Park will be long gone by then.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Park will be long gone by then.
2017? How about 2010. You could train astronauts at OT these days.
The interest is tax deductible but we will owe around 700 million with an average interest rate of around 10%. The tax deduction will be a lot higher than 20% though, more like 28%. So the total interest payments will be 50 million.
The growing Glazer antipathy seems to be bringing some life back to Old Trafford. Great to see (and hear).
There are some funny sums going around here. Basically if you make £75M before tax you should pay half that to the revenue. In fact you will offset your interest payment on the PIK (£30M) and coupon on the bond (£45M) to avoid any tax. ie the British taxpayer is subsidising Glazer's antics.
well we only pay tax on proffit and without selling players we have made a loss so its all a bit irrelavent unless rooney is taking spanish lessons
Has this been posted?
Man Utd blows £55m on bond - Times Online
Manchester United’s controversial bond issue has cost the Premier League football club £54m, it emerged this weekend.
The sum is more than the club would expect to have to pay to sign one of Europe’s top players.
As part of the £500m funds raised by United last week, the club has been forced to pay £15m in fees and expenses to investment bankers and lawyers.
It has also taken a £39m hit from the unwinding of interest rate hedging arrangements on the debt that has been refinanced by the bond. Although the owners, the Glazer family, have managed to defer payment of some liability, the club is still paying £11m of it upfront.
The disclosure that the bond issue has cost United so much is likely to further enrage fan groups, after it was revealed that the club is now saddled with debts of nearly £720m.
It would appear that Manchester United is not the only part of the Glazers’ business empire under pressure. An investigation by The Sunday Times has revealed that the family’s property business, First Allied, which mostly invests in shopping malls, is sitting on a 500,000 sq ft black hole.
First Allied, a key asset for the Glazers, owns smaller “community and neighbourhood” shopping malls across the US. Some of its centres, however, are a third empty, with vacant stores at sites in Virginia, Texas, Georgia and North Carolina.
Ryan Severino, economist at Reis, a property research firm, said vacancies at US shopping malls were at an 18-year high and portfolios like those of the Glazers were being especially hard hit.
Man Utd blows £55m on bond - Times Online
Manchester United’s controversial bond issue has cost the Premier League football club £54m, it emerged this weekend.
The sum is more than the club would expect to have to pay to sign one of Europe’s top players.
As part of the £500m funds raised by United last week, the club has been forced to pay £15m in fees and expenses to investment bankers and lawyers.
It has also taken a £39m hit from the unwinding of interest rate hedging arrangements on the debt that has been refinanced by the bond. Although the owners, the Glazer family, have managed to defer payment of some liability, the club is still paying £11m of it upfront.
The disclosure that the bond issue has cost United so much is likely to further enrage fan groups, after it was revealed that the club is now saddled with debts of nearly £720m.
It would appear that Manchester United is not the only part of the Glazers’ business empire under pressure. An investigation by The Sunday Times has revealed that the family’s property business, First Allied, which mostly invests in shopping malls, is sitting on a 500,000 sq ft black hole.
First Allied, a key asset for the Glazers, owns smaller “community and neighbourhood” shopping malls across the US. Some of its centres, however, are a third empty, with vacant stores at sites in Virginia, Texas, Georgia and North Carolina.
Ryan Severino, economist at Reis, a property research firm, said vacancies at US shopping malls were at an 18-year high and portfolios like those of the Glazers were being especially hard hit.
The amount of money just going down the drain because of the Glazers is astounding.
Has this been posted?
Man Utd blows £55m on bond - Times Online
Manchester United’s controversial bond issue has cost the Premier League football club £54m, it emerged this weekend.
The sum is more than the club would expect to have to pay to sign one of Europe’s top players.
As part of the £500m funds raised by United last week, the club has been forced to pay £15m in fees and expenses to investment bankers and lawyers.
It has also taken a £39m hit from the unwinding of interest rate hedging arrangements on the debt that has been refinanced by the bond. Although the owners, the Glazer family, have managed to defer payment of some liability, the club is still paying £11m of it upfront.
The disclosure that the bond issue has cost United so much is likely to further enrage fan groups, after it was revealed that the club is now saddled with debts of nearly £720m.
It would appear that Manchester United is not the only part of the Glazers’ business empire under pressure. An investigation by The Sunday Times has revealed that the family’s property business, First Allied, which mostly invests in shopping malls, is sitting on a 500,000 sq ft black hole.
First Allied, a key asset for the Glazers, owns smaller “community and neighbourhood” shopping malls across the US. Some of its centres, however, are a third empty, with vacant stores at sites in Virginia, Texas, Georgia and North Carolina.
Ryan Severino, economist at Reis, a property research firm, said vacancies at US shopping malls were at an 18-year high and portfolios like those of the Glazers were being especially hard hit.
no signings this summer then
Has this been posted?
Man Utd blows £55m on bond - Times Online
Manchester United’s controversial bond issue has cost the Premier League football club £54m, it emerged this weekend.
The sum is more than the club would expect to have to pay to sign one of Europe’s top players.
As part of the £500m funds raised by United last week, the club has been forced to pay £15m in fees and expenses to investment bankers and lawyers.
It has also taken a £39m hit from the unwinding of interest rate hedging arrangements on the debt that has been refinanced by the bond. Although the owners, the Glazer family, have managed to defer payment of some liability, the club is still paying £11m of it upfront.
The disclosure that the bond issue has cost United so much is likely to further enrage fan groups, after it was revealed that the club is now saddled with debts of nearly £720m.
It would appear that Manchester United is not the only part of the Glazers’ business empire under pressure. An investigation by The Sunday Times has revealed that the family’s property business, First Allied, which mostly invests in shopping malls, is sitting on a 500,000 sq ft black hole.
First Allied, a key asset for the Glazers, owns smaller “community and neighbourhood” shopping malls across the US. Some of its centres, however, are a third empty, with vacant stores at sites in Virginia, Texas, Georgia and North Carolina.
Ryan Severino, economist at Reis, a property research firm, said vacancies at US shopping malls were at an 18-year high and portfolios like those of the Glazers were being especially hard hit.
The loss made by united for unwinding their interest hedges has been known for some time. thought it was on the order of 35 million quid and not 39. I knew the fees on a deal like this were going to be high, but 15 million quid..feck me.
That's right malcolm, keep pointing to where you want the 50 cal slug put ya cnut.
Can someone in the know gives a hand with this analysis of our finances post bond issue. There are so many vagaries and ambiguities in the commentaries that it's difficult to know with certainty if my understanding is close to accurate.
What I have understood is that when the takeover occurred in 2005 this was financed by loans from the banks involved secured on United's assets and the PIKs secured on the family shares in Red Football Ltd. The PIKS obviously do not require paying from the revenues of the club until a later date and the annual repayments on the bank loans were not due to come in until 2013-16. Basically this is when we were looking at being in shit street as the club was having enough difficulty repaying the interest on the loans let alone the PIKS and the repayments due in 2013.
Now what I'm not fully clear on is the situation post Bond issue. I think I can understand the analysis offered by many on here on this year's accounts and how the bond issue is going to affect the PIKS. What I'm not clear on is what the 500m raised is being used for in full.
Has this 500m been used to clear the original debts owed to the banks(aside from the PIKS) which were due to being repaid in 2013 with the bond issue which is due to mature in 2017. In this way, the club still have to foot similar interest bills on a different debt annually but avoid the repayments due in 2013-16 on the loans that were taken out. This is probably obvious but I've only been aware of such bonds since January of this year.
What I have understood is that when the takeover occurred in 2005 this was financed by loans from the banks involved secured on United's assets and the PIKs secured on the family shares in Red Football Ltd. The PIKS obviously do not require paying from the revenues of the club until a later date and the annual repayments on the bank loans were not due to come in until 2013-16. Basically this is when we were looking at being in shit street as the club was having enough difficulty repaying the interest on the loans let alone the PIKS and the repayments due in 2013.
Now what I'm not fully clear on is the situation post Bond issue. I think I can understand the analysis offered by many on here on this year's accounts and how the bond issue is going to affect the PIKS. What I'm not clear on is what the 500m raised is being used for in full.
Has this 500m been used to clear the original debts owed to the banks(aside from the PIKS) which were due to being repaid in 2013 with the bond issue which is due to mature in 2017. In this way, the club still have to foot similar interest bills on a different debt annually but avoid the repayments due in 2013-16 on the loans that were taken out. This is probably obvious but I've only been aware of such bonds since January of this year.
I havent got a clue where you got all this from - virtually every figure is wrong
I had mentioned both the £15m fee for the bond and the hedge loss several times in this thread but it seems no one takes any notice unless there is a headline grabbing newspaper article about it !
The only time I take notice of you Rood is when you're shipping me your poker chips! Not quite the monetary expert there as you are here eh!
The short answer is ... Yes.
The only time I take notice of you Rood is when you're shipping me your poker chips! Not quite the monetary expert there as you are here eh!
Well as you know I like to give away half my chips before really getting started - otherwise it would all be too easy
The more I understand about this, the more I wish I didn't.
I actually think that is the case for so many people..
Up until recently most people believed the old chestnut that United was just an endless pot of money.., Which in football terms, it is.
THe only problem is you have an owner who is somehow managing to spend it faster than the club can earn it..
It was fine whilst there were trophies and a bit of spare change to buy a few players with.. Now the monies run out, and the fans can see glaring holes in the future team that is being laid out, they realise that something somewhere is missing..
That something happens to be a shed load of money, and when they've enquired where its gone, they've got the shock of their lives..
I read earlier that we'd raised 500m through bonds. Now I know feck all about much of this, I don't even know what a bond is but this is good news right? It sounds like really good news.
It's delaying the inevitable which is paying money to someone with interest, I must have read the same story too, and from what I have interpreted I think it is actually excellent for the club. One major downside though, means the Glazer's aren't selling any time soon, unless a big money offer comes along
Has this been posted?
Man Utd blows £55m on bond - Times Online
Manchester United’s controversial bond issue has cost the Premier League football club £54m, it emerged this weekend.
The sum is more than the club would expect to have to pay to sign one of Europe’s top players.
As part of the £500m funds raised by United last week, the club has been forced to pay £15m in fees and expenses to investment bankers and lawyers.
It has also taken a £39m hit from the unwinding of interest rate hedging arrangements on the debt that has been refinanced by the bond. Although the owners, the Glazer family, have managed to defer payment of some liability, the club is still paying £11m of it upfront.
The disclosure that the bond issue has cost United so much is likely to further enrage fan groups, after it was revealed that the club is now saddled with debts of nearly £720m.
It would appear that Manchester United is not the only part of the Glazers’ business empire under pressure. An investigation by The Sunday Times has revealed that the family’s property business, First Allied, which mostly invests in shopping malls, is sitting on a 500,000 sq ft black hole.
First Allied, a key asset for the Glazers, owns smaller “community and neighbourhood” shopping malls across the US. Some of its centres, however, are a third empty, with vacant stores at sites in Virginia, Texas, Georgia and North Carolina.
Ryan Severino, economist at Reis, a property research firm, said vacancies at US shopping malls were at an 18-year high and portfolios like those of the Glazers were being especially hard hit.
500 million for 15 million sounds good business to me, at least short term
They weren't meant to be accurate, it was a response to another post that mention just the Bond interest, and a 50% tax deduction.
We do owe in the region of 700 million, and the average interest payments are pretty close to 10%. The large company corporation tax rate is 28% in the UK. So although my numbers are not spot on they are ball park for argument sake.
Sadly No.
It basically means we keep paying the interest till the bonds mature and we'll have to pay the entire amount upfront then.
The only plus point being (i think) is the lesser interest rates when compared to the PiK's.
So still we're fecked.
I'm both amused and concerned by this Wikipedia article
Doing a Leeds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doing a Leeds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Todays daily Mirror has a great article below the match report about the club situation. An editorial which basically attacks Fergie for yersterdays programme where he wanted people to stick together and more or less stop protesting. It went on to say the fans were right for their green & gold protests and the investors dont know whats coming to them.
Has this been posted?
Man Utd blows £55m on bond - Times Online
Manchester United’s controversial bond issue has cost the Premier League football club £54m, it emerged this weekend.
value for money
Where did Fergie "more or less" tell people to stop protesting? He wanted people to keep their support the team, not a word about keeping support of the Glazers.
Where did Fergie "more or less" tell people to stop protesting? He wanted people to keep their support the team, not a word about keeping support of the Glazers.
He mentioned the Manchester United "family" which, I assume, includes kindly old uncle Malc and his offspring.
Where did Fergie "more or less" tell people to stop protesting? He wanted people to keep their support the team, not a word about keeping support of the Glazers.
Yep, and he is in a no-win situation. What annoys me is that people call him a liar every time he says anything that even indirectly suggests that he is "supporting" the Glazer's, such as when he has said that there is money to spend but there is no value at the moment. But they then often believe every word that he says in other situations. You can't have it both ways.
Sir Alex has as much, if not more, to lose from this situation. He's worked for 20 years and taken this club from a position of perpetual crisis and mediocrity and made it in to one of, if not the, biggest and most successful clubs in the world. The only parsimonious explanation, then, is that he is very concerned about the fact that his legacy, which he clearly wanted to leave and for it to be built upon in the future, is now in real danger.
But it would be wrong to suggest that unless he acts in a certain way — i.e. the way that some, but not all, fans want him to — that he is therefore unconcerned, or that he is fully behind the owners. That doesn't follow, because there is a reasonable explanation for why he isn't saying anything, and instead getting on with his job.
We — the supporters — haven't even come up with a reasonable strategy yet that is even remotely likely to oust the Glazer's from the club. So, as far as anyone is concerned, at this moment in time, they are here for the long term. Therefore, the only possible way that Sir Alex's legacy is likely to live on in to the future is if he does everything that he can to prepare for that future, regardless of the financial pressures at the club.
And that's why his stance so far is unsurprising, in my opinion.
Where did Fergie "more or less" tell people to stop protesting? He wanted people to keep their support the team, not a word about keeping support of the Glazers.
I'm summerising a newspaper summary of something, I never read the original article.
Considering your comments in the Tevez thread it's safe to say that the club can do without your "support". You belong on RAWK.
Don't the loans have to be paid off before the PIKs? I am sure I read somewhere only 70 million of the bond money could/would be used to pay the PIKs.
You are spot on , something good might come of this
Yes. And £70m is going to pay off the PIKs straight away. But you can be sure that the Glazers will be looking for ways to take more money out of United to pay off more of them (especially if the interest rate has gone above 16% as a result of the Glazer's breaking the terms of their loan).
What's that you say Vidic? Your wife doesn't like Manchester?
Goldman’s O’Neill, Lifelong Manchester United Fan, Spurns Bonds
By Zijing Wu and John Glover
Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Global Economist Jim O’Neill, a former shareholder and board member of Manchester United, said the club has too much debt and its bonds are unattractive.
“There’s too much leverage going on with Manchester United,” O’Neill, a lifelong supporter of the 18-time English soccer champions, said in a Jan. 23 interview. “It’s not a good thing. I’m not a buyer of the bond.”
The club issued more than 500 million pounds ($807 million) of seven-year bonds in pounds and dollars last week to refinance a similar amount of bank borrowing. The club took on the debt after the U.S. Glazer family bought it in a leveraged buyout in 2005.
“I value my long-term support for Manchester United better than anything else,” said O’Neill, who held 1.66 million pounds of the club’s shares in 2005 when he stepped down from the board as the Glazers took the club private.
A spokesman for the Glazer family declined to comment.
Philip Townsend, a spokesman for the club, couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
The bonds include 250 million pounds of 8.75 percent notes priced at a discount to yield 9.125 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The $425 million of 8.375 percent notes were priced to yield 8.75 percent.
Bonds Decline
The pound-denominated bonds declined after the sale and were quoted at 95.5 pence on the pound to yield 9.5 percent, according to HSBC Holdings Plc prices on Bloomberg today. The dollar bonds were bid at 97.5 cents to yield about 8.9 percent, according to HSBC.
“I don’t think the yield offers adequate return for the risk,” Jonathan Moore, a high-yield analyst at Evolution Securities Ltd. in London said in a note today. “Given my conversations with institutional investors over the past two weeks, it appears a lot of funds in Europe have similar concerns.”
The club paid 54 million pounds to sell the bonds, according to the documentation for the issue. Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co., KKR & Co. and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc managed the deal.
By Zijing Wu and John Glover
Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Global Economist Jim O’Neill, a former shareholder and board member of Manchester United, said the club has too much debt and its bonds are unattractive.
“There’s too much leverage going on with Manchester United,” O’Neill, a lifelong supporter of the 18-time English soccer champions, said in a Jan. 23 interview. “It’s not a good thing. I’m not a buyer of the bond.”
The club issued more than 500 million pounds ($807 million) of seven-year bonds in pounds and dollars last week to refinance a similar amount of bank borrowing. The club took on the debt after the U.S. Glazer family bought it in a leveraged buyout in 2005.
“I value my long-term support for Manchester United better than anything else,” said O’Neill, who held 1.66 million pounds of the club’s shares in 2005 when he stepped down from the board as the Glazers took the club private.
A spokesman for the Glazer family declined to comment.
Philip Townsend, a spokesman for the club, couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
The bonds include 250 million pounds of 8.75 percent notes priced at a discount to yield 9.125 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The $425 million of 8.375 percent notes were priced to yield 8.75 percent.
Bonds Decline
The pound-denominated bonds declined after the sale and were quoted at 95.5 pence on the pound to yield 9.5 percent, according to HSBC Holdings Plc prices on Bloomberg today. The dollar bonds were bid at 97.5 cents to yield about 8.9 percent, according to HSBC.
“I don’t think the yield offers adequate return for the risk,” Jonathan Moore, a high-yield analyst at Evolution Securities Ltd. in London said in a note today. “Given my conversations with institutional investors over the past two weeks, it appears a lot of funds in Europe have similar concerns.”
The club paid 54 million pounds to sell the bonds, according to the documentation for the issue. Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co., KKR & Co. and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc managed the deal.
Im sorry I started to read that, it really is depressing and 54m to sell the faking things as well
Not sure if this has already been posted or not. Brown sidesteps the issue slightly here if you ask me.
BBC Sport - Football - Prime Minister Gordon Brown warns football over debts
BBC Sport - Football - Prime Minister Gordon Brown warns football over debts
Do you have a link to where we can monitor the price that the bonds are trading at?
Would be good to keep track of what happens to them
Will it really make any difference what they trade at, the financial reputation of the club has been turned into a joke
- Status