ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
fredthered said:
and your evidence for this is ?

When they took over, they promised us that the debts they had incurred was perfectly managable..

Now you are saying "they knew when they took over the debts couldnt be managed, so they had prior plans to re-finance"

So you openly admit they bought United using loans they couldnt cope with and you are happy with that...

And you wonder why I think you're a fecking dildo....
Click to expand...

I think they refinanced early due to the completely unprecedented economic conditions but they would have refinanced towards the end of the original loans term. Circumstances changed but I think we've ridden it out.
 
Kelvin said:
EXCLUSIVE: Manchester United Spent £40m Refinancing Debt Following £80m Cristiano Ronaldo Sale
* Old Trafford club have £95m cash reserves and turnover has increased by £26m year-on-year * But club debt has grown by £12m from January to £520m * Overall debt set to exceed £750m for current financial year
By Wayne Veysey | Chief Correspondent

Manchester United spent the equivalent of half the proceeds from the £80 million Cristiano Ronaldo sale on refinancing their debt earlier this year, the club’s latest set of financial figures reveal today.

The quarterly results for the period January to end of March 2010 show an apparently buoyant economic picture, with cash reserves of £95.9m and a turnover that has increased £26m to £219m from the corresponding nine-month period last year.

But the Glazer family are continuing to increase the debt burden on the club.

Analysis of United’s accounts shows that the club made a one-off loss of £40.7m on interest rate swaps in the first quarter of the year, in order to change to a more favourable fixed deal after the club lost out to the sharp fall in interest rates.

This club have already paid off £12.7m of this – the equivalent of revenue from this season’s Champions League home games – and the remaining £28m will be absorbed by United over the next five years.

Despite the vast cash reserves, it is unlikely manager Sir Alex Ferguson will see too much of the money in the way of a summer transfer kitty. The £45m annual interest bill already soaks up half of the cash reserves.

Furthermore, although the overall debt in the club has decreased from £543.3m in March 30 2009 to £520m, it has increased by £12m since the Glazers took out a £500m bond in January to refinance what the club calls their “senior debt”.

The big mystery surrounds the notorious payment in kind (PIK) loans, which, although not revealed in the results posted by the football club, are estimated to have grown to £225m. They are set to rise even further with the interest rate due to jump to 16.25 per cent in August.

In the latest annual accounts, to July 2009, debts at the parent company Red Football Joint Venture increased to £716.5m. Based on today’s figures, that could comfortably exceed £750m by the end of the current financial year.

One City source told Goal.com UK: “This is a very well run football club with a scary bank sheet attached to it. If you take away the debt and look at the football club it is a resounding success story making huge amounts of money. Below the club sit some very nasty financial details.”

The last few months has witnessed a public battle between the club and the Red Knights, a group of wealthy individual supporters, with the two parties offering hugely differing estimates of United’s value.

The Glazers made a clear statement in the accounts today that the club is “not for sale and the owners will not entertain any offers”.

Earlier today, chief executive David Gill said that with the financing in place at the club and the growth in its commercial operations, United could “still be a top, top club”.

He told the Independent: “We can invest in players, invest in the training ground – we have plans for that – invest in the stadium and do those things. The money is definitely there. We are not in a situation where Alex is restricted in what he wants to do with the club.”

However, this is unlikely to placate the critics. Duncan Drasdo, chief executive of the Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST), said: “The Glazers have said almost nothing for the last five years but all of a sudden with a supporter friendly takeover bid being assembled and supporters threatening not to renew season tickets they are in a real panic.

“Of course they won't say anything in person - they hide behind their Page Ranking people and club employees. David Gill wouldn't be defending them if he wasn't an employee. When the Glazers go perhaps we'll hear his true feelings.

“The fact is they've put no money in - not a single penny. The money used to purchase the club went to the shareholders, not the club and of course they borrowed the vast majority of that money and then transferred the debt to the club.”
Click to expand...

Hey.. its not that bad..

At least they increased EBITDA
 
RedRichio said:
I think they refinanced early due to the completely unprecedented economic conditions but they would have refinanced towards the end of the original loans term. Circumstances changed but I think we've ridden it out.
Click to expand...

Oh well thats OK then..

All hats off to the GLazers for being clever enough to just take out more loans at a period when the rest of the world is completely fecked up and cant afford to pay their loans.
 
GCHQ said:
The senior debt bank facilities had been paid off by 31st March 2010.

The bond is treated as both a current asset and a liability on the balance sheet of the MU Finance PLC accounts but wouldn't be in the Red Football Limited accounts. That's because the company that sold the bonds to investors was MU Finance PLC.
Click to expand...

Nearly lost this in all the Fred-bashing...

I still don't really get that. Can you explain exactly what the £500m debited in "Current assets—other" and credited in "shareholders’ funds" represent?

Did MU Finance take out the bond in Red Football, and then the individual bond-holders bought shares in MU Finance?
That doesn't sound right, but it's the only way it makes sense to me from those figures...
 
fredthered said:
Be fecking serious..

almost £800 million in debt and you think thats "not massively" worse off than not owing a penny.. and we've paid out over £400 million for the privilige of running up that debt

You've just blown any chance you ever had of anyone taking you seriously with that comment.
Click to expand...

Fortunately you blew your credibility some time ago by repeatedly making shit up and having no understanding at all of your subject matter outside of cutting and pasting from google.
 
RedRichio said:
It seems pretty simple to me. We've got a core of people who, for five years, have been arguing that the club is going bust, that the debt isn't sustainable, that ronaldo was sold to meet costs and that the £70m would be gone for the pics. None of it had happened and all they've got is those glazer bastards, we aren't as well of as we were. Fine, if that had been their point from the beginning but it wasn't and it's embarrassing. Instead of focusing on that and the financial effect on the fans they, and must, have lost all credibility shooting their load predicting the end if the world. Now, even when they highlight real issues, it doesn't ring true and looks like propaganda. Cringeworthy from a group of people who for the last few years have accused all those who didn't agree as burying their heads in the sand.
Click to expand...

You can say that again.
 
I hope to feck Fergie doesnt ever ask to take a player on loan..

If the GLazers have their way he'll arrive on a 5 month loan period and end up staying 15 years....
 
GCHQ said:
You can say that again.
Click to expand...

But their heads were in the sand..

£800 million wortth of debt when it only started out as £500 million somewhat proves it..

By the time you lot accept we're in the shit we'll make Barings bank look like a lost fiver down the back of a sofa.
 
fredthered said:
Oh well thats OK then..

All hats off to the GLazers for being clever enough to just take out more loans at a period when the rest of the world is completely fecked up and cant afford to pay their loans.
Click to expand...

No fred, but we have just experienced the biggest worldwide recession in living memory and have made it through ok, which gives some optimism for how we could cope under the glazers in better future times. Given that they are our owners and there's feck all we can do about it I take some pleasure from the fact that the existing business model appears more robust than some would suggest. That is all. Of course, in babelfred this will read redrichio loves the glazers and wants them to stay forever.
 
fredthered said:
Yes you said wait and see.

Five years later we've found out what a fecking mess they would have been in if they didnt re-finance.. The plans they set out were fecked up, and if they had stuck to the original plans, we'd be doing a Portsmouth right now...

Now what are you saying ?

Well lets wait and see again...

Yes, lets just keep waiting and seeing...

when the debt hits £1.5 billion and theres no money to buy players, we're out the CL and finishing mid table.. Then what ?

Oh I know..

LETS WAIT AND SEE.
Click to expand...

Fred they were always going to re-finance. Bloody hell. The fact yourself and MUST didn't see that coming says it all I think.
 
A1Dan said:
Yep, and there's only one way things will improve in that dept, and that is with the exit of the Glazers.

If you honestly believe they are just suddenly going to have a change of heart and start treating the supporters well, then sorry but you're living in a dream world.

They have more than adequately proved that they don't give a shit about the fans, or the negative P.R. generated by treating them like shit. That ain't going to change.
Click to expand...

Sadly, you are probably right. The only scenario I could come up with if they stayed is this:

Pexbo said:
What's to say that when the Glazers get the club into something of an "end game" situation, they won't have to keep putting the ticket prices up as everyone around them does becase our revenue in other areas is looking like it could be huge. It would be great P.R for them if they planned to stick around and reap the rewards of everything they have worked for and would start to bring fans back round to them which they would definately have to do if the wanted to stay for the long term.
Click to expand...
 
RedRichio said:
No fred, but we have just experienced the biggest worldwide recession in living memory and have made it through ok, which gives some optimism for how we could cope under the glazers in better future times. Given that they are our owners and there's feck all we can do about it I take some pleasure from the fact that the existing business model appears more robust than some would suggest. That is all. Of course, in babelfred this will read redrichio loves the glazers and wants them to stay forever.
Click to expand...

We have made it through OK ????

We're £300 million deeper in debt for crying out fecking loud.

How many clubs have gone bust due to the recession..

erm... NONE

How many other clubs have seen increased TV revenue, increased prize money.

Erm all of the teams in the premiership...

So forgive me for not taking it too seriously that United are somehow in the position they are in due to the recession.

The reason we are in the position we are in is because of the Glazers. Nothing more, nothing less.

With or without the recession those busines plans would have been just as ridiculous...
 
fredthered said:
Who said anything about a conspiracy...

I asked a question. Now would you mind answering it.

Is the report you cling to with dear life, prepared by the same company that got paid shit loads of money to help get Glazer a loan to buy the club with, and has since acted as guarantor against the rolling credit agreement and also been involved in selling the bonds..

Thats not a difficult question to answer.
Click to expand...

Yes it is the same company but they specifically state that their findings have been taken from a neutral perspective. It's one of a number of lenders who act as guarantor for the rolling credit facility.
 
fredthered said:
We have made it through OK ????

We're £300 million deeper in debt for crying out fecking loud.

How many clubs have gone bust due to the recession..

erm... NONE

How many other clubs have seen increased TV revenue, increased prize money.

Erm all of the teams in the premiership...

So forgive me for not taking it too seriously that United are somehow in the position they are in due to the recession.

The reason we are in the position we are in is because of the Glazers. Nothing more, nothing less.

With or without the recession those busines plans would have been just as ridiculous...
Click to expand...

You can knock £100m off that debt figure Fred straight away and if £70m does go towards paying off the PIK loan then you can then reduce it by another £70m.
 
GCHQ said:
Fred they were always going to re-finance. Bloody hell. The fact yourself and MUST didn't see that coming says it all I think.
Click to expand...

When they took over they said their business model and plans were fine and that the club could sustain itself regardless of the debt..

Are you now saying that they were wrong in that supposition...

Are you in fact agreeing that when they took over the club the debts they had at that point were unsustainable.
 
GCHQ said:
You can knock £100m off that debt figure Fred straight away and if £70m does go towards paying off the PIK loan then you can then reduce it by another £70m.
Click to expand...

Not if they have to use the rolling credit agreement to buy new players it wont.
 
fredthered said:
When they took over they said their business model and plans were fine and that the club could sustain itself regardless of the debt..

Are you now saying that they were wrong in that supposition...

Are you in fact agreeing that when they took over the club the debts they had at that point were unsustainable.
Click to expand...

Have you ever thought that the business model incorporated refinances?
 
GCHQ said:
Yes it is the same company but they specifically state that their findings have been taken from a neutral perspective. It's one of a number of lenders who act as guarantor for the rolling credit facility.
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering that...

So at least we agree the people who posted the rosy picture that you rely on as evidence that everything is OK, also happen to benefit quite substantially from the Glazers being in debt....

Remind me again, what woud have happened to the bond refinance if JP Morgan had (neutrally of course ) come out and said that the Glazers were a walking disaster waiting to happen ?
 
fredthered said:
When they took over they said their business model and plans were fine and that the club could sustain itself regardless of the debt..

Are you now saying that they were wrong in that supposition...

Are you in fact agreeing that when they took over the club the debts they had at that point were unsustainable.
Click to expand...

fecking hell. :lol: tard alert.
 
GCHQ said:
Well in one post you said the club is in a dangerous position and then in another you said that you've never felt that the club is threatened.

That struck me as a contradiction.
Click to expand...

Well hang me out to dry. Of course I meant to say that there is no immediate threat, good spot there
 
Pexbo said:
Have you ever thought that the business model incorporated refinances?
Click to expand...

Those refinances were not assured though..

I can imagine the scenario

"hello Mr bank manager, I'd like to borrow $200"

"How will you repay it "

"well I am going to take out another loan for £400 and pay you out of that"

"OK, and when will you get that loan"

"erm.. well I havent actually got it, but I am gonna apply for it"

"what if they say NO"

"erm.. they wont"

"but what if they do"

"its OK Mr bank manager, I've got money elsewhere. I can use that"

"really ?"

"no.. not really, but if I tell you that, then you'll lend me the money and hopefully I'll get that other loan and pay you back"

"Oh well, thats alright then.. is £200 enough... are you sure you dont want £300"
 
fredthered said:
Be fecking serious..

almost £800 million in debt and you think thats "not massively" worse off than not owing a penny.. and we've paid out over £400 million for the privilige of running up that debt

You've just blown any chance you ever had of anyone taking you seriously with that comment.
Click to expand...

Net cash profits in the last year of the PLC were £42m.

Net cash profits (after interest was paid) in the latest full year of the Glazers reign were £50m.

I'm obviously then factoring in steady growth in net cash profits from the PLC era up until now to come to the conclusion that we'd be in better shape under that structure.

Fred, if you can service the debt comfortably, which the club can, then it really isn't something to get too worked up over.
 
RedRichio said:
It seems pretty simple to me. We've got a core of people who, for five years, have been arguing that the club is going bust, that the debt isn't sustainable, that ronaldo was sold to meet costs and that the £70m would be gone for the pics. None of it had happened and all they've got is, "Those glazer bastards! We aren't as well of as we were!" Fine, if that had been their point from the beginning but it wasn't and it's embarrassing. Instead of focusing on that and the financial effect on the fans they, and must, have lost all credibility shooting their load predicting the end if the world. Now, even when they highlight real issues, it doesn't ring true and looks like propaganda. Cringeworthy from s group of people who for the last few years have accused all those who didn't agree as burying their heads in the sand.
Click to expand...

Exactly right this is. Spot on.
 
GCHQ said:
Net cash profits in the last year of the PLC were £42m.

Net cash profits (after interest was paid) in the latest full year of the Glazers reign were £50m.

I'm obviously then factoring in steady growth in net cash profits from the PLC era up until now to come to the conclusion that we'd be in better shape under that structure.

Fred, if you can service the debt comfortably, which the club can, then it really isn't something to get too worked up over.
Click to expand...

Does that 50 m not include the sale of our best player for 80m?
 
GCHQ said:
Net cash profits in the last year of the PLC were £42m.

Net cash profits (after interest was paid) in the latest full year of the Glazers reign were £50m.

I'm obviously then factoring in steady growth in net cash profits from the PLC era up until now to come to the conclusion that we'd be in better shape under that structure.

Fred, if you can service the debt comfortably, which the club can, then it really isn't something to get too worked up over.
Click to expand...

"nothing to get worked up over"

just priceless...

£430 million paid to the banks in 5 years.
£800 million in debt
Ever increasing debt payments
Fans paying for them to own the club

and its nothing to worry about...

At what point should we be concerned..

When the megastore runs out of jester hats and the latest shirt only comes in a medium ? :confused:
 
A1Dan said:
This is the core of the disagreement really.

They are good for the club in the sense that they have made the club into a better machine for making themselves money.

But to be honest I don't give a flying toss how good the club is at making money for them.

When I talks about what's good for the club, I am talking about what is good for the fans. The two can't be seperated.
Click to expand...

They are not good for the club. If things go tits up they asset strip and walk away. They've already taken more out of it than they put in to begin with! Had they put all the money in up front then it would have been different.They could have taken out dividends each year but they'd have had to make it work to keep their initial investment intact. Paying a third of the price themselves and borrowing the rest hasn't made them good for the club. Their buyout is good for the Glazers. They give no more of a toss about the club itself than they do about the fans. They're happy that United have won because it's good for business like my missus is happy that United have won because it's good for a pleasant Saturday evening.
 
Crerand Legend said:
Does that 50 m not include the sale of our best player for 80m?
Click to expand...

Trust you to go and spoil it....

Now he's gonna go quiet for 10 minutes before trawling back and finding something else to dig up, hoping you'll forget about that question when he comes back.
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
They are not good for the club. If things go tits up they asset strip and walk away. They've already taken more out of it than they put in to begin with! Had they put all the money in up front then it would have been different.They could have taken out dividends each year but they'd have had to make it work to keep their initial investment intact. Paying a third of the price themselves and borrowing the rest hasn't made them good for the club. Their buyout is good for the Glazers. They give no more of a toss about the club itself than they do about the fans. They're happy that United have won because it's good for business like my missus is happy that United have won because it's good for a pleasant Saturday evening.
Click to expand...

Oh dear dear me..

Yet another one who has to spoil it by bringing reality back into it..

Look, they increased EBITDA..

how many times do we have to keep saying this..

INCREASE EBITDA.. feck EVERYTHING ELSE.. ALL IS WONDERFUL.
 
fredthered said:
But their heads were in the sand..

£800 million wortth of debt when it only started out as £500 million somewhat proves it..

By the time you lot accept we're in the shit we'll make Barings bank look like a lost fiver down the back of a sofa.
Click to expand...

No they weren't Fred. They took the sensible decision of waiting to see how things went before concluding how good or bad their takeover was for the club. ''Nowhere near as bad as MUST and yourself told us it would be five years ago'' is the correct conclusion to come to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.