ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
DanH said:
Telegraph is the source.


Edit*

their website Springfield Financial Companies I think at least.

Would seem a bit odd though if that is them? Specialise in loans on real estate up to the value of $25million and have loaned a total of $500million since 2001? I must have the wrong company.
Click to expand...

I think that Mill Financial was the private equity player involved in the Liverpool takeover drama. From what I gather, MF is part of the Springfield Group. Apparently they had funds available (400m) but weren't invited to make a bid.
The real estate angle is interesting.
 
peterstorey said:
You get a feel for who's the right stuff in the boardroom - Gill doesn't project it to my mind nor does a tosser like Kenyon or that uber-wanker Cook. All three look like 'right place at right time' and promoted way above their level of competence. Cf Ivan Gazidis at Arsenal, who does look like the real deal.
Click to expand...

Best CEO in Top Four!

Robin-van-Persie-Arsenal.jpg


Get in there!
 
Rood said:
Neverunderstood what you have against Gill - he is damn good at his job - GoonerBias is the only rational explanation :wenger:
Click to expand...
Based on what I've seen and heard he's a poor effort for a CEO pulling down £1.5M p/a. He also should have resigned when Glazer took over if he had an ounce of principle.
 
Allforone said:
Thats it im putting you on ignore, i told you last night ive no interest in conversing with you at all or people like you, you carry on crying to whoever you like to your hearts content its clearly the actions of a very unhappy man who craves attention, unfortunately no one gives a shit sunshine, now grow up and stop trying to derail the discussion, im sure the mods are sick and tired of your complaining as much as everyone else.
Click to expand...

Never complained and have not now, encouraging you to if you think I hold racist views, now do something about instead it of trying to rant yourself out of trouble. I won't be putting you on ignore if thats ok, now back to thread subject
 
peterstorey said:
Based on what I've seen and heard he's a poor effort for a CEO pulling down £1.5M p/a. He also should have resigned when Glazer took over if he had an ounce of principle.
Click to expand...

So basically you just think he is overpaid - big deal, so is everyone in football!
 
peterstorey said:
Based on what I've seen and heard he's a poor effort for a CEO pulling down £1.5M p/a. He also should have resigned when Glazer took over if he had an ounce of principle.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Peter but I think it is well accepted even by those who were not best pleased with him on occasions like myself he is the best in the business
 
Rood said:
So basically you just think he is overpaid - big deal, so is everyone in football!
Click to expand...
Perhaps all I'm saying is that football CEOs are a bit shit compared to other public companies of comparable revenue.
 
Ferguson also defended the Glazer family, as he has done in the five and a half years since they bought United. Standing up for the unpopular Americans, who use the club's profits to finance the £500m bond that underpins their ownership, has become an article of faith for Ferguson. He said:
"They have never bothered me or interfered with my job. I'm probably in a privileged position. Some owners are hands-on because they've invested a lot of money, not just foreign owners. I've heard stories of owners texting managers during training sessions, English owners. Just because people are successful in business, it doesn't mean they will be successful at a football club."​
Click to expand...

From an interview given yesterday in Qatar. Make of that what you will.
 
United say they want young guns
05:55 AM Nov 18, 2010
MANCHESTER - Chief executive David Gill admitted Manchester United are purposely developing a young squad to smooth the transition when Sir Alex Ferguson retires as manager.

With the exception of the £30.75-million ($64 million) striker Dimitar Berbatov, United have focused their resources on younger talent in recent seasons.

This has invited accusations that United can no longer compete for the priciest players due to the debt loaded on to them by their owners, the Glazer family.

Gill, however, claimed the intention was to help Ferguson's successor once the Scot, who turns 69 next month, steps aside.

On the issue of the manager's retirement date, he told the United States-based radio station Sirius XM: "He is on a rolling contract for a year but, seriously, I've not discussed this issue with him for quite a while. He works and enjoys it ... he looks after himself ... he delegates well to the team around him and so long as that enthusiasm is still there, it sort of becomes a non-issue."

One youngster very much on Ferguson's radar right now is 20-year-old Sunderland midfielder Jordan Henderson, who was favoured to make his England debut against France yesterday (this morning, Singapore time) at Wembley after catching the eye of coach Fabio Capello.

German midfield star Bastian Schweinsteiger, 26, is another potential Ferguson target, alongside Newcastle striker Andy Carroll, 21, and Ajax Amsterdam and Uruguay forward Luis Suarez, 23. The Guardian
Click to expand...

Hmmm wonder why?
 
robertsoncrusoe said:
Hmmm wonder why?
Click to expand...

Because we've always focused on developing young players whilst buying good players from lower placed clubs such as Carrick and Valencia.

It's hard for some people to remember, that our success from 2006-2009 came from developing young players such as Rooney, Ronaldo into world class stars and playing them with fairly established players that weren't expensive such as Carrick, Saha, Vidic, Evra and VDS. Another point you should take into consideration is that between those years the likes of Giggs and Scholes were playing great and they too were developed into great players 10-15 years ago. We've never went out and splashed big money, and when we have the players we've spent on have somewhat dissapointed (Veron, Berbatov).

Like Ferguson said, sometimes things may seem brighter on the outside but it really isn't. We're only one or two players away from the supremacy, and we have the money and young players to achieve it soon. Many of you forget that we went one season with signing Hargreaves, Nani and Anderson who were all expensive for their age and reputation. Don't let our net spending fool you, we do spend when we really need to. If it wasn't for Ronaldo's sale the net spending would have looked a lot different.
 
The philosophy of Manchester United going way back over 50 years to Sir Matt Busby times has always been built around a nucleus of young talent, the club has a (very proud) history of allowing youngsters the chance to flourish ahead of spending willy nilly millions on flavour of the month names from across the seas christ Ferguson's reign alone shows this, that has always been the way of Manchester United, this is nothing new as much as the post glazer ownership haters love to have you believe, even the best player at the club right now was bought as a teenager and has developed into the player he is now, he wasn't bought that player, our most exciting player is Nani, another player signed as a teenager and developed at the club.

I can think of only 1 player signed in the history of the club for mega bucks who youd deem a ready made world class stella household name, Juan Veron, which says it all, 1 player in the history of the club, its not and never has been the way of Manchester United to go out and spend hundreds of millions on world class name players, the odd big signing here or there with 90% of it based on young talent, thats always been our transfer policy long before Glazer came on the scene.
 
Lets discuss the issue of the PIKs in more detail.

There has been general euphoria about the payment of the PIKs. But this no big deal, because only the interest amounts will come down. And this interest amount could be paid from United funds. A bit of easing on the amount, no doubt. But, as I pointed out earlier:


-The key question that people are ignoring in the thread is that the PIKs, 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 the questions about the source of refinancing is very valid, and significant.
 
DanH said:
Telegraph is the source.


Edit*

their website Springfield Financial Companies I think at least.

Would seem a bit odd though if that is them? Specialise in loans on real estate up to the value of $25million and have loaned a total of $500million since 2001? I must have the wrong company.
Click to expand...

That article is contradictory. If the interest rates are only fractionally lower why would refinancing in that way help them escape from the current punitive interest rates. I also doubt they'd refinance just for secrecy.
 
Payment of the PIKs can't be anything other than good news. How good news remains to be seen.
 
Why is it that some people hear good news and yet still find ways to complain about it. Surely clearing the high interest loans is only a good thing for the club. If United are making 100 million profit and is likely to increase over the next few seasons, surely a net debt of around 350 million against the club is very servicable.

On top of that we have some very exciting youngsters coming through our ranks and money to spend on the players that Sir Alex feels he needs. Yet after all the good news people are still finding ways to moan. Come on this is not a Liverpool situation, now they did have something to moan about.
 
Allforone said:
Always got the impression David Gill was a very highly respected extremely capable well thought of Chief executive, thats certainly the feeling most give towards the man, Sir Alex himself recently said he was a 'brilliant man' when discussing the hierarchy of the club.

Not surprised to hear there's someone at Arsenal doing it better mind you.........
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be surprised if they also have a better Manager too:lol:
 
From May this year, this interview from Gill addresses many questions on the subject of debt and our ownership.

Gill on the Glazer debt

I don't think it is damaging and I think it is sustainable. It is ironic that the protests gathered momentum after an event [the bond issue that refinanced the £504m senior debt] that put the financing structure of the club on a better footing. The bond issue is clearly a better instrument. It is more flexible, it does not have the covenants associated with the bank debt we had at the time. The repayment date is 2017 rather than the next few years. The price for that was greater visibility and the document.

Anyone who has worked in the City knows that when you are trying to raise money externally you have to be pretty clear about the risks [as United were in the document inanuary]. [Sir] Alex Ferguson retiring is clearly something that would be a major sea change at United and that is a risk. What that document did was bring all the risks together into a dozen pages and that is where we are at.

I firmly believe that the financing we have in place and with the growth we have seen in our commercial operations –even with the interest [payments] of £45m [annually] –we can sustain that and still be a top, top club.

On the money from Ronaldo and this summer's transfer funds

The money is there. People say Alex is saying that because he has to. Anyone who knows Alex Ferguson knows he wouldn't say that if he didn't mean what he said. The money is definitely there. The results for the quarter ending 31 March [released today] will show the figures are about £95m cash

We are not in a situation whereby Alex is restricted in what he wants to do with the club and his modus operandi as a manager. We have never said: "You can't do that, we have to pay interest [on the debt]." I can look you in the eye and say that. He would say exactly the same thing. People don't believe it. We never said to him: "You can't go for that player because he's too much."

On the fans' banner that claims he said 'Debt is the road to ruin'

Phil [Townsend, director of communications] tried to find the original quote and he couldn't. It was two sentences put together. What I would say was that it was a particular point in time. The model did change. It went [to the current] debt from no debt; I am not disputing that.

As the takeover unfolded, the Glazers revised their model in autumn 2004 to less bank debt in May 2005 when it happened. The fans also put up a sign saying "David Gill –protecting his salary not Manchester United". It's not the truth at all. I have been a fan of the club all my life, I have worked there since 1997. I enjoy it and I know a lot of people there. We get on well. I work closely with Alex.

On working for the Glazers

[When the club looked at the Glazers business plan] We looked at the EBIDTA [earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation] and then took off the interest [payable by the Glazers] and it [the debt] was easily serviceable. The other supporting thing is they [the Glazers] fully buy into the fact that what happens on the pitch is crucial to their aspirations off the pitch. So whether it is a player contract or a transfer or investing in new [corporate] boxes there was never any equivocation.

When Carlos Queiroz and I went to buy Anderson and Nani in 2007, I was [in Portugal] for the day, got on the phone to Joel [Glazer] and said we wanted to do it. We spent millions of euros in one day. They listen to you, you listen to them and you work together. The critical thing is there was no issue in terms of meeting payments and covenants.

On his son Oliver, a professional at United, being abused by anti-Glazer protesters

When he was on the bench at Fulham [and his name was booed] he said he didn't hear anything and he didn't care. He is a young lad of 19. He is an intelligent boy. He doesn't worry about it. He takes the view that if Ole Gunnar Solskjaer [the United reserve team coach] wants him to play he is OK and he will play.

He gets comments that he is not good enough –he may not be good enough –but Solskjaer is managing his career in the reserves and he picks him. I have never interfered in that aspect at all. Alex decides the contracts. It is no bad thing if he gets a bit of grief. If he makes it, that will be the least of his worries. He will get a lot more than that. Lanky git and all that sort of stuff!

On being heckled by green and gold protesters at Birmingham University

That was unfortunate. Universities in this country are having to do a lot in terms of raising money and I helped them out. These guys [protesters] had an agenda, there was no discussion, they were putting their point over. Fine. It was a one-off. It was a two-minute exchange.

On suggestions that the Glazers are taking money out of the club to finance the personal heavy-interest, payment-in-kind loans –currently £220m –that they used to buy the club

All I can do is say what they [the Glazers] said in the offer document in 2005. That money we have discussed, particularly from the [Cristiano] Ronaldo sale, is still there in the business and there is no recourse to it [from the Glazers]. When we present our budget to the board the budget is basically the results of Manchester United Ltd and the bond interest. Full stop.

I don't wake up at night [worrying about the PIK loan]. That is what they put in place to acquire it. That is their responsibility. That is the situation. The money is in the club and they have no recourse. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

On the £9m the Glazers have taken out in management fees

TIt is an easy point to pick up on. I was interested to see that Randy Lerner has taken money out of Aston Villa. That is not mentioned. He has taken some interest out. That's viewed as OK. I wouldn't get hung up about it personally. This is where it all becomes judgemental. All I can say is we are investing in our team and contracts. That the owners have taken out that sum of money –I don't concern myself with it.

On Jim O'Neill, the Goldman Sachs economist he once appointed to the board, who is now the head of the Red Knights

I know Jim, he is a passionate United fan. You know football attracts a lot of interest. It is regarded as "sexy" –more so than writing an economic report about the developing world [O'Neill's day job]. To have it [the Red Knights] so public is not the normal way things happen. In terms of broadcasting who is involved, what they are going to do and what they are going to pay is a somewhat strange way to go about it.

On the fans who say United should be run like Barcelona's membership system

It does make me laugh when people talk about going to a membership model and say, "Look at Barcelona". I have great respect for the big Spanish clubs, Real Madrid and Barcelona, but why are they so successful? Yes, they have a membership model and they change the president every four years. But that is not why they are successful;it is because they sell their television rights individually. They get well over €100m [£103.4m annually].

You look at the final league table and there are 25 points between Real Madrid in second and Valencia [who earn £38.7m] in third. They [Barcelona and Madrid] have got more money so, of course, they can attract the better players. We [United] have never done that and we don't get the credit for it. The owners [Glazers] come from a very collective selling market in the United States. Even more collective than it is over here. They have always been supportive of the Premier League collective.
Click to expand...
 
I've always stuck up for Gill on here, as the things he's responsible for have not stopped improving. Commercial revenue, sponsorships etc are increasing year on year with him at the helm, so I've never understood why people want him out. Some say he should have resigned when the Glazers took over out of principle, but why should he? He's continued to do good work for the club in the face of difficult ownership debt positions, he should e applauded as far as I'm concerned for helping keep us strong.

Peter, I'm curious as to what exactly makes you think he's shit apart from seemingly which club he works for. All I've seen you say is 'from what I've heard', well what have you heard? Because he looks to be doing a bloody good job from where I'm sitting.
 
R_Nick said:
I've always stuck up for Gill on here, as the things he's responsible for have not stopped improving. Commercial revenue, sponsorships etc are increasing year on year with him at the helm, so I've never understood why people want him out. Some say he should have resigned when the Glazers took over out of principle, but why should he? He's continued to do good work for the club in the face of difficult ownership debt positions, he should e applauded as far as I'm concerned for helping keep us strong.

Peter, I'm curious as to what exactly makes you think he's shit apart from seemingly which club he works for. All I've seen you say is 'from what I've heard', well what have you heard? Because he looks to be doing a bloody good job from where I'm sitting.
Click to expand...
I'd like to reiterate that as well.
 
peterstorey said:
I do hope you're not talking about Faxon, who's a dull beancounter in a nice suit?
Click to expand...

:lol: That maybe so, but he's damn good at what he does and takes a real interest in the analytics and has a data driven approach. His main strength is in getting together a really good team though. :D
 
R_Nick said:
I've always stuck up for Gill on here, as the things he's responsible for have not stopped improving. Commercial revenue, sponsorships etc are increasing year on year with him at the helm, so I've never understood why people want him out. Some say he should have resigned when the Glazers took over out of principle, but why should he? He's continued to do good work for the club in the face of difficult ownership debt positions, he should e applauded as far as I'm concerned for helping keep us strong.

Peter, I'm curious as to what exactly makes you think he's shit apart from seemingly which club he works for. All I've seen you say is 'from what I've heard', well what have you heard? Because he looks to be doing a bloody good job from where I'm sitting.
Click to expand...
I said from day one that it was good that Gill stayed. He had the knowledge, experience, and I am sure he could tell the Glazers how things work at United, the history, etc....
 
R_Nick said:
I've always stuck up for Gill on here, as the things he's responsible for have not stopped improving. Commercial revenue, sponsorships etc are increasing year on year with him at the helm, so I've never understood why people want him out. Some say he should have resigned when the Glazers took over out of principle, but why should he? He's continued to do good work for the club in the face of difficult ownership debt positions, he should e applauded as far as I'm concerned for helping keep us strong.

Peter, I'm curious as to what exactly makes you think he's shit apart from seemingly which club he works for. All I've seen you say is 'from what I've heard', well what have you heard? Because he looks to be doing a bloody good job from where I'm sitting.
Click to expand...

Without doubt.

If he'd have abandoned SAF and the club he loves at such an important time he'd have been a massive cnut in my eyes.

Top TOP man.
 
robertsoncrusoe said:
The fact remains just as it was a week ago- the club still owes fivehundredandsixtymillion pounds put that with the onehundredmillionpounds big mal is now entitled to bleed out of the club and then try and figure out where he will look for another twohundredandtwentymillionpounds to pay off the PIK's- his supermarkets? er I don't think so, the buccaneers? er I don't think so, United? Bingo! the only asset that's making money ( with the added attraction of having customers willing to pay till it hurts )
Click to expand...

If you want fact's let's look at some facts.

1. Manchester United's Debt, as of next Tuesday, will stand at £509.4m.

2. Manchester United's Cash and Cash Equivalents will stand at £151.7m

3. Manchester United's Net Debt will be £357.7m

4. The £220m PIK Notes, which have never been associated to Manchester United's accounts, only by MUST and the media, will be cleared. This will be done using either:

A. The Glazer's Cash.
B. A loan, leveraged and paid for by one of the Glazer's other assets.

5. The Glazers are not the skint businessmen the press paint them out to be. They are #139 in the Forbes 400 Richest American's list with a Net worth of $2.4billion.

6. You seem to have confused running a business successfully and running a business for fun. You believe that they will never put thier own money into the club because they are not in this for fun, they are in it for the money.

Let me explain if for you as simply as I can:

The Glazers own Manchester United. It is in their interest for the club to be in as good health as possible. While they could do exactly what you expect them to do (use the clubs cash reserves and profits to pay off their own debt, the PIK notes) that would leave the club in a much worse off position. We wouldn't have the funds for the general maintainance and expansion a Football club requires to keep moving forward.

That would hurt us fans, for sure, but it would hurt the Glazers alot more. Instead, it makes much better business sense to them in the long run to either use cash or one of their more stable assets to clear this debt.

----


So all your childish conspiracys are, quite frankly, a little boring now. If you actually read this thread, even the most anti-Glazer poster's (with any intelligence) have held up their hands and accepted they have been wrong about their intentions when it comes to the clubs debt and general finances.

I will also add that I am in no way naive. The Glazers will get their payout eventually. I think that it will be either one of two points in the future.

1. They feel they have reached (or nearly reached) the clubs earning potential. Each year the Club's profits go up, so does the value, so by this simple equation When the profits are peaking, so is the clubs value. At this point they will choose to sell the club with or without debt and whatever they sell it for -£220m will be their profit. This could be upwards of £2bn in 5 or 10 years so £1.8bn+ profit makes the tens of million's of pounds they are entitled to in dividends each year somewhat petty.

2. The other way they could get their cash is by clearing the debt and then "using the club as an ATM" by taking their dividends each year.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
:lol: That maybe so, but he's damn good at what he does and takes a real interest in the analytics and has a data driven approach. His main strength is in getting together a really good team though. :D
Click to expand...
Bean counters make poor CEOs in my experience, there are far too many of them in UK industry where accountancy is ridiculously over-valued compared to Europe or the US. They think that beancounting is what business is all about, the twats.
 
Let me guess Peter, you think Arsenal's CEO is much better than Gill?

From what I know and see, Gill is doing a good job at United. He's developed the business from the day he took over, and at the same time kept the club very successful on the pitch. Sir Alex speaks highly of him, and (not that it is important in terms of his performance), the couple of times I've spoken to him, he has come across as a very decent bloke.
 
R_Nick said:
I've always stuck up for Gill on here, as the things he's responsible for have not stopped improving. Commercial revenue, sponsorships etc are increasing year on year with him at the helm, so I've never understood why people want him out. Some say he should have resigned when the Glazers took over out of principle, but why should he? He's continued to do good work for the club in the face of difficult ownership debt positions, he should e applauded as far as I'm concerned for helping keep us strong.

Peter, I'm curious as to what exactly makes you think he's shit apart from seemingly which club he works for. All I've seen you say is 'from what I've heard', well what have you heard? Because he looks to be doing a bloody good job from where I'm sitting.
Click to expand...

Good post mate.
 
DanH said:
Telegraph is the source.


Edit*

their website Springfield Financial Companies I think at least.

Would seem a bit odd though if that is them? Specialise in loans on real estate up to the value of $25million and have loaned a total of $500million since 2001? I must have the wrong company.
Click to expand...

Apparently the source of the Telegraph story was a Red Issue poster who later admitted that he was guessing.
 
The club's CEO is like Fergie's assistant. We all form opinions and they are not based on a whole lot. We don't REALLY know how good they are. We don't know if Gill's done excellent work on the commercial front, or if it's the Glazer's input, or if he's got a whiz assistant who is actually responsible for it, making him look good.

I like Gill. Despite a couple of remarks who upset some people, he comes accross as a down to the earth guy. Fergie seems to work well with him. And we've probably got the tallest CEO in the league. How good is he at his work? No idea. But he's working at United for years and years, a long time before the Glazers arrived, the people who saw his work for us made him CEO in 2003, and the Glazers - who don't appear to have a problem with sacking people - have kept him on for five years now.

He can't be bad.
 
They'll be reporting next then that the Glazers paid down the PIK notes with money won from betting on Haye for a technical knockout in the third :lol:
 
Is that confirmed btw? just before I go back to the person who linked me to the story.
 
Manchester United Owners Set to Sell Club: Glazers Set to Leave Old Trafford?

Financial analysts believe the Glazer family could be gearing up to sell Manchester United, after it emerged that the American owners intend to pay off £220 million in high-interest loans secured on their shareholding.

The motives behind the Glazers’ decision to pay off their controversial payment in kind (PIK) loans are unclear, as are the source of the funds.

But speculation is growing in the City that it could be the first step as part of a long-term strategy to sell the club the Americans bought in a debt-laden takeover in 2005.

If the interest on the loans, accruing interest at an astronomical 16.25 per cent, had been allowed to continue to ‘roll over’ until they matured in 2017, the total debt would have stood at more than £600m, on top of the £526m bond secured on the club itself.

“It could be seen as the housekeeping you do before you sell,” investment analyst and blogger Andy Green, who provided much of the material for the Panorama investigation into United’s finances last summer, told Goal.com UK. (Goal.com)

So if this source is correct then happy days could be just around the corner for the Old Trafford club, but that is a big IF. The paying of high interest loans with money accrued from lower interest loans is standard practice and wouldn’t necessarily mean the Glazers are planning an exit strategy.

Clearly the club has a great deal of debt to deal with and any prospective buyer would have to have very deep pockets to take control of Manchester United. Do fans of the club believe that a deal may be in the offing?

Manchester United Owners Set to Sell Club: Glazers Set to Leave Old Trafford? | CaughtOffside
 
Status
Not open for further replies.