ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
robertsoncrusoe said:
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.
Click to expand...

It would be censorship if we had deleted the threads in question. If people insist on posting duplicate threads or even very closely related threads we can either merge, close or delete the threads. People whinge whatever is done.

I and lots of the other mods and admins are getting very sick of childish flailing like that contained in your post. So wind your neck in.

roodboy said:
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!
Click to expand...

The merged topics were all directly related to the bond issue and the total number of added posts was very low. We could of course have closed or deleted them in which case we would have been accused of censorship.

Oh wait ...................
 
Wibble said:
The merged topics were all directly related to the bond issue and the total number of added posts was very low. We could of course have closed or deleted them in which case we would have been accused of censorship.

Oh wait ...................
Click to expand...

Fair enough
I do understand why it was done as the number of threads was clearly getting out of hand - it is unfortunate that a decent thread has been ruined in process - personally I would have locked/deleted them and then banned anyone who complained about censorship - that'll learn 'em !
 
fredthered said:
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..
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Spot on.
 
fredthered said:
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..
Click to expand...

The Russians called it Scorched Earth, and it worked.

I declined to renew three memberships, until it became obvious I was one of a few. feck them, if an invasion is organised then I'm in. Scorched Earth for me.
 
roodboy said:
Fair enough
I do understand why it was done as the number of threads was clearly getting out of hand - it is unfortunate that a decent thread has been ruined in process - personally I would have locked/deleted them and then banned anyone who complained about censorship - that'll learn 'em !
Click to expand...

I think for something like this, we maybe should have opened a new forum, much like we have one for the youth.

I might seem a bit out of line, but it would clean up the board and give a direct section for people to go to that desire only news on this situation.

Maybe I should take this to the MOD section?
 
Wibble said:
It would be censorship if we had deleted the threads in question. If people insist on posting duplicate threads or even very closely related threads we can either merge, close or delete the threads. People whinge whatever is done.

I and lots of the other mods and admins are getting very sick of childish flailing like that contained in your post. So wind your neck in.



The merged topics were all directly related to the bond issue and the total number of added posts was very low. We could of course have closed or deleted them in which case we would have been accused of censorship.

Oh wait ...................
Click to expand...

OK maybe not censorship but a definite watering down of the message. Do you really think that this serious subject that could threaten the clubs survival warrants equal billing with 'who's best' and 'player rating' or 'Mike Dean' threads? There was a definite negative reaction to the bond issue news and it's implications, this was reflected in the amount of thread activity on the boards. Obscuring this and making it just seem like a normal everyday thread has helped the Glazers- hopefully that wasn't your intention.
I try to make serious points- I think this is one- lots of people don't like my style, but without differences there would be nothing to talk about.

Oh! and I understand that it's good management to merge similar threads, well spotted, but I was wondering what happens when a thread begins to diverge into several different subjects- do you have the authority to split them into different threads?
 
roodboy said:
Fair enough
I do understand why it was done as the number of threads was clearly getting out of hand - it is unfortunate that a decent thread has been ruined in process - personally I would have locked/deleted them and then banned anyone that complained of censorship - that'll learn 'em !
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:
 
Anderson Searl said:
I think for something like this, we maybe should have opened a new forum, much like we have one for the youth.

I might seem a bit out of line, but it would clean up the board and give a direct section for people to go to that desire only news on this situation.

Maybe I should take this to the MOD section?
Click to expand...

I suggested something along these lines way back in 2006 - maybe slightly sarcastic but prescient nevertheless.

robertsoncrusoe said:
May I humbly suggest that the caf starts a forum exclusively devoted to the Glazers? maybe even a for and against section? In that way we won't have to wade through a morass of tedious posts about our favorite players and 'my team for saturday' etc and get straight to the meat? I'm sure that this will free up vast quantities of band-width for the team-namers and favorite player buffs and let the professionals get on with what they do best undisturbed. Thank-you in anticipation.
Click to expand...
 
New Barcelona sponsor could back Manchester United next

Barcelona, the Spanish and European champions, have confirmed a major sponsorship deal with Turkey's national carrier, Turkish Airlines, which could also sponsor Manchester United.

The deal, originally brokered in December, will see the airline pay a reported €3 million per season for the next three years to be Barcelona's national airline. THY joins the likes of La Caixa Bank, Estrella Damm, Nike and Audi as a sponsor of the club, which donates its shirt sponsorship space to Unicef but still commands commercial revenues of more than €100 million per year.

Media reports in Turkey also claim that the airline is pursuing a similar sponsorship of Manchester United, the Premier League champions. The Old Trafford club, featuring such star names as Wayne Rooney, were runners-up to Barcelona in last season's Champions League, having won the 2008 edition of the competition.


The deal would come at a good time for Manchester United's owners, the Glazer family, who have faced fierce media criticism in recent weeks for their handling of the club's debts. Manchester United have agreed a number of lucrative commercial deals in recent months with the likes of Globacom, as well as signing a record shirt sponsorship deal with AIG last year. Sir Alex Ferguson's team have won the last three Premier League titles.
 
More fom the excellent David Conn in the Guardian. I hope he doesn't let this bone go easily. How the Glazer family are indebted to borrowing at Manchester United | David Conn | Football | The Guardian


The most striking revelations in the 322-page prospectus launched by the Glazer family last week to seek £500m in new bond loans for Manchester United were the five short paragraphs detailing the millions of pounds the family is personally taking out from the Old Trafford football club. Their borrowings, in particular, have prompted United supporters and some financial observers to question whether the Glazers have many businesses of their own which are currently making money, or much other access to cash.

In the section of the prospectus which provides the statutorily required biographies and "principal outside business interests" of the directors, three of the brothers, Avram, Joel and Bryan Glazer, have no other interests noted except at United and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the family's NFL franchise.

Earlier this month the Buccaneers finished bottom of their division after the Glazers, according to consistent reports, spent from the NFL's centrally distributed revenues $30m (£18.3m) less than the permitted maximum on players' salaries.

Darcie Glazer Kassewitz, a non-executive director of Red Football Limited, one of the companies the Glazers have formed to hold their shares in the club, is listed only as co-president of the Glazer Family Foundation, which assists charitable causes tied closely to the Tampa Bay franchise area. Only two brothers, Edward and Kevin, are listed with another outside business interest, as "officers", unspecified, of one of the family's long-term private companies, First Allied Corporation.

Between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2009, the date of the most recent annual accounts released with the prospectus, Glazer-affiliated companies were paid £10m in "management and administration fees" and in June another Glazer company, SLP Partners, was given a consultancy agreement worth up to £2.9m a year, which will end if the bond scheme is fully taken up by lenders. To replace it, according to the document, United "expect to enter into a management services agreement" worth up to £6m a year with "one or more entities related to our ultimate shareholders [the Glazer family] for administration and management services". On page 115 of the document lies a further £3m the family will have a right to be paid out of United "in respect of services provided by directors, officers or employees" of the holding companies.

Most eye-catching were the personal loans, £10m in total, taken out of United on 19 December 2008: £1.66m to each of Malcolm Glazer's five sons and one daughter, who are directors of Red Football Limited. The loans carry an annual interest of 5.5% and are repayable on demand after five years.

Until the Companies Act was revised in 2006 it was illegal in England, punishable with a fine or even imprisonment, for a director to borrow money (above £5,000) from his company. That no longer applies but it is still highly unusual for a company of Manchester United's size and prominence to see directors personally borrowing money from it. In the Premier League it is absolutely exceptional; no directors at any other club have borrowed money from it. Indeed it is the opposite in most cases; the owners are lending millions to their clubs personally.

Keith Harris, the merchant banker at Seymour Pierce who has advised on four Premier League club takeovers and is a long-standing critic of football club purchases financed with heavy borrowing, said: "You would not expect directors to be borrowing money at a company of United's size and, although it is now allowed legally, it is generally still frowned upon because it does not create a good impression of the directors' governance of the company."

In the week since the prospectus was launched containing those disclosures of the millions the Glazers have been paid – on top of the £460m United have become liable to pay in interest, professional fees and interest rate hedges since the family's 2005 takeover – the family's spokesman, who also speaks for United on financial matters, has declined to explain why the fees and loans were taken out. This week he again declined to comment when asked what other businesses the Glazers are currently involved with, besides United and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, to discuss how First Allied Corporation is trading or what cash and assets the Glazers currently have.

When the Florida-based family emerged to buy United, in the teeth of opposition from supporters' groups and the board, including the current chief executive, David Gill, who warned of the "significant financial strain" the debt-soaked plans could place on the club, the family were described as billionaires, with interests in property and industry, as well as the Bucs. Some in football who did not heed the warnings believed so wealthy a family would put money into United, not take out £22.9m in fees and loans while transforming England's richest club to its most debt-laden, by loading on to the club itself the borrowings they took out to buy it in the first place.

Malcolm Glazer, now in his 80s and reported to have suffered a stroke, was a classic American self-made man, working his way relentlessly to buying and selling major companies after taking responsibility for his family's watch parts business at 15 when his father died. When he and his own six children took over United in 2005, the family still had significant holdings in Zapata, a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, which in turn owned the fish oil firm, Omega Protein. Zapata sold Omega on 1 December 2006 for $29m and last summer the family sold their holding in Zapata itself, to a hedge fund, Harbinger Capital Partners, for $74m.

The business culture in the US for private companies is much less transparent than in the UK, where accounts, directors and significant transactions are all required to be publicly available via Companies House. Without the family making some information public voluntarily it is not possible to see how the First Allied Corporation, a private company which invests in property, mostly shopping malls, has been faring. The company is registered with the New York Department of State, giving an office in Rochester, New York, as its principal address and Malcolm Glazer as the chairman or chief executive officer. A spokeswoman for the department said that in New York law there is no requirement for the company to file details of any other directors or annual accounts.

Some in this vacuum of information, considering the only facts which are publicly known – sales of the other Glazer holdings, the downturn in property values, the highly borrowed method of financing the United deal, plus the fees and loans taken out of Old Trafford – are asking whether the family have ready sources of funds other than Manchester United and the Bucs.

"We do not know because the owners of our great club so rarely say anything," said Nick Towle, chair of the Manchester United Supporters' Trust, which has always campaigned against the Glazers' debt-introducing takeover. "Certainly we have been proven sadly right when we warned that these people would provide United with not one penny to spend, if they took over, but instead take millions out."
 
Wibble said:
It would be censorship if we had deleted the threads in question. If people insist on posting duplicate threads or even very closely related threads we can either merge, close or delete the threads. People whinge whatever is done.
Click to expand...

We could have done with different threads for the different topics, but I have some sympathy here as people weren't sticking to the topics in the individual threads and we were getting duplication.
 
London-based investment management company Liontrust Asset Management has joined Fred Done in criticising Manchester United's recent UK£500 million bond issue.

Liontrust's fixed income team, having attended Manchester United's bond presentation on Friday, have decided against buying it in its current form.

According to the Investment Week website, the coupon on Manchester United's bond is believed to be between 8.0 per cent and 9.5 per cent. Liontrust would reconsider a purchase should the coupon be boosted to 10 per cent.

Quentin Peacock, Liontrust's co-head of fixed income research, said: "At the moment it is not as generous as it should be for the risks that we, as traditional investors in bonds, are being asked to take."

* ‘I would not touch Manchester United’s bond issue with a barge pole.'

Peacock said United's US investor presentations this week will determine if the coupon is raised. "American high yield investors know about pricing cable companies, chemical companies and the like. If they say a sporting franchise has to pay 10 per cent that will be it. There is a feeling this can't get done in Europe and Asia alone."

Peacock expressed a wariness that a company which can go from an operating loss to an operating profit with the sale of one asset - the UK£81 million sale of Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid - does not have as transparent an earnings stream as it might appear.

"The question at a very basic level," he said, "is are we going to get paid the coupon for seven years and get our money back at the end?"
 
Drifter said:
New Barcelona sponsor could back Manchester United next

Barcelona, the Spanish and European champions, have confirmed a major sponsorship deal with Turkey's national carrier, Turkish Airlines, which could also sponsor Manchester United.

The deal, originally brokered in December, will see the airline pay a reported €3 million per season for the next three years to be Barcelona's national airline. THY joins the likes of La Caixa Bank, Estrella Damm, Nike and Audi as a sponsor of the club, which donates its shirt sponsorship space to Unicef but still commands commercial revenues of more than €100 million per year.

Media reports in Turkey also claim that the airline is pursuing a similar sponsorship of Manchester United, the Premier League champions. The Old Trafford club, featuring such star names as Wayne Rooney, were runners-up to Barcelona in last season's Champions League, having won the 2008 edition of the competition.


The deal would come at a good time for Manchester United's owners, the Glazer family, who have faced fierce media criticism in recent weeks for their handling of the club's debts. Manchester United have agreed a number of lucrative commercial deals in recent months with the likes of Globacom, as well as signing a record shirt sponsorship deal with AIG last year. Sir Alex Ferguson's team have won the last three Premier League titles.
Click to expand...

Havnt we already got an Asian airline that sponsor us?
 
Manchester United debt increases to £716.5m, latest accounts confirm

• Glazers' company Red Football Joint Venture Ltd files accounts
• Company paid £68.5m in interest payments on debts in 2009

Manchester United's parent company's overall debt has swelled to £716.5million, their latest accounts reveal.

The company, Red Football Joint Venture Ltd, which is owned by the Glazer family, filed accounts today for the year ending 30 June 2009, showing their overall debt has gone past £700million for the first time, increasing by £17million from £699million.

The biggest rise has come in the payment in kind (PIK) loans, which typically have a higher interest rate, which show a £27million increase to £202million. Bank loans, meanwhile, have dropped by £9million to £509million.

The overall debt figure, not contained in the prospectus for a £500million bond issue released last week, illustrates why the Glazers are so keen to raise cash through bonds to reduce the interest on the debt.

Red Football Joint Venture paid £68.5million in interest on their debts in 2009, but unlike the previous year, returned an overall profit of £6.4milllion in 2009. In 2008, they returned a £47million loss.

The profit can almost entirely be explained by the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid in the summer for £80million. Red Football Joint Venture's accounts record an £80.7million profit on "disposal of players" compared to a £21million profit in 2008.

A spokesman for the Glazer family insisted that the debt did not have a bearing on the operation of the club.

He said: "The club has a £50million surplus to work with once the interest payments have been made."

Manchester United's accounts also show their chief executive David Gill was paid £1.8million last year.

Manchester United debt increases to £716.5m, latest accounts confirm | Football | guardian.co.uk
 
Great we made 6 million profit...but it included the 80 million for Ronaldo, and an advance for the new shirt deal.

United are in big trouble folks. Our squad need strengthening and the competition is getting tougher. We are right royally fecked if we don't win the league and do very well in the CL on a regular basis.

It is a depressing situation.
 
its depressing those glazers bastards are allowed to do this and nothing is done about it, this is pathetic.
 
Kelvin said:
its depressing those glazers bastards are allowed to do this and nothing is done about it, this is pathetic.
Click to expand...

What can be done really? It was a publicly listed company and their buyout met department of T&I rules, and LSE rules. They own the club and there is not much anyone can do about that.

Obviously the FA and UEFA need to put limits on the amount of finance a club can carry, and the amount that gets spent on transfers and wages etc. Any rules that get implemented now will most likely hurt United more than help them.

Our only real hope is a buyout by a wealthy billionaire but there aren't too many people in the world that will spend over a billion in cash on a sports team.
 
Feck me - Worrying stuff indeed.

Glazer/s have alot of answering
 
mjs020294 said:
Great we made 6 million profit...but it included the 80 million for Ronaldo, and an advance for the new shirt deal.

United are in big trouble folks. Our squad need strengthening and the competition is getting tougher. We are right royally fecked if we don't win the league and do very well in the CL on a regular basis.

It is a depressing situation.
Click to expand...

As things are and assuming that revenue will remain the same, that means that if we do not manage to reduce the costs, next year we will have to make a net profits of 74 million on players transfer in order to break even.

No wonder the media is linking Vidic and Rooney with moves abroad...

Even if they manage to reduce the interest payments with the new bond issue, most probably we will still make a loss...
 
What was the debt when they took over? Was it about 550m?

We have about an even balence in terms of transfers over the last 5 years, so its easy to work out where the money has gone.
 
dev1l said:
As things are and assuming that revenue will remain the same, that means that if we do not manage to reduce the costs, next year we will have to make a net profits of 74 million on players transfer in order to break even.

No wonder the media is linking Vidic and Rooney with moves abroad...

Even if they manage to reduce the interest payments with the new bond issue, most probably we will still make a loss...
Click to expand...

The scary thing is we are in this situation after an unprecedented cycle of success. United could easily go down hill very fast if we fail to maintain the success on the field.

On the plus side (if there is a silver lining) the EPL can't afford to see United decline. The pressure will be on the other chairman to allow United to have their own overseas TV rights next time it comes up. That could generate 100 million a year.
 
If you take the Ronaldo sale our of the equation we would have made a loss of £74m.

That's £27m more lost than in 2008. I would have expected to see an improvement as the Glazer ownership moves forward but no, things are getting worse.

Those figures are on the back of us winning the champions league as well.

Also do not forget that this years turnover was almost £300m.

Turnover improved but profit nose dived. You don't have to be a financial whizzkid to work out we are in shit street.

No wonder they are desperate for this bond issue to go through.
 
Its not as if we went out and spashed the cash either....

Cann't see anyway this can be turned around... Interest rates are at an all-time low as well. When they pick up things will get worse.
 
bazalini said:
Its not as if we went out and spashed the cash either....

Cann't see anyway this can be turned around... Interest rates are at an all-time low as well. When they pick up things will get worse.
Click to expand...

They are hedged in at 8% so the drop in interest rates doesn't have an affect.

In fact the prospectus outlined that we owe £35m in respect of that hedging deal.
 
Sir Matt must be spinning in his grave, god rest his soul. This is just getting too much.
 
the glazers must get out now...the debts is spining out of control
 
Can someone please get me a copy of the prospectus? FInishing exams tomorrow, will have more time then to look at it.
 
mjs020294 said:
On the plus side (if there is a silver lining) the EPL can't afford to see United decline. The pressure will be on the other chairman to allow United to have their own overseas TV rights next time it comes up. That could generate 100 million a year.
Click to expand...
No way are the turkeys voting for Xmas. In any case the FIFA/UEFA and EU pressure is for collective agreements.
 
theimperialinn said:
They are hedged in at 8% so the drop in interest rates doesn't have an affect.

In fact the prospectus outlined that we owe £35m in respect of that hedging deal.
Click to expand...

If I m not wrong those 35m will be "ammortized" over the next five years - ie 7 million a year (starting from this year)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.