Prospectus said:
UnitedRoadRed said:
Prospectus said:
You're obviously not getting this. We should probably move on.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
You're obviously not getting this. We should probably move on.
Yes, but this RCF is for player capex only.
Spot on. Let's move on from this one now.
No it's isn't. Where are you getting that from?
Wow, I've hit a nerve!
They don't like talking about more debt do they?
Has your account been hacked by CL?
No nerve hit I can assure you.
The trouble with you URR is that you have this rather unfortunate habit of getting things completely wrong every time you press ''submit reply''.
I don't get it. The repeatedly quoted passage in the prospectus quite clearly says that the RCF has historically been used in December and April to meet working capital requirements, but URR continues to state that it's never been used before and it could only ever be used for player cappex anyway. When you point out that he's wrong he says he's hit a nerve. How can anyone argue with that kind of stubborn ignorance?
As I said... either his account has been hacked by CL or it's contagious.
If I start to argue that black is white, please let me know, ok?
1/ The following January, but they didn't do it between Dec 2008 and Jan 2010 (it would have been a material post balance sheet event in the RFJV accounts).
2/ The following RF quarterly report.
3/ Not immediately, cash down increases cash pay leverage but PIK down reduces it by the same amount (and slows its growth thereafter).
I've learned the Glazers only own 15% of the PIK not 20% and that there are nine other holders. Can't say how I know, you'll have to trust me.
Not at all.
It's just that the Glazer defenders appear to have trouble accepting that using the RCF equals going into more debt.
Or don't you understand that?
I've learned the Glazers only own 15% of the PIK not 20% and that there are nine other holders. Can't say how I know, you'll have to trust me.
Well this isn't fair!
Is it a case of....
????
Well this isn't fair!
Is it a case of....
????
Unimpeachable source. 100% guaranteed. Works for major Manchester based leisure business involving round balls....
1/ The following January, but they didn't do it between Dec 2008 and Jan 2010 (it would have been a material post balance sheet event in the RFJV accounts).
2/ The following RF quarterly report.
3/ Not immediately, cash down increases cash pay leverage but PIK down reduces it by the same amount (and slows its growth thereafter).
I've learned the Glazers only own 15% of the PIK not 20% and that there are nine other holders. Can't say how I know, you'll have to trust me.
Thanks.
Tesco sushi today. Not as good as the Japanese shop, obviously.
1/ The following January, but they didn't do it between Dec 2008 and Jan 2010 (it would have been a material post balance sheet event in the RFJV accounts).
2/ The following RF quarterly report.
3/ Not immediately, cash down increases cash pay leverage but PIK down reduces it by the same amount (and slows its growth thereafter).
I've learned the Glazers only own 15% of the PIK not 20% and that there are nine other holders. Can't say how I know, you'll have to trust me.
We've been here before Anders....
Everyone trusted you when you stated that the dividend would definitely have been transferred to RFJV by now. Well, everyone except little old me.
''Come in Tampa Bay, come in Tampa Bay. We have a mole in the organisation.''
I understand that you just moved the goalposts onto another continent.
I don't know how flawed or viable their plan is. They rely on a relatively tight budget which is based on the notion that perhaps the success of the last five years may not be repeated. They are prepared to put money into the team but only a limited amount and on players who do not demand "extortionate" or put another way "market related" wages - ie youngsters versus proven ability at a level which could immediately improve the team. They rely on Fergie to mould a successful team from what he's got and the players hes able to bring in, within the paramters of the cost constraints. Fergie buys into this and besides he wants to go out on high with yet another successful team - created largley through spotting talent rather than buying it.
Assuming all this works out, yes they could have a club worth 2bn by the time the bond matures and the PIK debt could be a thing of the past.
However, it's a gamble and maybe Fergie won't be able to continue the success and this will have a distinct affect on the club's income.
Watching costs is the essence of a successful business but equally proper on-going investment in its income producing assets is equally important.
Not really.
I was trying to get that through to cider (who's been a good sport today) and TMRD (who's been a bit abrupt unfortunately) and they weren't quite getting it like you instantly have. Kudos to you.
If you also cast your mind back into the murky depths of this thread, we had a rather civil discussion about the RCF and its uses as well as its restrictions - that it could only be used for player capex, that it had to be cleared down to a maximum of £25m for a minimum of five consecutive days at some point each year and so on. I'm sure you'll vaguely remember it because there was no arguing or anything so it must stand out!
Anyway, your chums and I were at loggerheads over the way that worked. I was saying that while we understand the mechanisms of how it worked, that it could remain maxed out all year due to player capex apart from those five days, which you remarked in our earlier conversation could coincide with the big cash influx from the season ticket sales in June. Now either you agree so far or you're going to have to back track on what you've previously said and we wouldn't want that, would we?
So, my assertion is that the RCF is in place for emergency funds for Sir Alex should players come up for sale at any time during the windows when we're not particularly well endowed on the old cash front and as such is different to the old credit facility that was a general credit facility for all manner of working capital requirements. Now, the disagreement comes from how they plan on repaying it and the timeliness. My assertion was to counter cider's 2-3 month claim with the argument that we don't know. Is it really that much of a tenuous suggestion that they may not rush to clear down the RCF if the money is better utilised somewhere else and we can save lots of pennies on higher rate interest and pay this lower rate interest off later?
Look. As far as we know, our wage bill is the second highest in the PL (behind Chelsea but slightly ahead of City at last count) and Chelsea also seem to be doing a fair bit of wage-bill trimming because theirs is simply too high.
I know what you are saying and it has substance but at this moment in time, we are paying competitive salaries.
Now. When the "oldies" retire, it will free up not only a fair amount of money in wages but three or four squad places.
The second half of what you are saying there is largely theory dressed as fact.
Abrupt? Moi? F*ck off!
I never said that it could only be used for player capex.
Quite a common response from these guys when they are in a spot
I not sure which one of the Glazer's has hacked yours
The way they did with the old RCF, you mean?
Well, it doesn't matter, does it, cider's cleared up how the PIKs are going to get sorted, so we can all sit back and enjoy it.
I'm approaching this with a great sense of concern about the size of the debt and concern about the other non-financial issues (yet) like the ticket prices, the ACS and the vanished season ticket waiting list.
You guys seem to be of the mind that you've seen the future and everything's fine and anyone with any concerns is wrong.
So apart from the ACS, the ticket prices, the lack of queue for a season ticket and the increased commercial revenue and the pile of debt, what have the Glazers done for the fans, apart from divide them?
Get ready for the insults thats usually what comes next when I ask the same
Not been managing to follow all the discussion over here lately - have I missed anything of any importance?
A brief look around and it seems like the same old names who refuse to accept what is really going on here!
A brief look around and it seems like the same old names who refuse to accept what is really going on here!
No. You made a point. This was explained to you as being incorrect. Then you changed your argument. This has just been explained to you as being based on nothing but an over-active imagination.
And now. Rather than say, "Fair enough". You're changing the subject.
I can't and won't speak for cider and GCHQ but my motive is simply trying to establish truth from fiction.
I know there are challenges ahead but are they as bad as made out to be or can we get through them? Removing the deadwood arguments has been half the battle but the picture gets a little clearer as we go along.
Given us plenty to talk about when there's no football on?
Perhaps the biggest bit of news is that Anders claims to have heard from an impeccable source that the Glazers only actually own 15% of the PIKs.
The rest has been the usual circular arguments that we all know and love.
Hmmm ... well I've heard from an impeccable source that they own the whole lot so where does that leave us?
Hmmm ... well I've heard from an impeccable source that they own the whole lot so where does that leave us?
Exactly.
The way I look at it is that a few weeks ago, we had nothing to show if they owned any of them either way but then we were led to believe 20% so if it ends up being 15%, it's still better than we originally thought.
Where did you say it wouldn't? You said it probably would.
I am 100% certain it will and conversations I've had with people (separate sources) since Friday confirm that it's "when" and not "if".
The bond and its permissions turn the club into a PIK repayment machine and to make the machine work you had to do the closing funds flow and capital reorganisation to allow dividend payments, which they have done. There is no reason to take those measures except to pay dividends.
We still have no other plausible source of capital to repay the PIKs other than the club. And we now know (well I know) that they only own 15% themselves...
Incidentally 15% tallies better than 20% with £10m loan they took out in December 2008. Spooky!
Nothin has really changed either way though, has it? The Bond clearly has the Dividend and Carve-out entitlements in it. They weren't put in there for a laugh. There's clearly a reason for them.
To say it is "when" not "if" is a bit more of the "No Shit Sherlock" Anders.
Can your sources not be any more specific on the "when" part because that's pretty crucial, if you ask me.
My own stance has always been that they would not take monies at the expense of the squad.
If they take the £95m this year, the "oldies" all retire and Fergie buys in 3 or 4 unknown kids from Outer Mongolia to replace them then even I will have to concede that it's perhaps alarm bell time.
"My own stance has always been that they would not take monies at the expense of the squad"
You are having a laugh with this statement are you not?
You are having a laugh with this statement are you not?
No Crerand. I'd explain if I thought it was worth it. Here's a clue though - they haven't so far.
I've heard some explanations about the delay but I'm not sure about them yet, give me a few days....
I'm told I was wrong about the 6x and that it is definitely 5x.
Hmm, I think this thread should be locked for short rest periods. Gets a little too heated.
I don't doubt your sources at all bit surely you asked your source at united why the £70m+ hasn't been taken yet? Did they prefer not to say?
- Status