ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
We don't know that yet. I keep saying this to you but you just keep ignoring/dodging the point. We don't know how they have funded it, so you can't be so sure.
How do you know they haven't refinanced?
Presumably there'd be an obligation to declare to the bond holders if they did refinance against the club. I could be wrong.
''No plans to take dividends''.
Are you disappointed that no dividends have been taken?
We've been through this, so this will be my laast comment on the point, but it is obvious to all that without any more information, the PIK repayment could be the most blatant attempt at smoke and mirrors ever seen.
Change the form of the debt and heyb presto, we're not allowed to talk about it any more - it's the sort of thing the government is always doing - reclassify and claim victory!
Fair enough if they're going to be secretive about it, but don't go claiming it means anything in that case. You can't have your cake and eat it on this point.
We know they haven't refinanced against the club's assets. They may have refinanced against their shareholding in the club, but like I've already said, it really doesn't matter either way.
For me the most interesting thing, aside from the growth in commercial revenue, is the snapping up of £24m worth of the bonds as GCHQ said. £24m each quarter between now and the next five years has the bond repaid....near enough..I think. Although it's a heck of an ongoing commitment. They probably want to get to down to a certain amount before 2017.
If that were the case, what would happen if they defaulted?
How?
Of course it matter, you're simply being ignorant now. If they have paid off the PIK debt by refinancing against their shareholding then they are securing futher debt against the club, how on earth does that 'not matter'?
Would I be right in saying that cone June and the ffp regs it's going to be extremely difficult for the glazers to take any significant carvout without fecking us under the criteria?
I'm not sure what you mean? I wouldn't have thought that an owner taking money out of the club would infringe on the ffp rules. I could be wrong though but I don't think it would.
So you don't think there's any significance in the fact they were able to pay down the PIKs without using the club's money, even though the entire anti-Glazer protest movement post-bond issuance was based on the ''assumption'' that the Glazers simply had no alternative other than to use the club's funds to repay their debt?
No significance at all? Honestly?
They'd have to tell the bondholders.
No, I don't follow that one either!
I think it's significant that you persist in saying the PIKs were paid without using the clubs money when you don't know that to be true.
You're just avoiding my point, but you did it for weeks last autumn, so I'm not going to keep repeating myself. You're incapable of logical debate - or just unwilling and disingenuous.
On a more striaght forward point - can you answer my question about the possibility of them securing borrowing against their share-holding?
What if it's secured against things not included in the bond issue security?
Of course it would. Any money leaving the club impacts upon the accounts for the purpose of ffp with certain exceptions, that not being one.
Like what?
They'd lose the club. We're entering ludicrous hypothetical territory here which really doesn't help anyone.
But ownership dividends or debt repayments aren't affected, are they? I thought it related to expenditure.
Old Trafford? There must be other assets against which the bond isn't secured.
Such as?
How is it ludicrous? If that's what they've done, and you don't know it isn't, then it's entirely plausible.
Because it wouldn't be the club's responsibility. It would be the Glazers shareholding, so it would be their responsibility.
If we're going along the lines of 'you don't know it isn't' then there are four hundred and fifty million different 'what ifs' we could branch out on.
And, as already covered, if they default they lose the club. Liverpool fans will tell you that is a big deal.
And this potential forced transfer of ownership to a totally unnamed, unknown party is another of the things we supporters have no right to express any interest in, not to mention actually get an answer on, right?
And? He's the only one making solid claims.
That's correct. Dividends are included as relevant expenses under the FFP regs.
Quite.
The Glazers have the right to remain silent, but frankly it doesn't help people like GCHQ who are concerned with trying to persuade us that everything is OK.
I don't for one second think that the Glazers give a shit about that - every Utd fan on the planet could honeslty believe they eat kittens alive and as long as we kept buying tickets they'd be perfectly happy.
It's the likes of GCHQ who have taken it upon themselves to fight the Glazer's corner that end up a bit stuck - lurching from claims that a certain piece of information has proved everything is rosey in the garden to dismissing anybody who wants to know the details of that information.
But they can still continue to pay off the bond debt right? Given that the Glazers have bought back some of the bonds already, do you think they plan on buying back the majority of the bond debt?
We don't even know if there is a loan for them to default on. I'm not going any further with this.So increasing commercial revenues is not introducing capital to the club?
Exactly, couldn't have put it better myself.
So no more wild claims like "we have nothing to worry about. David Gill was telling the truth. You should have believed him" then?
The day has finally come. Nice knowing you!
Well all we can do is look at the figures. GCHQ gets a lot of stick here but to be honest he's one of the few people whose argument or points don't depend entirely on 'what ifs' and worst case scenario speculation. I wasn't around here with the extensions to the ground were completed a few years ago but I suspect a lot of the discussion was 'what if it collapses? you can't prove it won't!'
..that's kind of the level some operate on here. If people have genuine concern based on the figures we know then by all means voice them, but when it's just using the whole 'what if?' scenario to always argue for the worst possibly outcome possibility, it gets a bit rich when the the guy here who wants to discuss based on the facts of what we know gets stick for being a propagandist, it gets a bit much, really.
As for lurching from one claim to another, from what I observe it's those who have been arguing against GCHQ's POV who have constantly grandstanded with their claims. Few, if any, have ever been founded yet we just sweep them under the rug (to use a phrase someone said earlier in one of these threads) and move on to the next one.
..that's kind of the level some operate on here. If people have genuine concern based on the figures we know then by all means voice them, but when it's just using the whole 'what if?' scenario to always argue for the worst possibly outcome possibility, it gets a bit rich when the the guy here who wants to discuss based on the facts of what we know gets stick for being a propagandist, it gets a bit much, really.
As for lurching from one claim to another, from what I observe it's those who have been arguing against GCHQ's POV who have constantly grandstanded with their claims. Few, if any, have ever been founded yet we just sweep them under the rug (to use a phrase someone said earlier in one of these threads) and move on to the next one.
Of course it's included. It's that sort of thing and overspending on the playing side that uefa are trying to control!
It wouldn't be legal for UEFA to regulate how much an owner can pay himself out of the club he owns. If a club, for example, is a PLC, it would have no choice but to pay dividends to shareholders. UEFA can't regulate that.
- Status