ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

[ciderman9000000]

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.

Right, so we're agreed about that.

Logically you must accept then that the chances of the Glazers making the move to replace their high-interest debt with similarly high-interest debt are approaching zero, because they would not only then be faced with a PR disaster when they then go on to take the carve-out (which they would have no choice but to take) after Gill telling the fans that this would not happen, but they would also face large early payment penalties on the new loan when doing so.

You already accept that it's also unlikely that they've raised the cash without refinancing.

The most likely scenario then is that they've refinanced on much more favourable terms; I'd guess they've at least halved the 16.5% interest rate, probably a point or two below half to 7-8ish%, and thus removed any immediate need to draw funds from the club. Whence before they needed £70m immediately for stabilisation, now its probably more like £50m in a couple of seasons time.

So there's your answer as to what's changed. We can't say for definite - I'm not going to follow anders' lead and go making any flimsy guarantees - but we can say that logic strongly suggests that one of the three situations above is more likely than the other two. We can say that anders and MUST in all likelihood got it wrong, that despite their guarantees to the contrary, the Glazers have found an alternative and far more favourable method of meeting the demands set upon them by the PIK notes and thus have protected their asset by ensuring that funds are available for investment; all this completely in contradiction to MUST's claims.

That's what's changed then; strong evidence has arisen that shows anders' and MUST's accusations against the Glazer ownership to very likely be greatly exaggerated, which some of us knew already.

 

[Sir A1ex]

That's fair analysis, in as far as if we are talking 7-8ish%, then it certainly means the threat of any drastic measures being required anytime soon diminishes significantly.

I do think though that you are, naturally enough, letting your long held position on the general Glazer issues lean you towards the low end of what is likely, if we're down to guessing at interest rates.

Doubtless I am similarly inclined to lean the other way, but I'd have though that if such a massive saving was available, they'd have been a lot quicker about it than they have been. Not sure if these interest figures are APR, gross etc, but even without doing the calcs they must have lost a sum well into 8 figures since January by sitting on the PIKs - not something I'd have thought such money-minded people as the Glazers would allow to happen.

I don't pretend to be an expert on what finance may have been available to them, but I would expect it to be closer to the old figure than that, based purely on the fact taht it's unusual for anybody ni finance to allow such discrpancies to develop and allow themselves to get so ripped off... maybe something more like 10-12% at a ball-park figure.

While that sort of figure would certainly take some pressure off, it's far from a total game changer.

Again, we go back to the point that this is all just speculation without knowledge of where the cash has come from, so I guess there's not much further the debate can go.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Yes... What power do you suggest they now have to change things?

What's done is done, sure. I love that argument. It's like when the government wastes billions and then holds its hands up Alfred E. Newman style and says "What me, worry?"

My point is that the previous owners didn't give fcuk about the fans, the owners before them likely didn't either, same goes for the Glazers. Franky I think they're all cnuts because they have the means to afford a mega club...I'm just surprised at the vitriol that exists for the current owners because they're just as big of cnuts as any others.

That's not the point, but then it doesn't affect you so why should you care?

What gets me as someone who isn't fortunate enough to attend matches is why (or even how for that matter) some people don't want to go to United games.

 

[ciderman9000000]

It seems apparent that this option has only come about recently due to a loosening of the lending markets post credit-crunch, it will unlikely have been a viable option before.

As to the exact interest rate, mine was only a rough guess based on instinct mathematics, a more accurate estimation would require proper calculation, and also more information. For example, they might have paid off some of the PIK balance with their own money, which would mean they could get away with a much higher rate than if they refinanced the entire sum, we just don't know. The exact rate is largely irrelevant though; the crucial point I'm making is that, whatever the rate may be, its almost certainly low enough to remove the need for immediate stabilisation through club dividends, anything more than that would make little sense for the reasons I've described above.

 

[Sir A1ex]

The exact rate is largely irrelevant though; the crucial point I'm making is that, whatever the rate may be, its almost certainly low enough to remove the need for immediate stabilisation through club dividends, anything more than that would make little sense for the reasons I've described above.

That's the thing - we're down to the nitty gritty which is basically what we can take as "almost certainly".

Ah well, we'll see how we go...

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I'm surprised they've got this far, to be fair.

Never doubted the football club's ability to make it happen, mind, but that Glazer business plan did look too risky, even only a few months back.

 

[Sir A1ex]

What's done is done, sure. I love that argument. It's like when the government wastes billions and then holds its hands up Alfred E. Newman style and says "What me, worry?"

There's certainly a place for holding that sort of thing against people, and not forgetting. If, for example Magner & co were looking like buying United once again, I would vehemently oppose them and do anything I thought would help to stop them.
For that matter, even away from United, I do hold enough of a grudge that I would avoid supporting any other endeavour they were involved in... eg I don't buy that shite cider he makes.

but that's all pretty secondary compared to getting rid of the Glazers. The question of "why give the Glazers all this shit, why not blame the previous owners?" just makes no sense to me...

My point is that the previous owners didn't give fcuk about the fans, the owners before them likely didn't either, same goes for the Glazers. Franky I think they're all cnuts because they have the means to afford a mega club...

Never a truer word, well said.

And I had you down as a bit of a Gordon Gheko style capitalist - must have been the guns, or maybe just the lack of trousers.

That'll teach me to stereotype.

Note to self: Not all gun-toting psychopathic deviants are fans of obscene wealth accumulation.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

cheers Dan.

 

[Crerand Legend]

Yes wise words Doc

 

[ciderman9000000]

In regards to my earlier posts and for anyone who's interested, here's a spreadsheet which details possible ways that the potential 'New PIK's' could be stabilised to a set level of £250m come 2017 given various hypothetical interest rate scenarios from 14% down to 7%.

The sheet assumes in each scenario that the beginning level of debt in 2010 is £187m; the £220m old PIK note balance minus the 15% known to be owned by the Glazers themselves.

It shows the debt balance for each year under each interest rate in black, with any repayments made being listed on the right of each column and in their corresponding year row highlighted in red.

I've worked from my previous scenarios which saw the Glazers making two stabilising payments, one in 2017 and one sometime before (with the exception of the 7% scenario in which only one payment seemed necessary), to arrive at a balance of £250m in 2017.

I think the table demonstrates perfectly how having a lower interest rate would drastically effect the immediate need for the extraction of funds from the club, as well as effecting the total amount of capital needed in each case.

Make of it what you will.

 

[Redjazz]

It seems apparent that this option has only come about recently due to a loosening of the lending markets post credit-crunch, it will unlikely have been a viable option before.

As to the exact interest rate, mine was only a rough guess based on instinct mathematics, a more accurate estimation would require proper calculation, and also more information. For example, they might have paid off some of the PIK balance with their own money, which would mean they could get away with a much higher rate than if they refinanced the entire sum, we just don't know. The exact rate is largely irrelevant though; the crucial point I'm making is that, whatever the rate may be, its almost certainly low enough to remove the need for immediate stabilisation through club dividends, anything more than that would make little sense for the reasons I've described above.

Instinct Mathematics. Huh?

You seem to be assuming that they replaced one pik with another. Pik are expensive and a straight swap (with the previous piks) at the RFJV level could certainly not be achieved on terms (7-8%) more favourable than the senior debt (8-9%).
There are other refinancing options; a lot will depend on what collateral\security the Glazers can offer to lenders and consequently where the refinancing takes place. Immediate stabilisation, in the cidermanesque sense, could be achieved by taking out a plain vanilla, bog-standard, interest bearing debt with mandatory annual interest payments and a fixed principal amount; sorta like an interest only mortgage or indeed the old bank loans we had on the books. The stronger the collateral\security, the cheaper the loan rates.

I am surprised (in a good way) that the Glazers haven't taken the carveouts.
Retaining the carveouts of 95m in the club is a positive development. We haven't received definite assurances that all the 'Ronaldo money' will be retained for inward investment but I suspect that a considerable chunk of it can\will be made available. And this for a number of reasons:

1 If refinancing was involved, you would reasonably expect that the principal amount of the new loan would be reduced, a priori, with some\all of the carveout money. The lower the principal amount, the lower the loan rate. repayment of some of the loan in the near term would also likely involve repayment penalties.

2 "On a conference call to investors, the chief of staff, Ed Woodward, later went further and promised that the Glazers would not be taking a one-off dividend of up to £127m, as they are permitted to do under the terms of the bond, from the club's accounts in the coming quarter either. "There are no plans to make a payment relating to what you may or not be reading in the press," he said."
This from the Guardian; and hardly a cast-iron Guarantee. But it's a start. I am not sure what quarters are involved here. I assume the 'coming quarter' is to 31st December. The first annual dividend (representing the 4 consecutive quarters since the bond issue) can be taken at 31st March 2011. If the Glazers have refinanced, the size\uniformity of the annual dividends going forward might be indicative.

3 From a P.R. perpective, the Glazers are hardly likely to backtrack on the carveouts and leave their firecest detractors, now floundering in a pikless universe, with new ammunition to bolster their cause. I have no doubts that Glazers were concerned about the impact of the protests\threats of boycotts; they want a virginal brand assisted by shiny, happy fans singing the right tunes, wearing the right gear, brandishing the right banners to support the growth in 'other' commercial revenue (the most important growth stream going forward). The piks were a nuisance: invariably any report on the club's finances, in the press or otherwise, drew attention to the alarming interest rates involved.
Removing the piks, on the back of good refinancing terms, is especially good from a P.R. angle if you remove them from both sight and mind. This would be accomplished by refinancing outside the UK corporate structure. No debt in RFJV or its immediate parent would leave detractors deprived of facts and figures. If this is the case, there will be tax implications though; RF tax has been nullified by RFJV's pik debt. Without the tax shield, the club will be paying corporation tax sooner or later.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Instinct Mathematics. Huh?

You seem to be assuming that they replaced one pik with another.

Instinct mathematics: I was sat outside Asda when I wrote that and couldn't think of a better term. I meant a rough figure with little calculation, a figure not to be trusted basically as anything other than a rough, purely instinctive example of my point, which is why I did the calculations properly and presented them in a spreadsheet when I got home.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm simply entertaining ideas. My only assumption is that any refinancing would have been done on far more favourable terms than were the old PIK notes (which themselves were described by some business bigwig recently as being, for the PIK holders at least, probably the most profitable debt structuring in the financial world) which will have removed the need for immediate useage of the carve-out or dividends, and, going back to the original point, proven anders and MUST's guarantees to be worthless.

Regarding the rest of your post, it's basically what I've been saying all day, no?

 

[Redjazz]

Instinct mathematics: I was sat outside Asda when I wrote that and couldn't think of a better term. I meant a rough figure with little calculation, a figure not to be trusted basically as anything other than a rough, purely instinctive example of my point, which is why I did the calculations properly and presented them in a spreadsheet when I got home.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm simply entertaining ideas. My only assumption is that any refinancing would have been done on far more favourable terms than were the old PIK notes (which themselves were described by some business bigwig recently as being, for the PIK holders at least, probably the most profitable debt structuring in the financial world) which will have removed the need for immediate useage of the carve-out or dividends, and, going back to the original point, proven anders and MUST's guarantees to be worthless.

Regarding the rest of your post, it's basically what I've been saying all day, no?

What guarantee? I would like to have a look at the precise wording of this guarantee. Even with 'instinct mathematics', you would be hard pushed to prove the worthlessness of a guarantee that wasn't given? I discussed, with Anders, the possibility that the Glazers might refinance the piks a few months ago- there were murmurings in the press to that effect. He didn't discount the possibility but doubted their finding benign terms.

It was totally reasonable to assume that carveouts would be used especially when the Glazer's bankers, JPM, assumed the same. In their credit report, an informed, Glazer-friendly document, they note:

... that ownership will be able to take more cash from the business under the bond documentation. The £70m restricted payment basket
carve out has drawn the ire of supporters, however the cash remains on balance sheet and the owners are yet to declare their intentions.

But in their cash flow scenario testing:

We have adjusted MUFC's balance sheet cash for the £70 RP carveout (Restricted cash). We have given this benefit to the Red Football Joint Venture PIK debt, and have assumed it accrues at 14.25% per annum.

 

[ciderman9000000]

What guarantee? I would like to have a look at the precise wording of this guarantee. Even with 'instinct mathematics', you would be hard pushed to prove the worthlessness of a guarantee that wasn't given?

Quoted from anders' blog...

Then look at little note 1 below the table, "we may, without restriction, make a distribution or loan of up to £70.0 million to our immediate parent company, Red Football Joint Venture Limited, that may, in turn, use the proceeds of that loan for general corporate purposes, including repaying existing indebtedness."

They "may" do that. If they did that of course, no less than £100m would have gone out of the club. Have they done it as of today 30th January 2010? No. Why not? Because the settlement date for buyers of the bonds (the date they pay for them) was yesterday the 29th January. It wouldn't have been possible to pass the money up to Red Football by today because they need to do the "Closing Funds Flow" whereby money moves around group companies. So today it is true the money is there. You can guarantee it won't be around for long.

The digging around that I and others have done since the bond prospectus was published on 11th January shows conclusively that the Glazers will be able to take huge sums out of United now the old bank debt has been replaced with bonds.

What's obviously harder to prove is that they intend to exercise these rights and to what extent. We know for certain that they intend to take the Ronaldo money out, it's mentioned on pages 27, 44 and 130 of the prospectus. We know they are going to grab Carrington, sell it and make the club that built it from its own funds pay to use it, that's on pages 78, 79 and 156 amongst others.

Still not 100% certain the Glazers are planning to asset strip our club for years to come?

Some simple questions: why bother creating the accounting room to grab £400m and and pay it out to the owners?

If asset stripping is a scare story with no foundation, why have they deliberately made it possible?

If you were a benevolent owner who put the interests of the club first, would you create the accounting mechanism to pay out £400m?

You don't need to be a knowledgeable accountant like my mate to know the answers......

“We have £100m in the bank” says David Gill. “It is available to the manager”.

People like me say that the bond prospectus is very clear that £70m will soon be sucked out of the club to pay the Glazers’ own debts (I strongly believe this take place after 31 March so it doesn’t appear in the accounts until August). David Gill says the PIKs "are not the responsibility of Manchester United".

Tell your mates, tell your family, tell everyone. The Glazers are going to take the Ronnie money and you didn’t hear it from some mad bloke on the net, Manchester United’s bankers said so.

and finally...

I discussed, with Anders, the possibility that the Glazers might refinance the piks a few months ago- there were murmurings in the press to that effect. He didn't discount the possibility but doubted their finding benign terms.

Also quoted from andersred's blog...

But this official denial that the repayment of the PIKS (currently around £220m and rising) is "nothing to do with the club" raises the question of how on earth they CAN be repaid. Let's consider the options:


Borrow against Glazer family assets

In the aftermath of the revelations about First Allied, the Bucs spokesman confirmed (by saying "Companies they [the Glazers] own generate revenues in excess of $800 million each year.") that the family only own three major businesses, United, the Bucs and First Allied. All three are already borrowed up to the maximum possible. So the option of borrowing to repay the PIKS can be ruled out.


Sell assets

My work on First Allied shows that there is not sufficient value in that business to repay the PIKS. If the family did sell United, this would of course eliminate the issue, but they have publicly denied they will. The option of selling the Bucs is always there of course. Forbes magazine thinks the value of the franchise is falling, but even at a price of $900m and deducting debt, the sale of the Bucs would easily provide enough to repay the PIKS. A Tampa Bay journalist told me he thought such a sale unthinkable as NFL franchises are long-term licences to print money, but the option is definitely there.


Use United's cash anyway

Could it be that David Gill believes that his comments are consistent with using the club's cash to pay the PIKS? He talks about not "worrying about the PIK interest" and that management don't "worry about the PIK repayment", but "worry" is not the issue here. When he says "That [the PIKS]...is nothing to do with the club." does he just mean the fact that they are not secured on the club's assets but rather its equity? I think someone who thought such apparently reassuring statements were consistent with taking a quarter of a billion pounds out of Manchester United to repay the Glazers' debt would be guilty of dissembling.


So I can't think of any other viable way to repay the PIKS and I know that senior United staff have given non-attributable briefings to journalists in which they concede it is the probable course of action.

What more do you need, Jazz?

 

[robertsoncrusoe]

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.

Don't worry- they'll be getting you later when the heat dies down.

( just because Anders was wrong doesn't mean they won't feck you later. )

 

[TheMancRedDevil]

Just been catching up on the last couple of days' worth of posts in here and it's funny.

That people (A1Dan being a classic case... absolutely classic) can't understand why the fact that the Glazers haven't taken their dividends and carve-outs out of United's coffers this year is a major development in the story is beyond me.

Perhaps a re-evaluation of the Glazers without the slurs of MUST et al is in order?

 

[Redjazz]

What more do you need, Jazz?

Well, the guarantee that the Glazers would most definitely take the carevouts to pay down the pik.

All I see in those extracts is a convincing argument that they would, buttressed by strong circumstantial evidence: The bond prospectus carveouts; the creation of the dividend taking facility; the JPM credit report; the owners not "declaring their intentions" wrt to the carveouts; "non-attributable briefings to journalists in which they [club staff] concede it is the probable course of action"; independent market assessment that the carveouts would be used; the Glazers inability or unwillingness to tackle the compounding piks since the light penalty phase ended 2 years ago...and so on.

I see some strident, adamant declarations:

Tell your mates, tell your family, tell everyone. The Glazers are going to take the Ronnie money.

But I also see:

What's obviously harder to prove is that they intend to exercise these rights and to what extent.
And
People like me say that the bond prospectus is very clear that £70m will soon be sucked out of the club to pay the Glazers’ own debts (I strongly believe this will take place after 31 March so it doesn’t appear in the accounts until August.)

Bold predictions for sure but not guarantees. I believe most of those extracts go right back to the first quarter of 2010. Anders has subesquently retracted\corrected (and to his credit not reedited) his position on some things: Carrington, for example. You might have missed that in your 'seek and destroy' research mission.

Nothwithstanding your efforts to reconstruct your own position regarding the careveouts-as in:

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.....

I am pretty certain that not long ago you were advocating pik stabilisation by using the carveouts upfront followed by infrequent payments thereafter.
As it turns out, you were "technically incorrect", and your assumptions " largely baseless and the fruit of miscalculated preconceptions of the Glazer business plan."

There's plenty of humble pie to go around. TMRD ought to fess up to being "99% certain" that the Glazers would take the carveouts while another leading protagonist should apologise for suggesting that the Glazers might take the 95m in carveout money and refinance using Carrington as collateral, leaving loads-a-money in the kitty.

It's difficult to 'guarantee' how anyone will behave in the future particularly when the prediction, if publically endorsed, has significant negative consequences for the actor. I reckon the Glazers will not now use the carveouts to deal with their debts but I wouldn't guarantee it. The Glazers haven't.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Well, the guarantee that the Glazers would most definitely take the carevouts to pay down the pik.

I'd refer you to the last sentence of the first quote of anders' that I posted:

So today it is true the money is there. You can guarantee it won't be around for long.

As to the rest of your post: meh, yeah It got some stuff wrong myself, I guess I should never have taken anders' guarantees at face value, huh? Note to self: don't trust agenda driven journalists.

 

[Sir A1ex]

That people (A1Dan being a classic case... absolutely classic) can't understand why the fact that the Glazers haven't taken their dividends and carve-outs out of United's coffers this year is a major development in the story is beyond me.

It's not as odd as you reading through all those posts and totally missing the point...

I think it's pretty clear that the one point I've been making over the last couple of pages is not about the fact that the Glazers haven't taken their dividends and carve outs - did you miss "with every day that passes without them taking money out, the chances of Anders' worries coming to fruition slightly reduce"?

The point I've clearly been making is that the refinancing of the debt doesn't, in itself prove anything / close any arguments and the impact it has cannot be judged without knowledge of where the money came from.
It probably improves things / reduces the chance of a carve out being required, but we just don't know to what extent.

Note to Rood: Look, I got misrepresented slightly by TMRD, and had the decency to a) presume it was a misuinderstanding, not a "straw man" and b) explain my actual point rather than resorting to posting in Morse code.

 

[ciderman9000000]

I resent the accusation made here:

Nothwithstanding your efforts to reconstruct your own position regarding the careveouts-as in:

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.....

I am pretty certain that not long ago you were advocating pik stabilisation by using the carveouts upfront followed by infrequent payments thereafter. As it turns out, you were "technically incorrect", and your assumptions " largely baseless and the fruit of miscalculated preconceptions of the Glazer business plan."

If you read through my posts you'll find that I've always held the opinion that the owners would only ever take cash from the club if it were absolutely necessary, I've never 'reconstructed my position' on this. I was wrongly under the impression that it was absolutely necessary to take the carveout this year, and I only ever advocated this happening because it was apparent that the club could afford it without impacting on our on field success. So what position of mine have I supposedly reconstructed? I've always said that there are ample funds available for transfers, and I've always said that the owners would never put the club in a position in which funds were not available (I imagine they'd sell the club long before they let themselves be backed into that corner). If I'd have known that other options were available regarding the PIK's then I'd likely have endorsed those as more probable eventualities, because to extract capital from the club unnecessarily, or to put the club in a position in which it cannot function at the top level, would not make any sense to me considering the vast potential of the investment. I don't know for how long or how meticulously you've been following my posts, Jazz, but if you think my above position is somehow reconstructed then you are very wrong.

 

[Sir A1ex]

I've always held the opinion that the owners would only ever take cash from the club if it were absolutely necessary. I was wrongly under the impression that it was absolutely necessary to take the carveout this year.

I'm genuinely confused here...

Is that not exactly what AndersRed is being mocked for?

Didn't you tell me to f-off for saying this is what you had previously thought?

 

[peterstorey]

Everybody thought they were going to take the money. GCHQ tied himself in knots trying to say how they would use it to pay off the PIKS but it wasn't money going out of the club.

 

[ciderman9000000]

I'm genuinely confused here...

Is that not exactly what AndersRed is being mocked for?

Didn't you tell me to f-off for saying this is what you had previously thought?

'f-off'

If you perceive it as mockery towards anders then that's fine, I wouldn't say so exactly myself, but it's understandable that you think that that is what this is about.

In an effort to clear up your confusion though, you should understand that anders' error is greater than anyone else's (not least because most of us only made the same error because anders, a supposed expert in the field, guaranteed us of its accuracy) because his predictions were pivotal to his entire argument; that the Glazers would take the club's money and leave us nothing left over with which to keep United a competitive football team; that's what the Glazers were all about, he told us, and so that's what they'll do, guaranteed: that we should all boycott the club was his conclusion and his advice. Well he was wrong, and whilst being so wrong gave his argument a massive kick in the balls, in sharp contrast it served to solidify the long-standing viewpoints of those opposing his stance; that the Glazers are not the demonic forces of evil hellbent on destroying United that groups such as MUST try so hard to portray them as being.

The Glazers have protected their asset first and foremost, just as myself and others predicted would be their priority; they did not use the club as a cash cow. So whilst none of us quite saw the clearing of the PIK's coming, the move was exactly the type of thing that many of us have always said the Glazers would gear towards - maybe better than we'd hoped, but the right sentiment nonetheless - and exactly the type of thing that anders guaranteed everyone would never happen.

So yes, I did get angry and tell you to f-off when you suggested that we'd all been just as wrong as anders, because it's absolute bollocks.

 

[peterstorey]

So whilst none of us quite saw the clearing of the PIK's coming, the move was exactly the type of thing that many of us have always said the Glazers would gear towards, and exactly the type of thing that anders guaranteed everyone would never happen. Then yes, I did get angry and tell you to f-off when you suggested that we'd all been just as wrong as anders, because it's absolutely bollocks.

They did use the club's money to pay off the first tranche of PIKS though.

 

[GCHQ]

They did use the club's money to pay off the first tranche of PIKS though.

That wasn't a PIK loan. I'm not sure how many times I have to point that out to you. Think we're at the 356th time in this thread alone.

 

[peterstorey]

That wasn't a PIK loan. I'm not sure how many times I have to point that out to you. Think we're at the 356th time in this thread alone.

Yes it was, part of the original two-tier PIKS from Citadel, Och-Ziff and Perry Capital at about 20 percent.

 

[GCHQ]

Everybody thought they were going to take the money. GCHQ tied himself in knots trying to say how they would use it to pay off the PIKS but it wasn't money going out of the club.

I didn't tie myself in knots arguing that point. We were looking at how Gill could argue that the club's money hadn't been used for PIK repayment if the dividends were taken. As it turns out, Gill was being entirely open and honest all along.

This thread of course is littered with your own embarrassingly inaccurate predictions. Not least the post shortly after it was revealed that the PIK loan was being repaid where you claimed that you'd predicted it six months ago, in so much as the Glazers would repay the PIK loan in its entirety using the club's money. How did that one turn out, Peter?

I always stated that taking the dividends was a possibility. I also however went to great lengths to point out that there were other options available to the Glazers. I was providing the logical, balanced view in this thread. As Ciderman says the argument in this thread was really about whether the Glazers would need to take cash out of the club to the extent that it would negatively impact upon how the club was run. The likes of Andersred and RedJazz argued that they simply had to take as much cash as possible out of the club in order to pay down the PIK loan because there were no other options. There are pages upon pages of posts agruing over that very point in this thread. Lest we forget the tables of figures that Anders and Red Jazz liked to post to illustrate how the club wouldn't have any transfer funds available after the Glazers had taken the dividends out. Myself and others repeatedly argued, quite correctly, that the Glazers a) had other options available to prevent them from having to do that and b) that it made no logical sense to deprive their £1bn+ asset of the funds to sustain the growth that they'd enjoyed since 2005.

On my first day in the mains and I my first exchange with anyone over the issue of whether the Glazers would take out the dividends, this is what was said. Our friend A1Dan makes an appearance here.

Me

Money from the club might be used to repay part of them back, yes. Then again, money from the club might not be used to repay part of them back. We don't know do we? Nobody knows. It's obviously enitirely at the Glazers discretion as to what happens to the PIK loan.

A1Dan



Oh come on...

I'd be the first to admit that most of what you say is fairly reasonable, but you just sound daft trying to push the above.

Me

A1Dan, you've obviously never considered that there are other ways for the Glazers to ''manage'' the PIK loan. And one of the main alternatives is to attempt a refinancing of the loan at cheaper rates.

So there we go. And no, I can assure you that I'm not going to be eating any humble pie. I will however be drinking a pint of Stella thanks to being the only person to take Andersred up on his offer of a ''pint to anyone who thinks the Glazers won't use the club's cash to pay down the PIK loan''.

For a long time I was a lone voice both on this forum and before that on another one arguing that there were other options available to the Glazers to pay down the PIK loan and that it didn't make any sense to take cash out to the extent that it would prevent the club from investing in its future. I was largely ridiculed, abused and castigated for holding that view. Andersred accused me of taking a contrarian view simply to wind up the anti-Glazers fanatics. People told me to shut up because I was apparently harming the effort to remove the Glazers from Old Trafford.

Any objective observer of this thread will tell you that I've been the voice of reason all along. The misleading, bullshit propaganda has most definitely been coming from one side and one side alone ever since the bond issue. I don't really have to point that out though. As Andersred said, ''Let the record show.''

 

[Sir A1ex]

Nice piece of taking out of context there, text-book GCHQ stuff.

The above exchange was about whether the fact that the PIKs were not secured against the club meant they had nothing to do with the club.

Even you admited that there was a reasonable chance money may be taken from the club to pay them off, which meant that they could not be dismissed as "nothing to do with the club".

 

[GCHQ]

Yes it was, part of the original two-tier PIKS from Citadel, Och-Ziff and Perry Capital at about 20 percent.

No, they weren't PIKs.

 

[GCHQ]

Nice piece of taking out of context there, text-book GCHQ stuff.

The above exchange was about whether the fact that the PIKs were not secured against the club meant they had nothing to do with the club.

Even you admited that there was a reasonable chance money may be taken from the club to pay them off, which meant that they could not be dismissed as "nothing to do with the club".

Err no. It was in response to this post from your good self:

Right, so money from the club won't be used to pay them back? That's a relief, there was me thinking they represented a drain on our finances.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, A1Dan.

 

[peterstorey]

No, they weren't PIKs.

I'm pretty sure they were - they were part of the package that converted to 30% of equity, in any event they were debts paid off by club funds.

 

[GCHQ]

I'm pretty sure they were - they were part of the package that converted to 30% of equity, in any event they were debts paid off by club funds.

They weren't. They were redeemable discount preferred securities (preferred shares).

This was always intended as very-short term debt to get around the PLC board's decision to reject the Glazers first offer and indeed the debt was refinanced just over 12 months later once the significant early redemption penalty clause had expired.

 

[GCHQ]

The official announcement of the Epson deal came today. That's a sponsorship deal, not a takeover.

Reds join forces with Epson

Epson has signed a global sponsorship agreement to become Official Office Equipment Partner to Manchester United.

The agreement, which starts immediately, sees Epson, one of the leading manufacturers of printers, projectors and scanners worldwide, supply United with its equipment throughout Old Trafford. The deal will see Epson align its brand with the club and raise its profile in Europe and globally where the Reds are followed. The partnership was launched at Old Trafford on Friday, ahead of Saturday’s game against Blackburn, with manager Sir Alex Ferguson, chief executive David Gill and the entire first team squad in attendance.

Speaking at the launch, Epson’s Global President, Mr Minoru Usui, said: “The partnership with Manchester United aligns Epson with an exciting and globally recognised brand, bringing us closer to our customers worldwide. Leading the way through constant creativity and innovation both brands share a commitment to achieving the highest standards. Our vision to excite and inspire customers is represented by United’s success on the pitch and the unique printer and projector technologies for which Epson is renowned.”

Epson expects the agreement to allow the brand to get closer to its customers and their passions. Epson believes in giving something back to the communities in which it operates and there are strong synergies with United, who also have a strong community spirit and are well-known for their local community programmes.

Reds' chief executive David Gill added: “We are delighted to have Epson as one of our commercial partners and are looking forward to developing an exciting communications programme that helps us both achieve our business goals. Epson is a superb global brand, that sits perfectly alongside our existing partners.”

Reds join forces with Epson - Manchester United Official Web Site

Some quite amusing pictures of the launch on getty images: Getty Images - Unsupported browser detected

 

[ciderman9000000]

I can see that Epson 10 shirt becoming a terrace classic.

 

[esmufc07]

And in the modern game, you dont win trophies by spending the least either.

You say you would rather the money was spent wisely.

Bebe ?

7 million for a player who even SAF admits he's never seen play.

19 million for a defender from a club that had one of the worst away records in the premiership last season.

Does that really sound like spending wisely to you ?

Our team is looking lightweight. Whichever way you want to paint over it.

Ciderman goes on about one goal costing us the PL title last season. I would argue that it was alot of lucky breaks we got that kept us in contention. Chelsea looked 10 times more dangerous than us after christmas, and its no coincidence that our stuttering came at the same time as Rooneys dip in form.

Whatever way you want to paint over it, the Glazers have restricted the transfers we could and should have made. The debts have hampered Uniteds ability to compete.

Fergie goes on about no value in the market. Thats so true. There is no value in the market when you cant afford what everyone else can afford. There just arent the players available of the standard we need, at a price we can afford.

Anyone who seriously believes we are capable of keeping up with Chelsea this season is deluded. We are going to struggle to finish top 3 this season, mark my words. We look jaded, we look imbalanced, we look inexperienced.

And thats all down to the fact our players are either too old, or too inexperienced to compete. If we lose Scholes or Giggs for any length of time we are royally fecked, and if you are telling me that relying on players of that age is wise, then I seriously give up.

Looking through the Caf bets thread and came across this

 

[Rood]

Looking through the Caf bets thread and came across this

Yep, looking good for me on that bet - I hope he pays up! For some reason Fred seems to have disappeared recently, cant think why

 

[Allforone]

I still dont understand why so many on here think hes a United fan? hes not been a United fan since 2005 its patently obvious every time he posts.

 

[ciderman9000000]

When will people learn that SAF's actually a pretty decent manager?

 

[dev1l]

When will people learn that SAF's actually a pretty decent manager?

Probably when he s gone...