Come on, man, there's fecking heaps of cash available for players; unless you're still subscribing to the 'Gill is a liar, SAF is a liar, the Glazers are evil' bollocks, you must be able to see that? The owners could take £50m piece of piss and there'd still be ample funds in place for massive expenditure. We're a very rich club.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Come on, man, there's fecking heaps of cash available for players; unless you're still subscribing to the 'Gill is a liar, SAF is a liar, the Glazers are evil' bollocks, you must be able to see that? The owners could take £50m piece of piss and there'd still be ample funds in place for massive expenditure. We're a very rich club.
Strong reassurances coming from various sources they won't, even believe it now myself
This is all being done ahead of the financial fair play regulations to lessen the club's potential outgoings. In terms of the FFP regs, there's no point having a massive cash balance at the start of July 2011 as you can't subsequently spend it. As of July 2011, income less expenditure has to net to zero going forward, making the £160m in the bank redundant.
That's my take anyway.
That's my take anyway.
Never been in the camp 'Gill is a liar, SAF is a liar, the Glazers are evil'
I've always held the middle ground.
In fact I'd be delighted if the club do not spend any money on the team and still remains successful, and money gets used to pay off debts.
I know you have been waiting with baited breath for the 'Glazer use Ronaldo cash to pay off debt' shitstorm but I honestly think it isnt coming. The Glazers have finally given in and are playing the PR game - they wont risk it now.
Sorry to disappoint you
So in theory could we spend some of the money in January and leave any players we buy with their respective clubs until July?
I've seen some crap on Sky Sports Website but this...
"Lee Paskell (Manchester United fan) says...
Bad news for the club. If they are putting their hands in their pockets now i think it means that they won't be spending for the next few transfer windows. Wayne Rooney called me when he signed his contract and told me that the club will spend 150 mil on new players in Jan so i'm a confused fan right now x"
Wayne rang you did he? really? you sure about that?
"Lee Paskell (Manchester United fan) says...
Bad news for the club. If they are putting their hands in their pockets now i think it means that they won't be spending for the next few transfer windows. Wayne Rooney called me when he signed his contract and told me that the club will spend 150 mil on new players in Jan so i'm a confused fan right now x"
Wayne rang you did he? really? you sure about that?
Good point - ties in well with the idea that they have started looking into spending excess cash on repurchasing the bonds.
But your assumption that it was a risky purchase is not based on any facts because you are not privvy to the Glazers thoughts or plans.
It may well have been a risky purchase and they may well have nearly fallen into the abyss but the fact remains we don't know and all the scaremongering from the likes of MUST seems to have been just that, scaremongering.
I am sure MUST have their reasons for their stance.
Bated. I don't understand why they would keep such a large balance of cash on hand. Though what is becoming clear is that we have such poor info on what's really going on that any projections are pretty much sheer guesswork.I know you have been waiting with baited breath for the 'Glazer use Ronaldo cash to pay off debt' shitstorm but I honestly think it isnt coming. The Glazers have finally given in and are playing the PR game - they wont risk it now.
Sorry to disappoint you
rofl...
Yes, Wayne personally rang Lee Paskell and said that we were going to spend £150m on new players in January. I have no reason to doubt Lee Paskell
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't meaning you personally really, you do seem quite reasonable most of the time. It's how MUST respond that'll most interest me, because they have without doubt been spreading the viewpoint described above to dramatic effect. Shamelessly scaremongering. An apology from them would be a good start, for fecking everyone around with their scary bullshit for so long. I've said from the start that they were being deceitful in the way they approached the issue, and now, as it's becoming more and more apparent that the doom-mongering was entirely impotent, now that people can see for themselves that the club is actually being run well and that there's absolutely no need to panic, it's time for MUST to back down. We've already seen anders hold his hands up and admit he was wrong; somehow I doubt though that anyone speaking for MUST would ever be so respectful.
Really good point that. To be honest if they took £50m of the cash reserves to pay towards the bonds I'd be delighted. Less debt, less interest to pay. It would still leave plenty for prospective purchases.
I think a few on here owe David gill an apology too.
Its all MUSTs fault I tell you they are the cause of all Manchester Uniteds problems not the great and good Glazers, without MUST we would have a far more successful club, the whole thing is MUSTs fault I say again
There are going to a few people who will have to climb down from particularly high horses if all this is as it seems.
I've always thought Gill seemed very confident when talking about the financial situation at the club, and it would appear that his attitude has been justified. A lot of the scaremongering has been based on assumptions and most notably on assumptions regarding the Glazers motivation and aims. This all seems a step in the right direction. Amazing.
You don't need facts, or assumptions. Prohibitive debt is always risky for sports ventures. Thoughts or plans don't work unless you're guaranteed success on the pitch. Only the likes of Mansoor or Ibra can manage without success on the pitch.
Yes indeed - since the bond issue we have more info than we ever had before but there is still plenty that we dont and may never know, which is pretty much what I have been saying to the likes of andersred for a while now.
Maybe they did originally plan to use the cash to repay the PIK but were advised by PR people not to and then had to come up with a new plan which we are now seeing the first signs of.
It is amazing. That's twice I've been astonished by events at united this season. I agree about gill too. He's been very definite in what he's said. Maybe he was being completely truthful, maybe things were more fluid, but in the end what he said was correct. It doesn't all make the glazers good owners but I certainly feel more positive about the short and medium term now.
Edit: shouldn't have read "bad owners".
But you are assuming that success on the pitch is/was vital to the business plan. I would suggest that it isnt.
Definitely. And to be fair I have always believed in Sir Alex. One of things I've found most disgusting is those supporters who have branded Sir Alex a yes man and suggested that he was lying when asked about the Glazers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suddenly a fan of theirs but I never for once believed that if the situation were as bad as some suggested, that Sir Alex would stay, let alone cover for the owners. He's felt able to do his job uninhibited, and like Gill, he's been proven right in all he he's said.
Of course it's vital mate. Just imagine a few years without the Champions league. Any business plan would be ruined.
Facts are always worth having on your side Sults.
Maybe the prohibitive debt wasn't as prohibitive as some would think or like it to be.
If this is a P.R move by the Glazer's which I actually don't think it is, what sort of businessmen decide to spend £220m for P.R?, then they only have to look on the various United forums on the interwebs to see how well United fans are recieving this news.
When I say 'success' I am talking about winning trophies, I assumed you were as well.
Qualification for the CL is different and I agree that it is a very important part of the business plan, but not vital.
Ive said before than I thought our finances were strong enough to survive at least a couple of years without the CL but any more than that could well be an issue - of course that is the same reason why I have never been worried about squad investment because it is in the Glazers interests to make sure we have a squad that can compete.
That came out wrong
I meant to say in a sports venture results are not guaranteed. Therefore a business plan is just that, a plan, not fact. Over £700 Million in debt becomes very prohibitive if success on the pitch had not been achieved. As I said fortunately for the Glazers and United things look to be working out.
Well the £200m was going to have to spent at some point anyway - the only issue was when and where the cash came from.
Generally, the reaction seems to be one of suprise and confusion so far. But I dont think they necessarily expected to get good PR anyway, just avoid more negative PR.
The criticism and downright vitriol in some cases that has been directed at fergie has defied belief. Some of the stuff posted on other forums has disgusted me. I doubt any will admit they have been wrong though.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to see them buy back some of the bonds and bring the cash reserves down closer to £50m before July. All guesswork of course, but I can't help feel people are ignoring the ideal t0 position for FFP and how far away we are from it.
I am glad you said other forums, SAF has had little criticism on here
That came out wrong
I meant to say in a sports venture results are not guaranteed. Therefore a business plan is just that, a plan, not fact. Over £700 Million in debt becomes very prohibitive if success on the pitch had not been achieved. As I said fortunately for the Glazers and United things look to be working out.
It's often said how lucky the Glazers have been. Not so often mentioned is how unlucky they were when the recession came along; their business plan would be far in advance as it is today had it not been for the global market collapse. Successful businessmen don't rely on luck though, is my opinion at least; they take the good luck and they take the hard luck in equal measure and then they make things work. The Glazers have made United work; they adapt to changing situations and climates and always come up trumps at the crunch. I've said it before but it's worth saying again: our owners can run a successful football club; they know what they're doing.
Clearly it makes sense to pay off the PIKs so whichever way you swing it this is good news, but I don't really see why there are people jumping up and down with glee at this. It could lead to more debt for United, or more likely more debt for RFJV for which they may use the withdrawal facility from United.
No idea what will happen as things have not been predictable thus far.
No idea what will happen as things have not been predictable thus far.
100%. But unfortunately things have been left so vague and unclear that there's plenty of scope for the same people to continue having a pop at each other.
It's still too early to say for definite my man. However, it's looking a lot more positive than I ever thought previously.
Surely, even if it is a refinancing loan, it would still work out less overall than the PIKs were - the interest rate will be far lower, and may not get rolled up annually, so the debt should now be fixed at a particular level, and should reduce from here on in.
It may be that on the balance sheet the debt increases (if it is lumped on to United) but a lot thought that was the case anyway, so the PIKs finally eing dealt with is a good thing from any perspective, right?
Yes, definitely a good thing, but not necessarily a fantastically good thing. Remains to be seen.
The ffp regs will significantly hinder the glazers in any attempt to withdraw large sums from united and are possibly, as mikeupnorth says, one of the principle reasons for today's developments.
Out of interest, would the bond holders not have something to say if another £200m+ of debt were dumped on united? I doubt it would be allowed under the terms of investment would it?
Yeah, thats my take on all this. Cautious optimism untill we understand more fully what the full implications of the PIK repayment is. It is either really great, or kind good. Don't see a real downside to it really.
Can anyone confirm if a loan to pay off the PIKs could be put against the club itself - my understanding is that this could not happen, as the Bond is already secured against the club, so a new loan could not be secured on this also. So if there is a new loan (most likely) it would be secured against the Glazer ownership just as the PIKs were.
- Status