thanks
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
thanks
Why would they even want to do that? Surely a potential buyer would demand the training ground, MUTV, MU Finance, etc, as part of any deal.
Probably. But it would depend on the price. Moving the Carrington ownership away from Red Football provides them with the option to sell the club but keep hold of the training ground and claim rent. So take a short-term hit on the price but make a longer term profit. Not saying they will do that, just that it opens up that possibility.
So they could move the franchise to Guildford to be nearer the fan base?
Why do you think it is that everyone from London supports United? I suppose you can't blame them for wanting to be a bit closer to the glory and the glamour that is both Manchester and Manchester United, but you'd think at least some of them would like to support their local team? Well, no skin off my nose.
I'd totally ignore peterstorey whenever he posts in the United forum, because he's a terrible WUM, and even more so when it comes to club finances, because he's fecking clueless.
Don't feed the troll.
Don't feed the troll.
The irony of the training ground discussion is here in Tampa the Glazers insisted on building their own $30 million training facility rather than taking $20 million for the Tampa-bay Sports Authority.
I think the Glazers are in a world of financial pain and they will liquidate assets, while paying themselves tens of millions a year. Eventually they can just walk away and leave United to the creditors. In the meantime they can recoup some of their initial outlay back but selling now they most likely lose their stake.
I think the Glazers are in a world of financial pain and they will liquidate assets, while paying themselves tens of millions a year. Eventually they can just walk away and leave United to the creditors. In the meantime they can recoup some of their initial outlay back but selling now they most likely lose their stake.
Really? I'd say I'm considerably more clued up on your finances than most of your own supporters and have been pretty accurate in my comments stretching back over 3 or 4 years. Conversely I can't remember you posting anything about them at all.
Why do you think it is that everyone from London supports United? I suppose you can't blame them for wanting to be a bit closer to the glory and the glamour that is both Manchester and Manchester United, but you'd think at least some of them would like to support their local team? Well, no skin off my nose.
Cos there are only shite teams like Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham in this part of the world. No way I'm going to waste my life following any of that sorry bunch.
Classic glory hunter.
And you know why I support United, how it came about do you? Well do you? Dont talk about what you dont know about.
You just told us that you don't support a local club because they're not good enough.
Well given he labelled one of the most successful teams of the last couple of decades, Arsenal, as 'shite', I'd suggest his criteria doesn't revolve around who is and isn't 'good enough' Peter. He clearly has other reasons
No I did not. A man of your word skills should have deducted that I had actually said that IMO all London teams are shite and I would not waste my time supporting them. Thats all, nothing more nothing less. anything more is your own deduction and is not necessarily why I support United.
I do so because my father does and he made me before I even learnt to think for myself ... and its the best thing he ever did for me.
Brainwashed into being a glory hunter.
Peter, I like your politics, but you try to hard to be a WUM on this board.
There are many reasons as to why people end up supporting a particular club that might not be necessarily their local one. I've pulled Brad's leg about this several times, much to my amusement, but it doesn't necessarily mean much. A glory hunter is only a person who specifically chose to follow a club for their success at the time, and most people in the UK at least don't do that.
Peterstorey - fishing since 2002
There are a shit load of Reds in London because a shit load of Reds have parents from Manchester, or they moved to London themselves or they maybe went to college in Manchester.
When I used to go to home and away games we had coaches of Reds from all over the country at every away game. All the lads I spoke to had pretty good connections to Manchester in one way or another. Plus we were shit back then so they were hardly in it for the glory.
When I used to go to home and away games we had coaches of Reds from all over the country at every away game. All the lads I spoke to had pretty good connections to Manchester in one way or another. Plus we were shit back then so they were hardly in it for the glory.
There's plenty of London Reds who go to more games (home and away) than more local ones, and there has been for years.
Sort yourselves out folks, this aint a thread that should be heading down the 'where you were born' route
It hasn't moved away from Red Football though.
It's all part of the same group.
It's a book keeping exercise to pump money into Red Football of which the PIK's can be paid.
If an Arab was to come in with a billion pound offer they would take the lot not just red football.
They would take MUTV, MU Finace, MU Foundation, etc.
There is no way they would pay that kind of money and not expect the state of the art training complex.
Of course you're clued up on it - you're obsessed by it. If there's a thread about United's financial problems the one thing guaranteed is that you'll be hanging round it like a blood-sucking parasite looking for its next meal.
I suppose an unhealthy obsession with our off-pitch plight has helped distract you from your own team's on-pitch plight in recent years.
As right, I was assuming it was going to be owned by another one of the Glazer groups (Red Shareholder or something).
Still opens up the possibility for it to be sold seperately/not sold. I guess we'll find out in due course.
Did you know the PIKS interest rate goes up to 16.25% this year?
Is that before or after Fabregas goes to Barcelona in the summer, and Arsenal go back to being a less successful version of Spurs?
The sale of Carrington wouldn't bother me in the slightest if it needs to happen, there was a time when it didn't exist. It's the possible sale of Old Trafford that would be worrying.
Red Football Joint Venture/Shareholder are not seperate groups,they are all within the same group. The MUFC umbrella if you like.
One option they have is to sell Carrington to a Glazer owned company outside the group. To do this they would need to fund the purchase from other sources outside the MUFC umbrella. As this would involve them dipping into their own pockets I have written it off as a non-starter.
I would have thought the bond underwriters would have secured the £500m against the ground.
There is no mention of OT in the prospectus so I think it's safe to assume the new debt is secured against it
Can we somehow convince Mrs. Glazer that the weather in Manchester is horrible and Spain is where it's at?
Only God knows
The last thing any of us want to here from Glazer right now is "I stay"
Well if there was a team in London worth supporting they might choose one closer to home.....
Same here.
OT is an integral part of MU. Unlike other teams who had to leave their original stadium in order to build/use a more modern one, MU does not need so. I think teams like Arsenal and City lost part of their history when they moved to a new stadium (in the case of City there wasn't much to lose tbf
).On the other hand Carrington does not have the same prestige as OT.
The biggest difference is tax (£5m in 2008 and over £20m for 2009). There are few other costs that seem to have gone up a fair bit as well like wages and interest.
I just checked it and I was right - it is 5% not 8%. So not as bad as it could been.
But still the hedging loss is actually one of the worst things to come out of the prospectus for me but the media seem to have focused on quite standard (but headline grabbing) stuff like the training ground and director salaries instead.
Glazer-apologist
Yes you are correct the senior debt is hedged at 5.08%.
That means under the bond issue we will be paying substantially more interest till the piks are gone. Just shows you how desperate and caught in a trap the glazers were to turn to the hedgefunds to complete their takeover.
The government are bastards with the tax position. No wonder so many companies are going to the wall if they dont let you offset previous losses against future income. I had a feeling it didn't work like personal tax.
I wouldn't mind if they said that to impersonate a pack of dogs at Park's family reun-
Okay I should probably leave that unfinished.
They live and are based in Florida, a bit of rain won't hurt them.
They hardly ever come over to Manchester. Most of the business deals are done from Florida or London. Every time they come to Manchester they get attacked by irrate fans.
Ask The Economists: An Academic Take On Manchester United's Financial Issues
Join Goal.com for an expert's view...
Jan 21, 2010 5:15:00 PM
Several readers have asked us about exactly what is going on in the boardroom - and the bank - at Manchester United. What does the drive for loan bond income mean? How are the Glazers running things? We have asked the experts to explain. Stephen Dobson and John Goddard, authors of The Economics of Football, will guide us, starting by looking at why the Glazers invested in United in the first place, and right through to the present day and, of course, the future...
Why the Glazers invested in United:
The Glazers’ purchase of Manchester United in 2005 appears to have been a purely commercial transaction. In the US, it is uncontroversial to view major league sports team franchises as strictly profit-making businesses. For many years United has consistently turned in large operating profits (£263 million in total between 2003 and 2008). The worldwide popularity of the United ‘brand’ offers the potential for future growth in profitability, although the development of a business model that converts popular appeal in Asian or African countries into hard revenue has been problematic for the elite European football clubs. The Glazers’ commercial strategy has been pretty much as expected, with higher ticket prices and restraints on players’ wage expenditure contributing to sustained growth in revenue and operating profit during their four-and-a-half years at the helm.
Why their ownership follows the model that it does:
The Glazers’ acquisition of Manchester United, completed in May/June 2005, cost around £810 million. This was the price that was paid to relieve the previous shareholders of ownership of the property rights to the club’s future anticipated revenue/profit streams. A large portion of the purchase price was funded through monies borrowed from banks and hedge funds; with some of these loans secured against the club’s assets. The total indebtedness to banks and hedge funds appears to have increased from around £540 million in 2005 to over £700 million in 2009. Naturally the lenders expect to receive interest on the monies they have lent, and the current yearly interest payments amount to around £60 million. This amount is sufficient to wipe out a large proportion of the club’s operating profit, and may leave relatively meagre financial resources available to fund future acquisitions of players.
The future prospects for the club under the current financial leadership:
The recently-announced £500 million bond issue, if successful, offers the prospect of refinancing part of the debt on terms less punitive than the interest the club pays on the hedge fund element of the current debt. The bond scheme includes provisions to channel up to £127 million from the club to the parent company in the first year, enabling a portion of the existing debt to be repaid. The Glazers say they can continue to manage the club’s cash flows in a manner that meets their obligations to lenders, and provides sufficient financial resources to sustain a successful team. Clearly, the revenue flows on which this model depends are highly sensitive to team performance. Supporters will be concerned that if the flow of trophies were to dry up, then a somewhat precarious business model, based on the sustained generation of large volumes of revenue in order to service the club’s heavy debts, could easily unravel.
Ask The Economists: An Academic Take On Manchester United's Financial Issues - Goal.com
Join Goal.com for an expert's view...
Jan 21, 2010 5:15:00 PM
Several readers have asked us about exactly what is going on in the boardroom - and the bank - at Manchester United. What does the drive for loan bond income mean? How are the Glazers running things? We have asked the experts to explain. Stephen Dobson and John Goddard, authors of The Economics of Football, will guide us, starting by looking at why the Glazers invested in United in the first place, and right through to the present day and, of course, the future...
Why the Glazers invested in United:
The Glazers’ purchase of Manchester United in 2005 appears to have been a purely commercial transaction. In the US, it is uncontroversial to view major league sports team franchises as strictly profit-making businesses. For many years United has consistently turned in large operating profits (£263 million in total between 2003 and 2008). The worldwide popularity of the United ‘brand’ offers the potential for future growth in profitability, although the development of a business model that converts popular appeal in Asian or African countries into hard revenue has been problematic for the elite European football clubs. The Glazers’ commercial strategy has been pretty much as expected, with higher ticket prices and restraints on players’ wage expenditure contributing to sustained growth in revenue and operating profit during their four-and-a-half years at the helm.
Why their ownership follows the model that it does:
The Glazers’ acquisition of Manchester United, completed in May/June 2005, cost around £810 million. This was the price that was paid to relieve the previous shareholders of ownership of the property rights to the club’s future anticipated revenue/profit streams. A large portion of the purchase price was funded through monies borrowed from banks and hedge funds; with some of these loans secured against the club’s assets. The total indebtedness to banks and hedge funds appears to have increased from around £540 million in 2005 to over £700 million in 2009. Naturally the lenders expect to receive interest on the monies they have lent, and the current yearly interest payments amount to around £60 million. This amount is sufficient to wipe out a large proportion of the club’s operating profit, and may leave relatively meagre financial resources available to fund future acquisitions of players.
The future prospects for the club under the current financial leadership:
The recently-announced £500 million bond issue, if successful, offers the prospect of refinancing part of the debt on terms less punitive than the interest the club pays on the hedge fund element of the current debt. The bond scheme includes provisions to channel up to £127 million from the club to the parent company in the first year, enabling a portion of the existing debt to be repaid. The Glazers say they can continue to manage the club’s cash flows in a manner that meets their obligations to lenders, and provides sufficient financial resources to sustain a successful team. Clearly, the revenue flows on which this model depends are highly sensitive to team performance. Supporters will be concerned that if the flow of trophies were to dry up, then a somewhat precarious business model, based on the sustained generation of large volumes of revenue in order to service the club’s heavy debts, could easily unravel.
Ask The Economists: An Academic Take On Manchester United's Financial Issues - Goal.com
- Status