I see. Does that 'existing indebtedness' relate only to debt related to RFJV or to any debt? Though I guess there are ways to transfer the money regardless.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
I see. Does that 'existing indebtedness' relate only to debt related to RFJV or to any debt? Though I guess there are ways to transfer the money regardless.
That's odd because there are lots of things in there (the buil of the blog in fact) that are entirely new facts that none of us* can have known previously. You're really losing the plot here Roodboy.
*Unless, of course, one of us had links to the Glazers and access to details of their finances not avilable to the rest of us.
I think this is a classic case of
"nah nah not listening"
Its a very ambiguous statement.
Indebtedness could mean Manchester united, or it could mean the company as a whole, ie the Glazer corporation.
What is particularly interesting is the "general corporate purposes" and "without restriction"
Deleting posts now, Roodboy?
Rood
You say these are separate entities. Well RF and RFJV are separate entities yet their is a provision to withdraw money from RF to RFJV. Why cannot that be extrapolated further to encompass all the Glazers businesses?
You say these are separate entities. Well RF and RFJV are separate entities yet their is a provision to withdraw money from RF to RFJV. Why cannot that be extrapolated further to encompass all the Glazers businesses?
The way hes going, deleting his account and going into hiding could well be the preferred option.
There isn't such a thing as 'the Glazer corporation' is there? I think their businesses are legally separate entities.
I think you are probably right that they would find a way to legally get the money to their other businesses if that is what they wanted to do though.
How does if affect United?
The amount of money they can take out of the club is specifically defined and something that has been discussed here many times in the past - what is happening in other comapanies does not affect that.
Are you serious?
Perfectly and where is your mate GCHQ today? The truth is hurting I hope
Yes because I cant keep up with you numpties all posting the same crap at the same time - form an orderly queue and I will deal with your issues one at a time
I guess it's true that they can't take out any more money than we already knew they could... but it probably does increase the likelihood of them taking this money if they are able to use it to fund other struggling businesses.
If the other companies are in trouble and the money is withdrawn from United then that is money United does not have access to. Now that has effected us. If you cannot see that then you are in denial.
That's OK then - as long as the amount of money they take out of United to support their other failing businesses is clearly defined, I just can't see what the problem is.
Ultimately they all belong to Malcolm Glazer, so therefore he is a holding company for everything that falls underneath.
First Allied, the Bucs, United, they are all branches of the Glazer empire.
Yes seperate companies, but all reporting to one major owner.
Just a minute, I think you've forgotten to take one thing into account...
...the EBITDA!
The malls are in negative equity and many running at a loss. How long before the banks call the loans in? What happens if they do? The value (assuming someone is prepared to pay that value) is already established as less than the amount owed across the mortgages taken out against the malls. The banks may be prepared to take a $15m loss rather than what could be a lot worse.
The Bucs are nearly at their credit limit yet the Glazers have stated their intention not to sell. What happens when they have a half-sold ground and no money to pay wages? (See Pompey for details of a skint sports club).
So the marketable value of the Bucs is the value of a shit gridiron franchise less the debt, whatever that makes it worth.
The PIKs are over £200m. How do you think they are going to pay them off?
Hey it's not our problem thought and EBITDA looks fecking awesome!
The Bucs are nearly at their credit limit yet the Glazers have stated their intention not to sell. What happens when they have a half-sold ground and no money to pay wages? (See Pompey for details of a skint sports club).
So the marketable value of the Bucs is the value of a shit gridiron franchise less the debt, whatever that makes it worth.
The PIKs are over £200m. How do you think they are going to pay them off?
Hey it's not our problem thought and EBITDA looks fecking awesome!
Shouldn't it be ' Ruudboy' ?
Seems to me that only a glazer mole would make that simple mistake.
Seems to me that only a glazer mole would make that simple mistake.
Lets turn this around a little.
They used £272 million in cash to buy shares in United.
Where did they get that money from ?
Oh they borrowed it using their shopping malls to gain mortgages with.
So this idea that the two companies cannot be linked is sheer bollocks, because without those shopping malls they wouldnt have bought United in the first place.
They used their shopping malls to buy into United, and now they are obviously in a position where they can reverse it and take money they have tied up in United to clear off the debts they are running up in the shopping malls.
So, while you say the phrase is ambiguous, your whole premise is that "corporate purposes" includes the American businesses?
That's what everything boils down to?
Well personally I think they would have taken out everything they were legally entitled to from the club anyway, after all we know they care only about profit and making money. The entire bond issue was designed to give them access to excess cash from the club - this has been clear from the start of this thread.
Although I should point out that they can only take this money every year if certain EBITDA levels are hit every year (which again is why EBITDA is such an important number) so if profits fall then they cannot take the same amount.
and the fact is says they can pay off other indebtedness.
I think thats a fair hint at what they can do...
But as you keep telling us, ,they are meeting the EBITDA requirements, so they are entitled to take the money out..
Using your own argument, you have just conceded that they can draw on the money, now all we need is for you to concede that they can if they wish pay off their other debts with it.
THen we're getting somewhere.
That the Glazers can take money out of the club is not new information to me, I have made it clear on several occasions that they can currently take £70m out to repay their personal debt.
I thought you had already understood this as well?
Fred smells blood in the water..
Hints? Surely you must deal only in cast iron facts when you go as far as to argue for a boycott of the club?
Is "existing indebtedness" just the debt on Red Football or not?
Dude
Don't try to be condescending. The issue is quite simple can the Glazers withdraw money from United and then use that money to pay off debts in any of their businesses?
Secondly this only becomes an issue if they need to lower their indebtedness which from the news coming out of the US seems so.
Now that is £70m that United would not be able to use. What is rate of interest attached to the £70m?
Whats worrying is the fact we dont know.
We assumed it meant the PIK debts, but now it could transpire that they meant their other business ventures instead.
Thats kind of the whole point. Just what are they able to do with the money that they are making out of United..
Fred aint far wrong. After all the shit he has taken from a few posters on here for the last while he is right to hunt them down
Fair point. If you assumed all the money was going to leave the club anyway, then I guess this doesn't change anything.
Then this is the key question. I agree that it adds to our worries if money that should be going to pay the PIKs is going to the US.
But surely we can get clarification on this from an independent corporate lawyer or something? Not just some ominous music playing on a BBC doc while vague implications are put forward, but a clear statement of fact?
I have never denied that they can take money out of the club - in fact I am the one who explained it all in this very thread right from the begining, just go back and read it.
None of this is new information.
As you point out, the specific line in the bond propectus relating to what they can do with that money is a bit ambiguous at it only refers to 'existing indebtedness' and doesnt get much more specific than that. However, note that they do mention RFJV (the company that relates to the PIK loan) in that clause - which is why I, and others, assume it will be used for that purpose.
I think there would be several pissed off bond holders who would be entitled to mount a legal challenge should the Glazers attempt to channel cash from the club to support any seperate business entity. Paying off PIKs with that cash makes sense for the bond holders, paying anything else doesnt and the bond holders are the ones who hold security to all the assets of Manchester United.
I guess we will just have to wait and see what exactly they do with it.
Ah, at last I get the significace of the EBITDA.
So, the Glazers can only steal money form the club if the EBITDA is high enough?
Go the EBITDA!
That is all very diplomatic Roodboy but the simple facts which you always ignore is that you have been wrong about the Glazers, end of
Well exactly - for me very little changes.
Unfortunately, I realise that the average fan doesnt understand much of this so these kind of stories probably sound very scary. Not really much that can be done about that I suppose.
I will say that I am quite impressed that MUST/RKs have managed to pull off getting this on Panorama, especially since this is the last week for ST renewals. It is a major P.R. coup for them and shows that they now have significant media pull.
What was I wrong about?
I think it is more likely that you never understood what I was trying to explain here.
So MUST are producing programmes for the Beeb, get a life man. The Glazers have been caught on, fact accept it
Fortunately, the average fan is smart enough to know when they're sounding like a condescending know-it-all, unlike some of our less intelligent posters.
What link do you have between MUST or the RKs and the panorama programme? None, I guess, or you would have at least specified which of those two sinister organisations was behind it...
We all understand that for all your talk I and others have always been right, the Glazers are in financial trouble and by association so is Manchester United. You can wrap that up in all the high financial bollox you want but the plain truth is now there to be seen, hail Fredthered the real expert on finance
We seem to be arguing over what a paragraph in the prospectus means. Whether roodboy is right or wrong depends on what it means. Fredthered doesn't seem to know for sure either.
If you can get a definite answer to what it means then we can avoid getting personal.
- Status