I hope you realise that you are about to be outed as a member of the Glazer family by Fred.
Welcome up.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Welcome up.
Its most definitely not David Gill...
I credit David Gill with having half an ounce of intelligence.
You said there was something quite unusual that you've spotted about me.
I'm dying to know what it is.
I'm sure you are...
It includes the interest, yes.
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
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.
The 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 PR 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.”
* 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
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.
The 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 PR 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.”
Well gone on then Fred, don't be coy, tell us all what you know.
Desperate times.......have you noticed Fred uses these diversery tactics every time he finds himself getting systematically corrected on every post he makes...lol:
Indeed.
would you care to show some examples ?
Just read through the last five pages mate.
And I'm still desperate to know what this unusual thing you've spotted about me is. Come on?
The best thing to do with Fred is just leave him to rant - eventually he ends up disproving his own point
Come off it Fred, there splattered all over the place, it happens every time with you, you get into a debate on the subject, post some randomly google searched definition or a piece from Wikiapedia, get told your talking anal and then seek to switch the topic to a personal nature because your lost....you do it every time hence im not the only person whos recognised it and your doing it now with GCHQ, you cant debate with him on the topic as hes clearly more clued up hence your desperately trying to claim hes part of some Glazer agenda based regime to save face…..it reeks of desperation.
show some examples..
Well, looking at all this it seems we might not be completely fecked, but I can't see how anyone can say with a straight face that we aren't much worse off with the debt the glazers have burdened us with.
We are basically trying to compete with the best and richest clubs in the world wearing a huge ginger ball and chain around our ankle.
We are basically trying to compete with the best and richest clubs in the world wearing a huge ginger ball and chain around our ankle.
anyway, thats digressing from the point in hand..
Lets get back to the debate, so that the numpties cant accuse me of trying to create a diversion..
Lets get back to the debate, so that the numpties cant accuse me of trying to create a diversion..
Before you stated that you'd spotted something unusual about me, the debate was at this point with my post in response to you:
Fred's update on what it is he has spotted about me
I'm getting scared now. It's my first day here too
I'm getting scared now. It's my first day here too
Well put.
GCHQ, you are a better man than me.
All that banging my head against a brick wall earlier gave me a headache. With everything we have explained, fred still can't grasp it. The amount of people that have been popping into this thread now and again exctracting the micheal from our friend fred really says it all.
All that banging my head against a brick wall earlier gave me a headache. With everything we have explained, fred still can't grasp it. The amount of people that have been popping into this thread now and again exctracting the micheal from our friend fred really says it all.
I'm getting scared now. It's my first day here too
gchq - Google Search
This is as much Fred can do anyway.
I'm getting scared now. It's my first day here too
Right, now on this one I am relying on memory, so not 100% sure of the facts, but I may be wrong.
Wasnt a large proportion of the £270 that wasnt secured against Uniteds debts money that Glazer had previously bought shares with. Something in the region of about £120 million or so, and there was speculation that he'd in some way or other used assets from his US companies to gain finance to buy more shares in United.
I am pretty sure I read somewhere that Glazer financed his initial share purchase with a loan from somewhere.
Now, as I say, I am not 100% sure of the exact details, but if that were the case, then that flies in the face of what you are saying, because having already got over 25% of the shares, he was already in a fair position to offer some form of security should he be succesful in his bid, as he had a large proportion of shares that wouldnt be financed, as they were already paid for.
The banks were more concerned I believe ( and yes this is solely based on media speculation ) that he simply wouldnt be able to afford the repayments on the loans and that lending him more money than he was reputedly worth was just too much of a risk. Especially with the value of United falling, the team not performing too well.
Dont worry Fred, Im still here - I will jump in if need be but GCHQ clearly has the situation under control
I'm getting scared now. It's my first day here too
Really ?
It seems like I've known you for such a long time..
We must have struck up quite a friendship...
I wouldnt expect anything different..
It was never going to end well after that opening gambit.
He reportedly financed some of his intial shareholding with bank debt secured against his shares in United/against some of his other assets, yes.
That borrowing was totally separate from the £270m short-term debt that the Glazers took out (to buy up more of the shares) in order to gain PLC board approval for their takeover of the club.
Fred, if you're talking out of your arse, this by far is the most immature bluff or attempt at a 'mind game' I have ever seen. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, so lets see what exactly you've "discovered".
Out of curiosity, are you a fellow Cheltenham lad GCHQ?
No. I watch too much of the TV programme ''Spooks'' hence the username.
Anyway I'm off to bed. Goodnight.
Shame, I only live down the road from GCHQ.
Without getting too technical can someone in layman's language explain why despite some of the best years in United's history for on field success - making a profit on players transfers (rare for a top team) and constantly hearing praises of our global marketing team bringing in record revenues why have debts increased every year?
Am I missing something very obvious?
Am I missing something very obvious?
I can explain why the debt has increased (and I have done so several times before) but I am not sure if I can do it 'without getting too technical'!
To me it is no suprise that the debt has increased because the type of loan the Glazers used (the PIK loan) is one that is designed to increase year on year so it was clear right from the begining that this would happen.
On a PIK loan, instead of paying interest annually like a normal loan, the interest is added to the original amount each year and thus the original amount grows each year.
Because the interest is high and they are not paying off the loans with the high interest (the PIKs) first. I believe that’s because they have to pay all other debts before the PIKs - apparently that’s part of the terms of these loans.
£66.5mil loss in 9 months. How can this be sustainable?
So what if we have £95mil in cash? That will soon be wittled away.
How are we going to go from a loss of £66.5mil to turning a profit year on year?
So what if we have £95mil in cash? That will soon be wittled away.
How are we going to go from a loss of £66.5mil to turning a profit year on year?
You're completely fecked - Glazer will take the £1bn from Red fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Thanks guys
I run a few businesses. For me it's a simple scenario. If my debts were growing year on year despite having some great years I would be at the mercy of the banks in the future. I either have to find a buyer or someone to inject some capital.
This is frightening.
- Status