to boycott matches. Stop paying the cnuts.
The reason that the Glazer's have been so removed from the public eye is becuase they are complete and utter thieves. And they know it!
This just gets better and better.
I always wondered what it was like to support United through the dark days and although they are not here, they very well could be coming with these shitheads in charge.
Wonder when people will start jumping ship?
I always wondered what it was like to support United through the dark days and although they are not here, they very well could be coming with these shitheads in charge.
Wonder when people will start jumping ship?
Exactly.
7%, as the Icelandic banks and Maddof...The only ones who were "able" to pay that percentage
i start questiong myself: would u like to see we keep on struggling with no new money to sign players and just being runner-ups in the league OR
great players depart and galzer sells the club to someone else. then we start from mid-table as a member-owned club like barca and real
which one you would prefer?
great players depart and galzer sells the club to someone else. then we start from mid-table as a member-owned club like barca and real
which one you would prefer?
If we don't win trophies and fall out of the CL spots we will sink as fast as Leeds did.
The fans will never own the club, it not feasible in the modern game. The values are so inflated it would take hundreds of thousands of fans putting sizable amounts of moment in.
We needs a sugar daddy ASAP.
Damn those Galzers. All that nasty business with the Glazers, and now this?!?!?
fecks sake. Something actually needs to be done then doesn't it?
I wasn't getting too involved in the recent hype surrounding money issues but it's starting to get scary.
Surely the FA or someone can stop this sort of bullshit? No one should be allowed to rape a thriving, successful club then leave it fecked.
If the worst ever did happen it could well coincide with SAF needing to be replaced and we'd be in the shit worse then ever.
I wasn't getting too involved in the recent hype surrounding money issues but it's starting to get scary.
Surely the FA or someone can stop this sort of bullshit? No one should be allowed to rape a thriving, successful club then leave it fecked.
If the worst ever did happen it could well coincide with SAF needing to be replaced and we'd be in the shit worse then ever.
Someone actually pointed this out in the newbies while I was down there on the first day the bond document was released. I posted it in the Glazer thread I think in the mains. Guess it didn't make the news cycle till now.
But that was the most worrying aspect of the bond scheme.
But that was the most worrying aspect of the bond scheme.
You have to laugh...or you'll go insane.
I came into this thread thinking "Hahaha there's more" But this seems quite serious, and to be honest the most upsetting and dissapointing of news... I think the end is near, the problem is, is the end going to result in the club getting the better, or the worse, in the end of the bargain.
Tommorow is City in a Cup fecking semi, and I don't care because of this... LUHG !!!
Tommorow is City in a Cup fecking semi, and I don't care because of this... LUHG !!!
This is a bit fecking ridiculous
I want to do The Glazers to Liverpool. I have no money whatsoever but i think its enough to dismantle the Anfiled club.
Jesus Christ. How can what they're doing be legal? Its a perverse world we live in. One of the supporters' representatives described our economic system as a 'casino economy' a few days ago, and between this and the wider economic crisis it seems like an apt term.
There's nothing in any of those article's that we didn't know already.
I'm starting to get sick of all this now.
I'm starting to get sick of all this now.
At least its coming well and truly into the public domain now.
but most people still just talk about Man United and their debt as though it is all the clubs fault still. Call me petty, but aside from getting our club back on track, i wish there was a bit more clarity that this debt is all because of the Glazers as far as public knowledge goes.
As someone else said though, the rest of the world barely cares that United are in similar trouble to Liverpool. Just as our supporters laugh at Liverpool's predicament, so others probably do at ours. For the sake of English football and two clubs with the most history in English football, I wish the two sets of supporters could put differences aside and work together.
This from today's Guardian. Sorry if it has been posted in another thread already:
Glazers could take £130m out of Manchester United next year | Football | guardian.co.uk
The Glazer family, who own Manchester United, can take almost £130m cash out of the club next year alone if enough lenders sign up for the bond they have launched to borrow £500m for United.
Nestling in the small print of the 322-page bond prospectus are provisions allowing the Glazers to take £70m out of the club's cash reserves, which includes the money they have received from selling players such as Cristiano Ronaldo. The document also reserves for the Glazers the legal right to pay £25m out of the club in a dividend, and half of what is termed "consolidated net income". This is effectively the club's cash profits, which based on the most recent accounts would have meant £23m being paid out last year.
The bond's terms also note that the Glazers will have the right for £6m a year to be paid to companies they own "for administration and management services", and a further £3m "in respect of services provided by directors, officers or employees" of companies the Glazers use to hold their shares in United.
That money, added to the £70m and £25m one-off payments, plus the half of United's cash profit they can take out each year (equating to £23m last year), add up to £127m next year alone.
That huge figure is in addition to the straightforward payment of interest (yield) on the £500m the club will have borrowed via the bond, which at a mooted 9%, will be £45m. That will bring the total taken out of United to service the Glazers' borrowings, which were loaded on to the club after the family bought the club in 2005, to £172m next year alone.
It has become increasingly clear since the prospectus was launched last week that its principal purpose is to allow the Glazers to take cash out of United to reduce the amounts they owe in "payments in kind" to hedge funds, which are running at a punitive £14.25% interest. Standing at £175m in the year to 30 June, 2008, the "payments" accrued £25m interest in the year to 30 June, 2009, and so stand now at over £200m. That debt is secured on the United shares the Glazer family own, and it is clear their financial priority is to use United's giant turnover and profits to pay down that debt before the interest "rolls up" dramatically.
A calculation of the total cash which the bond would entail being paid out of United in dividend payments, the yield from the bond, management fees and the possible requirement for the club to lease the Carrington training ground, is more than £500m between next year and the maturity of the bond in 2017.
If the bond issue is fully taken up by lenders, it will mean that since the Glazer family bought United in May 2005 for £810m – £540m of it borrowed from banks and hedge funds – their takeover will have already cost United £340m in cash. That comprises £220m in bank interest plus "early-repayment premiums" made when the borrowings were first refinanced in August 2006. A further £120m will have been incurred in fees paid to bankers, lawyers and other professionals – the fees for this bond issue are noted as £15m – plus £35m incurred by the club's interest rate hedging arrangements.
On top of that, the "payments" have incurred interest payable of around £124m since the Glazers first borrowed the money to buy United.
A Glazer family spokesman, who also speaks for United on financial matters, declined to comment.
Nick Towle, chair of the Manchester United Supporters' Trust, said: "It is a shocking picture. These are immense amounts of money being leaked out of United to pay banks, lawyers, the Glazers themselves and interest, to pay for a takeover none of the supporters, or the United board itself, wanted.
"United's success and profits could have been used to keep ticket prices affordable or invest in the team but instead we see this heartbreaking waste, just because one family ultimately hopes to make a profit from the club."
Glazers could take £130m out of Manchester United next year | Football | guardian.co.uk
The Glazer family, who own Manchester United, can take almost £130m cash out of the club next year alone if enough lenders sign up for the bond they have launched to borrow £500m for United.
Nestling in the small print of the 322-page bond prospectus are provisions allowing the Glazers to take £70m out of the club's cash reserves, which includes the money they have received from selling players such as Cristiano Ronaldo. The document also reserves for the Glazers the legal right to pay £25m out of the club in a dividend, and half of what is termed "consolidated net income". This is effectively the club's cash profits, which based on the most recent accounts would have meant £23m being paid out last year.
The bond's terms also note that the Glazers will have the right for £6m a year to be paid to companies they own "for administration and management services", and a further £3m "in respect of services provided by directors, officers or employees" of companies the Glazers use to hold their shares in United.
That money, added to the £70m and £25m one-off payments, plus the half of United's cash profit they can take out each year (equating to £23m last year), add up to £127m next year alone.
That huge figure is in addition to the straightforward payment of interest (yield) on the £500m the club will have borrowed via the bond, which at a mooted 9%, will be £45m. That will bring the total taken out of United to service the Glazers' borrowings, which were loaded on to the club after the family bought the club in 2005, to £172m next year alone.
It has become increasingly clear since the prospectus was launched last week that its principal purpose is to allow the Glazers to take cash out of United to reduce the amounts they owe in "payments in kind" to hedge funds, which are running at a punitive £14.25% interest. Standing at £175m in the year to 30 June, 2008, the "payments" accrued £25m interest in the year to 30 June, 2009, and so stand now at over £200m. That debt is secured on the United shares the Glazer family own, and it is clear their financial priority is to use United's giant turnover and profits to pay down that debt before the interest "rolls up" dramatically.
A calculation of the total cash which the bond would entail being paid out of United in dividend payments, the yield from the bond, management fees and the possible requirement for the club to lease the Carrington training ground, is more than £500m between next year and the maturity of the bond in 2017.
If the bond issue is fully taken up by lenders, it will mean that since the Glazer family bought United in May 2005 for £810m – £540m of it borrowed from banks and hedge funds – their takeover will have already cost United £340m in cash. That comprises £220m in bank interest plus "early-repayment premiums" made when the borrowings were first refinanced in August 2006. A further £120m will have been incurred in fees paid to bankers, lawyers and other professionals – the fees for this bond issue are noted as £15m – plus £35m incurred by the club's interest rate hedging arrangements.
On top of that, the "payments" have incurred interest payable of around £124m since the Glazers first borrowed the money to buy United.
A Glazer family spokesman, who also speaks for United on financial matters, declined to comment.
Nick Towle, chair of the Manchester United Supporters' Trust, said: "It is a shocking picture. These are immense amounts of money being leaked out of United to pay banks, lawyers, the Glazers themselves and interest, to pay for a takeover none of the supporters, or the United board itself, wanted.
"United's success and profits could have been used to keep ticket prices affordable or invest in the team but instead we see this heartbreaking waste, just because one family ultimately hopes to make a profit from the club."
I am going to say just one thing....
I feckING TOLD YOU THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN
I feckING TOLD YOU THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN
This does not inspire me with confidence...
Absolutely agree, but I think people are starting to recognise now that this mess is squarely down to the Glazer family. There's even City fans where I work who say that this shouldn't have been allowed to happen.
City fans are realising it now..
United fans should have realised it 5 years ago, when they were told what was coming..
But too many sold their asses for 3 premierships and CL trophy...
If they'd stood up then we wouldnt be having this discussion now...
The fact many are now sitting here bleating their little hears out, really makes me want to vomit. THey were told what was coming, but they chose to ignore it.. Lambasted all those that knew what was coming... Called them doom mongers, and not real supporters..
If there had been more support for those that wanted a proper fight, then this would not be happening. We could have got them out years ago...
excuse my ignorance, but could you please tell me how we could have achieved this.
this is not a flippant request, i´m genuinly interested as to how we could of done this.
By making their business plan unworkable from the start.
Before they even got the club, I argued till I was blue in the face, alongside others, that to get them away from United we had to make their plan impossible to work... Wearing black armbands at an FA cup final was simply a joke.
Before the takeover we could, and should have forced a game to be cancelled by all descending on the pitch and refusing to move. That would have sent the message that if they get the club, this is what would happen every single game...
By standing together and putting the message across that if he took the club he wouldnt last a year, that would have deterred him.
Once he took over, then simply, United fans should have stopped going. Stop giving him the money. Once that happens, he is gone. Finished... He has to sell..
That megastore should be empty every game. The kiosks should be left untouched.. no programmes should be sold.. Seats should be empty...
Once he realises hes not going to get what he came for he is gone... and the fans have to stop giving it to him..
At the end of hte day hes taking 10 million a year out of our club.. someone is giving him that money.... stop giving him it, he cant take it..
Lee Sharpe: 'Glazer family's ownership of Manchester United is a disgrace'
This is the minimum attitude anyone connected to united should have:
Lee Sharpe: 'Glazer family's ownership of Manchester United is a disgrace' - Goal.com
top lad, that sharpey.
This is the minimum attitude anyone connected to united should have:
Lee Sharpe: 'Glazer family's ownership of Manchester United is a disgrace' - Goal.com
Lee Sharpe today branded the £700 million debt mountain amassed at Manchester United by its controversial American owners as 'disgraceful'.
The 38-year-old former Old Trafford'wonderkid' said the Glazer family's running of the club had 'undermined' two decades of success at the club under Sir Alex Ferguson.
Speaking ahead of tonight's Carling Cup
"The hard work carried out by Sir Alex Ferguson and everyone at the club over the last 20 years is at threat."
“United have been winning titles galore, building the club up in to a force. The Glazer’s have undermined all this hard work and stole its thunder.
“Who made the decision to sell to the Glazers? It’s wrong that the club has been put in to so much debt and then you hear stories of them taking money out of the club as well…
top lad, that sharpey.
What dumb idiot merged all the Glazer threads? Some Glazer sympathizer no doubt.
It' s censorship!!- now instead of several irate threads about the yankee bastards it's been dampened down into just one which makes it seem just like any of the other fluff topics on the forum.
It' s censorship!!- now instead of several irate threads about the yankee bastards it's been dampened down into just one which makes it seem just like any of the other fluff topics on the forum.
Bad decision to merge all the shite threads into this one - this thread was the one with a lot of real facts and most of the more balanced articles about the bond issue - now it has been ruined with all the shite articles and pathetic one line comments!
- Status