Nope the Glazers are
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Nope the Glazers are
I don't know UK law, but I am wondering something. In the horrifying event that United go bankrupt couldn't the city of Manchester conceivably sue the Glazers over damage to a revenue generating institution? It would need to be demonstrated that the damage could have been avoided (seems simple enough) through prudent planning.
I hope that it doesn't come to that. However, if the Glazers leave the club in that much a lurch they should be punish somehow, and therefore be a warning to all who come after them.
If someone else has mentioned this idea, I apologize. There are so many posts on this thread.
I hope that it doesn't come to that. However, if the Glazers leave the club in that much a lurch they should be punish somehow, and therefore be a warning to all who come after them.
If someone else has mentioned this idea, I apologize. There are so many posts on this thread.
O'Barma will sort the bastards out!
The aim of the refinance is not to put money in the kitty for transfers but to grapple these piks.
What the prospectus shows is that it wasn't for the refinance we would have £116m in the bank which a portion presumably would have been spent on transfers. Gill says that after interest is paid the club has a surplus of £50m. Looking at it at a very basic level this would mean that £50m would theoretically be available for transfers per season.
No....united are a privately owned company, the Glazers can do what the hell they like. By the time the bonds mature they could already recovered every penny of their own investment, then they could walk away and let United fold.
If the Glazers are in such dire financial straits, why haven't they sold the naming rights to Old Trafford?
Lets get one thing straight. With our revenue it is highly unlikely that United would get anywhere near admistration. Even with a period of trophyless seasons we will still more or less fill the ground out. If we got into the situation where revenue's take a substantial dip and could not meet their interest obligations then the likelyhood is that the pik/bond underwriters would force the sale of the club.
In this scenario someone may be able pick up the club reasonably on the cheap. Wishfull thinking I know but they may even have money left over for transfers. If they had any sense they would be fan friendly and bring the fans groups on board and meetu halfway with ticketing, etc.
How is the ticket sale these days? Match day revenue is after all what keeps the club alive and I am starting to receive emails from United about tickets being available.......
they certainly have balls- i wouldn't want to make millions of enemies...
Oh look, it's Mr "let's boycott MUST, IMUSA and Red Issue". How's that campaign going?
Oh, and request a name change to GreenAndGoldCanuck.
Not so much "rich" as "less in debt".
Whereas United today are significantly more in debt.
People need to get real. We are proper fecked all the time the glazers own the club. How the feck can anyone say we are immune from administration when we are nearly a billion pounds in debt?
Without success our club will probably lose between 20-25% of our fan base (glory hunters risk tusk). 25% less income = even more fecked than we currently are.
Without success our club will probably lose between 20-25% of our fan base (glory hunters risk tusk). 25% less income = even more fecked than we currently are.
We have just gone through a period (three years) where success has boosted our annual revenues by over 30 million a year. The prize money and TV payments for the CL are worth tens of millions if you make the semis or better. Winning the EPL is worth well over ten million more than coming 5th or 6th when you factor in bonuses from sponsors and increased merchandising etc. Despite all that revenue the debts have been rising.
I could see United going down like a lead balloon if we drifted out of the top 4.
During our last trophyless period we became the richest club on the planet
Apart from that being incorrect, we didn't have $1 billion in debts to service last time we were trophy-less.
Okay we maintained our mantle as the richest club on the planet
We still maintained significant revenue increases year on year.
If we couldn't service our debt the club would be sold by the hedgefunds/underwriters from under the Glazers feet. This is nothing like Leeds United.
I understand what you are saying and interpreted the bond issue much the same way myself. I should have added I will believe it once I see it in regard to Glazer paying 127 million of the debt in the first year.
Okay we maintained our mantle as the richest club on the planet
We still maintained significant revenue increases year on year.
If we couldn't service our debt the club would be sold by the hedgefunds/underwriters from under the Glazers feet. This is nothing like Leeds United.
I really wish you were right mate.
Sorry but I dont understand this bond issue.
In the long run does it mean we have incressed our debt or paid some of it off?
In the long run does it mean we have incressed our debt or paid some of it off?
The final debt the Glazers will have to pay 2013-2017 has been cut and deferred.
More of the debt is directly secured on United.
United will have to pay more money in interest payments between now and 2017 to pay off Glazer's debt.
That a fair summary?
The final debt the Glazers will have to pay 2013-2017 has been cut and deferred.
More of the debt is directly secured on United.
United will have to pay more money in interest payments between now and 2017 to pay off Glazer's debt.
That a fair summary?
Thanks , I think I understand
Yes they will continue to push the club to grow revenue and profit wherever they can.
However I dont think they will make any attempt to pay off the bond debt and it will just be refinanced again at some point. Although there is actually an option to pay it off anytime after 3 years should they (or any new owner) choose to do so.
The new £75m revolving credit facility (basically an overdraft) just replaces the £70m which is being used to pay off the PIKs. Assuming things continue as they have been, then there should still be at least £30m to £40m surplus a year which can be spent on players if required.
That is a pretty decent synopsis of the situation.
The final debt the Glazers will have to pay 2013-2017 has been cut and deferred.
More of the debt is directly secured on United.
United will have to pay more money in interest payments between now and 2017 to pay off Glazer's debt.
That a fair summary?
-Yes. Most importantly, the total debt will not rise as much every year, if at all, as it has been for the past few years.
-Well the main change is that there is not really any seperation between what debt is the club's and what is the Glazers' anymore.
-Last year we paid £41m interest on the senior debt and now we will pay £45m on the bonds so around the same in that respect.
But cash will now be taken out of the club to pay off the PIKs - at least £70m for a start but it could be more, I am still unclear on this.
I seem to recall that had a meeting with a government minister in which they were asked their plans for the club. It seems to me that what they are doing, and what they promised to do may be radically different now. They would doubtless argue that with the collapse of financial markets around the world that they couldn't have foreseen the current circumstances. Clever enough attorneys could make arguments to the contrary.
My ultimate goal in this is to find a means by which they could be compelled to float the company as a PLC again, or face endless fines, lawsuits, and government action against them personally. Make it too difficult to profit as long as they keep complete ownership.
Offer them the choice of sinking their own fortunes into paying the club's debt, in order to mitigate some of the consequences.
Even if the lawsuits failed in the end the costs to the Glazers in attorneys' fee alone would have been massive.
This is my way of avoiding the other solutions that occur to me, which involve actions that would make a Viet Cong interrogator wince.
The final debt the Glazers will have to pay 2013-2017 has been cut and deferred.
More of the debt is directly secured on United.
United will have to pay more money in interest payments between now and 2017 to pay off Glazer's debt.
That a fair summary?
As I understood the whole thing, we're now borrowing against club assets (selling bonds to do so) to pay off the initial debt, but that will leave us with debt to lots of people, as opposed to the initial debt.
Oh look, it's Mr "let's boycott MUST, IMUSA and Red Issue". How's that campaign going?
Oh, and request a name change to GreenAndGoldCanuck.
Is there a point here?
No value? I have to see the reasoning behind this cherry, any idea which thread?
Yes. Request a name change to Green&GoldCanuck
That would be nice. However according to the accounts, last year we made 80m profit on playersales and the year before a further 20m. Maybe that s the money or part of it came from?
Apparently in match programme today.
Ferguson pleas to Man Utd fans as Glazer row unsettles players | Premiership News | tribalfootball.com
Ferguson pleas to Man Utd fans as Glazer row unsettles players | Premiership News | tribalfootball.com
Where is the 70 mill going to come from? We won't make enough profit to service 45 mill in debt plus have a surplus of 70 mill. Could you please explain this?
We did not make a profit of 20 mill on player sales. We had hardly anyone going out but bought in Berbatov + Tosic in the same year. I'd love to know how the sales of Eagles and a few fringe players offset the berba purchase and bought in 20 mill on top.
Also this year's profits on player sales were 60 mill. Could you please provide me with a link to these figures you saw?
That sounds suspiciously like the figures they bandied about at the start of the takeover with regards to our transfer spending.
£20m a year, with a further £25m to be used any time for a superstar signing.
The £70m is a one off payment and comes from current cash reserves - as of 30Sep09 we had £146m of surplus cash in the bank (i.e. a long way from being 'skint' as some people believed).
Link to bond prospectus - have fun !
http://www.joinmust.org/docs/mufc-notes.pdf
There is no detail behind the transfer figures but I assume they will reflect when money actually comes in and out for players - since most transfers are done in installments, it is too simplistic to just look at which players were signed or sold in any period.
well, if they clear off the PIKs then 45mil isn't so bad in the grand scheme of things
they'd probably refinance come 2017 too, which means they're not in a hurry to sell and will probably wait for the big offer
sadly, it seems we're pretty much stuck with them for many years to come
they'd probably refinance come 2017 too, which means they're not in a hurry to sell and will probably wait for the big offer
sadly, it seems we're pretty much stuck with them for many years to come
The interest payments will not actually be 45m since the interest is tax deductable. So,
504million x 9% x 0.8 (factor for tax relief) is approx 36m
504million x 9% x 0.8 (factor for tax relief) is approx 36m
IS this definitely right?
36 million is very manageable - If the PIK's are gone.
Old Trafford in 2017 - Commercialised theatre, with no atmosphere
do you think it will still be called old trafford though and not something like the hyundi theatre of dreams
- Status