Nah, Crerand mate, only you and Fred are so obsessed with GCHQ to think that he has all the answers. The rest of us know he'd only be speculating like everyone else.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Nah, Crerand mate, only you and Fred are so obsessed with GCHQ to think that he has all the answers. The rest of us know he'd only be speculating like everyone else.
The petty insults have started he is about to blow, got a ban the last time.
Where the money is coming from?
He does profess to be all knowing on matters Glazer and did only ask for his views, can see the harm myself
Why the attitude, Crerand?
Is it cry to the mods time Crerand?
It is a simple question not attitude if he does not have an opinon let him say so and we all move on, he is the best informed on here as regards the Glazers
Here you go, I've found them for you:
Now will you please go away?
No and I didn't the last time you got banned, it was all your own childish work
I've just been informed your a racist, i no longer wish to converse with you or your kind.
Good evening.
It's getting boring though, you've been at him the whole day with the same jib. The only one claiming he knows it all is you, not him.
You know something I missed those posts apologies but he could have repeated them earlier when I asked and then you wouldn't have to got all tetchy. Is this thread only for pro Glazer discussion now?
PM from another certain poster no doubt, not up to me but you should be banned for stupid comments like that and shows you up for the child you really are.
I think GCHQ has taken the sensible route of just ignoring you. I'm pretty tempted to do the same.
Nope this thread is just for discussion of the finances. Is saying they're likely to have taken out new personal loans to repay the PIKs a particularly pro-Glazer stance?
Well I'm curious about the Tampa Bay Bucs' free cash flow (and the size of the Glazers equity), which to the best of my knowledge is very healthy. We know about the NFL's $150m debt limit and indeed Forbes have reported that the Bucs were reasonably close to that measure at the end of the 2009 season. But if cash from the Bucs could be used to service interest payments on debt secured against the shares of a separate company then that has to be something they will have looked at. Perhaps a more likely theory is that they've sold a stake in the Bucs to an investor. Then there's the possibility that they've simply refinanced the PIK debt with a new PIK loan or a similar financing instrument at a cheaper interest rate, meaning they still don't have to find cash to make interest payments. Maybe people have underestimated their cash pile from selling several assets over the past few years and together with some borrowing they've been able to pay down the PIK debt. We just don't know.
Well pardon me for annoying poor GCHQ, perhaps if he had replied to me in the first place then I wouldn't have been asking all day. But I will leave him to Glazer spin till his heart is content if thats what you want.
Ignore me it is the simple option, we will both be happy then.
Now you answer. Your buddies think I am giving you a hard time so sorry discussion over before it started. You can post in absolute peace now
He's replied to you just above.
Where do they get their money???
Money's all fungible ( look it up ). What a brain washed dupe!
Well it is all irrelevant now but I am pretty amazed by No3 if it is true. The original PIK converted to just 30% or something.
Good stuff Cider
Well it is all irrelevant now but I am pretty amazed by No3 if it is true. The original PIK converted to just 30% or something.
Good stuff Cider
Ciders nodding dog are we now Rood
I'm off to bed but I think it's worth re-posting these David Gill quotes in the Guardian article from earlier tonight:
and
There's your communication MUST. Now kindly do us all a big favour and shut the feck up once and for all.
and
There's your communication MUST. Now kindly do us all a big favour and shut the feck up once and for all.
Sleep peacefully GCHQ. You tell them boy, those big bad MUST boys If only they were a bit more intelligent and concentrated on bigger issues at hand than getting their knickers in twist over red knights
-Ronaldo sold but Rooney talked out of leaving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCHQ
I'm off to bed but I think it's worth re-posting these David Gill quotes in the Guardian article from earlier tonight:
Quote:
Gill told the US-based satellite radio station SiriusXM that the issue of a mandatory call notice signalling the Glazers intention to pay back the loans in full next Monday proved his long-held contention that they were nothing to do with the club. "I have been saying for years that they were nothing to do with the club and they weren't," he said. "They were accruing interest at roughly 16.25% so they're being paid down and the only thing I know is that they are not using any of the club cash. We've got over £100m in the bank and they are not using any of the club cash to pay that down so that's all I can say really."
and
Quote:
Gill backed the club's owners, praising the way in which they have increased commercial revenues – up 24% year on year according to the results – and the flat structure. He said: "The decision making is really quick. It's one phone call and then they say 'yes' so that's all positive but the other side is that when they looked at the club before they bought it, they felt that, though we'd achieved quite a lot from a commercial perspective, there was more to go for and with how the sport was organised those opportunities were there if it was well-organised and well-structured. And they've delivered."
He said that while there was money available for players, United's philosophy had always been to buy young talent and develop it. Fans have claimed that the squad has been starved of funds due to the onerous interest payments and one off charges the club has had to bear, but Gill and Ferguson have continued to insist there is money available.
Gill said: "What Manchester United has been about ever since the 1950s when Sir Matt Busby was there was encouraging youth players, investing in the youth players and that's always been part of how we've structured it. We've never tended to buy world-class players, we've made them into world-class players through Alex Ferguson and his coaches and playing in a great team.."
Originally Posted by GCHQ
I'm off to bed but I think it's worth re-posting these David Gill quotes in the Guardian article from earlier tonight:
Quote:
Gill told the US-based satellite radio station SiriusXM that the issue of a mandatory call notice signalling the Glazers intention to pay back the loans in full next Monday proved his long-held contention that they were nothing to do with the club. "I have been saying for years that they were nothing to do with the club and they weren't," he said. "They were accruing interest at roughly 16.25% so they're being paid down and the only thing I know is that they are not using any of the club cash. We've got over £100m in the bank and they are not using any of the club cash to pay that down so that's all I can say really."
and
Quote:
Gill backed the club's owners, praising the way in which they have increased commercial revenues – up 24% year on year according to the results – and the flat structure. He said: "The decision making is really quick. It's one phone call and then they say 'yes' so that's all positive but the other side is that when they looked at the club before they bought it, they felt that, though we'd achieved quite a lot from a commercial perspective, there was more to go for and with how the sport was organised those opportunities were there if it was well-organised and well-structured. And they've delivered."
He said that while there was money available for players, United's philosophy had always been to buy young talent and develop it. Fans have claimed that the squad has been starved of funds due to the onerous interest payments and one off charges the club has had to bear, but Gill and Ferguson have continued to insist there is money available.
Gill said: "What Manchester United has been about ever since the 1950s when Sir Matt Busby was there was encouraging youth players, investing in the youth players and that's always been part of how we've structured it. We've never tended to buy world-class players, we've made them into world-class players through Alex Ferguson and his coaches and playing in a great team.."
Forgot to mention that we then sell them on to Real Madrid to pay down the debt.
Yeah, not because the players wanted to go there themselves or had disagreements with the manager.
Fact #1 - One player
Fact #2 - He wanted to go, that's why we sold him
Fact #3 - The money we got has not been used to pay down the debt.
There's no point in spinning a negative spin on this one till we get any more details.
Interesting...
from the Telegraph
Tampa Bay Buccaneers' leaky finances leave Glazer family in choppy waters
As the jewel in the crown of the Glazers' US business interests, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers provide a reliable bellwether to the health of the family's finances.
At first glance, things look pretty rosy. Six wins from nine games leaves the Bucs in the thick of the NFL's play-off chase and eyeing a lucrative run to the Super Bowl for the first time since 2002.
But below decks, the Buccaneers - and by extension the Glazers - find themselves in particularly choppy waters.
The club's fan base is falling away, with attendances at record lows, its owners are under fire from fans for massive under-investment and, most humiliating of all, the Bucs have lost their prized top-10 status among American Football's wealthiest clubs, according to Forbes magazine.
"The Buccaneers are no longer among the elite franchises in the NFL," says the magazine, which values the club at $1 billion (£620 million), well below the $1.8bn of the Dallas Cowboys, the league's richest franchise.
As to the question of whether revenues can continue to service an estimated $1.6 billion (£1 billion) in debt on the Glazers' two sports clubs and property holdings in the US, Forbes says: "The situation is tentative."
There are few clues about the exact status of the family's fortunes from public documents. Privately held businesses are not required to report their profits and losses in the US and the notoriously secretive Glazers are not about to open their company's books to public scrutiny any time soon.
But it is clear that they suffered greatly in the recession, and accompanying crash in property values. First Allied Corporation, the Glazers' New York-registered holding firm, owns 6.7 million square feet in retail space at 64 shopping centres and malls across the US, but appears not to have made any new acquisitions for almost four years.
Additionally, at least five of the malls owned by First Allied across the US defaulted on their mortgages in the previous six months, and are facing foreclosure, suggesting that these are still turbulent times for the family's core business.
Analysts have suggested that annual revenues from the entire portfolio are little more that $9 million (£5.6 million), hardly enough to support an empire the size of that built by Malcolm Glazer and his sons.
But assisted greatly by the profits from some shrewd property moves and other business dealings, the ship remains afloat. For example, in 2009 the family quickly raised almost $100 million (£62 million) by selling off the exclusive La Bellucia mansion in Palm Beach for $24 million, Florida's biggest real estate transaction of the year, and disposing of its majority stake in the investment firm Zapata for another $74 million.
Meanwhile, Forbes continues to estimate the family's combined fortune at $2.6 billion, set to rise further by Tuesday's figures from Old Trafford.
"An amazing performance and one that suggests Glazer's detractors are going to be quite disappointed," said Forbes sports business commentator Mike Ozanian
...and it gets even more interesting
Tampa Bay Buccaneers' leaky finances leave Glazer family in choppy waters
As the jewel in the crown of the Glazers' US business interests, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers provide a reliable bellwether to the health of the family's finances.
At first glance, things look pretty rosy. Six wins from nine games leaves the Bucs in the thick of the NFL's play-off chase and eyeing a lucrative run to the Super Bowl for the first time since 2002.
But below decks, the Buccaneers - and by extension the Glazers - find themselves in particularly choppy waters.
The club's fan base is falling away, with attendances at record lows, its owners are under fire from fans for massive under-investment and, most humiliating of all, the Bucs have lost their prized top-10 status among American Football's wealthiest clubs, according to Forbes magazine.
"The Buccaneers are no longer among the elite franchises in the NFL," says the magazine, which values the club at $1 billion (£620 million), well below the $1.8bn of the Dallas Cowboys, the league's richest franchise.
As to the question of whether revenues can continue to service an estimated $1.6 billion (£1 billion) in debt on the Glazers' two sports clubs and property holdings in the US, Forbes says: "The situation is tentative."
There are few clues about the exact status of the family's fortunes from public documents. Privately held businesses are not required to report their profits and losses in the US and the notoriously secretive Glazers are not about to open their company's books to public scrutiny any time soon.
But it is clear that they suffered greatly in the recession, and accompanying crash in property values. First Allied Corporation, the Glazers' New York-registered holding firm, owns 6.7 million square feet in retail space at 64 shopping centres and malls across the US, but appears not to have made any new acquisitions for almost four years.
Additionally, at least five of the malls owned by First Allied across the US defaulted on their mortgages in the previous six months, and are facing foreclosure, suggesting that these are still turbulent times for the family's core business.
Analysts have suggested that annual revenues from the entire portfolio are little more that $9 million (£5.6 million), hardly enough to support an empire the size of that built by Malcolm Glazer and his sons.
But assisted greatly by the profits from some shrewd property moves and other business dealings, the ship remains afloat. For example, in 2009 the family quickly raised almost $100 million (£62 million) by selling off the exclusive La Bellucia mansion in Palm Beach for $24 million, Florida's biggest real estate transaction of the year, and disposing of its majority stake in the investment firm Zapata for another $74 million.
Meanwhile, Forbes continues to estimate the family's combined fortune at $2.6 billion, set to rise further by Tuesday's figures from Old Trafford.
"An amazing performance and one that suggests Glazer's detractors are going to be quite disappointed," said Forbes sports business commentator Mike Ozanian
...and it gets even more interesting
Fact #1 - One player
Fact #2 - He wanted to go, that's why we sold him
Fact #3 - The money we got has not been used to pay down the debt.
Rc appears to have a distaste for facts - almost MUST like
Can we just clear something up once and for all. Liverpools sale price will not have spooked the Glazers, nor will it give a reflection of what ebitda ratio would be used to value us in the event of a sale.
Liverpool were a distressed asset with the banks having control of the purchase and wanting to just get their money back. Their income is far lower than ours and would have remained so on the matchday side without a 200-300 million investment in a new stadium. Their income had increased slightly due to new commercial partnerships an yet it was widely reported that even before their income increase h&g turned down a far higher from Dubai or somewhere similar.
In comparison the Glazers have removed the banks from the equation in terms of appointing a director or forcing a sale, our income is increasing at a higher rate than ha been expected and (if bayern are anything to go by) we still have plenty of room for expansion in the commercial sector. We've got over 100mill sat in the bank. It should also be remembered that any purchasers aren't going to have to pay the Glazers debt on top of their purchase price. They'd be cleared in the purchase so any income is just that, anything after normal costs associated with running a football club is pure profit.
So for a club which would have revenues approaching 300mill with operating profits of 100million with room for expansion people don't think anyone would consider it worth over a billion? Seems naive.
Liverpool were a distressed asset with the banks having control of the purchase and wanting to just get their money back. Their income is far lower than ours and would have remained so on the matchday side without a 200-300 million investment in a new stadium. Their income had increased slightly due to new commercial partnerships an yet it was widely reported that even before their income increase h&g turned down a far higher from Dubai or somewhere similar.
In comparison the Glazers have removed the banks from the equation in terms of appointing a director or forcing a sale, our income is increasing at a higher rate than ha been expected and (if bayern are anything to go by) we still have plenty of room for expansion in the commercial sector. We've got over 100mill sat in the bank. It should also be remembered that any purchasers aren't going to have to pay the Glazers debt on top of their purchase price. They'd be cleared in the purchase so any income is just that, anything after normal costs associated with running a football club is pure profit.
So for a club which would have revenues approaching 300mill with operating profits of 100million with room for expansion people don't think anyone would consider it worth over a billion? Seems naive.
I have a question concerning the bonds and the intrest paid for them.
I seem to remember from january that people were saying the bond issue was a good idea because it allowed the Glazers to pay back their PIKs, even though the intrest paid on those bonds would be higher than the intrest paid on the big £500M loan.
If I'm not mistaking, the intrest paid on those bonds is 8+%? And the intrest on the original £500M loan between 4% and 6% or something? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I remember people saying it's not so bad to pay more intrest on this £500M as long as it means the very expensive PIKs wouldn't be there anymore.
But if those PIKs were never on United's books to begin with, was it really a good thing to exchange the original £500M loan with those bonds? And I mean good for the club, not for the Glazers.
I seem to remember from january that people were saying the bond issue was a good idea because it allowed the Glazers to pay back their PIKs, even though the intrest paid on those bonds would be higher than the intrest paid on the big £500M loan.
If I'm not mistaking, the intrest paid on those bonds is 8+%? And the intrest on the original £500M loan between 4% and 6% or something? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I remember people saying it's not so bad to pay more intrest on this £500M as long as it means the very expensive PIKs wouldn't be there anymore.
But if those PIKs were never on United's books to begin with, was it really a good thing to exchange the original £500M loan with those bonds? And I mean good for the club, not for the Glazers.
I'm really struggling to find negatives here. Worst case scenario is they have refinanced, but in doing so have demonstrated an unwillingness to take money from united to deal with that personal debt. If you believe they will take the dividends in future then at least the debt interest will be lower. Either way the club now appear to have the money to significantly strengthen the squad. Best case scenario is that they are planning to sell and have either already taken money from a prospective owner or are doing the housekeeping described above. At worst we have more money for players, at best they could feck off.
Yes, because the bonds are not repayable until 2017 giving the club breathing space.
That's basically my conclusion into yesterdays news.
- Status