Where have you had that confirmed?
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Where have you had that confirmed?
The major change in status is that previously people like yourself thought that the Glazers had no way of paying the PIK without using cash from the club. We now know for a fact that is not true so it blows away the entire perception that has been built of them.
We have been told since January by several people including MUST (who were using analysis from andersred) that the club would pay the PIK - to be fair I also thought that was the most likely scenario but always said there were other options and that we should wait and see.
Andersred spent a lot of time going on about shopping malls and other such nonsense to try and prove that the Glazers had no possible way to pay off the PIK apart from using club funds - he now admits that he was completely wrong with his assumptions.
This is a major change and I dont think a lot of people have fully understood this as yet. The likes of yourself are ignoring this fundamental shift and prefering to ask for details which would be interesting to know, but are largely irrelevant to us. Who cares if they are robbing Peter? I only care if they are robbing Manchester United.
Yeah Peter can go feck himself tbf.
That is all true, presuming they haven't just paid the PIKs with another set of loans with similar conditions, albeit probably a little lower interest. If they have done that, then they haven't paid them off at all, have they, and what you say is a load of rubbish.
So, can you see how the question of how they have paid them off is not irrelevant, it's crucial?
No, they don't have to tell us. But without doing so, there is no way to portray this as some kind of shattering of the "myth" that they have no means to repay the loans.
So, either we hear the details, or the Glazer hurrah boys (I like that one!) shut the feck up about having won some kind of victory here.
Hang on... I don't see Anver making big claims about having paid off debts which previously threatened the well-being of something close to your heart.
Apologies if I missed him making such claims - if this is the case, then you're damn right he should provide details to explain how he's done it!
Jesus this caf will nit-pick over anything!
It's not really nitpicking, it's clarifying a point. One way suggested MUST played no part in the G&G campaign at all, whereas the other merely suggests they didn't instigate it. How is that nitpicking?
Just the wording of the wording of the point made it sound faintly ridiculous, you'd have to admit!
Well not really, the way CL interpreted it made Phelan's original point seem completely wrong, whereas all he was initially saying was that G&G was not MUST's idea. It's not nitpicking to clarify a fundamental misunderstanding, surely?
But it has shattered the myth that they had no means to repay the PIK debt! They have repaid the PIK debt for god's sake! Now they might have repaid it using a new loan but so fecking what, that's a refinancing, it's what the Glazers do. We were told that the only way the PIK debt could be paid down was by using the club's cash. Those people were completely wrong and the people such as myself who argued that there were other options available have been proven right. I'm sorry but that's how it is and I'll have a pint of Stella from Anders in my hand shortly to prove it.
Why is it seen as great news they didn't use cash from the club to pay off the PIKs?
Seeing as we can't rule out the possibility they raised the funds by using the assets of the club as collateral for yet more debt, I'd almost rather hear that cash had been used to clear this particular chunk of debt once and for all.
Regarding the lack of transparency about what happened I can't think of any good reason for the Glazers not to reveal details if the funds were raised using assets other than MUFC. Can anyone else?
So, say they replaced them with new PIKs which are identical in every way to the old ones, then that counts as repaying them in your world?
Why do I keep getting lured into thinking I'll get sensible debate from you, only to get nonsense like this?
Yeah, don't worry about it, I get the point you're making.
Exactly. Unless we know how they were repaid, there is absolutely no way we can make a call on whether things are now better, worse or just the same.
So, say they replaced them with new PIKs which are identical in every way to the old ones, then that counts as repaying them in your world?
Why do I keep getting lured into thinking I'll get sensible debate from you, only to get nonsense like this?
Any new PIKs obviously wouldn't be taken out on identical terms otherwise there would be no point in doing it would there? Christ, and you have the cheek to mention sensible debate. The have repaid the PIK debt without using the club's cash. Fact. We were told that wasn't possible. The PIK debt was the Glazers personal debt and they've paid it down. That debt should be of no concern to any Manchester United supporter. It has nothing to do with the club. The club's net debt is £350m and the bond interest can be paid very comfortably from the club's operating income whilst at the same time leaving a very significant amount of cash for capital expenditure on new players and facilities.
Net cash operating income - c. £100m
Bond interest - c. £45m
Cash available for investment on players and facilties - £55m
That's the state of play. What on earth are we supposed to be concerned about exactly?
OK, if you're really too thick to cotton on to the point...
What if they have replaced the PIKs with nerw PIKs identical in every way, but 0.1% lower interest?
Presuming no transaction costs incurred, would it be worth doing? Yes.
So is it a possibility? Yes.
Would it count as repaying the PIK debt without using the club's cash? In your book, it seems, yes.
Back in the real world, would it count as "shattering the myth that they had no means to repay the PIK debt"? No.
Are you even beginning to see how, without knowing how the PIKs were repayed, everything you are saying is nothing but hot-air?
It is a better situation that the PIKS have been paid but hardly a huge deal if they have been replaced with new debt but we don't know do we? As I said before the Glazers could easily shut people like me up by saying where the funds came from but if they don't want to it is their right
They could have agreed to sell a chunk of the club.
Because it confirms that the club is not responsible for the PIK debt. David Gill had been telling everyone that for god knows how long but people didn't listen. The cash that wasn't taken can be used for the benefit of the club itself. That's very good news surely?
You can rule out the possibility they raised the funds by using the assets of the club as collateral simply by reading these quotes from David Gill:
Ok?
The Glazers as we know like to reveal as little as possible about their business activities. Why on earth should they have to detail how they've paid down their own personal debt?
I have to use my allowance to pay off my Visa because my missus won't let me spend 'our' money on guns. I know how the Glazers must feel.
They could have done several things but they do not want it known so the speculation will continue, they are entitled to do this of course
Man with a gun but no trousers?
more than one gun, actually. it's fair enough, though. I'd probably spend more than I should. Limiting arms spending is good they tell me.
More waffle.
We've all always known that the PIKs were not the direct responsibility of the club, nobody questioned that, it was fact. The worry was that they may chose to take money out of the club to repay them.
If they now have a new form of borrowing which is also their own repsonsibility, then nothing has changed - they could still chose to take money out of the club to repay it.
Given the secrecy surrounding all this, there is even the possibility that we have now moved to a situation where the loans are in some way secured against the club... unlikely, but possible.
Only if they have repaid the PIKs using other assets they owned can they be said to have repaid them.
This really isn't rocket science!
You're completely missing the point A1Dan. Let's try again shall we. The key point is that the PIK debt never was the club's responsibility. Some people said it was and that the club would be forced to service that debt. The fact the club's assets and cash weren't used to repay the PIK debt is yet further proof that the club is not responsible for that debt and never was. Have you got that?
Without informing the Premier League?
Selling Red Football shares?
You are correct, point taken on that one
Not 100% sure but I would have thought that any sale, in full or part, would also need to be informed to the bond holders.
Which bit of "We've all always known that the PIKs were not the direct responsibility of the club, nobody questioned that, it was fact. The worry was that they may chose to take money out of the club to repay them." did you not understand?
Go and find where anybody said that the PIK debt was the club's responsibility. That should keep you busy.
They'd still have to inform the Premier League.
You're bogging yourselves down with the legal responsibility for the debt incurred.
Irrespective of who would get what should the business fail, the Glazers have given themselves the chance to remove huge piles of cash from the club in dividends. If they take it, don't take, doesn't change the fact that they can take it should they choose and unless they're running United as a charity, which they ain't, they will take cash out at some point.
Irrespective of who would get what should the business fail, the Glazers have given themselves the chance to remove huge piles of cash from the club in dividends. If they take it, don't take, doesn't change the fact that they can take it should they choose and unless they're running United as a charity, which they ain't, they will take cash out at some point.
Which bit of "We've all always known that the PIKs were not the direct responsibility of the club, nobody questioned that, it was fact. The worry was that they may chose to take money out of the club to repay them." did you not understand?
Go and find where anybody said that the PIK debt was the club's responsibility. That should keep you busy.
We posted at the same time. Can I ask what your problem is then? So you were worried that they may have chosen to take money out of the club to repay the PIK debt. The events of the past week should have dramatically eased those concerns surely?
Not mine, given that we don't know how or where they got the money from. Its only a matter of time before a large dividend is paid to the Glazers, doesn't really matter if its to pay off PIK notes or to have their arses bleached, its still money leaving the club.
There's no need to take it though. That's the key point. We were told that the Glazers needed to take those dividends to pay down the PIK debt. They didn't.
Hopefully, yes.
But without having at least an idea of how they've repaid the PIKs (I'm not asking for bank accont numbers here!), we've no way of knowing... there is even the outside chance that things are worse. We just have no way of knowing at the moment.
And yet some parties are running around crowing that "myths have been shattered" etc, even though in reality we know nothing.
- Status