I am absolutely stunned by the reactions of some people on here to this news. Another u-turn from the Glazers, taking money out of the club they never invested in the first place. Leeching scum.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Yup. The man is the reason for all our success. If anyone's entitled to it, it's him.
They are taking no money out of the club.
They own the club, they are actually selling some of it, and on net, the club and the glazers are better off.
The reaction here is short-sighted:
- The Glazers will own less of the club
- The Glazers are willing to pay off some of the debt
- We will have less interest repayments
- Fergie and Gill will get greater rewards for performance.
Like I said in an earlier post. Some short-sighted people here would rather none of the above happen. This is a winning move for all involved.
How does the Glazers selling 10% of their shares 'take money out of the club'.
That money was never in the club in the first place. It was in the bank accounts of the people who bought the shares.
Never mind! I know I'm wasting my time.
I honestly don't know where to start on this one. It sounds like PR spin of the worst kind
. Wow we sure are lucky the Glazers are going to pay off some of the debt they loaded onto the club. Whilst at the same time lining their own pockets despite no investment of their own money in the first place. They are leeching money out of the club. The fact David Gill is going to get greater awards is NOT a positive!I didn't realize at first that they had decided that rather than sell all new shares they had sold some new shares and some of their own. It's not ideal but it's definitely not as bad as them selling all new shares and pocketing half the cash. The sale of the new shares going back in the club and the money they take for themselves has reduced their control and may potentially be reinvested although doubtful. As I said not ideal but better than nothing. I guess they think they can manage the debt as it is and if need be sell more. Personally I don't understand why they don't raise enough to clear the debt and pay themselves dividends rather than paying out interest but I guess they must have a reason for doing what they're doing.
Yup. On balance, that has to be a positive step.
That's what I find so bemusing about all the posturing from the usual suspects. I've been assuming for a while now that the most vocal opponents of the current regime want the Glazers out of the club. ASAP. Which seems like a reasonable goal.
Now if they had paid down a much larger chunk of the debt all that would mean is that their position as owners becomes more secure. If they ever let the debt repayments get on top of them, they're much more likely to be forced to sell up to whichever sugar daddy might be lurking in the bushes. The more manageable the debt, the longer they will remain as owners of MUFC. Isn't that obvious?
If what the fans really want is a regime change why on earth would they be in favour of using all the money raised from an IPO to pay down debt? Surely this latest scenario is actually a step towards - not away from - their long-term goal?
I think there is an element of resentment about the Glazers that transcends any specific details about what they are doing, how much money they are taking from the club. There is an element of principle. These people are parasites, leeches. Of course it matters what they are extracting and how much damage they are doing. But sometimes, regardless of the details, when you have a leech on you, you burn it off.
For me, if we paid x for assorted costs as a PLC, versus x in payments the Glazers are making to themselves for doing feck all, the latter is a worse scenario. It is not necessarily about them costing us more - though I believe they do. It is that we are being used by some pretty unlikeable people, who know nothing about football, nothing about United, and we cannot relate to in any way. They have taken what we hold most dear and they give us nothing of themselves, not even the knowledge of who they really are, what they are really about. They are almost faceless, except their faces are all we do really know, and they are very unpleasant looking faces to boot.
Anyway, the damage is already done. It is like when a country has been colonised and had its people exploited. Maybe the colonising power will make some concessions, start giving the indigenous people some rights, some positions of power, maybe they make some economic improvements so living standards improve. Does that kill nationalist sentiment? feck no, it makes it stronger. They were never wanted here in the first place and people will not let up until they are gone and we have our self determination back.
I dont mean this to be an entire explanation for my or anyone else's sentiment. This is a supplementary thing. I do not ignore the details of what they are doing, it matters if they do an IPO in Singapore or New York or not at all, and what that means about the ownership structure, and what it means about the debt, and what it means about cost. But part of it is much more emotional and less rational that that. They are invaders and they have to go, regardless of what they do next.
The PLC was not perfect but it meant people like me could own a bit of the club, and at least we were not one family's piggy bank.
So while I hope this does make our financial situation easier, the thing I care about most is whether it has brought closer the day when they feck off. I sincerely hope it has.
For me, if we paid x for assorted costs as a PLC, versus x in payments the Glazers are making to themselves for doing feck all, the latter is a worse scenario. It is not necessarily about them costing us more - though I believe they do. It is that we are being used by some pretty unlikeable people, who know nothing about football, nothing about United, and we cannot relate to in any way. They have taken what we hold most dear and they give us nothing of themselves, not even the knowledge of who they really are, what they are really about. They are almost faceless, except their faces are all we do really know, and they are very unpleasant looking faces to boot.
Anyway, the damage is already done. It is like when a country has been colonised and had its people exploited. Maybe the colonising power will make some concessions, start giving the indigenous people some rights, some positions of power, maybe they make some economic improvements so living standards improve. Does that kill nationalist sentiment? feck no, it makes it stronger. They were never wanted here in the first place and people will not let up until they are gone and we have our self determination back.
I dont mean this to be an entire explanation for my or anyone else's sentiment. This is a supplementary thing. I do not ignore the details of what they are doing, it matters if they do an IPO in Singapore or New York or not at all, and what that means about the ownership structure, and what it means about the debt, and what it means about cost. But part of it is much more emotional and less rational that that. They are invaders and they have to go, regardless of what they do next.
The PLC was not perfect but it meant people like me could own a bit of the club, and at least we were not one family's piggy bank.
So while I hope this does make our financial situation easier, the thing I care about most is whether it has brought closer the day when they feck off. I sincerely hope it has.
I honestly don't know where to start on this one. It sounds like PR spin of the worst kind
Agree. Trying to put a positive spin on this is just burying your head in the sand.
I honestly don't know where to start on this one. It sounds like PR spin of the worst kind
You have to live in the present and not in a fairy land of what should have happened in 2005! It's ridiculously childish of fans not to understand property rights or capitalism.
The Glazers own the club.
The club has debt.
The Glazer's don't have to reinvest anything in the club, they are entitled to dividends (yet this has barely happened). They could sell or issue new shares and pocket everything if they wanted. They could sell the club 100% and the clubs debt would STILL be there. This is actually a big step towards a less indebted club. Ultimately, I feel that the fans are so fickle they would rather the club be sold 100% (with the debt) to a new owner, rather than the Glazer's own it and reduce the debt systematically.
Yeah, it puzzles me as well mate.
Business investment my arse! Andersred's theory of a PIK2 makes a lot of sense now:
http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/why-have-glazers-changed-their-strategy.html
http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/why-have-glazers-changed-their-strategy.html
It makes less sense actually.
Why put any of the money towards paying down the bonds debt if they have personal debts accumulating a higher rate of interest?
Why put any of the money towards paying down the bonds debt if they have personal debts accumulating a higher rate of interest?
Because of the likely reaction of the supporters from taking all the money out I'd imagine.
Well yes. And you know why? Because that is exactly waht they originally claimed they were going to do, before performing this latest U-turn.
If it never made any sense, and was never possible, than I geuss we presume they were just wilfully lying to try and sugar the pill? And you wonder why people are angry about these low-lifes?
Really?
You think they gave two shits about the reaction of the supporters when they made this decision? Come on.
Spot on.
Using all the money raised to pay off debt definitely wouldn't have made the day they feck off any closer. The opposite, in fact.
This latest twist might do, albeit ever so slightly.
This latest twist might do, albeit ever so slightly.
Anders will never let the Piks go, will he? 
Someone should explain to him that the owners personal debts have no more to do with Manchester United than the personal debt of the owners of Arsenal have to do with their club. And I've never heard of Arsenal fans obsessing over the personal finances of their owners.
Edit: The Glazers personal circumstances might determine what they do with United in the future, but the Piks or their successor loans, if any, have no special status. Anders should just let them go. They served him well. They deserve an honourable retirement.
Someone should explain to him that the owners personal debts have no more to do with Manchester United than the personal debt of the owners of Arsenal have to do with their club. And I've never heard of Arsenal fans obsessing over the personal finances of their owners.Edit: The Glazers personal circumstances might determine what they do with United in the future, but the Piks or their successor loans, if any, have no special status. Anders should just let them go. They served him well. They deserve an honourable retirement.
Because there was no real way of taking money out of the club.
The way they've structured this is akin to diluting only 5% stake for the listing and then selling 5% of their own equity to the open market.
They've technically not even gone back on their word of investing all IPO proceeds on debt.
there is a difference between the two if i understand it right. They were earlier just diluting their equity while in this case they are also selling some of their share.
Because of this (from above): 'I believe that it is highly likely that the PIK2 debt has "total debt to EBITDA" covenants attached to it of a similar sort to those in the original PIKs. Such covenants would be very common for quasi-equity financing of this sort. Breaching these covenants could be very costly for the Glazer family and the existence of such would go a long way in explaining their apparent change of heart on the debt'.
Anders will never let the Piks go, will he?
Well, it must be acknowledged that highly leveraged ownership leads to increased risk of inconvenient payment of dividends.
Andersred is on a mission and his view is as valid as anybody else in this thread. The PIK is gone and that's what matters.
That article was written before this latest twist. He was trying to find a way to spin their apparent intention to use all the funds raised in an IPO to pay off debt as somehow being for their personal gain.
In fairness, that's pure speculation. Anders has no idea how the Glazers financed the Pik payback.
I took sajeev to be saying that too. He is right that it is purely a business investment from their point of view, and of course they will take out as much money out as they can.
I'm angry too, just not surprised because it should be pretty obvious what we're facing by now.
What happened to AndersRed posting int here, anyway?
We need somebody who is as well informed on the details as GCHQ (or as close to being as an outsider can be), to balance his viewpoint.
We need somebody who is as well informed on the details as GCHQ (or as close to being as an outsider can be), to balance his viewpoint.
Anders will never let the Piks go, will he?
Edit: The Glazers personal circumstances might determine what they do with United in the future, but the Piks or their successor loans, if any, have no special status. Anders should just let them go. They served him well. They deserve an honourable retirement.
They do if the club's being bled dry to service those personal debts.
It is obvious. It has been for six years. The "why are you surprised?" question is a strawman. The conversation seems to basically go:
2005
Anti-Glazer folk: "The Glazers are going to drain cash out of the club to line their own grubby nest"
Glazer-appeasers: "Nah, nothing to worry about here"
2012
Anti-Glazer folk: "The Glazers are draining cash out of the club to line their own grubby nest"
Glazer-appeasers: "Why are you surprised, we knew this was going to happen?"
Anti-Glazer folk: "Aaaggghhh"
Did anyone say that? Seriously?
Only that would make them the first people in the history of the universe to buy a business and not earn any money from it. I can't believe anyone would be that naive. Seems like a straw man to me.
Why the last minute U-turn like this? Was taking half of the cash always the plan?
I've no idea. That's one question I wouldn't mind knowing the answer to myself. Seems like a really stupid move to give the impression they were clearing more of the debt than they actually intended.
In terms of pissing off the fans, this last-minute change is far more damaging than if they'd been clear this was their intention from the outset.
He's got himself on to Sky News so mission accomplished.
There are people who did, and still do, claim we are "better off under the Glazers" - we all know who the prime example is. Anyway, the point is, nobody is surprised - there's very little the Glazers could do to surprise me.
Nobody is opposed to people earning money from owning and running the club - this has always happened.
It's the manner and extent to which it's done that is the problem - unlike the Edwards or the PLC, they have put the club into the relative jeopardy of massive debt (debt = risk, whatever certain enlightened financial gurus on here say), and in doing so have serverely depleted the amount of money available to the club.
Its an educated guess though. He is basing it on what is normal in such financing.
You''re asking did anyone say 'Nah, nothing to worry about here' ?
Did you embolden the right bit there Pogue?
A shit load more valid in my opinion. He is someone who understands the issues and spends a hell of a lot of his time researching these things. Which separates him from about 95% of the rest of us.
But shock-horror based on no facts what so ever. He actually has no idea, zilch, nada information on the Glazer's personal finances, but hearsay and rumour. He's the worst kind of self-proclaimed expert, one that has no information, and regurgitating old and irrelevant arguments.
Mate, all of us here are in that situation. We have no information because the Glazers wont give us any. Educated guesswork is better than nothing in my opinion. And if you disagree, what the feck are you even doing in this thread? By definition none of us know what is going on, so why are you reading any of it?
Understanding financing and how banks work and how PIKs usually operate and which covenants are common are relevant here. And as for the Glazer finances, have you read his blog? He spent a shit load of time researching First Allied, looking at occupancy rates and piecing together the picture from the available bits of information. So not nada at all. We have very little, but some of what we do have came from him.
- Status