Don't be cruel.. You'll shatter his illusions..
Not possible, he is thicker skinned than the flaming Glazers
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Not possible, he is thicker skinned than the flaming Glazers
We are also the club with the most debts in the whole of the footballing world...
Now the bricks lay on Grand Street
Where the neon madmen climb
They all fall there so perfectly
It all seems so well timed
And here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice
Where the neon madmen climb
They all fall there so perfectly
It all seems so well timed
And here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice
Thats not the point, the point is that you are constantly trying to move away from the facts and realities of our current financial situation - you do it either by scaremongering about all the terrible things that might happen in the future or by trying to compare us to other very different sports clubs/companies.
It is true that the vast majority of football clubs do not make any profit and struggle to get by, but we are not most football clubs - we are Manchester United, there is no comparison.
Very good Fred, I think I have already said in an earlier post he would make a great propaganda minister. In fairness at times he actually makes the Glazers finance's look good, quite an achievement
Goebbels!
From what I understand, they were limited by covenants on the previous loan structure, that is now no longer the case, so the debt has probably more or less peaked.
And on the Ronaldo sale being the reason for profit, from what I read on here, it's been explained how basically those yearly accounts are just a big fiddle for tax reasons
Correct we are in more debt than anybody else and had to sell our top player last season to show a profit
Yes it is you stupid moron.. THe point is that no matter how big you are, you can still collapse.
You are right we are not like most other clubs.
The only other club in a similar situation are Liverpool..
Guess what.. they are fecked as well...
You know I think I could handle it if it was only twice, but this bloke asks the same bloody question about 5 times a day
Doesn't matter how big you are really. The bigger you are the harder you will fall. RBS, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, AIG, a lot of 'big' business went bankrupt/had to be bailed out a couple of years back.
I have a business plan though so I hope to be a multi-billionare soon and then I shall purchase the club, pay off the debt, and make tickets free for all.
I have a business plan though so I hope to be a multi-billionare soon and then I shall purchase the club, pay off the debt, and make tickets free for all.
I dont disagree with that but that wasnt your point at all (it was about football not being a business) - but as usual when your original point was made to look stupid you suddenly switch tack to something else entirely.
Dont disagree about accounts being a fiddle, I think that is the case in most business's. As for the debt providing we dont spend and revenue continues at present levels then it might not rise, therfore big transfers are out unless we sell first. God knows how much money they will eventually blow on interest on their huge borrowings considering it is already at £430m, that is a shocking figure, at least Real blew their money on players
You know I think I could handle it if it was only twice, but this bloke asks the same bloody question about 5 times a day
You dont answer it 5 times a day mate you waffle round it trying to be the smart guy
Actually, a press report today suggests they may not be paying off the PIK loans after all, so dont hold your breathe..
Yes Roodboy keeps telling you that.
However, what he doesnt mention is that EBITDA is also used to overstate a clubs profitability to potential investors.
A little article I was reading just today gives a nice insight into EBITDA
an article on EBITDA said:
Oh and for the record, it happens to mention the dotcom industry..
For a bit of fun, go to Google and check out ZAP.COM and see what happened to it..
Have a look at who owned the company, and how much money they lost....
I must be honest Fred I never heard of EBITDA until this thread which has become a bit of a crash course in accountancy
Well by the very nature of the PIKs and how quickly they escalate, they will pay it down at some point soon, I suspect that it will be in the next quarter seeing as the financials are due this week for the 1st quarter, and they will hardly want to admit that x has gone out of the club, that's not going to play well with some season ticket renewals
Spot on, entirely what I thought. I would expect them to tackle the PIKs on the 1st of July
I think they can only pay down the PIKs on yearly and half-yearly anniversaries ie 31 Jan and 31 Aug (possibly only on yearlies).
No idea mate, I'm sure someone who has read and understood the prospectus will confirm
reposting this for the benefit of those who were too thick to get it first time round ...
A message from GCHQ in the newbies who tends to be better at explaining these things than me:
It's all guesswork to a large extent because we really don't know much about the finer details of the PIK loan. We didn't know about the Net Debt/EBITDA convenant until it was revealed in last year's accounts that the interest rate on the PIK loan was rising to 16.25%. And by the way you only have to look at the use of EBITDA in that convenant to appreciate that it is a very significant and relevant financial measure. Fred take note.
It is of course true that EBITDA does not measure cashflow as it doesn't take into account movements and changes in working capital. However the basic rule is that if a company is continually increasing revenue and profitability (like United) then EBITDA will if anything be lower than the actual net cash inflow generated from its operations whereas if a company is struggling then EBITDA is likely to be higher than the actual cash generation.
If you look back at United's/Red Football's accounts since the Glazers takeover you'll notice that in every year the net cash generated from operations has been higher than the EBITDA (usually by about £10m). So far from giving an over-inflated picture of the club's profitability and cashflow generated like Fred claims, the use of EBITDA in the case of United is actually not reflecting the fact that the amount of cash generated from its operations has in fact always been higher than EBITDA!
The prospectus doesnt really go into the detail of the PIK - but I did read somewhere that it can only be paid off in Feb and Aug as peterstorey mentions.
New figures are due on May 28th and might give us a better picture.
Well as I say, I guess it will be August that they transfer from RF to RFJV (or whichever way around it is) because they don't want the negative press from doing it now during season ticket renewals and the transfer window
You could be right - although I wouldnt be suprised if they have already done it in Feb either - will find out next week either way
Yup, we'll know more, but it would be strange that they seem to be briefing the media that they haven't done it yet and then they actually do it
Yes you are probably right - I have always been a bit dubious about these PIKs anyway, I have in the past said that they could be a way for the Glazers to extract extra cash from the club on the sly but that is probably a conspiracy theory too far!
Anyway here is andersred's preview of the forthcoming financials:
the andersred blog: United’s Q3 results to be published this week – some things to bear in mind
Points I found interesting
1) If this is indeed the case, expect the club to push the line that "the Ronaldo money is still there". I stick by my prediction that this money will go to pay down some of the PIKS, I just don't know when.
2)United remain a very profitable football club weighed down with a significant interest bill and with owners who have just signed up to a bond deal that actually increases the interest bill but introduces rights to take out a high proportion of the club's cash flow for themselves. No light is likely to be cast on the real issues of renewals, transfer spending and the stripping of cash out of the club until later this year and into 2011.
I thought these would be the numbers for RFJV as well - so we won't know what they've done to the PIKS (even if some dosh has been siphoned off to RFJV).
I was expecting to see a big wad of cash missing for the bank account and assume that was the PIK payment - but as noted they might delay for P.R. reasons anyway.
I also heard a rumour today that the Glazers are pushing Fergie to make a big signing before the WC starts to encourage renewals.
Hasn't Fergie said that the Glazers don't interfere with team affairs?
Makes sense, as I previously suggested it would. If Fergie spends 30m to 40m on a top player (or players) then it will deflect somewhat from the G&G campaign in that some will see this as proof that all is ok financially. Clearly Fergie will now have to find some value !
Apparently (according to the Telegraph) they have not yet used the 70m to pay down part of the PIKs. Maybe this is a sensitve issue at this time as the money has to be paid or loaned to the Gllazers themselves first.
I think that its gone too far for people to fall for the "oh we spent £24 million so all is rosey.. They've played that card too often already for people to get sucked in by it.
They told us everything was all great, and that Ronaldos money was there to be spent. The prospectus told a completely different story.
That is IF the money does indeed go to the PIK debts.
Some of the rumours circulating around the US suggest that the Glazers may have need for the money elsewhere. And if you believe one radio reporter ( a highly unlikely story indeed ) then the Glazers need it rather desperately after losing $440 million in the Madoff scandal ( but thats almost certainly bullshit )
I have no idea (and probably nobody else does either) how much the investment in United is in their overall portfolio. If they have problems elsewhere then they could be ripe for an offer. On the other hand, if they themselves don't need money in the short term from United and they think it's worth the gamble to keep it then they probably think they can see it through for the next five to seven years and collect a lot more then. Could be say 2bn net in seven years instead of say net 530K now.
A real scorched earth campaign by the fans, including a significant stayaway from games, might focus their minds - particularly if there was a reasonable offer on the table. I mean suppose the attendance at OT was only 35 000 on the first day - that would send a clear message of thngs to come, wouldn't it ?
How many poorly performing companies do you know with guaranteed future income?
How many companies do you know where they have assets that they can readily sell (i.e. players) to pay off bills? Leeds went into administration and have been on the long road back for some time. Are those people who advocate a boycott and fecking the Glazers over prepared to stand back and watch, potentially, City and Liverpool win things with us in no position whatsoever to stop them?
Not going to happen. Should have happened five years ago but not many of us gave our STs up then.
Roodboy if you think that post 1515 answers what I have been asking you then catch yourself on. At best I would describe that as a load of waffle designed to confuse people but does not answer the simple questions in a simple manner which you dont want to do because you cant. They have wasted a fortune, we have no money for transfers unless we borrow more money and the debt is rising and that is in plain talk for all to understand
...said Crerand Legend, surpassing even his own stubborn dimwittery.
@ 'plain talk'"I'm too thick to understand so you must be saying it too complicated and stuff! Anyway, feck the financial details, they're confusing me, this is how it is in plain talk!"
Yeah, you're right! If anything, giving SAF loads of money to spend would PROVE that we're skint!
i'd like to see MUST spin that line 
"I'm too thick to understand so you must be saying it too complicated and stuff! Anyway, feck the financial details, they're confusing me, this is how it is in plain talk!"
You answer the question then ciderman, I think for a pair of self appointed financial experts the pair of you dont seem to know as much as you think you do. You are both good at giving politican type answers, in other words bullshit explanations
- Status