ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
First quarter results:

Turnover up 9.7% from £57.7m to £63.3m

Commercial revenue increased by 24.7% from £19.4m to £24.2m

EBITDA up 4.5% year on year from £15.4m to £16.1m.

Cash at bank £151.7m, up from £146.6m the year before.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
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?
Click to expand...

You have not referred to where SAF was called a liar. Could you please give a link? I say this because if Gill is called a liar, nobody gives a shit. But fans do get a bit agit if SAF is called a liar. You know how he is revered in these here parts.
 
GCHQ said:
First quarter results:

Turnover up 9.7% from £57.7m to £63.3m

Commercial revenue increased by 24.7% from £19.4m to £24.2m

EBITDA up 4.5% year on year from £15.4m to £16.1m.

Cash at bank £151.7m, up from £146.6m the year before.
Click to expand...

All very nice and tidy well done to all at Manchester United in these difficult times. Now where is the money coming from to pay off the PIKs which is the big question
 
anver said:
You have not referred to where SAF was called a liar. Could you please give a link? I say this because if Gill is called a liar, nobody gives a shit. But fans do get a bit agit if SAF is called a liar. You know how he is revered in these here parts.
Click to expand...

Erm... has Fergie not said all along that "the money is there to spend if I want to", something MUST continually denies :confused:
 
A newbie who works at a hedge fund has this to say:

"Refinancing"


-The PIK loans are almost certainly being redeemed only to refinance at a much lower interest rate. A rate 16.25% in today's economy (when the US Fed's rate is close to 0%) is just ridiculous and the Glazer's would've liked to refinance much sooner if they could have.
-The key question that people are ignoring in the thread is that the PIK's, as claimed by Mr. Gill, were never the club's responsibility. Now the new loans could very well be secured against the club, increasing the club's direct liability, while cutting down the Glazer family's. But even if that were the case, it's not actually bad news. Fact of the matter is that even if the Glazers were responsible for the PIKs - them defaulting would have put the club and its assets at risk because they own the club!

So basically, no matter what the scenario, this is a positive. The problem is that it isn't close to being as big a deal as people are making it out to be. You need to understand that the club was taken over in 2005, and the economic world has gone upside down since then. This refinancing is just a long overdue adaptation to the post-2008 financial world.
 
anver said:
A newbie who works at a hedge fund has this to say:

"Refinancing"


-The PIK loans are almost certainly being redeemed only to refinance at a much lower interest rate. A rate 16.25% in today's economy (when the US Fed's rate is close to 0%) is just ridiculous and the Glazer's would've liked to refinance much sooner if they could have.
-The key question that people are ignoring in the thread is that the PIK's, as claimed by Mr. Gill, were never the club's responsibility. Now the new loans could very well be secured against the club, increasing the club's direct liability, while cutting down the Glazer family's. But even if that were the case, it's not actually bad news. Fact of the matter is that even if the Glazers were responsible for the PIKs - them defaulting would have put the club and its assets at risk because they own the club!

So basically, no matter what the scenario, this is a positive. The problem is that it isn't close to being as big a deal as people are making it out to be. You need to understand that the club was taken over in 2005, and the economic world has gone upside down since then. This refinancing is just a long overdue adaptation to the post-2008 financial world.
Click to expand...

Fair and well balanced post
 
anver said:
A newbie who works at a hedge fund has this to say:

"Refinancing"


-The PIK loans are almost certainly being redeemed only to refinance at a much lower interest rate. A rate 16.25% in today's economy (when the US Fed's rate is close to 0%) is just ridiculous and the Glazer's would've liked to refinance much sooner if they could have.
-The key question that people are ignoring in the thread is that the PIK's, as claimed by Mr. Gill, were never the club's responsibility. Now the new loans could very well be secured against the club, increasing the club's direct liability, while cutting down the Glazer family's. But even if that were the case, it's not actually bad news. Fact of the matter is that even if the Glazers were responsible for the PIKs - them defaulting would have put the club and its assets at risk because they own the club!

So basically, no matter what the scenario, this is a positive. The problem is that it isn't close to being as big a deal as people are making it out to be. You need to understand that the club was taken over in 2005, and the economic world has gone upside down since then. This refinancing is just a long overdue adaptation to the post-2008 financial world.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's pretty much what I was saying above. Seems like by far the most likely scenario in my mind.
 
Sharky7 said:
Erm... has Fergie not said all along that "the money is there to spend if I want to", something MUST continually denies :confused:
Click to expand...

MUST has called Gill a liar. But where has MUST called Fergie a liar? Maybe by implication.

But there are so many posts in here that have made "No value for money" and "The money is there" a joke. Thereby implying that Fergie is lying.
 
anver said:
The key question that people are ignoring in the thread is that the PIK's, as claimed by Mr. Gill, were never the club's responsibility. Now the new loans could very well be secured against the club, increasing the club's direct liability, while cutting down the Glazer family's.
Click to expand...

Would be a bit strange to go on about not using club funds and then put the debt on the club?
 
So even if the PIKs have been refinanced the loan can not be placed directly against the club, correct? (as we couldn't have the Bond and the new loan secured against the same thing) worst case they are secured against the Glazers ownership of the club, correct?

Still wouldn't clear up where the money to pay off the refinanced loan would come from though.
 
We're not going to find out where the money is from today are we? This shite is going to rumble on for ages.
 
Sharky7 said:
Would be a bit strange to go on about not using club funds and then put the debt on the club?
Click to expand...

My newbie pal has this to say:

If you read my post again, you'll see that I said that even if the PIKs were secured against the Glazer family and not the club, the club was for all financially practical purposes at as great a risk if the Glazers defaulted on the PIKs payments.
Now, if you:
1. Assume that the refinanced loans have been secured against the club, it may at first seem like the Glazers have put the club in even greater debt - but it is in fact nothing more than a technical change. It has no bearing on the real world scenario because the Glazer family owns MUFC.
OR
2. Assume that the refinanced loans have been secured against the Glazer family or one of its other businesses, then you might see that as a positive - and I'm sure the pro-Glazer commentators would go on about how brilliant that is for the club. In reality it's just a simple restructuring which ends up being nothing more than an accounting trick.

The only positive we can take from all this is that they didn't dip into the club's cash reserves - which I feel is indicative of a sound business plan (but even that's debatable).
 
Another newbie has given this juicy bit:

Redundant now, but couple interesting posts on Tariq Panja's twitter; the bloomberg journalist who broke the story:

"MUFC approached PIK holders last week to get them to agree waiver to buy back 50 million quid of bonds. Moot now but interesting"

"Doesn't make sense given PIKs at Glazer level and surely would be #MUFC (if anyone) redeeming bonds. Can't see why they would"

"they got PIK holders to sign a waiver allowing them to use 50 m of club funds to buy back part of the bond. Don't need that now"

"re. waiver on bond buy back.... what does that actually mean?"

"nothing now PIK holders have been eliminated. Interesting thing was they sought permission only last week. Fast change of tack"

Twitter

Security in case their procurement of funds fell through?
 
....
Manchester United have announced revenue growth of just under 10% for the first quarter of their financial year, in a statement to investors this morning.

Figures show a turnover of £63.3 million for the period from July 30th to September 30th just passed, up 9.7% from last year’s equivalent figure of £57.7 million. Operating Profit for the term is at £16.1 million, a rise of 4.5% year on year.

As a result, United still have a healthy cash reserve of £157.1 million, up from an equivalent figure of £146.6 million at the same stage last year. The figure is down slightly from the year end figure of £163 that was announced in June.

Fans skeptical that these reserves maybe used to finance the much maligned high interest PIK loans believed to be in the region of £220 million, can now perhaps relax that may now not happen.

Last night it was revealed that the Glazer family intended to pay back this loan in full by Monday next, without involving the clubs finances. It was hoped that this morning’s release would clear up how this was being refinanced, however this did not happen.

Instead a statement read, "The Board notes recent press speculation. The Board can confirm that there has been no dividend of Club cash.”
Overall club debt now lies at £509million, down from £521million at year end.
Click to expand...
 
anver said:
Yes. But Cider has decided to take umbrage only on MUST, while sparing the other posters who also implied that Fergie was lying.
Click to expand...

Oi you'll find that I've taken umbrage with anyone who's called SAF a liar on here whether they have any connection to MUST or not. My posts against MUST over the last couple of pages have been in direct response to their statement accusing the club of keeping us in the dark; it's entirely relevant then for me then to point out that the club never kept us in the dark, that the club has given us repeated reassurances concerning our finances, but that MUST chose to disregard these assurances as lies. They cannot cover up their balls-up and excuse their deceptions by stating now that, 'Well what do you expect? The club is so secretive. How were we supposed to know? They should have come clean about the finances." It doesn't cut it I'm afraid.
 
phelans shorts said:
David Bick's thoughts.

Likely to be a precursor to a sale or partial sale of the club to a new investor

hmmmm.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a long shot in the dark in the vain hope of being able to say he called it in the unlikely event of it coming true.
 
Financial expert on SSN believes it may be beginning of part or whole take over, interesting find it hard to believe though
 
ciderman9000000 said:
the club has given us repeated reassurances concerning our finances.
Click to expand...

 
phelans shorts said:
David Bick's thoughts.

Likely to be a precursor to a sale or partial sale of the club to a new investor

hmmmm.
Click to expand...

Sounds like wishful thinking. They wouldn't agree to a pay the PIKS back next week unless they had a deal already signed which provided the cash to do so. And if a deal was signed then surely the buyer would have announced it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.