ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
GCHQ said:
''We forecast that within three years the Glazers business plan will fail and they will be forced to sell the club''
Click to expand...

Where's that quote from? I know they've predicted that the debt could put is in severe financial jeopardy, but I don't remember any specifics about the club failing in 3 years...
 
A1Dan said:
That's noe particularly relevant. It is still debt, and it is still debt that, while you disagree, I would be amazed if they are not intending to repay with money from the club, whenever they get round to repaying it.
Click to expand...

Oh it is relevant. The PIK loan as you know isn't secured against the club's assets and if it materializes that no club money does go to repay any of the loan then it will have no impact on the club whatsoever just like it hasn't done since the loan was taken out in August 2006.

Have you considered why the Glazers sources have indicated that no club money will be taken out to repay the PIK loan this year? Maybe they have an alternative plan? Maybe they wanted to have the option of taking the £70m one-off dividend out of the club in order to provide themselves with greater flexibility?

Having said that I really do hope for your sake that the money does eventually leave the club. You've already had your heart broken today and I wouldn't want that to become a regular event. (I'm nice like that you see);)
 
A1Dan said:
Where's that quote from? I know they've predicted that the debt could put is in severe financial jeopardy, but I don't remember any specifics about the club failing in 3 years...
Click to expand...

It was on their website for years (long after the three year period was up actually :lol:) but they've now taken it down.

Google is our friend I suppose. I'll try and dig it out.
 
GCHQ said:
Oh it is relevant. The PIK loan as you know isn't secured against the club's assets and if it materializes that no club money does go to repay any of the loan then it will have no impact on the club whatsoever just like it hasn't done since the loan was taken out in August 2006.

Have you considered why the Glazers sources have indicated that no club money will be taken out to repay the PIK loan this year? Maybe they have an alternative plan? Maybe they wanted to have the option of taking the £70m one-off dividend out of the club in order to provide themselves with greater flexibility?

Having said that I really do hope for your sake that the money does eventually leave the club. You've already had your heart broken today and I wouldn't want that to become a regular event. (I'm nice like that you see);)
Click to expand...

the Glazers have hardly covered themselves in glory as far as payoffs and dividends go. I find the idea that they would put in place the facility to take a £70m dividend (to pay off the PIKs or whatever) and then not use it, a ridiculous idea.
 
GCHQ said:
SU's Full Financial Analysis of the Glazer Takeover - MUST - the independent Manchester United supporters' trust

Misplaced confidence it would seem.
Click to expand...

MUST

We confidently forecast failure of the Glazer financing model and business plan within 3 years followed by one of the following:

- a flotation of all or part of MU
- an attempted sale of the club and/or its assets by Glazer
- a forced sale of the club and its assets by the banks''
Click to expand...

:lol:

And these are the people messes Ralphie,Fred and co expect us to not only take seriously but support!!?? These are the supposed mouthpieces of the fans!?? Christ, no wonder they banished it from their website in utter embarrassment!

Any credibility they may have had (and to be honest it was minuscule at best given the constant rubbish they’ve been spouting on the issue) evaporates after that.
 
dev1l said:
Analysts say Manchester United must sell players to pay debts

• 'The model doesn't work unless there are player sales'
• Company trying to push up advance ticket renewals

Manchester United posted a £66.5m loss in the first nine months of its fiscal year as financing costs and one-time items more than offset increasing media, matchday and commercial revenues.

The accounts of Red Football Ltd, United's holding company, released today, show a £40.6m one-off charge linked to closing down an interest rate swap – or protection that companies buy against interest rate increases – that the firm had to pay when it swapped its loan debt with a bond earlier this year. The company posted a £19m non-cash foreign exchange loss due to the increase in the US dollar against sterling, which makes the bonds that United issued in dollars more expensive. The remaining £7m contained other costs including those related to debt issue.

United posted a £9.3m profit on the disposal of players that was far behind last year, when it sold Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid for £80m. "The loss shows that the business model doesn't work unless there are player sales," said Philip Long, partner at PKF accountants and business advisers, who has worked on football deals. "It's an absolute mess – when the full-year interest is accounted in and there are no items like last year's sale of Ronaldo, what's going to happen?"

Rising player salaries pushed staff costs up by 7% to £94.5m, from £87.9m, in line with the company's revenue, Manchester United said. The club faces rising interest on £225m of payment-in-kind (PIK) loans, incurred in 2005 when the Glazer family bought the club. The PIK interest payments to investors, including hedge funds, are due to increase to 16.25% from 14.25% in August because of the firm's high debts. Apart from the PIK loans, United also has £520.9m of debt but the accounts showed that a £70m facility available to pay down PIK debt has not been used.

The bonds, sold in February at about 98 pence to the pound, trade between 93p and 94p, putting investors at a loss. "All the high-yield market is down," a person familiar with the bond issue said. "And it's a football deal, which doesn't fit into some asset managers' investment strategies."

Bondholders were cheered by boosting media revenue, to £76.8m, which helped lift earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation to £82.1m, up from £63.4m over the same period last year, the company said.

During a conference call, management warned investors that four-quarter growth may be lower because of fewer Premier League games to be played during the period – due to a calendar issue – and the team's elimination from the 2009-10 Champions League in the quarter-finals, having reached the semi-finals in the two previous years.

The company, which said it has £95.9m in cash reserves, is trying to push up advance ticket sales, warning fans that their season tickets will be passed on unless they make a payment. A club email to executive members seen by the Guardian said: "If you do not renew your Old Trafford executive facility for the forthcoming 2010-11 season before the renewal deadline of 31 May, your facility will automatically be released to the seasonal hospitality waiting list." The email said this is now a "matter of urgency".

The club reiterated that United are not for sale. "The board notes recent press speculation regarding a possible bid for Manchester United," the club said. "The owners remain fully committed to their long-term ownership of the club. Manchester United is not for sale and the owners will not entertain any offers."

The Glazer family are keen to hold on to their investment, despite their unpopularity among the fans, who blame them for loading the club with debt and turning it into a commercial venture. The owners, however, do not want to capitalise their investment until revenue-boosting new technology develops, allowing access to live games and more content through mobile phones, a person familiar with the situation has told the Guardian.

The Red Knights, a group of more than 10 wealthy investors led by the Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O'Neill, declined to say whether their planned offer was still being prepared.
Analysts say Manchester United must sell players to pay debts | Football | The Guardian
Click to expand...

fecking doommongers.. what do analysts and accountants know....
 
GCHQ said:
Well we do know that MUST have had to budge.

MUST - May 2005

''We forecast that within three years the Glazers business plan will fail and they will be forced to sell the club''

And you expect all of us to still take these jokers seriously five years on?
Click to expand...

Had they stuck to the business plan they unveiled at the time, they would have gone tits up..

That forecast was based solely on the sums announced by the Glazers after the takeover, before any re-financing was done.

Even you admit they re-financed.
 
so they got a prediction wrong...same as hundreds of the muppets do on here week after week.

I think you guys are overreacting. MUST still want whats best for the club and that is something that any decent fan should be able to appreciate, whether you agree with all of their methods or not. Being able to unite a large portion of the domestic fanbase in the G&G campaign, as well as whip up a decent sized media storm, and that is a great achievement in my eyes. People are just trying to pick holes and find reasons to have a go at MUST when they currently appear to be doing a good job of providing a united front against the glazers.
 
fredthered said:
Had they stuck to the business plan they unveiled at the time, they would have gone tits up..

That forecast was based solely on the sums announced by the Glazers after the takeover, before any re-financing was done.

Even you admit they re-financed.
Click to expand...

The fact they didn't even mention the possibility of a refinancing, when it was always going to happen, says it all. That is the most blatant attempt at misleading the fan base that there could ever be.

I say again, do you genuinely expect us to take these jokers seriously?
 
Walrus said:
so they got a prediction wrong...same as hundreds of the muppets do on here week after week.

I think you guys are overreacting. MUST still want whats best for the club and that is something that any decent fan should be able to appreciate, whether you agree with all of their methods or not. Being able to unite a large portion of the domestic fanbase in the G&G campaign, as well as whip up a decent sized media storm, and that is a great achievement in my eyes. People are just trying to pick holes and find reasons to have a go at MUST when they currently appear to be doing a good job of providing a united front against the glazers.
Click to expand...

Based on spurious and misleading claims.

Yup, let's applaud MUST for misleading the fan base.
 
Walrus said:
the Glazers have hardly covered themselves in glory as far as payoffs and dividends go. I find the idea that they would put in place the facility to take a £70m dividend (to pay off the PIKs or whatever) and then not use it, a ridiculous idea.
Click to expand...

This is the crux of it though...

If they pay the PIKs off, then it shows theres no money for transfers.

If they dont pay it off, then clearly the debt just goes on rising and rising..

Either way, they've been lying the whole way along, and at some point they've got to come clean and say where the money is going to go to..

Either way, they are going to make few friends out of it, other the ones who have their heads so far up their arses anyway...
 
GCHQ said:
The fact they didn't even mention the possibility of a refinancing, when it was always going to happen, says it all. That is the most blatant attempt at misleading the fan base that there could ever be.

I say again, do you genuinely expect us to take these jokers seriously?
Click to expand...

In comparison to yourself..

Yes, completely...

and for the record, I am actually quite anti MUST myself, but I'd take their word over yours everytime.
 
dev1l said:
Analysts say Manchester United must sell players to pay debts

• 'The model doesn't work unless there are player sales'
• Company trying to push up advance ticket renewals

Manchester United posted a £66.5m loss in the first nine months of its fiscal year as financing costs and one-time items more than offset increasing media, matchday and commercial revenues.
Click to expand...

Jesus christ. What a load of sensationalist bollocks from the Guardian.

Let's wait to see what the Financial Times have to say about the results.
 
GCHQ said:
The fact they didn't even mention the possibility of a refinancing,
Click to expand...

If you recall the Glazers had real trouble getting the funds as it was, resorting to hedge funds because no banks would lend them the amount they needed.

So where was there any suggestion that the banks would do an about turn and give them the funds they needed when only a year or two previously they'd told him to feck right off....

Then of course the credit crunch hits and the Glazers couldnt get the re-financing package they so badly needed. ( well documented and even agreeed by David ( more faces than a rubiks cube ) Gill. )

As I keep saying, David Gill came out on TV and said that the way the Glazers had bought the club was OK and the club could easily sustain the debts as they stood at that point.. Note that all important point.. THEY SAID THE DEBTS WERE MANAGEABLE AS THEY STOOD....

That was a bare faced lie.. Now you are saying "well they knew they couldnt manage so they obviously were going to re-finance"

So MUST were correct that as things stood at that precise time, the debts meant the club would have gone tits up very quickly.
 
GCHQ said:
Jesus christ. What a load of sensationalist bollocks from the Guardian.

Let's wait to see what the Financial Times have to say about the results.
Click to expand...

Brilliant..

Thats like saying I dont like the weather forecast on BBC so I'll turn over to ITV because their presenter paints a better picture..

For all your clever talk, you're as big a plum as Roodboy....
 
GCHQ said:
Jesus christ. What a load of sensationalist bollocks from the Guardian.

Let's wait to see what the Financial Times have to say about the results.
Click to expand...

If the FT says the same thing, what next ?

The beano ?
 
fredthered said:
If you recall the Glazers had real trouble getting the funds as it was, resorting to hedge funds because no banks would lend them the amount they needed.

So where was there any suggestion that the banks would do an about turn and give them the funds they needed when only a year or two previously they'd told him to feck right off....

Then of course the credit crunch hits and the Glazers couldnt get the re-financing package they so badly needed. ( well documented and even agreeed by David ( more faces than a rubiks cube ) Gill. )

As I keep saying, David Gill came out on TV and said that the way the Glazers had bought the club was OK and the club could easily sustain the debts as they stood at that point.. Note that all important point.. THEY SAID THE DEBTS WERE MANAGEABLE AS THEY STOOD....

That was a bare faced lie.. Now you are saying "well they knew they couldnt manage so they obviously were going to re-finance"

So MUST were correct that as things stood at that precise time, the debts meant the club would have gone tits up very quickly.
Click to expand...

They took out £270m of short-term debt in order to gain PLC board approval. Obviously no bank would provide them with that borrowing because they weren't able to provide the club's assets as security due to the PLC board's position.

How many times do we have to go through this?
 
so what the feck happened here then :lol:

I go away for a few hours and it seems the lunatics have taken over the asylum

Fred clearly forgot to take his medication today
 
'Manchester United posted a £66.5m loss in the first nine months of its fiscal year as financing costs and one-time items more than offset increasing media, matchday and commercial revenues'.

Right, I think I'm getting the hang of this, is that a loss including amortisation?
 
GCHQ said:
They took out £270m of short-term debt in order to gain PLC board approval. Obviously no bank would provide them with that borrowing because they weren't able to provide the club's assets as security due to the PLC board's position.

How many times do we have to go through this?
Click to expand...

we havent discussed that at all..

Are you suffering from amnesia or selective memory loss ?
 
fredthered said:
Brilliant..

Thats like saying I dont like the weather forecast on BBC so I'll turn over to ITV because their presenter paints a better picture..

For all your clever talk, you're as big a plum as Roodboy....
Click to expand...

Er, no it isn't Fred. It is recognising the article for exactly what it is.

The plums are the people who didn't recognise that the short-term debt would be refinanced soon after the takeover. That would include your good self I believe.
 
GCHQ said:
We discussed the way the Glazers took out short-term debt to gain PLC board approval.

I take it you now agree with what I've said. Excellent.
Click to expand...

No we havent.

show me where we discussed it.
 
hmmmm.. curiouser and curiouser..

Theres something quite unusual that I've spotted...

Go on GCHQ, tell us a bit about yourself...
 
Spoony Youngblood said:
'Manchester United posted a £66.5m loss in the first nine months of its fiscal year as financing costs and one-time items more than offset increasing media, matchday and commercial revenues'.

Right, I think I'm getting the hang of this, is that a loss including amortisation?
Click to expand...

It includes...

£26m non-cash goodwill amortisation. £19m of unrecognised non-cash Foreign Exchange losses that basically means absolutely nothing at this stage because the bond doesn't mature for another six and a half years. £40.7m one off ''termination of interest rate swap agreements'' costs (cash outlay was just £12.7m in this period). £5.8m of non-cash amortized debt issue costs.

Like I said, sensationalist bollocks.
 
GCHQ said:
It includes...

£26m non-cash goodwill amortisation. £19m of unrecognised non-cash Foreign Exchange losses that basically means absolutely nothing at this stage because the bond doesn't mature for another six and a half years. £40.7m one off ''termination of interest rate swap agreements'' costs (cash outlay was just £12.7m in this period). £5.8m of non-cash amortized debt issue costs.

Like I said, sensationalist bollocks.
Click to expand...

Okay, can you tell from that how much cash profit we've made including the amortisation, Foreign Cash losses and the other stuff you posted?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.