As it is mostly stuff that is freely available on the United website, no it wouldn't.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
As it is mostly stuff that is freely available on the United website, no it wouldn't.
Exactly. Jeez...
Crumpsall, I'd ask you to repost that in the correct forum please
Just saw this tweet from Andersred:
What evidence is this then?
What evidence is this then?
Yes but we're protected to a large extent by the fact the telecom deals are being agreed on a territory specific basis and the other sponsorship partnerships are all with companies in different industries.
well if there's one thing we've all noticed about the Glazers I'm sure it's how they're often willing to sacrifice several million quid for the sake of the fans reaction.
Well in the absence of any other possible explanation and given it comes from a highly respected, non-partisan journalist, we are left with the old Sherlock Holmes quote:
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
Oh right I see. So ''all the evidence'' in this case amounts to one Bloomberg article citing anonymous sources. Banged to rights then.
Edit: I don't actually, no.
well i think there's a leap in logic there that all possible explanations have been considered but just to clarify; have they taken the money now then or are they going to take the money in the near future? are they hoping fan reaction will die down if they take it at a future date? If so what is their reasoning behind that?
I'm just curious as I don't believe that their is true weight to the evidence as it's been depicted so far.
I'm just curious as I don't believe that their is true weight to the evidence as it's been depicted so far.
You're right of course. The great Sherlock Holmes would never have concluded that all avenues have been explored and confirmed impossible on the strength of the Bloomberg article.
It serves Anders' purpose to believe that they have though - he's staked his reputation on a claim which has so far failed to materialise and now he's buying time.
We don't know of course. And I agree it's implausible. I understand there is no technical barrier (penalty fees, redemption dates etc) to repaying the PIKs.
On Tariq Panja, he has VERY good sources shown when he broke the story about the Glazers buying the PIKs in 2008. If you read the story carefully enough, the "unnamed sources" are clearly PIK holders and this is clearly the message they have been given by club officials. The clue is the reference to "a meeting" (my emphasis):
GCHQ: You should follow me, it's very informative!
I'd hardly describe him as non-partisan. He's looking to shit stir as much as the next hack.
The reality is nobody knows why the dividends haven't been taken.
It's Bloomberg GCHQ, not the Daily Star! They have a terrifying editorial process. I know it doesn't suit your view, but why dismiss it?
I'm not completely dismissing it but the idea doesn't make much sense. It's disingenuous to claim that all the evidence points to fan reaction being the reason. It's a theory, nothing more.
This is only a bit of fun, as Peter Snow would say, but let's run with that theory. Put yourself in the shoes of Joel Glazer's chief strategist, Edward Woodward. As of today what would you calculate as the most convenient time to take the dividends?
I'd be looking at late June 2011. How about you?
Of course.
1. Pre the start of FFP kicking in.
and
2. Not revealed until October 2010 and therefore doesn't interfere with ST renewals.
3. Some nice shiny new signings on board plus a good start to 2011/12 and bob's your uncle. Green & Gold dead.
Obvious negative is the full PIK debt will have been left to roll up for 17 months post Jan 2010 bond issue, costing what, at least £25m? Which is why the theory doesn't make any sense.
4. I win our bet.
They could have agreements to buy the PIKs and keep them as a tax hedge (if they could get away with the tax write-down).
If someone had told me in January that fear of the supporters would stop them taking £95m out of the club and all it would cost is one pint to GCHQ, I'd have been delighted.....
It means that for all the carping from some; green and gold, exposure of their plans in the media, demonstrations and in some cases the sacrificing of STs is working.
It means that for all the carping from some; green and gold, exposure of their plans in the media, demonstrations and in some cases the sacrificing of STs is working.
expand on the 20% they've currently got? or wait till they roll up fully? In either case isn't the main debt enough to offset any tax due?
No chance of them selling the Bucs?
How so? If "United money" was always going to pay off the PIKs, we're just going to end up paying more now!
At last.. we're getting somewhere....
I was just going to say that - thats a bit of a mindfeck.
The Glazers are going to hold off paying the PIK for 1 year to avoid pissing off the fans. The fans are pissed off because we pay too much interest but the delay in paying the PIK means we pay more interest.
I was just going to say that - thats a bit of a mindfeck.
The Glazers are going to hold off paying the PIK for 1 year to avoid pissing off the fans. The fans are pissed off because we pay too much interest but the delay in paying the PIK means we pay more interest.
If they have to pay more interest, they cannot then meet their EBITDA targets, and cannot withdraw cash from the club to pay off the PIK notes.
If they don't pay off the PIK notes, they get into so much debt they have to sell up.
Simples...
No, according to Anders, that is an impossibility.
I never said that.
EBITDA is before interest - better luck next time.
And in fact any cash paid toward the PIK is completely indepedant of the EBITDA of the club anyway - so you are even more wrong that I first thought !
No but it's another topic that you don't like to speak about. Just like our friend, Senor Goodwill Amortisation.
As others have pointed out, using your theory, the delay will just end up costing the club more than would have been the case without the protests. It's all eerily reminiscent of the PLC board's rejection of the Glazers first offer, a decision that will have cost the club tens of millions of pounds if the dividends are taken.
I'd suggest the best course of action is to just let them get on with it.
Baldrick would have been proud of that one Fred. Congrats.
What's going on? Fred talking shite again?
The only interest that effects EBITDA targets is the £45m per annum bond interest; everyone knows that, fred.
I've been away for a while; did anders ever reveal his big secret?
Notice GCHQ has not revealed his sources yet just the usual Glazer bullshit
What was the Sherlock Holmes bit all about then?
Here's the press release for the announcement of the Arctic Ice Energy Drink partnership:
Arctic Ice Energy - Manchester United Official Web Site
Who writes these press releases? That one actually made a little bit of sick appear at the back of my mouth... I had to go and buy some Arctic Ice Energy to wash the taste away.
Seriously though - and it's not even an anti-Glazer thing, or even specific to football - why is our world so full of total bullshit like "It is a natural balance between the most innovative energy drink and one of the most prestigious football clubs in the world."?
Seriously though - and it's not even an anti-Glazer thing, or even specific to football - why is our world so full of total bullshit like "It is a natural balance between the most innovative energy drink and one of the most prestigious football clubs in the world."?
- Status