Agreed, its encouraging to hear this.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Agreed, its encouraging to hear this.
No idea what they are duty bound of.
but if you expect it all to be revealed, I think you are going to be very disappointed.
So after today with the financial report due and this conference call can the glazers avoid revealing where the money is coming from? If it is a PR stunt they will want to confirm without doubt it's not coming from United.
Gill told us the truth, SAF told us the truth; MUST called them liars.
I'm sorry, but this from MUST just doesn't cut it. They were repeatedly told by the club that there wasn't cause to worry about the PIKs, the scaremongering was of their own making, not the club's.
Because they've lied and deceived everyone about this for fecking ages now! I'm sorry if it bores you, but MUST have been filling everyone's heads with shit and it's effected my football club.
If it was the G&G that stopped them taking the easy option of taking money directly from the club then surely it would be a victory for G&G?
Anyway, I don't think anyone can declare 'victory' until we get the full details on this: where is this money coming from?
It sounds good but we need the details.
Why wait until now to pay of these PIKs? If they had funds all along why were they not paid off before now saving them millons in interest it is all very strange but typical Glazer aloofness
Yes. They can do whatever they wish to.
That is why I said a little bubble and there is a wank fest. We dont know what is happening, meanwhile the Glazer boys are running riot on this thread singing hosannas to their lord and master.
But, if the owners are sincere, and use that money for squad development, only then can we say that Anders was wrong.
There will still be a debt of £500m on the club. A totally stupid and unecessary debt.
I'm with Cider on this. I was originally a member of MUST but they have played the political spin machine for too long now and have managed to brainwash too many a United fan.
Let's err on the side of caution until we see how they are raising the funds but it doesn't change the fact that MUST have "guessed" all along, calling the likes of SAF and Gill liars along the way.
Quite possibly so. If for example it has been refinanced with new borrowing and that borrowing is secured against the shares/assets of one of the Glazers' companies formed in the US state of Nevada, higher up the Red Football corporate structure, then we might well never know any of the details.
Wise words, the Glazer marching band on here can't wait to get on their high horse however
look, i understand that you and a few others took a lot of abuse from some on here but you also gave quite a bit back, thats fair enough in my view, but then afterwards when some things have become clearer and some of your points have been proved correct it doesn´t paint you in a good light when all you then do is pretty much go "nar nar na nar,i was right, you were wrong"
I´m sure plenty appreciate the different view of the whole affair you have put across, i just dont see the need for petty personal ramblings.
You know, put up and quit coming in with titbits
I don't think there is such thing as a "Glazer marching band", GCHQ aside
, just some people who don't want to buy into the whole MUST spin machine, people who want to see for their own eyes before second guessing and being genuinely pessimistic about everything Glazer.Exactly what I was thinking.
I don't think there is such thing as a "Glazer marching band", GCHQ aside
I am well aware of MUSTs faults and they have scored a few own goals but I would trust them any day before the Glazer machine. I admit we are second guessing but that is because everything Glazer is cloak and dagger and while I welcome the removal of any of the debt and a more fluid financial position I remain highly sceptical of how this was achieved
I don't think there is such thing as a "Glazer marching band", GCHQ aside
Sorry, mate.
GCHQ is the main spokesman. There are quite a few satellites around.
This is GCHQs accountant spin, why did the Glazers not pay off the debt when it was due before it became toxic if they had cash assets unrelated to the club, which is the case is it not? The cash in the united accountants has remained has it not if what we are being told is true. Is it possible that the piks have been replaced by some other type of debt? They can clear it up if they tell the world where the money is coming from
Yeah I understand that and I'm sure all us fans would appreciate the Glazer's being more transparent with their business dealings, but it doesn't always work that way in big business sadly.
They won't tell the world.
The Glazers have never told the world anything.
And yes, the PIKs probably have been replaced by some other, cheaper debt.
Forget MUST and the Glazers role in the past. None have been angels.
The news sounds very good for the club. When confirmed United have less debt on their books. How difficult is that understand?
The news sounds very good for the club. When confirmed United have less debt on their books. How difficult is that understand?
Forget MUST and the Glazers role in the past. None have been angels.
The news sounds very good for the club. When confirmed United have less debt on their books. How difficult is that understand?
The news sounds very good for the club. When confirmed United have less debt on their books. How difficult is that understand?
As I said earlier, I think that's a harsh black & white view to take. It's as if anyone who isn't 100% anti-Glazer is a Glazer fan, that isn't the case.
Do the Glazers have to make the details public?
Do they have to let it be known where this money is coming from to pay off the PIK?
Or can they just say 'its our money and has feck all to do with you as we are not a PLC'?
Do they have to let it be known where this money is coming from to pay off the PIK?
Or can they just say 'its our money and has feck all to do with you as we are not a PLC'?
If the debt is not attached to the club, great! if it is then it's still better than paying the very prohibitive PIK rates.
I think option (c) is the answer.
That's how I understand the situation. However, I don't know their obligations to inform the bondholders.
It's just been answered above your post
No it hasn't, GCHQ was talking about them refinancing, not paying off the PIKs with their own funds. However, it us still unclear as to where the funds have been sourced to pay them off and likely to remain that way for sometime given the secretive nature of the Glazers.
If the Glazers have paid of £220m of debt with cash and freed up money for the club then it is good news and I will be the first to say so, lets see first. GCHQs post with the Nevada story makes me think that this is far from being a cash payment, he knows more than he likes to let on
Brilliant news as long as no money has been taken out of the club.
MUST have always had their own agenda, I've not trusted their 'statements' for years.
MUST have always had their own agenda, I've not trusted their 'statements' for years.
Careful, he'll circle the wagons and start accusing you of bullying him.
Check out my attempts to find out where the "Investor Communication" came form last night... it's enough to make you think he does have something he's trying to hide after all!
But the PIKs were never a United debt; isnt that right? I thought they were Glazer's personal debt. But it was feared that the interest payment of this debt would be taken off United money. Please correct me if I am wrong.
So, the payment of the PIK has no bearing on the United debt. The only relief that could come off this, is that money will not be taken from United funds to pay off the interest and the capital. But we still dont know whether we can heave a sigh of relief, until we know exactly from where the money to pay this debt came. Robbing Peter to pay Paul?
GCHQ mentioned something about Nevada.
Massive gaming industry.So everything is brilliant again?
Ace.
Ace.
GCHQ mentioned something about Nevada.
Maybe they just had a big-time lucky weekend on the craps table?
It depends a lot on how it is being financed, and if replaced by another loan - what is the security against the loan etc. There's still so much unknown to be making any definitive statements as yet about it although initially it appears positive.
I just hope they didn't make another loan, with smaller interests, to pay off this...
- Status