At what point is Avram going to object to Joel taking a £40m director's fee?
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Personal? You have been reading the posts of the Glazer holy trinity for the last few days?
Whether you like it or not, roodboys arguments are bringing to light some of the real facts around the United finances such as the EBITDA provisions.
So its quite healthy to have a back and forth between fredthred and roodboy over the finances. Fredthered does not know exactly what the key paragraph in the prospectus means, and neither does roodboy.
If you don't want to deal in facts and figures then don't bother with this thread.
Facts:
The malls are failing and are in negative equity.
The Buccs are massively in debt - near their credit limit
The PIKs will trigger a higher APR this summer
United have a £500m bond with money to find to cover the interest for the next 7 years.
So, the PIKs; while unrelated to United directly, are part of the Glazers' portfolio of interests. Given that the malls are failing and there is little money to be had from the gridiron business with them having to give thousands of tickets away to screen the games, then where will the money to pay these come from?
The Glazers will, imo, take out as much as they can in directors' fees without failing to trigger the EBITDA level that will allow them to pillage United for what they can.
And how much is that?
I guess you missed the fact that all the information used in the Panorama programme comes from a certain, Andy Green - who we know better as Andersred.
Maybe you also missed the fact that MUST now cite him as the source for all their facts and figures about the club, Glazers etc. Possibly you also missed the fact that he admits himself that he is massive antiGlazer and hardly a neutral source of information.
Roodboy's gone very quiet!
Very quiet? Like everything else in this thread I have answered every query directed at me. If I have missed any then it is because there were too many posts to keep up with.
I would prefer if you kept to discussing the issues at hand than pointless personal jibes.
Anyway I have set out my view of the issue about Glazers business interests outside of United very clearly in the last few pages on here and that is all from me for now.
This.
Wind your neck in, they have tying up the real facts in their complicated figures, try and get a straight forward answer and you dont get it. They remind me of OJ Simpsons defence team
It will no doubt vary to suit their needs each year. No point, say, taking a £20m fee when they can take a £10m fee and the £70m
The 70m? The figure we're not sure can be used to pay off the US debt or not?
"their complicated figures"? Ah for fecks sake! There's a place for a thread dealing in accountancy terms and concepts.
The truth hurts does it not?
The truth is, corporate finance is complicated! I think everyone in this thread has been making a good attempt at trying to explain complicated figures and terms to those of us not versed in the details of such things. They don't have to spend their time deconstructing it for us, but I am thankful they do as it's quite important to know.
So, the BBC will just publish any old unsubstantiated rubbish because some bloke with a known agenda tells them?
Of course they used stuff that he'd dug up, the programme wouldn't be likeyl to have happened without people like him looking into this stuff int he first place.
But for this to go out on Panorama, the BBC producers must have been pretty satisfied that they had correctly represented the facts, and were not just being used to spread one man's propaganda.
I'm not saying because it's the BBC it's entirely neutral, but as I said, it's as neutral as you'll find just about anywhere in the media.
Jesus, the fact that corporate finances tends to involve "complicated figures" is no great surprise to me!
Theres nothing new in that, we've know that for a good while now. How has the Panorama revelations about Glazers debt elsewhere changed anything regarding United?
No doubt, but it is amazing what a skilled accountant can do with a set of accounts that I do know. The hard facts about our American owners are however being more and more exposed
The figure that according to the bond prospectus they are allowed to take out of the club each year to deal with other indebtedness.
Because it suddenly gives a much greater insight into why the Glazers would want to change the terms of the debt so they could take money out of the club for other debts.
Keep up!
Yeah, but read above. We don't know for sure whether "other indebtedness" refers to just Red Football, or other Glazer companies.
It's a crucial point.
You asked about info connecting MUST/RK to the programme - I gave it to you.
I made no comments about the BBC's neutrality.
It hasnt but a lot of people will now spend a lot of time trying to convince you that it has.
Anyway I am glad that some people are intelligent enough to see past the usual bullshit from the usual people.
So the connection is that one of the sources of information used by Panorama is also used by MUST?
That is hardly MUST dictating BBC content is it?
Jesus, the fact that corporate finances tends to involve "complicated figures" is no great surprise to me!
Laugh all you want but as you know figures can manipulated and sometimes hide the real truth. Sean Quinn in Ireland was viewed by us all here as a business god and hailed by all. Until a few months ago he was viewed as the richest man in Ireland, the truth however exposed by a TV programme recently was something different
Ah, when all else fails, resort to the primary-school level misplaced condescension yet again!
I don't get the big deal about what they do with the money they make from United, We have always known they are in it to make money.
If the only way they can get that money is by keeping United successful it makse sense that thats exactly what they have to do.
If the only way they can get that money is by keeping United successful it makse sense that thats exactly what they have to do.
And you think denying roodboy a voice in this thread is going to help us find the truth?
They are lots of figures bouncing around, and the best way to form a view is to have it all thrown out there and let people argue it out.
Like I said, the back and forth between roodboy and fredthred is good. If it disturbs anyone that they are dealing with "complicated figures" then they can just ignore the thread.
Not really. There's nothing to stop money leaving Red Football in the form of massive directors' fees, plunging itself into debt and letting the Glazers plug that debt with money from United.
Obviously roodboy is far too intelligent to have even considered that though.
So they'll ignore the EBDITA provisions?
Mate, it's EBITDA - be careful with that, as it's a very important part of Rooboy's beliefe system, and he doesn't take kindly to lesser mortals with inferior intellects to him getting stuff wrong.
Thats just so funny, what are "the real facts" in a financial discussion if they are not figures?
I have read this thread from page one and have fully understood Roodboys and GCHq's use of figures and I'm no accountant.
The bond issue covenants and also the PIK loan covenants prevent the Glazers from re-directing any of the £70m optional one-off dividend or annual dividend from Red Football Limited to their other companies outside of RFJV Limited.
Dont underestimate me my friend I understand all right but I can also see through them which is when you ask for a simple answer you dont get one
What question are you still seeking an answer to?
Only the mods can deny him a voice and I certainly dont want to
Whats to see through, if their figures are wrong prove them so by posting the correct figures, nobody has done that here yet.
Is this definite?
- Status