There you go, so it's them is it.....I knew someone up here must be responsible for the crap weather we get.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, forgot about your allergy to analogy.
Why won't you address the point I keep trying to get you to in every way I can? I'll spell it out clearly and concisely once again for you:
We don't know if they have repayed the debt, or just moved it around. You're arguments are all based on the former being taken as fact.
Cue Rood refusing to answer yet again and just going for the "me aoe my mates all say you're wrong so you must be" line instead.
They arent, that fact that you think it is shows you havent been paying attention. Straw man argument as usual from you.
I suggest you go back and read my posts again.
Right done that. Still can't see any explanation of how a transfer of the debt to another vehicle can lead to any conclusions about whether they may or may not raid the club's finances. But rereading them also reminded me that you're never going to answer tht question.
The hypothetical transfer of debt of course.
If the Glazers have actually payed the PIKS off as apossed to having just transferred them to create further debt, why haven't they just come out and gloated about this triumph ( I would)?
Genuine question, not done to provoke anyone.
Genuine question, not done to provoke anyone.
Maybe as billionaire businessmen it might not be wise to give too clear an indication of the state of your finances? No idea really, although they don't seem over fussed with gloating.
That is because it doesnt lead to any conclusions and no one said it did - apart from you.
The reason you dont get an answer is because you are using my posts to argue against a position that I dont hold, which is a complete waste of both of our time.
Don't worry that question has been asked about 100 times in the last few pages, now everybody to their opinion of course but the smart money is that it has been replaced by new debt at slightly more favourable terms, which means we are in a slightly better position but certainly far from gloating terrority
OK, so we're agreed that the recent paying of of the PIKs doesnt lead to any conclusions. I genuinely apologise, I must have misunderstood your point.
I honestly don't get what you are getting at about something having proven Andersres/MUST to be completely wrong though, I thought you meant the PIK repayment.
Sounds about right to me.
I'm on the verge of giving up, so you're nearly there, but I'll try one more time...
How about, instead of constantly telling us what you haven't said and don't think, you explain what your point actually is.
I thought it was that the payment of the PIKs is proof that talk of them not having any funds to repay them other than raiding the club was wrong. I now accept that I've misunderstood, but I don't know what you actual view is.
You can't just keep accusing people of attacking straw men, when you constantly avoid making your own position clear.
...
A sad end to some enthusiastic debating. Literally unable to formulate an opinion.
Ah well, I'm sure Ciderman will still be up for some abusive banter.
This is like listening to some bloke arguing in Serbo-Croat with another bloke speaking in Farsi.
Recently Rood has resorted to posting solely in Morse code from what I can see. Which does add a certain level of confusion.
You could try
.jpg)
Listen right - it is nothing personal but as noted by peterstorey we are just not on the same wavelength so I prefer not to waste my time going round in circles with you. I feel my position is clear and will happily debate it but I get bored shitless of having to constantly clarify the same point over and over again.
I really cant understand how you can read posts and repeatedly get something entirely different than what was intended - I could feel that the discussion was going nowhere and tried to end it ages ago but you just wouldnt let it go.
This has got worse though.
No one knows how the piks were paid off, or re-borrowed, but we do know they weren't taken out in the first place to buy a new Abramovich-style yacht, or to buy a few thousand acres of Scottish grouse-moor. The piks were taken out to purchase Manchester United and for no other reason, and one way or another the money to pay them back, in it's hundreds of millions, must eventually come from Manchester United, or they wouldn't have been taken out in the first place.
No one knows how the piks were paid off, or re-borrowed, but we do know they weren't taken out in the first place to buy a new Abramovich-style yacht, or to buy a few thousand acres of Scottish grouse-moor. The piks were taken out to purchase Manchester United and for no other reason, and one way or another the money to pay them back, in it's hundreds of millions, must eventually come from Manchester United, or they wouldn't have been taken out in the first place.
The crucial point isn't whether or not the money will come from United, but if it's extraction will negatively effect our ability to compete in the transfer market and thus thwart our sustainability as a successful and world class football team.
Anders and MUST guaranteed everyone that the owners' priority would be to pay off their personal loans in spite of the needs of the squad, and so the cash would be taken at the soonest opportunity leaving nothing left over for transfers; they said that this was the only option available to the owners and even went as far as to, not only include this in calculations of costs to the club brought on by the Glazer ownership as if it had already happened, but in anders' case to call upon the fans to boycott the club on the strength of these predictions (MUST for their part did everything they could to support this boycott without ever actually publicly announcing it; their emails were littered with quotes from fans supporting the boycott).
Those predictions - those guarantees - were wrong though, completely and utterly wrong; anders' and MUST's entire theory fell to pieces when the PIK's were paid off using no club cash whatsoever; though the Glazers had had ample opportunity to use the club as a 'cash cow', they did not do it, they gave the best interests of their asset consideration and found alternative funding, whilst we were all along told that this was not an option.
So there was always money in the bank for transfers, we know that now, we know that SAF was telling the truth when he said that he was under no restrictions, such restrictions would never have been necessary, and we know that Gill was telling the truth when he said that the Ronaldo money was available to spend whenever SAF needed it; we know because anders and MUST were wrong, because there's £160m in the bank and because the owners always did have alternative options available to them, and also, as many of us have been trying to point out for a long time now, because they have the best interests of their asset in mind.
A1Dan cannot see (or refuses to see) the relevance of this, hence he cannot fathom Rood's point of view even whilst reading it in simple English. It's a shame really; some people just seem to stick rigidly to their old preconceptions no matter what happens to show them up as being ill-conceived; it's something that happens in all walks of life I suppose, sometimes there's just no escaping the persistence of ignorance in a stubborn, gullible minority.
I see a lie repeated in the hope that it would stick.
Good point that, I completely forgot about those ridiculous calculations which always included the PIK! And it was on the basis on those numbers that MUST announced that all ST holders could goto OT for free for a year (or something to that effect) if it wasnt for the Glazers
The sad thing is that the info is still out there and the vast majority of our fans will not realise that it was/is complete bollocks.
But you haven't gone round in circles, you haven't stated your position once!
Yes, I may have missed you doing so a few pages back while I was out of the caf, but this thread is like 200 pages long, and I really can't search back for everything you've written.
It must be possible for you to clarify quite concisely your opinion of the PIK repayment, and any effect it has on the general ongoing debate, surely? That's all I've been asking for.
You must be able to see how it is frustrating to try and debate an issue with somebody only to be told every time you say something that the person you're talking to doesn't claim what you thought they did, but won't tell you what they do think?
Honestly A1Dan - I have nothing to say to you, it is just a waste of both our time.
Seeing as Rood just claims not to have said dem things, I'll ask you Cider, seeing as whatever else you may be, you're generally consistent and stick to you guns.
On the above point, I've still not had an answer from anybody on how the PIK repayment can be said to have any impact on anders' and MUST's theory, unless we know that the PIK were genuinely paid off - ie with actual capital, or at least with borrowing on such radically different terms that any urgency whatseover to repay it disappears.
In the event that they were just moved onto marginally better rates, then there is little if any effect at all on Anders / MUST's point. We still don't know the future, and as I've said your entitled to the opinion that they won't need club money and others are entitled to their opinion that they may do.
Granted that, with every day that passes without them taking money out, the chances of Anders worries coming to fruition slightly reduce, whereas they can only be fully realised in one fell swoop, if the Glazers do take the money out.
It's the inverse of the "Is the Ronaldo money available for transfers" argument that's beeen going on for a couple of years since he left - with every day that passes without big money being spent, the cahnces of the "no" camp being right marginally increase, but the "yes" camp can only ever be proved right in one fell swoop, the day big money is spent.
Please feel free to pick up on specific points I've made and question any assumptions etc. Please avoid either the "you're wrong because me and my mates all say so" line, or unnecesary vitriol.
So I see. Shame, as in the past you've engaged in some fairly interesting debate.
No worries, there are others here who's position on recent events is better defined.
Nice try but I'm not biting
Fight it out with Cider !
Fight it out with Cider !
You know you want to
It's OK, just post the words "I've been pwned in this thread" and we'll move on...
It's OK, just post the words "I've been pwned in this thread" and we'll move on...
I'm no financial expert but just on your point a1dan do you know how a marginally (or otherwise) reduced interest rate would make more financial sense to them than to use the clubs money which is sat rather inefficiently in the account currently?
I might be misunderstanding but they could have taken circa 100mill if they so chose leaving them with only 80millionish to refinance (as obviously they own some of the piks).
I haven't seen any indication that taking the money would have had a negative impact on their finances? Last years and the first quarters annual reports seem to show that the campaigns run by supporters hasn't had an appreciable impact on the clubs income? Demand for tickets has reduced to the point of little to no waiting list but that is a function of finding a sweet spot between supply and demand coupled possibly (conjecture) by a tightenin of wallets due to the recession.
So, would the very fact that (if we go on the presumption that they have refinanced) they have chosen a less efficient way in which to pay down the debt not give an indication that They have no plans to utilise that money at the current time?
We coul say that they know they need the money currently in order to invest in the squad but they could have utilised the rcf and still be paying less couldn't they?
I've probably missed something obvious.
I might be misunderstanding but they could have taken circa 100mill if they so chose leaving them with only 80millionish to refinance (as obviously they own some of the piks).
I haven't seen any indication that taking the money would have had a negative impact on their finances? Last years and the first quarters annual reports seem to show that the campaigns run by supporters hasn't had an appreciable impact on the clubs income? Demand for tickets has reduced to the point of little to no waiting list but that is a function of finding a sweet spot between supply and demand coupled possibly (conjecture) by a tightenin of wallets due to the recession.
So, would the very fact that (if we go on the presumption that they have refinanced) they have chosen a less efficient way in which to pay down the debt not give an indication that They have no plans to utilise that money at the current time?
We coul say that they know they need the money currently in order to invest in the squad but they could have utilised the rcf and still be paying less couldn't they?
I've probably missed something obvious.
No I don't think you have.
But I would say that the club's money has been available to them for some time now, and the didn't previously use it to pay down the PIK.
So, if it currently makes more financial sense to use the club's money that refinance on marginally better rates, then the case was even more so previously - ie it would have made massively more financial sense to use the club's money than to sit on the PIKs up until now.
For whatever reason (maybe they need it to invest in the squad, maybe they are worried about fans' reaction, maybe something else altogether), rightly or wrongly, they chose not to use the club's money in the past, and for now continue to chose not to.
On that basis, I wouldn't say the question of whether it makes strict financial sense to refinance rather than use the clubs money can be used to draw conclusions about whether they may have done so.
The above does also raise a question I've been meaning to ask of anybody who is more up to speed with the details of the PIKs and/or has better knowledge of other financial instruments that may have been available to replace them...
I'd admit that (like, I suspect, most on here and elsewhere, judging by how out of the blue the news of the PIK repayment was), I had previously missed the fact that the PIKs could be paid off at any point, with a week's notice and not penalty.
From what I've read, this has always, or at least for quite a while, been the case - or am I wrong, and a time-related clause just kicked in enabling this?
If it has always been the case, I don't get why they waited until now. It seems to be a well established fact amongst city folk that 16% was way too much to be paying. I know it will have taken a while to arrange refinancing, but if better terms were always an option, why did they wait?
What am I missing here? I can only see the following possible answers:
1) They could not previously pay off the PIKs without penalty.
2) Better rates were not available to them until now.
3) The "better rate" is still only comparable with the old rate of 14%(?), so it only became an issue since they missed the targets and went up to 16%.
I'd admit that (like, I suspect, most on here and elsewhere, judging by how out of the blue the news of the PIK repayment was), I had previously missed the fact that the PIKs could be paid off at any point, with a week's notice and not penalty.
From what I've read, this has always, or at least for quite a while, been the case - or am I wrong, and a time-related clause just kicked in enabling this?
If it has always been the case, I don't get why they waited until now. It seems to be a well established fact amongst city folk that 16% was way too much to be paying. I know it will have taken a while to arrange refinancing, but if better terms were always an option, why did they wait?
What am I missing here? I can only see the following possible answers:
1) They could not previously pay off the PIKs without penalty.
2) Better rates were not available to them until now.
3) The "better rate" is still only comparable with the old rate of 14%(?), so it only became an issue since they missed the targets and went up to 16%.
I don't think so, no one's come up with an explanation for them not drawing down the cash except that they're gearing up for a sale but I'm don't think that makes much sense either.
Well, MUST have, but I'd admit it has their usual element of chutzpah and in reality can only be seen as a partial explanation at most.
I've explained in my above post, the impact that it's had is that it's proven anders' and MUST's theory to be wrong, because their theory guaranteed that the owners would use club funds to pay off their personal debts at the earliest opportunity and as priority over the needs of the squad. That was the theory. The theory was wrong.
You have your worse case scenario in which you assume that the PIK's have been replaced by a similar loan with a 'marginally better interest rate', but if that's the case then the Glazers are truly fecked. They're fecked because with an interest rate anywhere near what the previous one was they would have needed the carve-out immediately to stabilise the loan, and with a new loan too would likely come new early payment penalties on years one and two similar to the last. They haven't taken the carve-out though and Gill assures us that they don't intend to - yeah, yeah, Gill's lying etc.ect. - and even if they do so in the near future they'll still have to pay large penalties for early repayment. If this worst-case scenario is at all accurate then the Glazers are screwed. It doesn't seem at all likely then that this is what's happened, because it would be entirely devoid of any point to take out another high-interest loan but not take the carve-out, and nor would there be any point in Gill telling the fans that the club's funds will not be used and then to just go ahead and use them anyway as some kind of transparent and wholly self defeating PR exercise.
What seems more likely though is that a refinancing at considerably more favourable terms has taken place, one which has completely bypassed the need for immediate extraction of funds from the club, because only at such terms would the exercise have been at all worthwhile, and only then would it be worthwhile Gill emphasising to the fans that the club's money has not been touched. Would you not agree? This would not be possible under a new high-interest loan.
I've been saying for a long time now that the Glazers will only ever take cash from the club if it were absolutely necessary, they will not use United as a 'cash cow' because to deprive the club of funds would ultimately prove to be very expensive for the owners long-term, even if doing so would mean that their personal loans can be eradicated much quicker; I've demonstrated this with accompanying calculations and put it to anders and others in the past and the theory is sound; there is no motivation whatsoever to cause the Glazers to act in any other way than to provide the club with all it needs for success as their priority; personal debts take the back seat, we know the Glazers have no qualms about operating within a high rate of leverage.
All this would indicate that SAF and Gill have been telling the truth about the situation, whereas there's no evidence at all to say that Drasdo's contradictory account holds any water. £160m in the bank would support this too. So, as well as the predictions of anders and MUST being technically incorrect, it also seems that they were largely baseless and the fruit of miscalculated preconceptions of the Glazer business plan, hence anders backtracking on the issue and making his humble apologies, something that MUST might do well to make a note of.
On that basis, though, the theory was proved wrong the day the £75m draw-down enabled by the bond issue became available - that was the earliest opportunity.
If this (the earliest opportunity) really was Anders/MUST's claim, then they have been demonstrably wrong for a lot longer than since this latest news. I'd have to check the timing, but it's possible that the availability of the £75m predates the claim, making it one of the most bizarre claims in history, as it could be shown to be wrong the day it was made.
So, if Anders/MUST did use that phrase, then it was indeed silly and wrong. But I've always understood the point to be that there was a danger of club funds being used at some point, rather than at the earliest opportunity (albeit in the reasonably short term future or it all becomes a bit abstract and irrelevant - as has been said it's very likely they will take money out one day, unless they plan on making all the cash through selling at a profit).
That being the case (and it's certainly the only argument I'm interested in, as the other is nonsense), I don't see how a refinance does any more than marginally reduce the chances of it happening any time soon.
I'd say there's a fairly proportional relationship between how greatly improved the terms are, and how much effect it has on the theory - at one end of the scale, a marginally improved rate only marginally reduces the chances of them taking money out, whereas at the other extreme, if they have used their own cash it does indeed blow the theory out of the water.
Given that you are keen to do the latter (and keep claiming already to have done so), I'd have thought that you'd be amongst the most interested in finding out the source of the money... it could prove your point once and for all.
Well yes, exactly; anders predicted the money to have been taken a long time ago, did you not know this? It came as a surprise to anders that the carve-out did not show up in the company accounts earlier in the year, it then later came as one hell of a surprise that the announcement was made that the PIK's were to be paid off with the club's funds intact, in complete contradiction to anders' guarantees. They were supposed to have no other options. But they did.
You've ignored my hypothesis in my above post as to why it seems highly unlikely that they've taken out another high-interest loan, so unless you're ready to address that then there's little point continuing this discussion; it seems to be your lead theory at the moment despite its extremely hollow nature; I'd have thought you'd be amongst the most interested to discuss its weaknesses?
Of course I'm interested in finding out where the money came from. What gave you the impression that I wasn't?
Well it depends on what is meant by "marginal". Yes, if it is very unlikely that we are talking about a tiny change (eg <1%), just as at the other end of the scale it is unlikely that they have suddenly magicked up £200m cash form down the back of the sofa. The likely truth is somewhere in between, and my point was just to show that it does matter where on that line the reality is.
As you say, if the improvement is genuinely tiny "then the Glazers are truly fecked", and equally, if they have come up with £200m cash, I'd say they are laughing all the way to the bank. All of which goes to re-emphasis the point that we need to know where the money has come from to make any judgment on where on the line between "truly fecked" and LATWTTB the Glazers are.
To be fair, the below suggests that I'm having this debate with the wrong person...
Apologies again for confusing points of view between different people in your "camp".
I believe it was actually GCHQ that was making a point of "it doesn't matter where the money came from, stop asking", and I guess I just presumed you agreed.
In a meeting so can't really browse through but on why the piks weren't repaid earlier, wasn't it something alon the line of since sept 2008 they could be paid without penalty? I think that was an element of their t&c's though. I thought there was something in the bank loans at the time which stated the parent debt had to be addressed before the piks could be looked at? After the bond I have no idea.
Yep, that sounds right.
Still leaves 10 months of "unnescesary" wasted money on PIKs, but maybe it just took a long time to get the best deal sorted...
- Status