ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I didn't say the squad needs a radical overhaul.

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
So basically they've refinanced twice - each refinancing takes more money out of the club as well.

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.

To say that it's our best period ever is silly. Try 93-03, where we also won a hat-trick of titles, plus the treble and two other doubles, as well as the Intercontinental Cup.
 
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.

Exactly right. Those that try to argue that the current low net-spend is evidence of the Glazers bad management are full of shit, they're basically saying that we should have spent £105m last summer, regardless of who was available or what was needed, in order to negate the £80m Ronaldo sale and then spend our £25m per year budget on top of that - it's complete nonsense. The fact is, net spend was very high before the sale; the year we signed Berbatov was a club record for net-spend; but many are quick to forget that. To emphasize how ridiculous this mindset is, imagine now for the sake of argument that City get stupid and offer us £120m for Nani, an offer which, of course, we accept and the sale is made. Then, SAF goes out and buys Ribery from Bayern for £40m. Now, all those who see net-spend as being more important than sensible team-building are going to go absolutely nuts; suddenly our net-spend is -£80m for the year! It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to be thinking that way, and everyone would recognise that if it wasn't for the fact that thinking that way, and trying to convince others to think that way, is an easy way to spread hatred for the Glazers. Last summer SAF spent £18m or so on Valencia as Ronaldo's direct replacement. He unfortunately lost out on a £30m bid for Benzema, who chose Madrid over Manchester, and so went for the experience of Michael Owen instead. He's since signed Obertan, Diouf, Smalling and Hernandez, spending well over £20m for the four of them. Good, sensible signings all of them; Valencia's been an immediate success, Owen cost nothing and played a reasonable part, and the four youngsters show promise, but, alas, they didn't cost £105m, did they? The thing GCHQ has tried to point out is that, because of it's unprecedentedly large value, we need to give it more time after the Ronaldo sale before we can properly be making telling interpretations on the net-spend again; if we recalculate in two years time, i'm sure we'll once again find that net-spend under the Glazers will be high, just as it was before.
 
I
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

I don't like the blogs as I think they distract from the forum, so apologies if it's covered there, but I don't understand this thing about paying the PIKs off. Isn't the point of the PIKs that they charge massive interest to reflect the fact that normal lenders consider the risk too great for a normal loan? But if you could just pay them off early then the lenders would have stood the risk for nothing, or less than they wanted at any rate. A PIK loan doesn't make sense from the lender's point of view if you could just save interest by paying it off early.
 
To say that it's our best period ever is silly. Try 93-03, where we also won a hat-trick of titles, plus the treble and two other doubles, as well as the Intercontinental Cup.

'93-'03 is a bloody long period! Why not '58-'09 then?! Three difficult Prem titles, two Champions League finals and European champions in three years, to some, will be regarded as our most successful period, there's nothing silly about that.
 
I don't like the blogs as I think they distract from the forum, so apologies if it's covered there, but I don't understand this thing about paying the PIKs off. Isn't the point of the PIKs that they charge massive interest to reflect the fact that normal lenders consider the risk too great for a normal loan? But if you could just pay them off early then the lenders would have stood the risk for nothing, or less than they wanted at any rate. A PIK loan doesn't make sense from the lender's point of view if you could just save interest by paying it off early.

:lol: yeah i wikipediad it too :D
 
I don't like the blogs as I think they distract from the forum, so apologies if it's covered there, but I don't understand this thing about paying the PIKs off. Isn't the point of the PIKs that they charge massive interest to reflect the fact that normal lenders consider the risk too great for a normal loan? But if you could just pay them off early then the lenders would have stood the risk for nothing, or less than they wanted at any rate. A PIK loan doesn't make sense from the lender's point of view if you could just save interest by paying it off early.

Usually there will be some kind of redemption penalty for a certain period to ensure that the lender does get some kind of return.
Of course, we already know that the PIK has grown to £220m over the years so the lenders are already sitting on a much bigger return than any standard bank rate loan would give them.
But without knowing the fine detail of the terms of the Glazer PIK I cant tell you what exactly it means for us.
 
'93-'03 is a bloody long period! Why not '58-'09 then?! Three difficult Prem titles, two Champions League finals and European champions in three years, to some, will be regarded as our most successful period, there's nothing silly about that.

Perhaps because we were relegated in 74?

Are you on your period? Only you seem a bit huffier than usual.

OK. 99-01. Treble, Intercontinental Cup, title hat-trick.
Two CL finals - one win. 2nd place is first loser.
 
:lol: yeah i wikipediad it too :D

I hadn't but I just did, and the only thing I could see that might refer to paying off early is the word 'minimum' before 'internal rate of return', which would underline my question to rood. Then again it's a long article for my attention span.

What's with the smilies? If it's some sort of insult you'll need to spell it out, if not then you've lost me. Best avoided, perhaps.
 
Perhaps because we were relegated in 74?

Are you on your period? Only you seem a bit huffier than usual.

OK. 99-01. Treble, Intercontinental Cup, title hat-trick.
Two CL finals - one win. 2nd place is first loser.

Why are you so determined to write off our '07 - '09 period? In those 3 seasons we won 3 titles, 2 Carling Cups, a Champions League, a World Club Cup, reached another Champions League final and had 2 of the finest young players in the world in Rooney and Ronaldo. All this petty point scoring trying to say a period pre-Glazer is more successful than a period post Glazer is pretty sad and pathetic.

It is one of our best ever periods.
 
I don't like the blogs as I think they distract from the forum, so apologies if it's covered there, but I don't understand this thing about paying the PIKs off. Isn't the point of the PIKs that they charge massive interest to reflect the fact that normal lenders consider the risk too great for a normal loan? But if you could just pay them off early then the lenders would have stood the risk for nothing, or less than they wanted at any rate. A PIK loan doesn't make sense from the lender's point of view if you could just save interest by paying it off early.

The PIK rate of interest covers both, the risk of unsecured debt and the reinvestment risk from prepayment. At least, it normally does. Don't know the details about ours. Though I doubt anyone here does
 
I hadn't but I just did, and the only thing I could see that might refer to paying off early is the word 'minimum' before 'internal rate of return', which would underline my question to rood. Then again it's a long article for my attention span.

What's with the smilies? If it's some sort of insult you'll need to spell it out, if not then you've lost me. Best avoided, perhaps.

No, not an insult at all, just a coincidence because i wikipediad 'PIK' about an hour ago and your summary was pretty similar.
 
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

Thanks, will give it a read later. I'm confused as to why they don't see the PIK's as a priority though, surely with the high interest rates it would be in their favour to pay it off as soon as possible, rather than let it keep getting bigger and bigger.
 
Perhaps because we were relegated in 74?

Are you on your period? Only you seem a bit huffier than usual.

OK. 99-01. Treble, Intercontinental Cup, title hat-trick.
Two CL finals - one win. 2nd place is first loser.

The Intercontinental Cup isn't much to shout about. The two periods were similar in terms of success, it's not silly at all, as you suggested, to consider one of them over the other to be our most successful period. If you ask me, i'd say that the treble period was better, but i wouldn't call anyone silly for prefering our recent success.
 
The Intercontinental Cup isn't much to shout about. The two periods were similar in terms of success, it's not silly at all, as you suggested, to consider one of them over the other to be our most successful period. If you ask me, i'd say that the treble period was better, but i wouldn't call anyone silly for prefering our recent success.

Greatly under-valued over here. The Italians, Spanish and South Americans always took it more seriously.
 
Why are you so determined to write off our '07 - '09 period? In those 3 seasons we won 3 titles, 2 Carling Cups, a Champions League, a World Club Cup, reached another Champions League final and had 2 of the finest young players in the world in Rooney and Ronaldo. All this petty point scoring trying to say a period pre-Glazer is more successful than a period post Glazer is pretty sad and pathetic.

It is one of our best ever periods.
Who said I was determined to write it off? I was simply saying that to dismiss other periods was silly.
 
Thanks, will give it a read later. I'm confused as to why they don't see the PIK's as a priority though, surely with the high interest rates it would be in their favour to pay it off as soon as possible, rather than let it keep getting bigger and bigger.

This is the point I was trying to get to.

In terms of the Glazers personal finance, then yes getting them cleared off would naturally benefit them.

However, for United it seems to make no difference whatsoever.

My suspicion is that with things not going well in Tampa, and their other business assets reputedly not going very well, then they are having to rob peter to pay paul to keep everything afloat.

It wouldnt surprise me to see them taking out further loans from United as a short term measure to try shore things up over in the US before attempting to clear off any of the PIKs.

We know for a fact they have sold off quite a few assets in the US, houses, stakes in business. Its not completely out of the question that with little else to sell other than the Buccs and United, they are now scrabbling around trying to keep everything intact.

Should they come out and sell the Buccs as has been suggested they are trying to do, then I think that would be a clear indication that they have way over committed themselves and naturally with United being their largest asset and the one likely to make them the most revenue, they would want to hang onto it as long as possible.

On the face of it United appear to be holding their own for the moment. The Glazers however would appear to be struggling, and should that rumour that they lost over $440 million in a dodgy share deal ever be proven to be true, then it would almost certainly explain why they are spending so little at Tampa, and would go along way to explaining why they havent paid off the pIK debts yet.

That money could well be needed elsewhere in their business empire, and this bond issue at least allows them the flexibility to dip into Uniteds funds to tide them over.
 
Thanks, will give it a read later. I'm confused as to why they don't see the PIK's as a priority though, surely with the high interest rates it would be in their favour to pay it off as soon as possible, rather than let it keep getting bigger and bigger.

Well the general thinking is that they do see the PIK as a priority and will start to pay it off when they can. As I said, it is likely that they can only redeem at certain times of the year or possibly they delayed as a P.R. exercise.

Andersred has bet someone on his blog a pint of stella that they will start to pay it off by this time next year - so there is a lot riding on this :)
 
Well the general thinking is that they do see the PIK as a priority and will start to pay it off when they can. As I said, it is likely that they can only redeem at certain times of the year or possibly they delayed as a P.R. exercise.

In terms of MUFC then yes it is a priority, but in terms of their other business ventures, it could well be that there are more pressing things that they need the money for..

Why would they be taking out loans from United if things were going so rosey elsewhere, and why would they increase their interest payments each year if things werent going badly for them.

We know this bond issue allows them the scope to take money from United. Perhaps its not to line their own pockets as people suggest, but actually to make sure they stay afloat...
 
In terms of MUFC then yes it is a priority, but in terms of their other business ventures, it could well be that there are more pressing things that they need the money for..

Why would they be taking out loans from United if things were going so rosey elsewhere, and why would they increase their interest payments each year if things werent going badly for them.

We know this bond issue allows them the scope to take money from United. Perhaps its not to line their own pockets as people suggest, but actually to make sure they stay afloat...

Scary, and entirely possible. Lets hope this IS NOT the case...
 
I dont know enough about their other businesses to comment to be honest, I doubt you do either.

I care only about Manchester United and that is why I have spent time analysing our financial situation.
 
and you never did PM me your GCHQ scoop, whats up with that?
 
Perhaps because we were relegated in 74?

Are you on your period? Only you seem a bit huffier than usual.

OK. 99-01. Treble, Intercontinental Cup, title hat-trick.
Two CL finals - one win. 2nd place is first loser.

The Intercontinental Cup isn't much to shout about. The two periods were similar in terms of success, it's not silly at all, as you suggested, to consider one of them over the other to be our most successful period. If you ask me, i'd say that the treble period was better, but i wouldn't call anyone silly for prefering our recent success.
 
I dont know enough about their other businesses to comment to be honest, I doubt you do either.

I care only about Manchester United and that is why I have spent time analysing our financial situation.

Perhaps you should take the time to read more about their other business interests, because like it or not, they are relevant to United. I dont claim to be in the know totally about their other ventures, because US law means they are not obliged to release details, however based on what the papers in the US are saying, and based on what we know of the Buccs, things are not going as well in the US as they appear to be over here.

If the Glazers go tits up then that has a direct affect on United, and for United to succeed, then its essential that the Glazers do not fail in their other business ventures.
 
The Intercontinental Cup isn't much to shout about. The two periods were similar in terms of success, it's not silly at all, as you suggested, to consider one of them over the other to be our most successful period. If you ask me, i'd say that the treble period was better, but i wouldn't call anyone silly for prefering our recent success.

Sorry but statistically, the last 4 years have been more succesful than the same period before or directly after the treble season.

Much as how I hate admitting it, its a fact..
 
as opposed to you who hates Glazer more than they love United..

:D

Wrong. It's my love for United that feeds my hatred for Glazer. I love United so much that, well, i once had a girlfriend, right, and i stabbed her face off because she had blue eyes, i was all like, 'Bitch, no girl of mine'll have blue eyes!' and i stabbed her face off and beat her to death with a bronze bust of Quinten Fortune.
 
Wrong. It's my love for United that feeds my hatred for Glazer. I love United so much that, well, i once had a girlfriend, right, and i stabbed her face off because she had blue eyes, i was all like, 'Bitch, no girl of mine'll have blue eyes!' and i stabbed her face off and beat her to death with a bronze bust of Quinten Fortune.

So thats why fred went missing for a while :eek:
:nervous: 'kinell...
 
This thread has become Fredthered vs Ciderman...

So can both point out if the Glazers takeover benefitted United or not ?

They certainly didn't buy the club as United fans, and they probably plan to profit like 150% of what they invested... but again why didn't we all fight out to help United in the first place ? I was pretty much sure that throwing tomato sauce at the wasn't the answer to the financial situation, and the glazers never predicted a super dump in value at the global market.

So can someone summarize what the glazers bought us for in the first place ?
also can they tell me a way to get rid of them ?
 
So can someone summarize what the glazers bought us for in the first place ?

money_tree.jpg


also can they tell me a way to get rid of them ?

Now, if we knew that...
 
Thanks, but what's 'reinvestment risk from prepayment'. Is that paying off early?

Pretty much. If I'm a hedge fund wanting to reinvest in a loan getting me max returns for around 10 years (For egs)

Normal interest rates mean that I'd get around 6-7%

Since I'm willing to give my money out without an asset attached to it, ie Unsecured, I'd expect more interest. Lets say 13%

Since I'm looking at a 10 year investment, such a loan always carries the risk that the reciever of my money might prepay it, ie early and that I'd have to go searching for another loan-wanter willing to give me the same amount of interest, ie, I'll have to re-invest it. Hence the name re-investment from prepayment. And since I'm giving the loan reciever this option, I'd expect more than 13%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.