Well that's brilliant news in itself. Supporting United should be a positive and enjoyable experience, but unfortunately a lot of effort has been made from certain recesses of our fanbase in recent years to ensure that the experience of being a United fan should be defined by anger, bitterness and disgruntlement: during one of our most successful on-field periods ever no less. Thankfully many are now coming round to the idea that all this animosity is largely unnecessary, that we should count ourselves lucky to be supporting the greatest football club in the land and not be wasting our time cultivating hatred towards entities that we but barely understand. I feel sorry for those who feel compelled to take such extreme action as to boycott the club, genuinely I do. IMO such sentiment is entirely ill-founded; they undoubtedly won't see it as such, but my hope is that within time their mistake will become apparent and United fans will once again learn to love their club. As SAF says though, some fans just refuse to be happy, it's been that way since he first took charge and it'll surely be that way forevermore; there's nothing we can do about that; some people either just don't appreciate their good fortune or they are too hellbent on being pissed-off all the time to ever realise that they're actually allowed to have fun. Shit happens.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Well that's brilliant news in itself. Supporting United should be a positive and enjoyable experience, but unfortunately a lot of effort has been made from certain recesses of our fanbase in recent years to ensure that the experience of being a United fan should be defined by anger, bitterness and disgruntlement: during one of our most successful on-field periods ever no less. Thankfully many are now coming round to the idea that all this animosity is largely unnecessary, that we should count ourselves lucky to be supporting the greatest football club in the land and not be wasting our time cultivating hatred towards entities that we but barely understand. I feel sorry for those who feel compelled to take such extreme action as to boycott the club, genuinely I do. IMO such sentiment is entirely ill-founded; they undoubtedly won't see it as such, but my hope is that within time their mistake will become apparent and United fans will once again learn to love their club. As SAF says though, some fans just refuse to be happy, it's been that way since he first took charge and it'll surely be that way forevermore; there's nothing we can do about that; some people either just don't appreciate their good fortune or they are too hellbent on being pissed-off all the time to ever realise that they're actually allowed to have fun. Shit happens.
I think you are missing some of the point here. Fair enough the debt is a big issue but it's not the only one. You ask most match going United fans disgruntled with the Glazers and I think you'll find that absolutely no communication with the fans from day one, ticket prices and the ACS are near the top of the list of issues as well.
I said little not none
Now get to a match and support them
He can't afford it, priced out...
tbf you can say that about any team in the PL, it's just the way things are, sadly
If only all the money the Glazers wasted on interest had been used to keep prices more affordable
Not that it's in any major way the fault of the Glazers, who are but a small cog in the process, but the above is becoming a moot point.
This in itself is a large part of the reason many now go to FC instead, as you'll no dobut have noticed if you watched that Rochdale match. Instead of whinging and being miserable, those peole have taken action to ensure they do still have fun.
Manchester United debt repayment: Q&A
What is the story behind the Glazers' £220m payment-in-kind debt?
By Helia Ebrahimi 4:44PM GMT 16 Nov 2010
Why is debt such a big issue at Manchester United?
The Glazer family borrowed heavily to buy the club and many fans think the burden has restricted the club’s ability to buy players.
Back in autumn 2004 David Gill, the chief executive said: "We've seen many examples of debt in football over the years and the difficulties it causes. We know what that means and we think that is inappropriate for this business."
But the Glazers came back with another bid using so called payment in kind notes (PIK). Because PIK notes have a right to convert into shares - they could be classified as equity, not debt.
How much is the debt burden?
Well last month the club reported a loss of £83.6m for the year ending 30 June, mainly due to interest payments on its debt.
It has been estimated that between 2005-9 Red Football Joint Venture Limited has spent at least £260m servicing its debt.
Is that from these PIK loans and what are they?
Controversial loans which pay high interest and roll up the payments until the end of their life, so no, last year’s interest bill did not include them.
So what interest charges were being accrued on the PIK loan?
Well the PIK loan was worth £220m and was accruing interest at an eye watering 16.25pc a year.
So what could the PIK notes have cost United?
By the end of its life the cost of the loan could have been nearly £600m.
Who held the loan?
Originally it was three New York hedge funds Perry Capital, Och Ziff and Citadel – which extended the money. The notes made lots of money for the three hedge funds which sold the debt on to about 20 so-called vulture funds, institutions who like high risk high reward investments.
Is it United or the Glazers who have paid off the PIK early?
Well it is the Glazers through their holding company Red Football Joint Venture rather than United who are paying off the PIK loan. Joel Glazer, United’s co-chairman has signed a ‘voluntary free payment notice’ to repay 100pc of the outstanding loan on November22.
What from their own money?
Seems to be. And under the terms of a bond issue in January they could have used £70m from the club to pay down part of the debt.
What’s a bond?
A bond is a loan which promises to pay a fixed amount of interest over a period of time at the end of which the original sum must be repaid.
So the PIK loan pay off is good news for United then?
Maybe. Some fans are worried about where the cash has come from though the Glazers say they have not taken a dividend out of United.
So where has the cash come from?
The club and the Glazers aren’t saying but could be they refinanced the loan, or sold a stake in the club or sold other assets to raise the cash.
So does that mean United no longer has any debt?
No, there is still the small matter of the £526m bond issued in January.
Who backed that?
A group of about 50 insurance companies and pension funds lent the money at an annual fixed rate of 9pc.
Was that better than United’s existing debt?
The interest bill was similar but crucially the bond doesn’t mature until 2017 so United has plenty of time to repay it unlike its previous debt.
So what does the bond cost?
Well the latest accounts show United paid £22.7m in interest, and the terms of the bond are for interest to be paid twice a year so about £45m.
So United owes a lot?
Yes it does although in the accounts published today the club also had cash of £151.7m sitting in the bank at the end of September.
Manchester United debt repayment: Q&A - Telegraph
What is the story behind the Glazers' £220m payment-in-kind debt?
By Helia Ebrahimi 4:44PM GMT 16 Nov 2010
Why is debt such a big issue at Manchester United?
The Glazer family borrowed heavily to buy the club and many fans think the burden has restricted the club’s ability to buy players.
Back in autumn 2004 David Gill, the chief executive said: "We've seen many examples of debt in football over the years and the difficulties it causes. We know what that means and we think that is inappropriate for this business."
But the Glazers came back with another bid using so called payment in kind notes (PIK). Because PIK notes have a right to convert into shares - they could be classified as equity, not debt.
How much is the debt burden?
Well last month the club reported a loss of £83.6m for the year ending 30 June, mainly due to interest payments on its debt.
It has been estimated that between 2005-9 Red Football Joint Venture Limited has spent at least £260m servicing its debt.
Is that from these PIK loans and what are they?
Controversial loans which pay high interest and roll up the payments until the end of their life, so no, last year’s interest bill did not include them.
So what interest charges were being accrued on the PIK loan?
Well the PIK loan was worth £220m and was accruing interest at an eye watering 16.25pc a year.
So what could the PIK notes have cost United?
By the end of its life the cost of the loan could have been nearly £600m.
Who held the loan?
Originally it was three New York hedge funds Perry Capital, Och Ziff and Citadel – which extended the money. The notes made lots of money for the three hedge funds which sold the debt on to about 20 so-called vulture funds, institutions who like high risk high reward investments.
Is it United or the Glazers who have paid off the PIK early?
Well it is the Glazers through their holding company Red Football Joint Venture rather than United who are paying off the PIK loan. Joel Glazer, United’s co-chairman has signed a ‘voluntary free payment notice’ to repay 100pc of the outstanding loan on November22.
What from their own money?
Seems to be. And under the terms of a bond issue in January they could have used £70m from the club to pay down part of the debt.
What’s a bond?
A bond is a loan which promises to pay a fixed amount of interest over a period of time at the end of which the original sum must be repaid.
So the PIK loan pay off is good news for United then?
Maybe. Some fans are worried about where the cash has come from though the Glazers say they have not taken a dividend out of United.
So where has the cash come from?
The club and the Glazers aren’t saying but could be they refinanced the loan, or sold a stake in the club or sold other assets to raise the cash.
So does that mean United no longer has any debt?
No, there is still the small matter of the £526m bond issued in January.
Who backed that?
A group of about 50 insurance companies and pension funds lent the money at an annual fixed rate of 9pc.
Was that better than United’s existing debt?
The interest bill was similar but crucially the bond doesn’t mature until 2017 so United has plenty of time to repay it unlike its previous debt.
So what does the bond cost?
Well the latest accounts show United paid £22.7m in interest, and the terms of the bond are for interest to be paid twice a year so about £45m.
So United owes a lot?
Yes it does although in the accounts published today the club also had cash of £151.7m sitting in the bank at the end of September.
Manchester United debt repayment: Q&A - Telegraph
Sadly pricing tickets below market value, as the PLC did, would just result in the club being ripe for takeover by another investor (willing to charge the market rate) as there would be obvious potential for growth.
TBH I was just making a point about one of the better ways that money could have been used instead of being totally wasted on Glazer debt interest payments
Seems MUST still aren't happy...
Fans demand Glazers give details of their plans for the club
Firstly, what we have been discussing with these PIKs are, and have always been, the Glazers personal debts. As such, we have no need or right to know the ins and outs of them as we do any other mortgages or loans that the players at Manchester United may have. They are completely none of our business.
Secondly, what the hell are MUST talking about? What "plans" do they want the Glazers to reveal that isn't already pretty bloody obvious? Why didn't MUST ask these questions in 2005 instead of going off on a Glazer witch-hunt from day one?
To be fair, the Glazers haven't really helped themselves - especially since January - by not doing anything to put fans' minds at rest and I am a loss as to understand why one of them didn't just go on MUTV or something and speak.
What this has proved, however, is that, despite what some people would have had us believe, the Glazers always have options open to them.
Fans demand Glazers give details of their plans for the club
Firstly, what we have been discussing with these PIKs are, and have always been, the Glazers personal debts. As such, we have no need or right to know the ins and outs of them as we do any other mortgages or loans that the players at Manchester United may have. They are completely none of our business.
Secondly, what the hell are MUST talking about? What "plans" do they want the Glazers to reveal that isn't already pretty bloody obvious? Why didn't MUST ask these questions in 2005 instead of going off on a Glazer witch-hunt from day one?
To be fair, the Glazers haven't really helped themselves - especially since January - by not doing anything to put fans' minds at rest and I am a loss as to understand why one of them didn't just go on MUTV or something and speak.
What this has proved, however, is that, despite what some people would have had us believe, the Glazers always have options open to them.
On the other hand, the £260m might never have existed if it wasn't for the Glazers.
In 2005 our net profit was £38m of which £12m was then paid to the share holders in dividend.
The Glazers brought in a blue print which saw us split up our sponsership and expand around the globe to a point where our net profit, pre debt servicing, was £100m this year. That is £74m difference when comparing 2004-2005 fiscal year and 2009-2010's fiscal year.
While it is not ideal that so much money has been taken out over the years, you cannot look past the fact that when the Glazers finally free United of it's debt, United are going to be an extremely rich club.
They have taken the net profit from £38m (minus £12m dividends) to £100m in just five years, I'd imagine they could push on to around the £150m mark in the next few years aswell. All this makes the Red Knights valuation of United at £1.5bn completely and utterly laughable considering it would have the potential to make that money back in around 10-15 years.
That's why the club ownership rules in this country are fecked. Either way the fans get shafted ........ for as long as they allow themselves to be shafted.
MUST are never happy, such news goes against everything they've prophersised for 5 years, it makes them look like a bunch of retards basically, and its sad to see even when such good news for the club breaks the first thing MUST think about is how to put a negative spin on it to save face.
This is the point many of us have been making all along - that they have increased revenues in order to clear the debt repayments with ease.
The stock response is that anyone could have done this.
Isn't that what you're doing with that article?
MUST seem only to be saying "communicate with us, why all the secrecy?"
and you can hardly say the Glazers have een communicative with the fans this past 5 years.
Tits. They've got nowhere to hide now from their own idiocy and incompetence; MUST grew far too big for their boots and are now falling flat on their faces accordingly.
Show some dignity, Drasdo, you've fecked up, hold your hands up and apologise to the same fans that you arrogantly and incorrectly believe yourself to represent. Stop bullshitting everyone.
MUST simultaneously accuse the Glazers of secrecy - not communicating with the fans - and of operating in 'spin'. Well, it's either one or the other, they either speak out with spin or they say nothing, it ain't both.
No, MUST are demanding something they know full well wont happen and when it doesn't they'll use it to spin anything they can, why should the glazers communicate with them? all they've done is spew bile and shown themselves up as no nothing idiots for 5 years, how many times does as organisation have to be proven so ridiculously wide of the mark before it loses any and all creditability it had? MUST have been a laughing stock for a while now and the latest news just hammers it home even further, have they got anything right in the last 5 years??
What need have the glazers to reveal anything? why do MUST suddenly want answers now after years of having made up their own minds and told us all ever so nicely what to believe? its just another attempt at attacking the owners, when as we all know the glazers don't say anything MUST will spin it as a the owners are hiding things and behind the scenes its not as rosy as this and that and blah blah blah, just as they've done from day one.
I've got no interest in anything MUST have to say, they haven't gotten a thing right from day one, i feel sorry for the poor souls who've taken in everything they've said, 5 years of toothless propaganda and its all getting a bit embarrassing for them now.
What secrecy? The club communicates, Drasdo accuses them of lying. What's the fecking point?
"Tell us! What will come of the PIK debt?"
"Don't worry about that, it's not the club's responsibility."
"Liar! Tell us what really will become of the PIK debt!"
"Erm, well, don't worry about it it's not the club's responsibility."
"Liar! Stop lying and tell us what will become of the PIK debt!"
*PIK debt turns out to never have been the club's responsibility*
"Why didn't you tell us? Why all the secrecy? What have you got to hide?"
---
fecking idiots!!!
It's bloody Crerand logic.
I see the Glazer brigade are here in numbers preaching their anti MUST agenda as per usual. Any of them like to tell us where Joel and the lads have uncovered all this cash or is it merely one debt for another
If David Gill was doing his job as I suspect he would we didn't need the Glazers for the improved financial performance. Glazer ownership by the fact that profits have largely gone in interest payments have in fact stunted the growth of Manchester United
Did we pay much in tax in the year prior to the Glazer takeover?
In English, please?
You are aware, Crerand, are you not, that had the Glazers not taken over the club then someone else eventually would have? Does your fantasy scenario include these fantasy owners too then? Are they all perfect and charitable for you? Is everything all nice and happy in Crerand's Glazer-free fantasy land? Awww that's good to know.
I think Drasdo should do the honourable thing and resign, hes clearly not got a clue, how many times can someone get everything so basically wrong and stay in a position of leadership? the latest monumental MUST feck up surely makes his position untenable, if he were the manager/chairman/leader whatever of a day to day run office company his mistakes and abysmal foresight would see him sacked.
Early indications are it's not the clubs money. Why worry yourself?
I'm sure none of us are privy to such information anyway.
How do you know all this, got a crystal ball have we? I would judge any new owners on their merits as I did the Glazers who failed miserably, 5 years and this still have not had the manners to talk directly to the fans. J Henry met all the supporters groups in his first week, perhaps the Glazers should try this approach with our supporters groups instead of ignoring them
Worried no, curious yes
Another MUST rant, what would you complain about if it wasn't for them
Insults begin as expected
Erm, till the time the source of this new money is exposed, we are just going to be insulting each other is it? 
To be fair, the role of the Chief Executive is to maximize profit for the shareholders. He did a very good job of that for all the shareholders of the PLC. Seems he picked up where he left off.
What 'rant'? is everything that goes against your opinion a rant crerand? im merely suggesting a man who's headed an organisation for such a long time and been shown up to be so spectacularly wrong in everything he has said surely has lost all creditability and should do the honourable thing and step down?
Id actually gain a ton of respect for the man if he did this or either simply came out and said 'look ive fecked up i was wrong we were wrong and i apologise for calling the manager and David Gill liars and everything associated to the glazer ownership' which is effectively what he's done for 5 years, its surely basic incompetence to have said the things hes said and been proven so conclusively wrong on every count? if that were a general everyday working man hed have been shown the door years ago for sheer incompetence.
I'm using your's, you plonking spoon. You said that we would have made the same commercial advancements even without the Glazers, well, how do you know all this, got a crystal ball have we?
Anyway feck this, i've learnt that engaging in dialogue with you is akin to smashing myself repeatedly in the face with a partially decomposed frozen duck.
"Touched a nerve, have I?"
No.
Not at all you don't see me resorting to insults when the discussion isn't going my way
I was praising David Gill not having a go at him
- Status