ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
decorativeed said:
I didn't think it was a very good post at all. It fell into the same theme of painting anyone who is not an advcate of the Glazers as some kind of quasi-religious fanatic. I do not appreciate the idea that all who are anti-Glazer are emotive and hysterical about it. I do not like the Glazers model of ownership whereby bank loans are there to be paid off by the supporters. I don't think they are "evil" though. I also don't think that Abramovich is "just a guy who made good", I haven't read anyone stating they'd prefer someone of his background and style of ownership or that of the sheiks. It is simply discrediting people's opinions by putting words in their mouths that were never there (just as the funny little skit about cheerleaders and pirate ships was doing retrospectively)...
Click to expand...

Ok I cant talk for Ferguson, however the reason I agreed with him is because I know there are a portion of our fans (admittedly a minority, but a vocal minority) who are exactly how he describes. They made their decision in 2005 and nothing will ever change it.

However I would not tar all fans with that brush - Im sure there are even those who fully understand all the facts and have been willing to look at both sides of the argument but are still antiGlazer - that is fine as long as that decision is reached for the right reasons and not based on mistruths and propoganda. I will be the first to admit that there are negatives about the Glazer ownership and I have no problem with people pointing that out, I do however have a major problem with the amount of bullshit that is spread about our financial situation.

Also there are many on here who say they would prefer an Abromovich or an Arab sheik - just go and look at the Qatar thread and see the amount of fools who got their transfer muppet cocks out at the thought of having a Gulf owner with a Galactico transfer policy.
 
Rood said:
Ok I cant talk for Ferguson, however the reason I agreed with him is because I know there are a portion of our fans (admittedly a minority, but a vocal minority) who are exactly how he describes. They made their decision in 2005 and nothing will ever change it.
Click to expand...
And how would you know? Not everyone will cut off their nose to spite their face, especially if the benefits are perceived to be quite good for themselves and the club.
 
Rood said:
Forget about comparing our ticket prices to Arsenal (or Chelsea, Spurs etc) who all charge a lot more than us - compare them to Liverpool or Newcastle and you will find that they are still reasonable.
I think it is fair enough for people to say that all Premier League tickets are too expensive, but that is a general problem not one specific to our club - worth noting that our own ticket prices have barely gone up at all in the last 3 years.

Anyway for me ticket prices are quite a specific subject which I prefer to seperate from the general financial discussion - I even made a thread for it!
https://www.redcafe.net/f6/ticket-prices-thread-330330/
Click to expand...

I'm not saying our prices are totally unreasonable, because I wouldn't go if that was the case. As it is, I get tickets for games that I want to go to and turn down tickets for those I cannot afford. Will be £37 a ticket where I sit (which I think is not too far from you in the K Stand) next season whereas my Mrs will be paying just short of £30 for hers at Everton in a very similar location. If you think about the difference in quality and the fact you don't have to wade through dog shit to get into our ground, it's not bad, I suppose. When they start putting the prices up for quarters and semis after forcing you to buy them if you are a season ticket holder, taking money out of your account weeks in advance and forcing you to pay for them with a credit card, that's where it's moving into taking the piss teritory for me.

So for someone thousands of miles away who has not had that experience to tell us we are just potentially ticket-touting working classes who think of capitalism as a modernday bogeyman, are moaning over nothing and it's all okay because it means he can watch "the players who are able to capture the imagination" (as if we'd never had those before) on his £1000 cable TV package, is a little vexing.
 
Sounds like we more or less agree that our basic ticket prices are not unreasonable - I think anyone who looks at the data for what other clubs charge and looks at how our ticket prices have risen over the years (both pre and post Glazer) will see that.

I agree there are other issues with ticketing and can understand why you would choose to go match by match rather than buy a ST.
 
x42bn6 said:
So why bring falsifiability to the table?



Interesting thoughts. If the Glazers paid back all the debt, slashed ticket prices to PLC levels, got rid of the ACS, and were much more open with the fans, then I would think that most anti-Glazer fans would reverse their thoughts.

I think even the most rabid anti-Glazer fan has a set of conditions upon which he would think it is acceptable, understanding perhaps that it would involve "compensation" of some sort for them being there in the first place.

And for that reason, it is definitely falsifiable - it is just that it is not practical to test because we all know this is less likely to happen than me winning the lottery.

It is akin to saying, "if this dinosaur died in a slightly different position, Italian would be the dominant language in the world today" - definitely falsifiable, but good luck showing it.

Essentially, all the quote is saying is that some anti-Glazer fans are unreasonable, with a dash of scientific colour (and, oddly enough, a Bible quote).

I think we all know what are the key gripes of the anti-Glazer fans - and if all those were reversed and they were "compensated" for their "misery", they would be more than happy to endorse the Glazers again. Fat chance of these policies being reversed in the first place, of course...
Click to expand...

Falsifiability is not just a scientific term - the point is not about whether it can be tested or proven, it is about the fact that some people arent interested in even discussing it and will never change their stance. Im not sure what type of 'compensation' you might have in mind but for the most extreme even that unlikely scenario would not be enough.

Im glad to hear that you are open to shifting your view depending on the facts. As you say debt is one of the prime issues so I assume that recent news about the PIK being repaid and net debt levels coming down has changed your stance?


x42bn6 said:
And how would you know? Not everyone will cut off their nose to spite their face, especially if the benefits are perceived to be quite good for themselves and the club.
Click to expand...

Because Ive heard it from various of our fans myself - some will have clearly said exactly that on here!
No one is saying that all our fans are like that, I hope that as many as possible will take time to actually look at the real facts and make their own decisions about how good or bad the Glazers are compared to other ownership options.
Unfortunately, there are clearly far more than you realise who are not interested and made up their minds long ago.
 
I wonder if the club float 49% any of those 'Red Knight' bullshitters will hoover up any of the shares.
 
Press Release

In response to reports in the Sunday Times today that the Glazers may be
considering floating Manchester United on the (Hong Kong) stock exchange
MUST chief executive Duncan Drasdo said:

"If this report proves to be well founded the prospect of a flotation of
Manchester United is one that many supporters would cautiously welcome
because it could be an opportunity for supporters to once again share in
ownership of their club. However three immediate concerns spring to mind.
Firstly that this would have to be a full IPO signalling a clean exit for
the Glazers. Secondly the valuation would have to be realistic - something
closer to 1bn GBP rather than the 1.5bn+ GBP that the Glazers seem to feel
is possible. Thirdly shares should be freely available to all MUFC
supporters and certainly floated on the UK market to maximise
accessibility."

"Of course many supporters would hate to see the Glazers walk away with a
huge profit but in the end it isn't about them. It is about what is best
for Manchester United - the Football Club and its supporters. Until their
drain on our finances is removed we will never be able to compete on a
level playing field with the best in the world."

"MUST's avowed aim - our inspirational dream - is Manchester United FC
owned by the fans and run for the fans."

"Our task is to create the opportunity for all United fans to share in the
ownership of their club, inspiring the participation of at least one
million supporters."

"Since May 2005 we have renewed our efforts to encourage every United
supporter to join the us and build a mass membership to share in the future
ownership of Manchester United. If the Glazers choose to sell we must be
ready to take advantage this time round. It has always been a regret that
too few took the opportunity when Manchester United was a PLC.
Undoubtedly, there is a desire from Manchester United supporters for
change, with the supporters put back at the heart of the club. We can't
afford to miss a second chance so we'd encourage every United supporter to
join the trust."

"If we wish to persuade the Glazers to go for a full flotation, and on the
UK stock exchange, then a million Manchester United supporters standing
together, represented through MUST, could present a compelling argument.
Supporters can join MUST online and without charge - 172,000 have already
done so through our website www.joinmust.org"

Notes:
Man Utd owners eye Asian flotation
PA
Man Utd owners eye Asian flotation - News & Comment, Football - The Independent

Apologies if this has already been posted.
 
What happened Re: must and the trust money set up?

Did they convert it last year into subs fee's?

Will they have already knew about this at that time because of theirs friends in the finance world?

Will that money be used to buy a stake back in the club if its floated?
 
#07 said:
Interesting article by Bloomberg on the float and all things United finance claiming info from a club source: Manchester United Discussing Finance Options - Bloomberg
Click to expand...

I rate Bloomberg's Tariq Panja as the most credible journalist on United's finances.

Plan A, which was to buy back bonds on the open market, appears to have now been twarted by the high trading price (the market likes them), which currently stands significantly above the issue price at which they were originally sold for by the club (MU Finance PLC).

The bond issue prospectus reveals that one possible option would be to redeem a maximum of 35% of the bonds (c. £175m) at par (1.00) with the net proceeds from an equity offering (sale of the club's shares). The bonds were issued at 0.98 and have recently been trading at c. 1.07. So based on a £1.7bn valuation, you'd require a c. 10% equity sale in order to redeem 35% of the bonds at par.

No drama Obama. Even if we don't find a suitable Plan B it doesn't really matter anyway.
 
DFreshKing said:
What happened Re: must and the trust money set up?

Did they convert it last year into subs fee's?

Will they have already knew about this at that time because of theirs friends in the finance world?

Will that money be used to buy a stake back in the club if its floated?
Click to expand...

The money is still sat in trust but it is a minimal amount as far as I know, a few million maximum - not really going to make any difference in the grand scheme of things.
If the fans wanted a meaningful stake then we are talking about raising around £300/400m.
 
GCHQ said:
I rate Bloomberg's Tariq Panja as the most credible journalist on United's finances.

Plan A, which was to buy back bonds on the open market, appears to have now been twarted by the high trading price (the market likes them), which currently stands significantly above the issue price at which they were originally sold for by the club (MU Finance PLC).

The bond issue prospectus reveals that one possible option would be to redeem a maximum of 35% of the bonds (c. £175m) at par (1.00) with the net proceeds from an equity offering (sale of the club's shares). The bonds were issued at 0.98 and have recently been trading at c. 1.07. So based on a £1.7bn valuation, you'd require a c. 10% equity sale in order to redeem 35% of the bonds at par.

No drama Obama. Even if we don't find a suitable Plan B it doesn't really matter anyway.
Click to expand...

Thats a decent analysis though its strange they need a listing to raise the 100 or so million (given the cash they have in the bank) needed for a 35% redemption. Given the costs associated with a listing, they should be able to find a cheaper source of funds for the 100 million needed. After all, they're not looking at an increase in net debt.
 
DFreshKing said:
?

floating the company on the stock exchange is their exit (if true) What on earth are you talking about?
Click to expand...

They are planning to float a minority stake but still retain overall control - they are not planning to exit as far as we know
 
Rood said:
Falsifiability is not just a scientific term - the point is not about whether it can be tested or proven, it is about the fact that some people arent interested in even discussing it and will never change their stance. Im not sure what type of 'compensation' you might have in mind but for the most extreme even that unlikely scenario would not be enough.
Click to expand...

We are human - we have a price for everything. The most anti-Glazer of fans have reasons why they hate the Glazers - reverse those reasons and compensate for the past and most humans will let it go.

Falsifiability does not imply that the test and result need to be realistic. Cook up the most extreme scenario in the world - possibly infinity - that would sway a human being. If you can "imagine" it, it is falsifiable.

Things that are unfalsifiable are things like an omnipotent being, who is defined beyond the laws of science - you can't kill an omnipotent being, full-stop - which brings into question the notion of omnipotency, because it is impossible to be wrong.

No rational being would dismiss a reversal of every hated Glazer policy plus a million quid in their pocket. Not plausible perhaps - but it is possible to construct such a scenario. Therefore it is falsifiable.

Rood said:
Im glad to hear that you are open to shifting your view depending on the facts. As you say debt is one of the prime issues so I assume that recent news about the PIK being repaid and net debt levels coming down has changed your stance?
Click to expand...

Money isn't the full picture for all anti-Glazer fans.

Rood said:
Because Ive heard it from various of our fans myself - some will have clearly said exactly that on here!
Click to expand...

Well, yes, but then again, some say they wouldn't bang Pippa Middleton.

Everyone exaggerates to make a point. What humans say and do differ quite a bit. We are naturally hypocrites and liars, after all.

Rood said:
Unfortunately, there are clearly far more than you realise who are not interested and made up their minds long ago.
Click to expand...

No, just cynical. Most of us are adults (if hypocrites) - don't treat us like stubborn children who say "no" to everything when angry.
 
I cant believe you are still going on about this 'falsifiable' bollocks - talk about missing the point ...

x42bn6 said:
Everyone exaggerates to make a point. What humans say and do differ quite a bit. We are naturally hypocrites and liars, after all.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself :p
 
Rood said:
I cant believe you are still going on about this 'falsifiable' bollocks - talk about missing the point ...
Click to expand...

We're both missing half the point.

In the original quoted post, half was about "falsifiability" and the other half about risk-versus-reward.

The first half is a misapplication of falsifiability, and the author goes on to claim that since fan hatred towards the Glazers is unfalsifiable, it is not worth considering that hatred. But the first bit was incorrect to begin with.

As for the second bit... I leave that one open.
 
Rood said:
They are planning to float a minority stake but still retain overall control - they are not planning to exit as far as we know
Click to expand...

Where did you get info that they are selling a minority stake?

I would have thought all or nothing. Who would want in for a minority stake?

Switching debt for equity as you seem to be suggesting costs money and loss of all decision making. In fact in this very thread GCHQ has given innumerable reasons why their ownership is far superior and more cost effective than PLC. Really funny seeing the PLC spun by a pro glazer who has done nothing but show the financial and decision making weakness of said structure.

He is gonna have to do a whole load of re calculations to include dividends again for starters.
 
x42bn6 said:
We're both missing half the point.

In the original quoted post, half was about "falsifiability" and the other half about risk-versus-reward.

The first half is a misapplication of falsifiability, and the author goes on to claim that since fan hatred towards the Glazers is unfalsifiable, it is not worth considering that hatred. But the first bit was incorrect to begin with.

As for the second bit... I leave that one open.
Click to expand...


Im not going to try and argue someone else's point - my point is very simple so no need to overcomplicate it:
some amongst our fanbase will never change their stance about the Glazers, they made their decision in 2005 and are not interested in any further discussion about it.

I go to the match with some of these people on a regular basis and I know exactly what they are like and what their views are, others walked away from the club in 2005 and said they wont be back until the yanks have gone. There is an entire political organisation that was set up purely to spread feeling of hatred toward the Glazers (LUHG), and there are other political organisations that are not as extreme but are not far off.

Im afraid that you are severely underestimating how certain elements of our fanbase operate - the Caf is quite a moderate place and most people on here are open to debate and looking at the real facts - I think you might be quick shocked about what some people really think if you managed to get yourself a subscription for a forum like Red Issue!
 
Red-Indian said:
Thats a decent analysis though its strange they need a listing to raise the 100 or so million (given the cash they have in the bank) needed for a 35% redemption. Given the costs associated with a listing, they should be able to find a cheaper source of funds for the 100 million needed. After all, they're not looking at an increase in net debt.
Click to expand...

LBOs tend to exit through IPOs eventually especially when the valuations involved discourage or limit direct sale. IPOs generally start with a 20% equity float thus avoiding change in control issues. The recent trend in LBOs going to market is to use the net proceeds from the IPO to take debt from the balance sheet. Subsequent follow-up offerings are better received by investors.

HK is IPO ground zero at the moment; lots of funds looking for investment, a load of high net-worth individual investors (maybe some Chinese Red Knights), and the investment bankers tend to be much more competitive when it comes to IPO fees. The market there is more likey to accept strong valuations. IPO fees are 2 to 3.5% whereas spreads in Yandland can rise to 7%. JPM (the major player in the HK IPO market and the Glazer's banker) charge less there for reasons not fully explained. Usually the overseas companies that list there have significant sales (revenues) in the region.


The Bond document does not prohibit Public Equity offerings and the Glazers through an offering have the option to redeem (on a pro rata basis) 35% of the bonds at par- cheaper than current market price (about 1.065). Speculation of a Public offering is likely to dampen bond prices- the converse of the Qatari situation. Bond prices might fall as speculation mounts thus making a market purchase cheaper.

There is the option for the Glazers to float more shares than are required to take out 35% of the bonds, taking a dividend from the excess proceeds is allowed and might come in handy if, for instance, there was some PIK replacement housed in RF LLC Delaware.
 
DFreshKing said:
Where did you get info that they are selling a minority stake?

I would have thought all or nothing. Who would want in for a minority stake?

Switching debt for equity as you seem to be suggesting costs money and loss of all decision making. In fact in this very thread GCHQ has given innumerable reasons why their ownership is far superior and more cost effective than PLC. Really funny seeing the PLC spun by a pro glazer who has done nothing but show the financial and decision making weakness of said structure.

He is gonna have to do a whole load of re calculations to include dividends again for starters.
Click to expand...

Read the stories - none talk about a complete float.
It is very normal for private owners to sell off a certain % of the company - why do you think it needs to be all or nothing?
 
Rood said:
Read the stories - none talk about a complete float.
It is very normal for private owners to sell off a certain % of the company - why do you think it needs to be all or nothing?
Click to expand...

I wonder what would tempt the investors. Only 20% on offer for example, they would get no control, the company posts losses so Dividends might hard to bank on. IF the Glazers are hoping for a high share price on float then even share price growth may be hard to sell.

Also the reason behind the float would be to swap Debt for equity. Paying Peter with Paul is a well worn trick I know but are the Chinese investors really going to be blinded by the brand so much they will pay a price valuing the company at 1.7 Billion?
 
DFreshKing said:
I wonder what would tempt the investors. Only 20% on offer for example, they would get no control, the company posts losses so Dividends might hard to bank on. IF the Glazers are hoping for a high share price on float then even share price growth may be hard to sell.

Also the reason behind the float would be to swap Debt for equity. Paying Peter with Paul is a well worn trick I know but are the Chinese investors really going to be blinded by the brand so much they will pay a price valuing the company at 1.7 Billion?
Click to expand...

What would tempt an investor? owning a share in the greatest sports club in the world - what else do you need?! They will have no problem selling these shares

the debt for equity and £1.7bn value is all just speculation at the moment - best to wait until we have any real detail before having a deep discussion on it
 
Rood said:
What would tempt an investor? owning a share in the greatest sports club in the world - what else do you need?! They will have no problem selling these shares

the debt for equity and £1.7bn value is all just speculation at the moment - best to wait until we have any real detail before having a deep discussion on it
Click to expand...

I hope your right but most investors go for Potential dividends, Share price Appreciation or stock as means of gaining control of a company, not the privilege of holding a share Certificate even in such fantastic brand.

I fear we are being cycled through the various financial instruments wringing out as much cash as possible for owners, bankers and investors.

Not against this as a capitalist activity I might add but its a risky strategy that I do not like seeing with my football club, but that has always been my position while hoping their risk taking results with the high reward it can.

Who's going to be left holding the baby when this game reaches the final owners, I.E the ones who over leverage and cannot gain any more revenue or finance/equity?
 
DFreshKing said:
Where did you get info that they are selling a minority stake?

I would have thought all or nothing. Who would want in for a minority stake?

Switching debt for equity as you seem to be suggesting costs money and loss of all decision making. In fact in this very thread GCHQ has given innumerable reasons why their ownership is far superior and more cost effective than PLC. Really funny seeing the PLC spun by a pro glazer who has done nothing but show the financial and decision making weakness of said structure.

He is gonna have to do a whole load of re calculations to include dividends again for starters.
Click to expand...

Dividends which would cost the club considerably less compared to the 8.56% average coupon rate on the bonds.

There's not going to be any loss of control or loss of decision making powers. Calm down dear.
 
Redjazz said:
LBOs tend to exit through IPOs eventually especially when the valuations involved discourage or limit direct sale. IPOs generally start with a 20% equity float thus avoiding change in control issues. The recent trend in LBOs going to market is to use the net proceeds from the IPO to take debt from the balance sheet. Subsequent follow-up offerings are better received by investors.

HK is IPO ground zero at the moment; lots of funds looking for investment, a load of high net-worth individual investors (maybe some Chinese Red Knights), and the investment bankers tend to be much more competitive when it comes to IPO fees. The market there is more likey to accept strong valuations. IPO fees are 2 to 3.5% whereas spreads in Yandland can rise to 7%. JPM (the major player in the HK IPO market and the Glazer's banker) charge less there for reasons not fully explained. Usually the overseas companies that list there have significant sales (revenues) in the region.


The Bond document does not prohibit Public Equity offerings and the Glazers through an offering have the option to redeem (on a pro rata basis) 35% of the bonds at par- cheaper than current market price (about 1.065). Speculation of a Public offering is likely to dampen bond prices- the converse of the Qatari situation. Bond prices might fall as speculation mounts thus making a market purchase cheaper.

There is the option for the Glazers to float more shares than are required to take out 35% of the bonds, taking a dividend from the excess proceeds is allowed and might come in handy if, for instance, there was some PIK replacement housed in RF LLC Delaware.
Click to expand...

You're probably the best neutral and knowledgable poster on this subejct. That is very informative.

I've been out of the scene for so long that I had no idea that the differences were so huge in terms of IPO costs.

A 20% listing would raise some serious funds and it would be difficult to see what they would do with the 150mn or so that would be left over after the 35% they can redeem. Unless they intend to do the long anticipated dividend as you suggest, rasing that amount extra with a cash generating machine like United is absurd.

To just redeem the 35% is probably breakeven at most. Given the IPO and other costs both one-time and ongoing associated with a listing. So if they do go ahead with the listing, its probably a good indication that they need some cash upstream at Delaware.
 
haven't really followed this thread for a while, but has anyone mentioned lockout and the potential impact it could have on the Glazers?
 
Chapster said:
haven't really followed this thread for a while, but has anyone mentioned lockout and the potential impact it could have on the Glazers?
Click to expand...
I assume that you mean the NFL lockout? While I'm sure it will impact the Glazers to some extent, I doubt it impacts United, as it's essentially a separate company.

But I don't think the lock out will lead to a cancellation of the whole NFL season ala the NHL. And even if did, the Glazers have plenty of money to absorb it. If owners can't absorb something like that, then it will never get that far.
 
This is starting to get boring. Every time the club tries to buy a player this summer they're getting him....


WTF is up with that!??
 
esmufc11 said:
We could just open a money-printing factory.
Click to expand...

Have we made ​​a money-printing factory?
or,
has Gill/SAF been right/honest regarding our financial situation all along?
At least, It seems as if we have money and the opportunity to spend them.

In what way will this influence our characterization of the Glazers and their/our financial situation?


Edit:
Ehm, forget it!
It seems as if Randall agreed that the question had relevance, and instead chose to create a new thread.

https://www.redcafe.net/f6/green-gold-failure-334201/
 
Glazers to sell a stake of Manchester United

Shares in Manchester United are again up for sale.

But the plan to put a stake of the world’s most famous football club back on the market will only strengthen the Glazer family’s grip on power at Old Trafford.

Sunday Mirror Sport understands that United’s reviled American owners are preparing to sell up to a quarter of the club in a move that could raise more than £400million.

That would enable them to slash the £500m debts that are currently costing United £45million-a-year to service.

And the Glazers would then be able to pay themselves – and other new investors – millions in dividends every year.

Investment giants UBS are advising on the sale which is called an Initial Public Offering.

The Glazers are looking to cash in on between 15% and 25% of United.

They value the club at £1.7billion – an astonishing increase on the £800m they paid when purchasing the Reds in an £800m leveraged buy-out that split the club apart in May 2005.

A city source said: “The belief is that the Glazers are trying to clear as much of the United debt as possible but still retain at least 75% of the club and therefore stay in full control.

“It’s a smart move. It’s a win-win situation for them because it also enables them to put a stop to the criticism that United is a Glazers’ closed shop.

“If they take this route then they will be open to greater public scrutiny and many United supporters – even those who are their biggest critics – will welcome that.

“To make the club attractive to potential investors they will have to aim to pay dividends to all shareholders.

“If they did that at the moment they would be the only beneficiaries and be accused of taking money directly out of the business.

“If they have got other shareholders they can fully justify paying everyone a dividend – and that would be worth tens of millions of pounds to the Glazers.

“Another factor that would please many fans is that this new funding could also create a situation where more money would be made available for Sir Alex Ferguson to spend on his team.”

When asked for a club response to the Glazer sale initiative, a United spokesman said: “We don’t comment on speculation.”

The Glazers will hope that the move will dilute opposition to their reign.

Some fans have refused to step foot inside Old Trafford since they arrived in Manchester and a rebel club, FC United of Manchester, was formed.

Fans opposed to the Glazers claim that the huge sums generated by the club – annual turnover in the last six years has doubled to £300million – should be used to buy players and keep ticket prices in check.

But manager Ferguson has always defended the owners by claiming that he has never been denied money in the transfer market – and last season United won a record 19th title and reached their third Champions League Final in four years.

United chief executive David Gill, who says that United have cash reserves of £168million in the bank, was quoted in a parliamentary report into football governance that he was “comfortable with our financial structure.”

Gill is seen as a vital ingredient in attracting new investment into the club.

When Malcolm Glazer bought United using loans of £660million, he was forced to spend £62million-a-year in interest payments alone.

In January last year, total debts stood at £716.5million, prompting the Americans into a bond issue that raise £526million inside two weeks and enabled them to slash the costs of servicing the club’s debts.

Later that year they paid off high-interest PiK notes of £220million, although it still isn’t clear how they raised the cash given that the business empire of a family that also own NFL franchaise Tampa Bay Buccaneers was reportedly more than £1billion in the red.

In March, parent company Red Football Ventures Ltd announced losses of £108.9million, a figure that included the costs of arranging the bond and £30.2million interest accrued on the PiK loans.

The previous year, a £20million profit had been generated only by the word-record £80million sale of Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid.
Click to expand...

News: Manchester United owners Glazer family to sell 25% stake in club - News - MirrorFootball.co.uk
 
The problem is they value the club at 1.7bn. Who is going to pay top dollar for a minority stake ? Then again if the Glazers do sell off 25% why should they plow that back into the club to pay off manageable debt when they can take the cash themselves and reinvest elsewhere ?

I don't see where the great advantage is here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.