ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
datura said:
Don't be a fecking idiot and try to put words in people's mouths that they haven't said, it's the 2nd time you tried that tonight and I've already had the courtesy to answer you once.
Click to expand...

:lol: And you accuse me of being a drama-queen?

I wasn't putting words in your mouth earlier. I merely quoted you earlier to show that I was adding something to the same discussion.

Did I say, "So what you are saying is this?" No. I didn't.

However, on this occasion, people have said that there may have been no sellers. You seem to be refuting this suggestion because it doesn't fit with what you believe - you believe that there was no buyer (the Glazers) because they have no money.

I'm sorry, but even I could cobble together 1% of my net worth at any one time if I knew it would save me 16.25% interest on that amount over the next seven years.

datura said:
I dropped out of this thread because of this type of rubbish and you're at it again when the discussion isn't about whether they have their own money or not and is actually quite interesting. If you have nothing of value to add, just read and take it in, you don't always have to post you know?
Click to expand...

What, exactly, have you just added? Nothing.

Now, I suggest you go and have a lie down. Your eye liner is running all over the shop.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
However, on this occasion, people have said that there may have been no sellers. You seem to be refuting this suggestion because it doesn't fit with what you believe - you believe that there was no buyer (the Glazers) because they have no money.
Click to expand...

No I didn't - read my post:

datura said:
You don't know and neither do I, so it's all guesswork and you can't be definitive either way.
Click to expand...

That is not refuting in the slightest, I can just assume you are either thick or just read what you want to read.

I NEVER said they didn't have money. I said they may not have had sufficient funds to buy them which is completely different.


TheMancRedDevil said:
What, exactly, have you just added? Nothing.

Now, I suggest you go and have a lie down. Your eye liner is running all over the shop.
Click to expand...

You definitely don't read anything do you?

I've just had enough of your bullshit. You've been spamming this thread with your rubbish for the last few months and don't appear to have made any effort to really understand the subject unlike Cider.
 
Crerand Legend said:
Not really the grey area is still dominant, the murky world of Glazer finance as cloudy as ever. As for transfers nobody knows what if any players SAF would require but it will likely be from the credit facility and SAF will be no doubt telling us there is still no value out there. Transfers are not the most important thing anyhow the debt and its effect on the club for years is the big worry
Click to expand...

No Crerand. That's the good news I am trying to relay to you! We don't need to borrow any money. The money is there.

I lost faith a bit last night because I got my numbers wrong, and for a moment there, I was staring into the black abyss that is your view of the situation but I was able to work through it and the light was blinding!

Even if the Glazers do their worst, it looks like there'll be in the region of £40-50million left over.
 
datura said:
No I didn't - read my post:



That is not refuting in the slightest, I can just assume you are either thick or just read what you want to read.

I NEVER said they didn't have money. I said they not have had sufficient funds to buy them which is completely different.
Click to expand...

Ok, DQ, whatever you say...

datura said:
There may have been others in similar positions willing to cash in but the Glazers didn't have the funds to buy them. You don't know and neither do I, so it's all guesswork and you can't be definitive either way.
Click to expand...

There are apparently nine other people who own the PIKs which would suggest that they each owned 10% (average) between them.

If the Glazers could have afforded one, then it would stand to reason that they could have afforded others... if they were willing to sell.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
Ok, DQ, whatever you say...

There are apparently nine other people who own the PIKs which would suggest that they each owned 10% (average) between them.

If the Glazers could have afforded one, then it would stand to reason that they could have afforded others... if they were willing to sell.
Click to expand...

Eh - DQ?

It doesn't as you don't know how much they would have held or that the Glazers's would have been able to access the funds at the time. It's guesswork as I stated. It's not that hard to understand is it?

Anyway, this b/s has diverted the discussion away from the issues again. Well done.
 
datura said:
You definitely don't read anything do you?

I've just had enough of your bullshit. You've been spamming this thread with your rubbish for the last few months and don't appear to have made any effort to really understand the subject unlike Cider.
Click to expand...

Oh please. Chin up. Tomorrow's another day.
 
datura said:
Eh - DQ?

It doesn't as you don't know how much they would have held or that the Glazers's would have been able to access the funds at the time. It's guesswork as I stated. It's not that hard to understand is it?

Anyway, this b/s has diverted the discussion away from the issues again. Well done.
Click to expand...

No, I think that was when you called me a "fecking idiot", accused me of putting words in your mouth and accused me of reading nothing, wumming and not understanding the subject.

I hope you can see why I might take exception to that and why it is much worse than whatever it is that I might have said to you.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
No, I think that was when you called me a "fecking idiot", accused me of putting words in your mouth and accused me of reading nothing, wumming and not understanding the subject.

I hope you can see why I might take exception to that and why it is much worse than whatever it is that I might have said to you.
Click to expand...

I said 'don't be a fecking idiot', not really the same is it? I proved you put words into my mouth and failed to read (again it seems!). Time to utilise the ignore function.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
No Crerand. That's the good news I am trying to relay to you! We don't need to borrow any money. The money is there.

I lost faith a bit last night because I got my numbers wrong, and for a moment there, I was staring into the black abyss that is your view of the situation but I was able to work through it and the light was blinding!

Even if the Glazers do their worst, it looks like there'll be in the region of £40-50million left over.
Click to expand...

So why do we need a credit facility, does SAF anticipate spending over £100m? Those funds in the bank will be retained IMHO to further pay down the PIKs at the earliest occasion. Obviously the new credit facility is alot cheaper money than the old PIKs. I feel the Glazers biggest drive to sign players next summer will be for their own image as much as their desire to improve the playing squad
That however will not change my opinon of them surprise surpise. They would be in serious trouble here had it not been for SAFs achievements on the field and Gills off it, much as I despise him for the way he turned his coat he is the best around at running a football club that there is, almost all the increased revenue I believe was down to him. The Glazer's are at best bumbling businessmen living off the reputation of their ruthless Father
 
datura said:
It doesn't as you don't know how much they would have held or that the Glazers's would have been able to access the funds at the time. It's guesswork as I stated. It's not that hard to understand is it?
Click to expand...

If they bought 15% and the rest have, on average, 10% between them then I think it fair to say that they could have snaffled up at least one more because it would have clearly been less than what they had already come up with.

Maybe that 15% was all they could cobble together, I accept that as a possibility but it seems unlikely, to me.

You think they didn't have the money, I think they did (or could have come up with it) but the others didn't want to sell.

I am not saying the whole 100% but a bit more than they purchased. How much do you reckon they paid for 15%?
 
Crerand Legend said:
So why do we need a credit facility, does SAF anticipate spending over £100m?
Click to expand...

Because of the cashflow situation. At certain times of the year, the cash in the bank gets low but it is temporary and is at those times when we're waiting for things like the TV money or the ST money.

The RCF allows us to dip into a negative for a short period of time if needs be but it's not a worry because it comes back up into a positive again within a short space of time.

It looks unlikely that this will be needed this season but in future seasons, it might be required if all the money is taken (by the Glazers and SAF).

The situation seems to be basically this:-

We have £164million in the bank.

Over the next 12 months, we will bring in around £290million.

This is £450million.

All of our running expenses (including the debts) are covered by the £290m revenues.

If the Glazers take £95m then we are still left with £70m.

There may be other bits and bobs that I have omitted from this basic example but it still leaves us with a healthy amount of cash in the bank to pay for players - around £40-50million.

Crerand Legend said:
I feel the Glazers biggest drive to sign players next summer will be for their own image as much as their desire to improve the playing squad
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect anything more from you.


Crerand Legend said:
That however will not change my opinon of them surprise surpise. They would be in serious trouble here had it not been for SAFs achievements on the field and Gills off it, much as I despise him for the way he turned his coat he is the best around at running a football club that there is, almost all the increased revenue I believe was down to him. The Glazer's are at best bumbling businessmen living off the reputation of their ruthless Father
Click to expand...

Indeed. Can I ask though, if you glean nothing from this discussion that will change your view one way or the other, why do you take such an interest?
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
Use the fecking 20 paracetamol and a bottle of whisky function for all I care.
Click to expand...

I think like Dumpstar in the Liverpool thread you need to hit the sack chum, you are losing it in those last two posts. Tomorrow is a new day and the Glazers will be here to argue about unfortunately
 
Crerand Legend said:
I think like Dumpstar in the Liverpool thread you need to hit the sack chum, you are losing it in those last two posts. Tomorrow is a new day and the Glazers will be here to argue about unfortunately
Click to expand...

Hmm.. I think you should read back to what datura said and ask yourself if you would allow that to be said to you without comeback.

The discussion on here has been relatively amicable between both sides in recent days. A certain person comes along and it turns into a riot within three or four posts.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
Use the fecking 20 paracetamol and a bottle of whisky function for all I care.
Click to expand...

Out of order. Should be a ban for that kind of nonsense.

Datura also has a point. Constant spamming of thread when you understand little about the topic is off putting to people who want information and people who can actually give it.

If the Glazers borrowed the money from United to buy the piks as suggested by Anders why is it wrong to assume they lack the liquidity needed to buy more debt.

Seems more plausible to me.
 
Jesus, it was just a joke. Jimmy Carr says something like that and he gets a DVD, TMRD says it and suddenly he's public-enemy #1. Get over it, lads.

Anyway...
 
DFreshKing said:
Out of order. Should be a ban for that kind of nonsense.

Datura also has a point. Constant spamming of thread when you understand little about the topic is off putting to people who want information and people who can actually give it.

If the Glazers borrowed the money from United to buy the piks as suggested by Anders why is it wrong to assume they lack the liquidity needed to buy more debt.

Seems more plausible to me.
Click to expand...

It was a joke. He was being a drama queen and drama queens do this kind of thing.

It might have been a bad taste joke but if that's my crime then we might as well ban half the caf while we're at it.

datura has been calling for me to be banned from the first minute I got promoted to the mains.

There are others on this thread who are far more guilty of spamming than I am and I don't see any other calls for bans.

I would like you to point me in the direction of this constant spamming I am guilty of, by the way.

Constant calls for people to be banned should result in people being spoken to, imho. It is like the players who wave imaginary yellow cards at the referee in my book.

Now, as for the bit that actually had anything to do with the thread:-

"If the Glazers borrowed the money from United to buy the piks as suggested by Anders why is it wrong to assume they lack the liquidity needed to buy more debt."

We know that there were nine or ten PIK holders (I can't remember now how Anders worded it now). The Glazers bought 15%. That must mean that there were others who held less than 10% (basic maths).

If the Glazers could just help themselves to £10million in order to buy these 15% then why not another £10m and buy some of the cheaper ones? Surely it wouldn't have made much difference in the great scheme of things.

However, I did say that "it stands to reason that they could have afforded more" and, on reflection, this was wrong. It doesn't stand to reason at all, I was wrong there and it could be that they didn't have any more money after that 15% purchase - but we can't prove it either way.

Had datura simply pulled me up on that simple flaw in logic instead of going all hissy fit, none of that nonsense would have happened.
 
Wouldn't a bank or some other such investor have loaned them any cash they required to buy back the PIK's if more were available at the time?

"I need to borrow £20m."

"What for?"

"To pay off another debt at a 65% discount."

"Ok."
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Wouldn't a bank or some other such investor have loaned them any cash they required to buy back the PIK's if more were available at the time?

"I need to borrow £20m."

"What for?"

"Pay off another debt at a 65% discount."

"Ok."
Click to expand...

I dunno cider. Sounds completely implausible to me. :rolleyes:

I'm worth £2.2billion. Can I have a £30million loan?

No.

I can secure it against a £1billion asset.

Still no.
 
That's it. Any re-purchase of PIK notes would free up security on the shares of RFJV. Borrow £10m to buy another 15% and secure the loan against the 15% of United being freed up if necessary; what investor would ever turn that down? It'd be a win/win situation, right? There can't have been any more than 15% available for purchase, or else they'd have been purchased.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
That's it. Any re-purchase of PIK notes would free up security on the shares of RFJV. Borrow £10m to buy another 15% and secure the loan against the 15% of United being freed up if necessary; what investor would ever turn that down? It'd be a win/win situation, right? There can't have been any more than 15% available for purchase, or else they'd have been purchased.
Click to expand...

Given the opportunity that arose, it is hard to understand why the Glazers wouldn't have tackled the whole lot at the time.

It must have been that the sellers weren't desperate to sell or there was some reason (which is hard to fathom) why they couldn't raise sufficient funds.

As always, I'm happy to be educated.
 
Actually, you know, something Anders posted earlier has got me thinking about this:-

These properties were purchased at or after the Q3 2007 peak for a total of $116m (of which $88m was borrowed):

Portsmouth Station
Spring Valley Town Center
Tower Square SC
Plaza on San Felipe
Preston Frankford Shopping Center
Stonecrest Park
Schoolhouse Plaza
River Plaza
Click to expand...

They were able to obtain $88m just twelve months earlier in order to buy dodgy shopping malls.

Why didn't they borrow that money and pay off their PIKs instead?

I realise that this was during (or perhaps more crucially, just before - I have lost track of the time on that now) the credit crunch and whatnot but surely the better option at the time would have been to take care of the shit that was outstanding, especially as it was attracting such a high interest rate?
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
Given the opportunity that arose, it is hard to understand why the Glazers wouldn't have tackled the whole lot at the time.

It must have been that the sellers weren't desperate to sell or there was some reason (which is hard to fathom) why they couldn't raise sufficient funds.

As always, I'm happy to be educated.
Click to expand...

Well i said at the top of the previous page that it was probably only one PIK holder who wanted to sell his 15% out of desperation; anders replied that that was it in a nutshell. Argument over.

It seems obvious really. Don't know why it ever turned into an argumet.
 
TheMancRedDevil said:
Actually, you know, something Anders posted earlier has got me thinking about this:-



They were able to obtain $88m just twelve months earlier in order to buy dodgy shopping malls.

Why didn't they borrow that money and pay off their PIKs instead?

I realise that this was during (or perhaps more crucially, just before - I have lost track of the time on that now) the credit crunch and whatnot but surely the better option at the time would have been to take care of the shit that was outstanding, especially as it was attracting such a high interest rate?
Click to expand...

Dunno. Maybe they saw something in the malls that could work to their advantage and just got it wrong.
 
This is what I am talking about.

God knows how many posts both stroking each others ego and in the end of course validating the complete tosh you are posting as facts.

Complete with nonsensical and irritating smilies.

This 2.2 billion asset worth, Net is it?

I will answer that for you, no it is not.

It is actually quite debt laden and as Anders has pointed out rather toxic too.

One self acknowledge to not understanding the discussions and the other one although learning is only at the stage where they are thinking about a open university course.

All very well but neither are in a position of either the understanding or information to be proclaiming you 'Phacts'.

I suggest imho for both you.

As to your 'joke' It is disgusting and I would expect an infraction.

If you want evidence of your spamming to look back over the pages.

This is an important thread at the very core of serious issues for the club and its fans. You two posting constantly has derailed it to the point most don't bother now which is a shame.
 
Right well I know this question has been asked loads of times already on this thread but I cant be arsed searching through everything.
So the only way we could possibly hope to force the Glazers to sell to a new buyer similar to Liverpool is if the Glazers default on a repayment? So that probably wont happen for a long time seem as they can just dig into Fergies translfer kitty thats still there from the sale of Ronaldo when things get worse?
Is this correct or am I miles off?
 
DFreshKing said:
This is what I am talking about.

God knows how many posts both stroking each others ego and in the end of course validating the complete tosh you are posting as facts.

Complete with nonsensical and irritating smilies.

This 2.2 billion asset worth, Net is it?

I will answer that for you, no it is not.

It is actually quite debt laden and as Anders has pointed out rather toxic too.

One self acknowledge to not understanding the discussions and the other one although learning is only at the stage where they are thinking about a open university course.

All very well but neither are in a position of either the understanding or information to be proclaiming you 'Phacts'.

I suggest imho for both you.

As to your 'joke' It is disgusting and I would expect an infraction.

If you want evidence of your spamming to look back over the pages.

This is an important thread at the very core of serious issues for the club and its fans. You two posting constantly has derailed it to the point most don't bother now which is a shame.
Click to expand...

Good morning, DFresh :)
 
Ringo 07 said:
Right well I know this question has been asked loads of times already on this thread but I cant be arsed searching through everything.
So the only way we could possibly hope to force the Glazers to sell to a new buyer similar to Liverpool is if the Glazers default on a repayment? So that probably wont happen for a long time seem as they can just dig into Fergies translfer kitty thats still there from the sale of Ronaldo when things get worse?
Is this correct or am I miles off?
Click to expand...

The Glazers are not in any immediate trouble with the debt as their bond gave them time to develop the business.

There is little chance of them selling unless they get an offer they see as value and decide to take the money and run.

They are walking a tight rope with the economy and their position with the mall business but so far are doing a successful job.

Risky but working.
 
Ringo 07 said:
Right well I know this question has been asked loads of times already on this thread but I cant be arsed searching through everything.
So the only way we could possibly hope to force the Glazers to sell to a new buyer similar to Liverpool is if the Glazers default on a repayment? So that probably wont happen for a long time seem as they can just dig into Fergies translfer kitty thats still there from the sale of Ronaldo when things get worse?
Is this correct or am I miles off?
Click to expand...

We can't really force the Glazers to sell, they're in a very comfortable position. A full on boycott might do it. Might. That's not really feasible though, is it? If you read just the last three pages or so we've been discussing how the Glazers are likely to progress with transfers/dividends etc. That might help answer some of your more pertinent questions.
 
DFreshKing said:
Morning Cider, that reply made me happy as I was expecting a tirade, but I could not hold myself any longer.
Click to expand...

If I had something to say to you about what you posted there, I would say it to you by PM so as not to derail the thread further. I thought that I had best just acknowledge that I have read your post and your comments have been noted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.