£134,000,000 available apparently.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
£134,000,000 available apparently.
No it's not. It's money out of the club to pay off Glazer debt, no difference if it was for the Piks.
People didn't want the debt in the first place.
I think the thing is datura that we have to look past the issue of the debt existing. It is what it is. We can't do anything about it. Until the club is sold all we can focus on is how is the debt being managed and how it affects the running of the club/team. I think we'll get our answers on transfer funds in the summer one way or another. We have to look at today as another positive. No dividend taken, revenue up, debt down. Small steps.
I find it hard to see too many positives in more club money being used to pay off their debts for the reason stated previously. Funds bring used to pay off debt that shouldn't be there is hardly cause for celebration.
The ticket pricing for next season will be interesting as well as the transfer activity.
Anyone care to answer my question? I'm sure you're more than capable GCHQ.
Of course it is. Revenue has increased by c. £150m since 2005.
And total interest payments have been?
We will when the five year Successful plan kicks in...
Though you make a valid point, the fact we were plunged into debt is the issue.
Also why it angers folk when peole come forward saying 'Well the Glazers have been alright really'
It's fairly successful as it is. I think in 2005 the commercial revenue was something like £40m for the year, it's looking set to exceed £100m this year.
£400m at least. Fergie has trillions to spend. At least, he would have done under the PLC structure.
Fair enough. I dont think it can be said that the Glazers have been "alright really" as a stand alone comment. What can be said is that relative to the picture painted by the prophets of doom in 2005 the Glazer stewardship of the club has not been a disaster. It's unwelcome and divisive but United trundle on on the pitch and we, in theory at least, have a large pot of money to revitalise the squad in the summer.
This link is fairly useful for laymen like one's self to browse at to compare and contrast. I believe this was the annual state of play for the club back in 2004 compared to these latest results which are representing just one quarter.
Manchester United: The biggest club in the world - Premier League, Football - The Independent
Manchester United: The biggest club in the world - Premier League, Football - The Independent
I think you have to be pragmatic about it. Ideally the debt wouldn't be there. Ideally the last election result would have been different. But you can either stomp and moan over something you realistically have little control over or you can take each thing as it comes and assess whether it's a positive or a negative.
Of course the debt is a huge negative but that doesn't mean elements of positivity cannot be found within that, if you see what I mean.
One thing that has been learned is that people don't respond well to lies, exaggeration and scaremongering. That has been the biggest downfall of all these various campaigns is that their insistence of being as outlandish as possible in all their claims has, sadly for them, turned many people off. Yet they never seem to learn, although the rhetoric is substantially milder now than it once was, so perhaps they have.
BTW: The fact the title of this thread, although posted many many many moons ago, is £100m out, or there abouts. Doesn't that bother anyone else?
Not really, the titles been irrelevant for a while now... Nowadays each Glazer thread is indistinguishable from another, you could accidently cross post a reply and I doubt it would be noticed...
So, did anything in the results give any hints about how the PIKs were repaid?
No (as far as I can tell), and I reckon we'll be waiting a hell of a long time to find out the answer to that one...
What does it actually matter? Weve been told its the Glazer's responsibility and despite lots of people having shit fits it has proven to be as David Gill said.
Nothing has been proven one way other the other until we know where the money came from.
I'll tell you for why:
The paying off of the PIKs has been paraded around as some great "victory" for those who say everything is fine with the Glazers. Even though those same people went ot great lengths prior to that to point out that the PIKs were not directly the club's respnsilbility. So if the repayment has been made by other borrowing on a smiilar nature, that "victory" is meaningless.
We've had the whole debate about the fact that any new borrowing is bound to be at least a little more favourable, and probably a fair bit so, but that doesn't in any way alter the point that without knowing we can't make any pronouncements.
If there is still borrowing of a comparable nature, then the threat remains that pressure on the Glazers' own finances will result in them squeezing money from their most profitable cash-cow.
To make it clear, I don't expect us to find out, at least not any time soon, and I understand that this is all prefectly legal and above board.
With revenues rising, the PIKS gone, and the bond balance being eroded away the Glazers might just have a business plan that is successful.
Yup, £24m out of the £500m. I think there might well have been more 'buy ups' after the quarter end date, in the first few weeks of January, but clearly the current bond price would be prohibitive to further purchases.
You're quite right that it would be a very odd strategy if they were behind the takeover rumours themselves, and as such I think we can completely rule out that scenario.
Textbook LBO's use both primary (current incarnation: the bonds) and secondary debt (previosly piks but now likely to be replacement mezzanine debt lurking in RF LLC in Delaware) to purchase\maintain the entity (club). Successful LBOs use the entity's cashflows both to deleverage (both primary and secondary debt) and meet the ongoing cost of the combined debt. An unsuccessful LBO is one that needs to inject further capital into the entity.
I think that the Glazers plan to run a successful LBO operation. Don't you?
Why the reluctance to accept the implications?
As I predicted, cash from the club was used to reduce the bond debt. 24m in carveout money. I suspect that the Q3 results (from Dec 31 2010) will show that more club money will have been used to reduce the bond debt still further.
Taking carveout money to pay down the bond directly or using cash via dividends to repay a concealed mezzanine debt (debt visibly but not financially disappeared) is pretty much equivalent from the Glazer's perspective. The overall debt attaching to the project is reduced. This is particularly the case if the bond cost (coupon rate) is close to the cost of the new debt in Delaware.
c. £40m pa.
Woodward stated in the conference call that there were no plans to take dividends. Sorry.
Why are you acting so smug and repeatedly referring to a dividend when the only real answer to the question of how the PIKS were paid is 'I don't know'?
Swept under that increasingly bulging carpet.
Why should we care how the PIKs were repaid? All we need to know is that the PIKs were always the Glazers responsibility and they've repaid them. Meanwhile, given that there are no plans to take dividends, we can sleep safely in the knowledge that no money will be taken out of the club to repay any Glazer debt, in the event that they actually did refinance the PIKs.
And the prize for answering a different question to the one you quoted goes to...
I'll tell you for why:
The paying off of the PIKs has been paraded around as some great "victory" for those who say everything is fine with the Glazers. Even though those same people went ot great lengths prior to that to point out that the PIKs were not directly the club's respnsilbility. So if the repayment has been made by other borrowing on a smiilar nature, that "victory" is meaningless.
We've had the whole debate about the fact that any new borrowing is bound to be at least a little more favourable, and probably a fair bit so, but that doesn't in any way alter the point that without knowing we can't make any pronouncements.
If there is still borrowing of a comparable nature, then the threat remains that pressure on the Glazers' own finances will result in them squeezing money from their most profitable cash-cow.
To make it clear, I don't expect us to find out, at least not any time soon, and I understand that this is all prefectly legal and above board.
Why should we care?! I know you like to spin the pro-owner line but surely you can't really expect anyone to adopt a laissez-faire attitude in relation to how our club is run? If they have refinanced the PIK loans against the club then we would certainly care a great deal, and for all we know they could have done.
Until we know exactly how the PIKs were paid off, and we know that the funding for doing so was not generated by the club or secured against the club then we as fans have every right to question things. Saying all we need to know is that they're the Glazer's responsibility is extraordinarily naive; or for most people it would be, for you it's just more spin.
Ever? A complete (4 quarter) annual dividend can only be taken from then end of the next reported quarter (Q3). Has he given assurances that no dividend will be taken at that time? or at the end of any subsequent period?
For those of you interested in a less selective summary of the accounts....
the andersred blog: United’s Q2 2011 results: running on one engine
the andersred blog: United’s Q2 2011 results: running on one engine
There aren't going to be any hints, A1Dan. And do you know why? Because it's none of your business or anyone else's apart from the Glazers.
It's not wonder you get so much shit when you come out with comments like this. Do you really not thing the fans have a vested interest in the well being of the club? Not to mention the right to feel pissed off at being taken for a financial ride in order to fund the owners purchase?
Talk about shifting the goalposts. Prior to the PIKs being repaid, the argument from the likes of yourself was that the Glazers had no alternative other than to use the club's cash to pay down their debt. Clearly that wasn't the case, and clearly ''with no plans to take dividends'', we have nothing to worry about. David Gill was telling the truth. You should have believed him.
Is it irony that you build it up as 'less selective' and take us to a blog where the person writing it has highlighted the bits he wants us, the reader, to select?
Perhaps 'less selective' when linking to a site of a man who has a self confessed bias and interest in this, isn't the best way to display neutrality.
The BBC's take on it:
BBC News - Glazers deny Man United sale as strong figures revealed
Glazers deny Man United sale as strong figures revealed
But they haven't refinanced the PIK loans against the club's assets.
So why should we care, and why do the fans have a right to know about the Glazers' private business?
- Status