Which is probably what they have done.
Which is better than paying higher interests.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Which is probably what they have done.
Which is better than paying higher interests.
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!
He tends to disappear when Im on, he does not like being asked the simple questions to which their is only one answer. He does have something to hide that has been obvious for a while he can't help himself by letting little bits of info slip now and again, he will return of course when he gathers up the rest of the Glazer marching band
Yes. Now all the initial hysteria has cleared, this seems by far the most likely option.
If 16.5% represented the best investment in Europe, to paraphrase that fund-manager, then the other side of that coin is that the Glazers were being ripped off paying that much interest, and could do much better.
So, if the option to just pay the PIKs off with a week's notice and walk away was there, it's an absolute no-brainer to borrow the money from somewhere else.
The only question really is how much visisbility wel'l get on what for the new borrowing is taking.
Hmmm... suspicious... Now that you mention it, I never see the two of you in here at the same time...
I'd noticed... tends to lead to sarcastic comments about how he is one of the Glazers, or cheap shots about the questioner being some kind of imbecile.
Propoganda arises in all institutions and in all forms.
Everyone has some sort of agenda and to ask folk to be totally objective is impossible.
The difference really is that MUST were operating on behalf of us, the Glazers have not been.
Must get alot of stick, sometimes they rightly do, at other times they are swiped at out of spite.
Not suggesting that's you by any stretch mind.
That is the reason I have included "if" and "when" in my posts bro...
That came after the post I quoted - didn't see it when I replied!
Hmmm... suspicious... Now that you mention it, I never see the two of you in here at the same time...
schizophrenia?
That is the reason I have included "if" and "when" in my posts bro...
Exactly. To trust these people is getting ahead of ourselves.
While obviously there could be better news, that in itself would be good news. And it's what I expect.
Most people are saying that it's great that they (supposedly) haven't taken any money out of the club to pay this, but personally I've never understood why they haven't paid some of it off. If we've got 165m in the bank, I'd have no problem with them using 60m or so to get the total debt down a bit and make the interest payments less. It would be better for the club in the longterm IMO.
Anyone know when the results are being announced today?
Not bad not bad, the only thing worrying me was Perkins not gay?
Are you homophobic aswell?
Eh?
That seems like a very likely and very positive move for the club, should this be the case we are paying off say 12% interest rather than 17%, and with sums as high as this that is a helluva lot of money saved.
You can't help yourself can you? Grow up and don't make silly accusations that get you into trouble, there's a good lad
Does it really matter how the PIK debt has been paid off given that we now know, well according to Bloomberg at least, that it has been paid down without the use of the club's cash?
The PIK debt has never been the responsibility of the club and no money has ever left the club to service/repay any of that debt. People were convinced that the Glazers would have to use the club's cash to pay down the PIK debt but they've been proven spectacularly wrong. That's the news here. The Glazers were able to pay down the PIK debt without the use of the club's cash/assets.
The PIK debt has never been the responsibility of the club and no money has ever left the club to service/repay any of that debt. People were convinced that the Glazers would have to use the club's cash to pay down the PIK debt but they've been proven spectacularly wrong. That's the news here. The Glazers were able to pay down the PIK debt without the use of the club's cash/assets.
In 10 minutes time.
Glazers deny having sold off any shares:
BBC - David Bond: Loan repayments good news for Man Utd fans
BBC - David Bond: Loan repayments good news for Man Utd fans
It is clear you know what is happening, so is the PIK debt being replaced by another debt or is it being repaid with Glazer cash, A or B answer will suffice
Could the Glazers take a personal loan out to pay the PIKs, remove the 75million they are allowed to take, as a personal withdrawal (and use it to pay down their personal loan) and then take their yearly dividend to continue to pay off the personal loan - and technically avoid the club paying for the PIK? They would be using their money to pay it off, just money taken from the club (as opposed to directly using the clubs money)
I haven't made any accusations.
Can I ask how it is clear?
If they've payed it off by changing to another loan with a lower interest rate, but tacked it directly onto Utd, then it certainly does matter.
I'd say that would still be a positive move, but we certainly deserve to know that (although then you'd get the strong anti-Glazers attacking that move mercilessly).
Is that a possibility?
"There was speculation overnight on Monday that the Glazers may have sold some shares in the club to finance the move. This has been denied to me by the family's spokesman."
Yeah, I just saw that and deleted my post!
There goes the hopes that they'd part sold the club to a zillionaire I guess.
if the loan is tacked directly on to United then it would be United paying off the PIKs, which has been denied at every turn (but expected by a lot of United fans and analysts.)
However it would still be a positive, the interest payments would be drastically lower, leaving us in a much much much better financial postition.
Businessmen keeping thier business plans close to their chest, whatever next?
The fact is that Gill and SAF have always informed us that the PIK's were never a worry for the club and that there is money available for squad investment. They were called liars both. Was that the club keeping us in the dark then, making us second guess? Or was it simply a case of the prejudice instilled in those gullible enough to be taken in by the hate-campaign coming to the fore and causing unnecessary panic and distrust?
MUST said:
Gill said:
MUST said:
Gill said:
MUST said:
Well his Nevada post was certainly intriguing
David Bond:
The Glazers may have released funds by selling some assets in the United States or refinanced the loans with other banks at better interest rates.
There will undoubtedly be relief among fans who have long seen the PIK loans as the biggest threat to United's future financial stability.
But they are unlikely to rest easy until they know for sure how they were paid off - something the secretive Glazers are unlikely to ever reveal.
So, the club assets are still under lien in this case. The only relief is that interest may be less than before.
The Glazers may have released funds by selling some assets in the United States or refinanced the loans with other banks at better interest rates.
There will undoubtedly be relief among fans who have long seen the PIK loans as the biggest threat to United's future financial stability.
But they are unlikely to rest easy until they know for sure how they were paid off - something the secretive Glazers are unlikely to ever reveal.
So, the club assets are still under lien in this case. The only relief is that interest may be less than before.
My understanding is that the denial is just that money has been directly taken out of the club to pay the debt. Taking a loan out to pay it off and then attaching that loan to the club is still a possibility as far as I can see.
I'm a long way from a financial guru though so I'd be interested in knowing the aforementioned guru's thoughts.
It would yes.
If you took the view United were always going to ultimately pay for the PIKs, then a refinanced loan at a much lower interest rate is a better position.
If you believed that United was not going to be used to pay off the PIKs then it is a bad move and puts 'new' debt on to United, regardless of the interest rate comparisons.
Yes I agree it would be a benefit but it would be wrong to say that they have paid off the debt if of course that is what has happened. Perhaps they have used cash and fair play to them if they have
According to sources Glazer put £70m for Haye on the 3rd. It all makes sense now.
Well that's where Red Football is based,so realistically thats where a deal would be done would it not, i'm sure even Anders would admit its plausibility that loans/other business are taken out in Nevada.
This would be true. And while I'm a long way from some of the people who seemed to make out Glazer was sent from hell with the express purpose of destroying us, I've always taken the former view that the money to pay the PIKs would ultimately come from us.
- Status