If the fans stick together, no one sells the share, no one will be able to take over. Being listed on the stock market didnt help either
And as I said, if a person is only entitled to buy one share, there will never be a risk of a take over
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
And as I said, if a person is only entitled to buy one share, there will never be a risk of a take over
You wont find enough ppl sticking together and splashing out that money. Plus, do you know how much organisation and support is needed? You need advisors, ppl who organise that probably full time, that will also cost a shit load of money. Money that unfortunately wont be around. Plus, do all the fans really give the money to one organisation that controls everything and later, the club as well? What is their idea? How will the influence the club? Will they represent every fans opinion? All questions they will ask and maybe prevent giving the money
Unfortunately, I think that is the reality that we have to face
Keith Harris as said that he as been approached by investors to buy United.Football Focus on the BBC1 will be discussing this.
Who is keith harris?
He's been influential in the takeovers of Villa,City and Chelsea
There a lot of assumptions in your post, that people will put that kind of money in. While you might feel passionate & some of your close friends do and be willing to put money you can't assume that loads of others will. 120,000 is a hell of a lot of people to find to get money in and basically only get a voting right, probably won't get dividend.
As for when you were a plc, after 30% the Glazers need to make an offer for everyone's shares they don't have any right to buy them all out. You need to get above 90% or something like that when they can force you to sell up hence why even when they went over 30% supporters were trying to buy up shares so they can stop that.
The strongest possible way of getting rid of the Glazers imo is to get another owner in or possibly re-float the club but I don't think this current market is best suited for that.
Yeh, he pretty much seems to be the go to guy if you want to try and takeover an English football team
Dont tell me you've never heard of Orville ?
£100million United kitty | The Sun |Sport|Football
£100 United Kitty
By NEIL CUSTIS
MANCHESTER UNITED have £100million to spend on players and there are no problems with their debt.
That was the astonishing claim from chief executive David Gill, who clearly does not understand what everyone is worrying about.
While recent figures revealed the Glazers' ownership had resulted in a £716.5m debt for all things United, Gill says it is half that.
And while staff are denied tea and toast at the training ground, boss Alex Ferguson is sitting on a huge transfer kitty.
Asked if he still had the money from Cristiano Ronaldo's £80m sale, Gill said: "Without doubt. We used £15m to buy Antonio Valencia but we have well over £100m sitting in the bank."
And he called talk of a £716m debt "a misconception", adding: "As of Friday last week, we had £140m of cash in the group, so our net debt within the group is £360m."
***
I'm not great at high finance so could someone explain this to me?
£100 United Kitty
By NEIL CUSTIS
MANCHESTER UNITED have £100million to spend on players and there are no problems with their debt.
That was the astonishing claim from chief executive David Gill, who clearly does not understand what everyone is worrying about.
While recent figures revealed the Glazers' ownership had resulted in a £716.5m debt for all things United, Gill says it is half that.
And while staff are denied tea and toast at the training ground, boss Alex Ferguson is sitting on a huge transfer kitty.
Asked if he still had the money from Cristiano Ronaldo's £80m sale, Gill said: "Without doubt. We used £15m to buy Antonio Valencia but we have well over £100m sitting in the bank."
And he called talk of a £716m debt "a misconception", adding: "As of Friday last week, we had £140m of cash in the group, so our net debt within the group is £360m."
***
I'm not great at high finance so could someone explain this to me?
Just refered to this in the Gill thread (which probably will be merged into this one sooner or later).
Basically he is taking the bond debt (£500m) and subtracting current cash reserves (£140m) to arrive at a figure of £360m - technically he is correct but it doesn't take into account the PIKs which are now more or less part of the club's debt so not really a true reflection.
No hes not technically correct.
If I have $1 million hidden under my matress, and have a mortgage for $1 million, I am still in debt to the tune of $1 million.. The fact I could pay it off is irrelevant. I still owe that money.
What I would like to know is if this $140 million is sat in the bank, then why dont the stupid cnuts use that money to pay off hte PIK debts and save the fecking about with the bond issue..
$140 million would all but wipe out the PIKs..
So the dopey cnuts have $140 million just laying there doing nothing, whilst the debts is going up by 14. 26% per annum.
Even the biggest idiot on this planet would work out, that if you have $140 million in the bank, and the debts are crippling you, then you use the money in the bank to clear off the debts first, so they arent increasing.
It is correct in financial terms - it is not my opinion, it is a fact based on the definition of 'net debt':
Net Debt = Total Debt - Cash
The rest of your post shows you have not been following what has been going on here at all - there are several posts in this thread which fully explain why the cash wasn't used to pay off the PIKs (basically they weren't allowed to do that due to restrictive financial convenants).
I suggest you read the thread and get upto date on the real situation before coming up with questions that have already been answered several times.
This is where I must be missing something.
The senior debt is Uniteds responsibility
The PIKs are Glazers.
Therefore, what Glazer does to clear off those debts, are of no concern to United.
Given that Glazer owns United he can take that $140 million at any time. He can do what the hell he likes with it.
if he chooses to pay himself $140 million then clear off his own personal debts.
Unless of course, its all piss and wind, and the PIKs are far more tied to United than we are being led to believe.
The Bond refinancing shite was done so the Glazer's could change the rules. The loans with the banks had a condition that they had to pay the PIKs themselves.
Now, they don't owe any money to banks and can pay the PIKs with club money. Which is what they intend to do.
Now, they don't owe any money to banks and can pay the PIKs with club money. Which is what they intend to do.
The PIKS are secured on Red Football JV which is the holding company for Man Utd, all this 'personal debt' stuff is misleading even if there is some of their skin in this particular game. It's likely that the strategy is to pay off the £240 PIKS in one shot in the summer.
Exactly.
How would they do that?
Doesn't the main debt have to be paid first before the PIKs?
The bond issue just about covers that, but the PIKs can't be paid.
For once the Sun has got it right, describing these as astonishing claims. In truth it is insulting the intelligence of fans to expect them to believe this rubbish
Factually correct I suppose. Today.
Gill is a pothead, has to be. What the feck is that
One of the major reasons for the bond was to get rid of the senior debt so they they could pay down the PIKS before they blew up into unmanagable sums. With £140M in the bank plus £70M earmarked from the bond they're nearly there (plus season ticket revenues in the summer + revolving credit line etc etc). Manage your way out of that and servicing the bond is doable.
Just saw this in one of the other threads - thought it was worth posting here as well - some coverage of the Green&Gold campaign and then commentary from Keith Harris & MUST about potential 'Red Knights' etc:
Also some interesting comments at around 5:05 from the only non-biased person in the video (a Prof of Economics) who says he doesnt understand why people are getting so worked up by the bond issue and in fact the fans should be pleased about it.
I doubt the tabloids will be quoting him anytime soon!
Also some interesting comments at around 5:05 from the only non-biased person in the video (a Prof of Economics) who says he doesnt understand why people are getting so worked up by the bond issue and in fact the fans should be pleased about it.
I doubt the tabloids will be quoting him anytime soon!
I can tell you for a fact that Szymanski thinks the Glazers are not good owners for United. He just thinks that the Bond Issue doesn't tell us much we didn't already know (although it does show how the Glazers can use United's money to pay off their PIKs, so I think he overstated that), which I would agree with. I can't think of a single sports academic who thinks the Glazers are anything other than bad news for United.
As a non-biased person I can say that the bond was pretty magic. It allows you to avoid the big principal payments due on the senior debt in the next few years and shoot at the PIKS. The reason a lot of people got their knickers in a twist is that they were happily swallowing this Man Utd 'record profits' line.
Note that i didnt even mention the Glazers in my post!
I was just talking about the bond issue and whether it is a good or bad thing for the club (as many fans still seem to be confused about this)- but as usual you had to steer the conversation to your favorite subject
Well I actually think the main reason a lot of people are getting their knickers in a twist is that they dont really understand any of what is going on but a few newspapers wrote scary stories with big numbers in them!
BTW we are the most profitable club in the world
Well that's exactly the kind of bollox that people believed when they didn't consider the performance of Red Football JV.BTW we are the most profitable club in the world
Now I dont often agree with your good self but on this occasion I have to
How on earth can you possibly discuss the bond issue without discussing the Glazers?
The entire point of the exercise was for them to use United's funds to pay off their own PIKs.
How on earth can you possibly discuss the bond issue without discussing the Glazers?
Well it is quite apparent that you can't - many others seem able to discuss specific issues without feeling the need to mention them in every post.
'Mad' is a term we use to describe a man who is obsessed with one idea and nothing else. - Ugo Betti
We're talking about the bond issue. If you can't see how that's directly related to the Glazers, it's time to pack your bags and head off.
You wish ...Bad. It means that more money will leave the club in the short term to pay for the PIKs and it means that the Glazers are under less pressure to sell before 2017.
But are you not happy that your major worries about spiralling debts going out of control have been addressed?
Sometimes it seems you are more bothered about getting rid of the Glazers than the long term well being of the club.
The debts that were truly getting out of control were the PIKs, not the senior debt secured directly on the club. And yes, the sooner the Glazers are gone, the better. Not for any personal reasons, just because of the debt the impact this has on their ticketing policies and their investment on the team. I don't believe that United would go under as a result of them going bust.
I don't believe the "long term" starts in 2013.
Keith Harris was on talksport this morning discussing the whole debt and the possible buy-out.
But one thing is for sure that one even knows if the glazers are willing to sell, which is what Keith Harris said. Therefore if they dont want to sell the club (and I dont see the reason why they would want to sell as United are a cash cow for them - ie making money from the bond) there is not much we can do.
We have already paid for season tickets, so not going to a game wont bother them financially. Not renewing season tickets next year will hurt them, but how many people will not do that?
But one thing is for sure that one even knows if the glazers are willing to sell, which is what Keith Harris said. Therefore if they dont want to sell the club (and I dont see the reason why they would want to sell as United are a cash cow for them - ie making money from the bond) there is not much we can do.
We have already paid for season tickets, so not going to a game wont bother them financially. Not renewing season tickets next year will hurt them, but how many people will not do that?
Quite a large number since they took over, waiting list gone, tickets (not just empty seats) available for most home games this season.
IMUSA are doing a count of STH's who won't renew next year
You will have to explain to me how United make money from issuing a bond instrument. So far it has cost £54m in arrangement fees and will costs us a further £45m pa in interest untill 2017.
So far it's not only three hundred and twenty five million pounds taken out of the club, but three hundred and twenty five million pounds drained out of English football and three hundred and twenty five million pounds sucked out of the Manchester economy and three hundred and twenty five million pounds hidden from the British tax man- you've been fecked four times over!
All so some bunch of coked up bastards in Greenwich Connecticut can drive Ferraris and shag models.
Have a nice day.
- Status