I think that is completely unfair, I have taken a lot of time to respond to individual criticism of my analysis - the only time I get frustrated and start taking the piss is when people ask questions that were already answered to them, in fact often they had already been answered several times.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
I think that is completely unfair, I have taken a lot of time to respond to individual criticism of my analysis - the only time I get frustrated and start taking the piss is when people ask questions that were already answered to them, in fact often they had already been answered several times.
OK, I was exagerating a bit, but people who put around this idea that the "not anti-Glazer" camp never get to have their say remind me of white middle-aged male talk radio presenters banging on about how white middle-aged males don't get given a voice these days.
I don't think anyone's putting that idea about, not anymore. I think even the press recently have to some extent realised that the fans are no longer prepared to believe everything that MUST tell them, that we, mostly, are in fact ready now to hear some much more objective analysis of the situation. We see this in the drop in frequency of late in the blatantly biased doom-mongering anti-Glazer articles; whilst readers wanted to hear MUST's profecy of doom, the papers were all too happy to print it, but now, as it comes to light that MUST were exaggerating and the future seems considerably less apocalyptic than we were told it would be, readers are losing interest in that side of things and instead are wanting a much more leveled approach to the journalism. I don't think anyone's complaining that the sensible thinking fan does not have a voice, quite the opposite in fact, it now seems to be the hardcore Glazer-haters that are complaining about the rising level of objectivity.
Where?
me too - it would take 150000 members given the market value the Glazers seem to be putting on United is 1.5 billion
On those figures to believe the fans will ever own United is a pipe dream to end all pipe dreams.
All MUST realistically can ever do is act as a spokesman for the fans and hope the Glazers listen
No, most rational people have NOT accepted that the model is sustainable. There are still a great many concerns about servicing the debts and keeping the team competitive. Glazers came in at a good time for them and have been able to pay for the net cost of transfers out of increased ticket prices and increased TV rights rather than their own pockets. Whether this current model (i.e. the bond model) is more sustainable than the other two remains to be seen. To say that the PIKs are a Glazer debt pretty strongly suggests that you don't think they'll take money out of United to pay for them. Not the case and you'll only kidding yourselves otherwise.
Beckham's sales was an unusual transaction - lower than we should have got for him given his marketing worth combined with his football worth. So what? We are a big club - we buy big. Guess what, our best players are going to be worth more than others. It happens.
A bit of a smokescreen.
Undisclosed? Obertan £3m Valencia £18m, Berbatov £30.75m Very secretive.
The Ronaldo deal was unusual because the Glazers needed the cash up front to finance the bond issue. May seem like conjecture to you, but they needed it up front if they were going to spend money last summer on players.
There's a measure called headcount - it's easy to argue that we've too many good players and not enough very good players and that we're over-stocked. We've got a very big squad but are still hugely reliant on Rooney.
We didn't undersell. They didn't get as long a run in the first team (Rossi aside) so we couldn't get the fee for them.
The fact that we've had a lot of success in recent years indicates that we've had Sir Alex in possession of the best player in the world supported by the best English forward of his generation. feck all to do with a strong squad.
I'll read that, but I'd no doubt end up asking for a full breakdown on his figures.
If MUST have the money soundly invested (or at last half of it) and if the G&G trendies put their money where their mouths are and shell out a tenner a year then the longer it goes on, the more chance we'll have of the fans at least being able to buy their own stake. It may be that in five years time there is enough investment in MUST together with a better RK bid to blend the MUST money, the RK money and a Barcelona-style membership scheme that can slowly up the fans' shareholding. Pipe-dream but if enough fans can spare a tenner a year, it may be possible when my lad's looking to take his son.
Well said.
But I don't think it will go down well - Unfortunately lots of people on here don't have the attention span - there are all too many who were already complaining about how long the Red Knights were taking within days of them going public!
Well, in response to comments from you and fred i posted this a few days ago...
------
Two quotes from A1dan and Fred yesterday, in response to Mike giving his reasons why he thought the financial situation should be looked into and properly explained. They were overlooked at the time but i think they highlight perfectly the attitude of some posters, and certainly of MUST, that above all else, above finding the truth and reality of the situation, hating the Glazers and spreading hatred of the Glazers should be the most important factor in our minds, our words and our actions; those delving into the truth are nothing but troublesome do-gooders, getting in the way of everything and spoiling a very well thought out hate-campaign!
Like bollocks they have. Even the plc said their spending depended on reaching the CL latter stages every year. That was the plc that didn't have massive debts to pay off like the current regime has. So what happens if we don't qualify for the CL for a couple of years?
Not one of us at the end of the sixties thought we'd be relegated in '74, but it happened. That didn't finish us, but strangely a few mid-table seasons now just might. There is nothing in the premier league rules that says United have to win 20 games a season, and without those wins how sustainable would the business model be then?
The point in those posts is about people who, for reasons best known to themselves, persist in claiming that they don't think the Glazers are good for the club, but also spending all their time trying to make points about how they think the books show that the Glazers aren't bad for the club. It's a very contradictory stance, and one that I and others don't understand... if people just came out and said "I quite like the Glazers owning the club actually, I think they are a good thing" it would be a lot less exasperating.
All that is very different to the pathetic "we're not allowed to have a debate on this" claims that I was talking about. The 59 pages written about the subject in this very thread make it clear that that si nothing more than self-pitying whinging.
But that's what you want isn't it? Half the stadium isn't going to boycott so the only way of the glazers selling up is if thr team goes to shit and the model starts to fail?
no, what some are claiming is that the glazers may not be AS bad for the club as some claim. It's a completely different thing.
Saying it's what people "want" is deliberately emotive and innacurate, but there are plenty of us who would trade a couple of seasons without trophies for an end to the current regime.
And before you come out with the tired and immature old line of "you hate the Glazers more than you love United", I will correct you and say "I value the long term good of the club above the short term".
Credit to the Galzers in one respect; they've seen that commercially on the face of it the plc looked well run. Had ticket prices increased reasonably and further commercial exploitation carried out with the assistance of contracted consultancy (Accenture, Deloitte, whoever) then we would still be a plc but the fact is that the Premier League had a poor set of ownership rules and the club was there for the taking commercially.
Had Bill Gates bought the club outright and used it as a Microsoft advertising vehicle, we'd have coped. The future would have been safe.
Well if it's a question of bickering over the exact degree of harm they're doing, I've got better things to do with my time.
Everybody's time and effort would be better spent continuing to develop and build viable alternatives.
I don't think that applies to you anyway. It does some though.
Well that's been the overriding discussion in the whole thread so I think you have wasted a lot of your time unnecessarily.
Go for it - if you keep reading you will see others already requested it and were answered.No, most rational people have NOT accepted that the model is sustainable. There are still a great many concerns about servicing the debts and keeping the team competitive.
When I said most have accepted that the model is sustainable, I mean that they now accept that the debts can be serviced. Do you agree with that?
The question of keeping the team competitive is seperate and the one we are now discussing.
To say that the PIKs are a Glazer debt pretty strongly suggests that you don't think they'll take money out of United to pay for them. Not the case and you'll only kidding yourselves otherwise.
I havent mentioned the PIKs at all in that post so not sure what you are on about.
Beckham's sales was an unusual transaction - lower than we should have got for him given his marketing worth combined with his football worth. So what? We are a big club - we buy big. Guess what, our best players are going to be worth more than others. It happens.
You have clearly missed the point.
The Ronaldo sale is the biggest sale of all time and more than 3 times more than we have ever sold a player for before - that is why it is classed as 'exceptional'. This is a financial defintion: exceptional item definition
Anyway I already said that I am not saying it should be ignored or did you miss that bit?
A bit of a smokescreen.
Undisclosed? Obertan £3m Valencia £18m, Berbatov £30.75m Very secretive.
I suppose you also know how much was paid upfront and how much is dependant on appearances and success? Please give me the info as I dont have it.
As we are no longer a PLC, the club does not need to disclose individual fee details - we only get it when they choose to disclose (rarely) or if the other side reveals it.
The general point is that we dont know the fine details of our transfer dealings anymore - this is a fact.
The Ronaldo deal was unusual because the Glazers needed the cash up front to finance the bond issue. May seem like conjecture to you, but they needed it up front if they were going to spend money last summer on players.
Well we know this isnt true because at the close of the transfer window last summer (30Sep09) there was over £140m in the club bank account. So even without any of the £80m upfront there would still have been £60m left (that is even after buying Valencia). True that some of this (I think around £15m) was needed to pay for the refinance but there is still plenty left after that.
There's a measure called headcount - it's easy to argue that we've too many good players and not enough very good players and that we're over-stocked. We've got a very big squad but are still hugely reliant on Rooney.
So you agree with the point that we have a big squad and therefore a huge wage bill which is obviously money being invested into the squad.
If anything I think we need to get rid of some fringe players before buying anyone.
We didn't undersell. They didn't get as long a run in the first team (Rossi aside) so we couldn't get the fee for them.
Again you missed the point - I was saying we undersold in the past, not for the players I mentioned.
We have spent a lot on players in past few years but also got back a lot more than we used to for those who are surplus to requirements
The fact that we've had a lot of success in recent years indicates that we've had Sir Alex in possession of the best player in the world supported by the best English forward of his generation. feck all to do with a strong squad.
So you think we only won 3 leagues and the CL because we had Ronaldo and Rooney? I suppose the likes of Vidic, Evra, Giggs, Rio, VDS etc etc had nothing to do with it
As far as I am concerned, the squad we had 2 years ago was the strongest United squad we have ever had and even now it is one of the strongest so I find it a bit strange that people complain about lack of investment in the squad.
I'll read that, but I'd no doubt end up asking for a full breakdown on his figures.
Fred per chance?
It doesn't, that many of you seem to like to paint him that way.
He is probably the most militant anti-Glazer poster here, but I know from reading his posts for many years that he has the club's interest at heart, above and beyond his feelings for individual owners, who ultimately come and go.
To be fair, it wouldn't be the first time I've wasted a lot of my time on redcafe.
I can empathise.
Exactly - that is the entire point behind virtually everything I post here.
Exactly - Why? What a bizzare way to spend your time, trying to persuade people that something you don't like isn't as bad as all that!
Well clearly Im not including you in my list of 'rational people'
But seriously, as I clarified already, my defintion of sustainability is about whether the debt is manageable or not.
There is no way the PLC ever said they depended on reaching the latter stages of the CL every year, that would be financial suicide - please show me where this was said?
When I said most have accepted that the model is sustainable, I mean that they now accept that the debts can be serviced. Do you agree with that?
The question of keeping the team competitive is seperate and the one we are now discussing.
It is quite disturbing that you think the two are not related. How do you think the debts can be serviced with an unsuccessful team? Oh, wait, the bonuses won't need paying; that's ok then.
I havent mentioned the PIKs at all in that post so not sure what you are on about.
Didn't say you had, it was as much a general reply to your and gchq's general financial postings.
You have clearly missed the point.
The Ronaldo sale is the biggest sale of all time and more than 3 times more than we have ever sold a player for before - that is why it is classed as 'exceptional'. This is a financial defintion: exceptional item definition
Anyway I already said that I am not saying it should be ignored or did you miss that bit?
Please don't patronise me, I'm CIMA part qualified but quickly found out that there was far more money to be had in IT. I certainly didn't miss that bit as I'd already mentioned. I'm just saying that we've had a history of breaking record transfers (Robson, Keane et al) and selling for record amounts (Beckham). I appreciate that they're exceptional (i.e. occuring once only) items but they are still part and parcel of a football clubs normal transactions throughout the years.
I suppose you also know how much was paid upfront and how much is dependant on appearances and success? Please give me the info as I dont have it.
As we are no longer a PLC, the club does not need to disclose individual fee details - we only get it when they choose to disclose (rarely) or if the other side reveals it.
The general point is that we dont know the fine details of our transfer dealings anymore - this is a fact.
The figures were revealed, you said they weren't. Don't move the goalposts to suit.
Well we know this isnt true because at the close of the transfer window last summer (30Sep09) there was over £140m in the club bank account. So even without any of the £80m upfront there would still have been £60m left (that is even after buying Valencia). True that some of this (I think around £15m) was needed to pay for the refinance but there is still plenty left after that.
Oh, hang on, £15m? Is that the money Mr Gill said was ringfenced? Someone's lying then.
So you agree with the point that we have a big squad and therefore a huge wage bill which is obviously money being invested into the squad.
If anything I think we need to get rid of some fringe players before buying anyone.
Don't think it needs to be fringe players. Could be a major change as far as I am concerned but we've got a squad that has plenty of good players but how many would get in Barcelona or Chelsea's first choice XI?
Again you missed the point - I was saying we undersold in the past, not for the players I mentioned. We have spent a lot on players in past few years but also got back a lot more than we used to for those who are surplus to requirements
You missed my point - we sold players in the past for £1m here, £1m there rather than 3-6m because they weren't as experienced.
So you think we only won 3 leagues and the CL because we had Ronaldo and Rooney? I suppose the likes of Vidic, Evra, Giggs, Rio, VDS etc etc had nothing to do with it
As far as I am concerned, the squad we had 2 years ago was the strongest United squad we have ever had and even now it is one of the strongest so I find it a bit strange that people complain about lack of investment in the squad.
So you think we'd have won without them? I'm not saying they had nothing to do with it but Ronaldo, Tevez and Rooney up front struck enough fear into opponents that they didn't commit as many people forwards. Ronaldo was nearly always double-up on. Valencia's decent enough, but he's getting stuck a lot when defenders show him inside whereas defenders daren't show Ronaldo inside (and often didn't have a choice!). The CL final against Barca proved a squad isn't the key - they won that with a core set of key players and able deputies here and there like we had in 1999; Schmeichel, Irwin, Stam, Johnsen, Neville, Giggs, Keane, Scholes, Beckham, Yorke, Cole. Able deputies in the likes of Butt, Ole, Teddy.
The question of keeping the team competitive is seperate and the one we are now discussing.
It is quite disturbing that you think the two are not related. How do you think the debts can be serviced with an unsuccessful team? Oh, wait, the bonuses won't need paying; that's ok then.
I havent mentioned the PIKs at all in that post so not sure what you are on about.
Didn't say you had, it was as much a general reply to your and gchq's general financial postings.
You have clearly missed the point.
The Ronaldo sale is the biggest sale of all time and more than 3 times more than we have ever sold a player for before - that is why it is classed as 'exceptional'. This is a financial defintion: exceptional item definition
Anyway I already said that I am not saying it should be ignored or did you miss that bit?
Please don't patronise me, I'm CIMA part qualified but quickly found out that there was far more money to be had in IT. I certainly didn't miss that bit as I'd already mentioned. I'm just saying that we've had a history of breaking record transfers (Robson, Keane et al) and selling for record amounts (Beckham). I appreciate that they're exceptional (i.e. occuring once only) items but they are still part and parcel of a football clubs normal transactions throughout the years.
I suppose you also know how much was paid upfront and how much is dependant on appearances and success? Please give me the info as I dont have it.
As we are no longer a PLC, the club does not need to disclose individual fee details - we only get it when they choose to disclose (rarely) or if the other side reveals it.
The general point is that we dont know the fine details of our transfer dealings anymore - this is a fact.
The figures were revealed, you said they weren't. Don't move the goalposts to suit.
Well we know this isnt true because at the close of the transfer window last summer (30Sep09) there was over £140m in the club bank account. So even without any of the £80m upfront there would still have been £60m left (that is even after buying Valencia). True that some of this (I think around £15m) was needed to pay for the refinance but there is still plenty left after that.
Oh, hang on, £15m? Is that the money Mr Gill said was ringfenced? Someone's lying then.
So you agree with the point that we have a big squad and therefore a huge wage bill which is obviously money being invested into the squad.
If anything I think we need to get rid of some fringe players before buying anyone.
Don't think it needs to be fringe players. Could be a major change as far as I am concerned but we've got a squad that has plenty of good players but how many would get in Barcelona or Chelsea's first choice XI?
Again you missed the point - I was saying we undersold in the past, not for the players I mentioned. We have spent a lot on players in past few years but also got back a lot more than we used to for those who are surplus to requirements
You missed my point - we sold players in the past for £1m here, £1m there rather than 3-6m because they weren't as experienced.
So you think we only won 3 leagues and the CL because we had Ronaldo and Rooney? I suppose the likes of Vidic, Evra, Giggs, Rio, VDS etc etc had nothing to do with it
As far as I am concerned, the squad we had 2 years ago was the strongest United squad we have ever had and even now it is one of the strongest so I find it a bit strange that people complain about lack of investment in the squad.
So you think we'd have won without them? I'm not saying they had nothing to do with it but Ronaldo, Tevez and Rooney up front struck enough fear into opponents that they didn't commit as many people forwards. Ronaldo was nearly always double-up on. Valencia's decent enough, but he's getting stuck a lot when defenders show him inside whereas defenders daren't show Ronaldo inside (and often didn't have a choice!). The CL final against Barca proved a squad isn't the key - they won that with a core set of key players and able deputies here and there like we had in 1999; Schmeichel, Irwin, Stam, Johnsen, Neville, Giggs, Keane, Scholes, Beckham, Yorke, Cole. Able deputies in the likes of Butt, Ole, Teddy.
Clearly you've an extremely childish perception of 'good and bad'. Do you seriously believe that the level of negative effect one thing has on another is unimportant and not worthy of discussion? Things are just either 'bad' or 'good' to you, are they? If that were the case, then how would we have ever developed a system of law that administers punishment in fitting with the severity of the crime? Should a man who kills another be treated exactly the same as would be a man who has dodged his taxes, simply because both acts are bad? If faced with two patients, one with a severe gangrenous infection and one with a veruca, should a doctor diagnose each condition as being 'bad' and amputate both their feet?
This is the level of thinking that five years of listening to MUST and brewing on your own hatred has reduced you to. Can't you see where you're going wrong?
None of those analogies are relevant though. It's you who is over-simplifying.
If were charged with deciding on a punishment for the Glazers then the criminal comparison would hold.
If the best way to get rid of the Glazers depended on the exact details of their financial situation then the medical one would.
But in reality neither is the case. For those who agree that the Glazers are harmful parasites, it is a much more simple question of trying to get rid of them.
If were charged with deciding on a punishment for the Glazers then the criminal comparison would hold.
If the best way to get rid of the Glazers depended on the exact details of their financial situation then the medical one would.
But in reality neither is the case. For those who agree that the Glazers are harmful parasites, it is a much more simple question of trying to get rid of them.
Got to admit this thread is getting absolutely ridiculous now.
Well I think we are then starting to move too far away from the financial discussion about whether there has been a lack of investment in the squad or not.
I guess it boils down to the fact that I feel we still have a very strong squad that even without any more additions would be good enough to challenge for the league next year - whereas you seem to think the squad needs a radical overhaul. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree as our POV is so far apart.
What happened to the 25 million a year for new players and another 30 million every 3 years for that marquee player? Over six years I make that 210 million pounds that's failed to materialize!
Wondering where it went? I'm wondering too!
Related news- I see that bunch of coke snorting hedge fund cnuts in greenwich connecticut got their bonuses this year, so they can keep on shagging models and driving ferraris.
Angry yet?
Wondering where it went? I'm wondering too!
Related news- I see that bunch of coke snorting hedge fund cnuts in greenwich connecticut got their bonuses this year, so they can keep on shagging models and driving ferraris.
Angry yet?
I sense Roodboy, GCHQ and Cidermans anger, you are in danger my friend
I am glad someone mentioned this point, because this is what I was going to come to and ask Roodboy to specifically answer it.
Now I am taking Roodboy on his word, that he doesnt work on speculation, and he merely works on facts that are there in black and white.
When the Glazers took over the initial business plan was made public, and much to the horror of the fans we found out about the PIK debts.
The Glazers, and David Gill, were quite specific that the debts as they stood were completely manageable and allowed United greater flexibility and made things like transfers much easier.
At no point did they mention re-financing.
So working on FACT and not speculation, they were quite adamant that the business was sustainable in its current form. They did not speculate that re-financing was a possibility. They were adamant that things were fine..
To suggest that re-financing in the future would have been mere speculation.
So lets forget the "speculation" that re-financing was always on the cards. We didnt know that was there plan, they never admitted that was their plan. They simply said the plan would work..
Well as we all know that business model did not work. So they sought to refinance. To suggest that was always their plan would indeed be speculation.
Lets deal with FACT.. They said they could manage with the debts as they were.. They couldnt..
Not once, but TWICE we've now seen the same thing happen. They have said their business plan was workable, only to then go out and seek refinancing. Was that their original plan ? We dont know.. Its merely speculation and as Roodboy himself will tell you, we should discount speculation.
What we do know is they said their plans would work, and those plans didnt work.. The debts were not sustainable working on hte plans they themselves had set.
Why should we believe them now, after they persistently tell us the plans are workable, when in fact the last two times they've said it, its proven that they were either lying out their high teeth and knew the debts were not managable and therefore fully intended to change things, or they truly believed they could manage and subsequent events have proven they misjudged the situation.
Are we going to keep going like this. Just re-financing every time they realise they cant manage, and if so, at what point does the debt stop growing and they actually go ahead and clear them off ?
Right with that bit out the way, I want to go back to something we've touched on previously and now its been mentioned again.
When they formulated the business plan they were quite clear that there would be on average £25 million per season. That wasnt dependant on sales of players, it was money they would provide from the profits the club made.
As we know, they have roughly ( give or take a few million ) spent what they have received from the sale of players. So what has happened to the £25 million that they said would be made available ? No where in their budgets did they mention the £120 million or so they've received for the sale of players.
So lets look at this logically..
They have spent the £125 million they promised, but have also received £120 odd million or so back ? After 5 years they sit with £93 million in hte bank.. But they've had £125 million or so that they didnt account for so therefore the very least they should have in the bank is £125 million working on the assumption that they planned to break even. If they budgeted for profit then naturally there would be even more.
By my reckoning they are about £30 million short of what they should have in the bank. If they hadnt received that money from player sales then we wouldnt have that £94 million or so in the bank, we'd actually be looking at a minus figure.
Now assuming that we take it on an average over the 5 years, that would mean we are at least £30 million down on what we should have, meaning an average loss of £6 million a year. Given that they have now saddled themselves with the bond, which in fact increases the amount they have to pay out, then surely you must work out that if we're losing on average of £6 million per season, we are not going to be in a better position with more to pay out..
Right.. now to the next point.
You yourself, and most people, fully expect that they will clear off the PIK debts with money that is in the bank, thus making us less likely to hit problems. However, as you keep pointing out, those debts are not our debts. They belong to the Glazers personally.
Why would it benefit United if, as you suggest, those debts are nothing to do with United, and therefore not our problem. They can just keep rising and rising and it wouldnt have an effect on United. What benefit does it give United to get rid of those PIK debts, if as you say they arent our problem anyway.
Theres a bit of hypocrisy here. You are saying we will be better off because the PIK debts will be gone, but you claim they arent detrimental to United as they currently stand, so therefore, theres no benefit whatsover to United to pay them off.
If however there is a benefit to United it therefore follows that somewhere those PIK debts are linked to United, and contrary to what you say, they have to be included in the total amounts they owe and are paying out each season..
You cant have it both ways. Either its not our debt and its makes no difference to united if they get paid off or not, or alternatively by paying them off and it benefitting United, they must therefore in some way be Uniteds problem to sort out... As I say, if its not our problem then how could it benefit us if they get paid off or not...
So would you like to work on those and tell me where I am going glaringly wrong, and give me the actual facts and figures that tell me my doubts are unfounded, because the way I see it, they came up with a plan, it didnt work. They changed it. That didnt work so they came up with plan C,
The fact there isnt the money in the bank proves they've totally got something wrong...
How much longer do we keep allowing them to make mistakes and just re-financing every time, increasing the debts every time, increasing hte payments everytime..
If they've fecked up 2 business plans and are resorting to a third try, surely it must make sense to start questioning whether they ever will get it right.
Fred - can you summarise in a few lines what exactly you want to know because I cant really be arsed to read all of that at this time of night
In answer your first question, Fred, i'd tell you that a good business plan would be flexible and able to evolve as the circumstances fit. You seem to be assuming that the Glazers never intended to re-finance; ok, i'm not sure how you've drawn that conclusion, but let's roll with it for the sake of argument... now, even if they didn't originaly plan to re-finance, the fact that they did then re-finance isn't evidence of their business plan failing, rather, that it's simply been adapted to fit the new circumstances. I'm sure any good businessman would tell you that being flexible, having options as well as the ability and willingness to adapt to different situations, is not a sign of failure, but rather your greatest strength. Again, even if The Glazers hadn't have planned primarily to re-finance, they'd have always known that it was an option, and so the possibility would certainly have featured somewhere in their original forecasts. You have to remember, and this is important, they're not ignorant thick cnuts like yourself - the Glazers wont think in such stunted, two-dimensional terms as you do - and so the chances are exceedingly high that, what you consider to be failure, was simply either, a) a previously imagined adaption to a predicted circumstance, or, b) actually their plan all along.
Ok I managed to follow some of Fred's post after Cider spelled it out and the answer to the first bit is:
b) refinance was actually their plan all along
b) refinance was actually their plan all along
I cant see them ever paying off all the debt - it wouldnt really make financial sense for them to do so, however it would make sense to reduce it.
The bond is in place until 2017 and at that point (or maybe before) they will refinance again. Whenever they see an opportunity to refinance on better terms then I am sure they will take it.
At the moment, I cant say for sure what will happen with the PIK - all I can tell you is that the bond prospectus makes it possible for the Glazers to use excess cash from the club to pay it off over time.
I expected that they would have started to do this by now as there is a lot of excess cash available but we found out from last week's quarterly report that they havent. This might be because they can only redeem the PIK at certain times of the year (possibly July/August) or it might be because they have a completely different plan for the PIK. Only time will tell.
The particular subject of the PIK is actually an area of big debate at the moment and there is very good (but quite lengthy) discussion on the Andersred blog for those who want to follow it:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6525088379436999555&postID=1104637207182165655&isPopup=true
For the other question I took this post from the RK thread as it was much clearer than the one above.
It is actually a good question - possibly the first worthwhile question you have asked me
Since the bond issue, I have never said that the PIK is not the responsibility of the club as the bond issue changed the picture significantly.
Previously, I always maintained the stance that the PIK was the Glazers personal debt so the only people who stood to lose out from it were the Glazers themselves. Technically, this is still the case - however, as I pointed out above, the bond issue gives the Glazers the option to use profit from the club to pay it off and if that happens then for the first time the PIK becomes directly connected to the club.
The fact is that we still dont know enough about the PIK to have a clear idea what is going to happen - we just have to wait for the next quarter results and see if the situation becomes any clearer.
When you are not sure of the facts- attack the poster!
Very valid point Ciderman. Good post.
Nothing is written in stone. Back in 2005 nobody would expect United to winn three PL-titles in a row, reach two CL-finals and have our best period ever. Who thought (in 2005) that Giggs, Neville and Scholes would be around 2010/11. And finally who could dream of that Real Madrid would pay us £80m upfront for a young winger and six years later SAF would be stil in charge, nearly 70 years old and more hungry then ever. You can't predict the future.
Another thing. There is no logic to buy players just because we have money available. It's better to invest when it's necessary. We need three new quality players in the next two years. Replacement for VDS, Scholes and Hargreaves. Estimate cost of £75m. Maybe we have to replace a few others who don't develop as expected, but that will not cost us so much.
The new rules means that we need more english players. Joe Cole fits that bill. Other players who can catch our intrest is for example De Gea, Jovetic or Hamsik.
Our squad is nearly complete. The founds (£75m) are there to invest for future success. I have no reason to belive the owners will think any different. Our transfer-history since 2005 suggest me to belive that.
- Status