In theory what you said may be so but can you imagine the practical implications? It would be a nightmare and in the great scheme of things, even a club like Manchester United is not the biggest concern for the government right now.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
In theory what you said may be so but can you imagine the practical implications? It would be a nightmare and in the great scheme of things, even a club like Manchester United is not the biggest concern for the government right now.
TMRD, I think when you look at MUST, you're confusing dishonesty with their need to generate propaganda and as such sensationalising certain news stories. Similar to the "no value in the market" comments - we've all had varying opinions on that one.
No. I understand THEIR need to generate propaganda but do WE need it?
Do they do more harm than good with their propaganda?
They aren't going to be taking over United any time soon so all they are doing is throwing a spanner in the works and holding us back.
The debts are there, the costs are there, the amount the Glazers can take is there and these things are now all pretty much stabilised and known.
Does their propaganda help United or hinder it?
In short: Put up or shut up. Nobody gains from their propaganda. It only causes trouble and divides.
They should have blocked it years ago (actually the US govt should) before it got out of hand now it would blow too many companies (including Man Utd plc) clean out of the water. Should be tapered off and instituted for new transactions though.
They are no more guilty of propaganda and spin than the Glazers. Instead of the Glazers going to war with MUST perhaps all sides would benefit from sort of accommodation between the parties, a clearing of the air. Extremely unlikely of course
If it was a tax benefit for the working man it would have been closed long since
Suspect we're getting a bit too political here. Probably best to leave it at that.
I wish it hadn't happened at United but it's a bit too late to turn back the clock now. Fair or not.
They have caused no divides of any not and have done nothing to 'hold us back'. At the height of the protests last year the results on the field were very strong.
Everyone supports the team regardless of their stance on the Glazers
The fact that you are complaining about their use of propaganda and then proceeding to undertake your own against them is rather ironic and intellectually dishonest.
If you don't want to hear what MUST have to say then remove yourself from the mailing list.
I think you need to go back and see who declared war on whom.
The Glazers did NOT declare war on MUST. The Glazers probably didn't even know who the hell MUST were back in 2004.
They almost certainly do now and any chance there might have been of a channel of communication has been almost totally destroyed by MUST's extreme stance from day one until day now.
In my head, there is a fuzzy idea forming that when SAF or Gill say something then it is not "spin" or "propaganda" in the normal sense of the word but I cannot properly articulate it yet.
I can usually point to MUST spin and propaganda and say that it is either a lie, a misrepresentation of the known facts or that it relates to something in the future that is as yet unproven.
When Gill or SAF says something then you can usually see what they are saying and it could well be the truth as they see it.
"No value in the market" is not necessarily spin - it might well be how Fergie sees it.
"They're good owners" is not necessarily spin - it might well be how Fergie sees it.
When David Gill was explaining the financial loss the other day, you could see what he was saying - yes, the loss was there but the reasons behind it are not a concern if you understand accounts.
This is exactly what you would expect from someone with Manchester United's best interests at heart. He wouldn't exactly come out and say, "This is shit, actually. fecking Glazers..." even if that IS what he was thinking (not saying for a moment that he is!)
If there is any "spin" going on from these people then it is done to benefit and protect United.
And your point is? What does that prove?
What other club has such a high profile, supposedly "pro-the-club" body which ridicules and undermines its own club's efforts at every available opportunity?
They have gone on record as saying that we are all part of the same United family but the Glazers are not part of that family.
By extension, I take that to mean that anyone who even remotely supports the Glazers is not really part of the family.
Divisive. You're either with us or you're with them.
No it isn't at all and that is an intellectually dishonest statement.
MUST do NOTHING for Manchester United. MUST do everything for themselves.
They could walk off a cliff and it wouldn't make one negative jot of difference to what happens at Manchester United.
That's the problem! I am not even on their mailing list but I still know a lot of what they say because Drasdo is such a media whore.
God knows what horrors would land in my mailbox if I was on the list.
I have often been tempted to sign up just to see what they're saying but I'd hate to be counted amongst their number so I don't.
Get off your soapbox for once. You are creating the divide intellectually when it doesn't exist!!
You have been blaming them for imaginary divides and for damaging the club more than the Glazers! You persistently blame them for the anti-Glazer sentiment, effectively saying that the fans are stupid and only follow what they are told. As I said above, if anyone is trying to create a divide it is you in your ramblings.
'Horrors'...You just can't stop with the over-exaggeration and hyperbole can you?
How on earth can you claim things have stabilised when the club is £521m in debt without the PIK debt secured against it and exceptional items appearing year on year on the accounts?
Yes. People needed to know that their first business plan was horrendous with respect to the financing.
Their propaganda neither helps nor hinders United - I've not once seen them trip Nani or Ronaldo up as they've been running down the right wing. The Glazers plunging us into debt, putting prices up and forcing the ACS upon us has caused divides. If you're childish enough to push that blame on to MUST then so be it. Shut up. Nobody gains from your bullshit.
(that one was especially for you, I think you deserve it)I think you over-state my influence. I am merely a poster on a forum. I do not feed this shit into 150,000 mailboxes.
What are you talking about? I mean seriously. What divide am I trying to create here? What are the sides? Which side am I on? Which side are you on? What are you arguing in defence of?
Are you upset that I am sticking the boot into MUST?
Well, I am upset that they have been sticking the boot into Manchester United.
As I said. All things considered, I think they do more harm than good.
They aren't going to effect change, they are just going to keep stirring up the same old shit which should now be long behind us.
Nope. Not where MUST are concerned. I cannot even over-state my hatred for them. There aren't even enough hours in the day to express it.
Seriously. I hate their lies, misinformation and exaggeration more than I hate any figures on a spreadsheet - no matter how big they are.
Hang on there I didn't say who started what or who was this or that. I dearly want the Glazers to leave and take their toxic debt with them but you can't have everything in life. If the Glazers wish to remain at the helm then perhaps approaching and involving MUST might make life easier for them after all stranger things have happened, the sight of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness laughing together still has me head scratching
I think you over-state my influence. I am merely a poster on a forum. I do not feed this shit into 150,000 mailboxes.
I think you misunderstood my point.
I'm not the biggest fan of MUST but you seem want to blame them for everything anti-Glazer, rather than address the actual reasons behind the anti-Glazer sentiment. Anyone who can seriously say that MUST have caused more damage than the Glazers is incredibly misguided and has no credibility.
You should try reading your own posts objectively!
Because, when you stop being so dramatic about it, you realise that the monies being generated by the club are more than enough to cover these things.
We know exactly how much needs to be set aside to cover the Bond Interest and that is a pretty stable position to be in. No one is going to call this in and the interest rate isn't going to rise.
As for the PIKs. I think the onus is now on you to prove that these are a problem.
You will first need to show how much of Manchester United is actually being used as security and what effect it will have if the Glazers fail to deal with them and you will now need to prove how much of them isn't actually owned by the Glazers themselves.
In light of the 20% (at least) Glazer purchase and in light of their complete failure to take money from United in order to pay them off, the rules of debate have now changed, I'm afraid.
I'm now going to start asking for proof that they are a problem.
£160million in the bank suggests a football club not exactly on its knees.
If I had been given a pound for every time I have been told to shut up, I would have been able to buy United for myself by now.
As for petty insults... well... I'd be up there with Mansour.
I think you have to do a bit better than that if you want to shut me up.
I'll shut up when MUST shuts up. How's that?
"Their propaganda neither helps nor hinders United".
So... they appear in just about every newspaper in the country, they appear on the TV, they are quoted on countless websites and they send out their message to an estimated 150,000 people but it has no effect whatsoever?
Why do they bother then?
Glad to read that bit about petty insults TMRD after all we all have the best interests of Manchester United at heart. That is why I have forgiven you for petty insults on Friday
The fact that they are secured against the club in the first place is why they are a problem until they are cleared.
Everyone acknowledges them as an issue, there is no point putting your head in the sand and ignoring them because it suits your position to do so.
Ok. Explain to me. If the PIKs don't get sorted. What is the worst thing that can happen?
The PIK owners take a chunk of the club and their sole motivation would be to get their debts repaid.
That hasn't really answered the question has it? I know how these things work. I want to know why it is an issue we should all be so concerned about and why it should be central to the debate.
You know more about these things than I do and you're not usually shy when it comes to illuminating the darker corners of my knowledge.
The PIKs have been one of the major points of discussion in the last last year or so. Surely you've read enough to realise why they are central to the debate?
You seem to want to start at go again for some strange reason, but I don't really see any benefit to repeating it all again.
You're ducking the question here, datura.
The PIKs have been central to the debate for the last year or so for reasons which have absolutely failed to materialise.
You might want to pretend that those reasons still exist because it suits your argument but as far as can be proven at this moment in time, those reasons do not exist.
I am not putting my head in the sand and ignoring anything. As far as we can see, there is nothing there to ignore.
Now. I will ask you again. Why should we be so concerned if the Glazers don't pay off their PIKs? What is the worst that can happen? What are the implications for us as Manchester United fans? Why should we include them in the discussion?
If you don't know. Just say so.
I give up, I'm not wasting any more time responding to you in this thread as it's clearly been pointless. Adieu.
That's bollocks. The owners would sell the club long before they defaulted on the PIK notes. It was the goal of anders' boycotts to cause the PIK's to become unstable, remember?
I thought Anders was No 1 on the Glazer Christmas Card list last Friday, why is he now unpopular again?
This was the answer I wanted datura to give me but he clearly couldn't bring himself to say it.
One way or another, the Glazers would lose control of the club, and possibly the RKs could come along and buy it, it seems.
And this is the worst thing that could happen apparently.
I wish these people would make their minds up as to what it is they want.
That wasn't the scenario given so it's not bollocks. Try reading.
The Glazers losing control would be a bad thing? Whats your criteria for that thinking?
Hmm... I don't think I actually said that Crerand. Read the last few posts between myself and datura.
Well how do you see the fact that the PIK's are secured against the club as being a bad thing? It only means that the owners will sell the club if ever the PIK debt becomes out of hand. So what?
So the pro-Glazers are now trying to spin that the PIKs are actually good for the club?
It's definitely time to retire from contributing to this thread before I lose my sanity like the rest of you.
Brilliant.
No, this is what YOU are doing.
The PIKs and the impact they will have on United has been central to the campaign to get the Glazers to sell up and go for the last ten months.
However, more and more evidence becomes available by the week that suggests that they are nowhere near the problem we were led to believe they were (evidence this is, not theory or opinion, by the way).
But, you are now trying to say that they still remain a problem for United because if they don't get paid... what? the Glazers have to sell up and go?
Not at all.
You said...
I'm simply asking you why it is that you think them being secured against the club defines them as a problem.
Even if they weren't secured against the club, they might still have been paid off using dividends from the club. Or, they might never be paid using dividends from the club, with no ill effect to the club whatsoever.
I'm asking why you think it so important and such a negative aspect of their existence that they're secured against the club
That is not necessarily true though is it.
Look at Liverpool. Next Friday the banks are walking in and taking the club off the owners, and yet STILL they are refusing to sell. Even though they stand to lose $140 million at a bare minimum, they are still clinging on.
Why ? Because they have this hair brained idea that somehow from all the mess they have caused, they can still get themselves out the shit, when everyone from the CEO to the most idiotic of fans can see that its just gone way past the point of redemption.
We know for a fact that they have basically begged stolen and borrowed to try stave off the inevitable, but its just not worked. They have run out of options and the writing is on the wall.
Now so far we've seen the Glazers re-finance at least twice, and each time its cost them more money. This is simply a case of finding out they arent making what they need, so they re-finance to try stave off trouble.
Its like consolidation loaning. You are so deep in the shit you take a bigger loan out to try ease the current mess. Short term it buys you time, but over the long term it costs you far more, and you end up with so much debt you have no chance of ever clearing off.
The Glazers are taking up options that Gillette and Hicks didnt have at their disposal. But those options are reducing. As time goes on they will find that the banks are looking at them and thinking "no.. you're just borrowing more and more and never paying back what you owe.. so not this time"
When all those options have run out, then you hit problems, as Gillette and Hicks have found out.
The Glazers arent reducing their debts. They are increasing what they are having to pay out each year, just to stay afloat. Yes they can afford the payments as they stand. But one or two bad seaons, a change in the circumstances and they could well find they arent able to cover those payments. Then what ? Back to the bank and borrow more to "tide them over"
You yourself admit that in 7 years United will still owe £500 million to the bond owners. United wont have that money in the bank then. Not by a long shot. So its back the bank and borrow more. Another £45 million in "one off costs to refinance". maybe 7 more years of £45 million a season in interest payments. More juggling of the books to try make things more manageable.
I would turn this around to GCHQ and ask him this..
He goes on that in the 5 years that the Glazers have owned United they have increased their commercial revenue by god knows who much.
Given the success we've had, the increased revenue, how come they still have not been able to pay off one cent of what they owed when they took over. Each season we hear that the profits are up. The cashflow is growing.
For all the extra money they've brought in, they've not actually done anything with that money other than stay afloat.
The squad value is less than it was when they took over
The team is weaker than when they took over
The squad is smaller
Costs are down
Profits are up
Revenues are up
Prize money is up
TV revenue is up
Gate receipts are up
And yet we still owe more than when they took over.
Now tell me that they are doing right by United, because the way I see it, they can carry on for another 100 years, and United will be no better off. It will be the same all the way.. Increase the money to help cover the debts.
The GLazers havent increased revenue to line their own pockets, or to make United richer. THey've increased revenues because if they dont then they lose the club and what we've said all along was right. They couldnt afford the club.
Yeah, but whos money's gonna pay for it tho?
So you think then, fred, that the owners would rather lose the club to the PIK holders and make feck all rather than sell the club, pay off the PIK holders and pocket hundreds of £millions in the process? And your reason for believing this nonsense is that something vaguely similar (but upon closer inspection completely different) is sort of kinda happening at Liverpool?
Ok, fred, i see you've really thought this through
Ok, fred, i see you've really thought this through
Who knows? Possibly the Glazers' money from their dividend entitlement, but as yet not.
Possibly? It's the clubs money paying for the interests, is it not? So Why wouldnt the club money pay off whatever else as well.. Now it's fair enough you guys arguing how the Glazers most probably wont bankrupt United etc etc, and you're most likely right about it. But come on.. (now I havent read the last 3-4 pages, but) The Glazers aint good for United whichever way you spin it, they've cost the club money it wouldnt have had to spend if they hadnt taken over.
Well, no, to date none of the club's money has been used to pay any of the PIK debt, not the interest on it or anything. You do know that, don't you?
Obviously you're refering to the interest on the bond agreement, but that's not what we're discussing at the moment.
Yes though, the debt has cost money to service, nobody's disputing that.
- Status