The only figures readily available are the Glazer manipulated ones
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
The only figures readily available are the Glazer manipulated ones
Ah, no. The directors' fees taken from United will be kept low enough to trigger the £70m by hitting the EBITDA target.
What I'm saying is that there is nothing to stop the holding company going into debt by paying huge directors' fees to the directors of the holding company (whoever they might be
) and then pluggin the debts of the holding company with the £70m.If that's impossible then fair enough, but given that gchq is only an accountant and not a sneaky bastard, then I can see why he wouldn't have considered it.
Ah, no. The directors' fees taken from United will be kept low enough to trigger the £70m by hitting the EBITDA target.
What I'm saying is that there is nothing to stop the holding company going into debt by paying huge directors' fees to the directors of the holding company (whoever they might be
If that's impossible then fair enough, but given that gchq is only an accountant and not a sneaky bastard, then I can see why he wouldn't have considered it.
It is impossible. They are legally restricted to taking out a maximum of £6m pa. in Management fees as per the terms and conditions of the bond issue.
I take it you have no proof that the figures quoted in this thread by Roodboy and GCHQ are wrong. I though so much.
I have never said they were wrong just manipulated, now climb back into your hole
You keep disappearing off for ages, not trying to find big words on Wikipedia to sound clever by any chance?
Citation?
Christ, can't he logoff from RedCafe for half an hour!This war against "complicated figures" and "big words" is getting a bit RAWK-like!
So you don't know if the figures are not wrong but there is some "Real Truth " I don't get. What is this "Real Truth" you speak of?
So you believe that the PIKs are nothing to do with United as roodboy and gchq said?
Interesting because on page 30, item 18 states that "The Payment in kind loan is secured against the shares of Red Football Limited."
So, RFJV holds all the shares of Red Football Limited and also is the company that the PIKs are secured against.
So that's proof that what they've said is wrong.
I think they discribed the situation regarding the PIKs accurately.
I was hoping you would know and as you don't (and the fact that he has come back to the thread and ignored requests for clarification) I'm pretty certain it's bs...
I'll give Crerand Legand another chance to explain though... if true that is scandalous...
Course he can, it's just the timing of some of his absences which is odd...
The relevant terms & conditions of the restricted payment have been quoted in this thread already:
''We may, without restriction, make a distribution or loan of up to £70.0 million to our immediate parent company, Red Football Joint Venture Limited, that may, in turn, use the proceeds of that loan for general corporate purposes, including repaying existing indebtedness.''
RFJV Limited is only allowed to use Red Football Limited's cash to repay its own exisiting indebtedness (PIK loan). The PIK loan covenants would also quite obviously not allow cash from Red Football Limited to go out of RFJV to repay debt in other parts of the Glazers business empire.
God knows where you've all got the idea that the Glazers can use the cash channeled up to RFJV to repay indebtedness in their other companies. It seems to be a theory that dear old Fred has dreamt up and you've foolishly decided to run with it.
Andy Green certainly hasn't made that argument. His argument is that the Glazers don't have the necessary finance outside of Red Football Limited to repay/service the PIK loan held by RFJV Limited.
Although tellingly he makes very little mention of the Buccs franchise which has an asset value of somewhere in the region of $800m with reported debt of just $95m and with cash earnings of $69m last year. If any cash is going to recapitalise First Allied Corporation then it is likely to be coming from the Tampa Bay Buccs although that is mere speculation without seeing the relevant accounts/financial statements.
I don't think they have.
They said that they were a Glazer debt and completely unrelated to United.
How can they be unrelated to United if they are secured against the company that owns all the shares in United?
Have you ever considered that I have a job to do ?!!
To be honest, my own work is suffering due to the amount of time I have to spend explaining things over and over again to the likes of you.
Some people seem to think they have found some new amazing info about the Glazers other business interests.
As far as I am concerned, their other companies are mostly irrelevant to United and I have seen no new info about anything relating directly to the finances of our club and that is all I care about to be honest.
If anyone has any new info then feel free to put forward - until then I dont have much else to add and need to get back to work!!
The figures are there its how you care to interpret them that is the issue.
Plus a further £3m
Page 115 Bond prospectus section 10 (b)
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/pdf/ManUtdProspectus.pdf
If you have the time it's interesting reading.
I've read it thanks.
The £3m relates to the ''general corporate overhead expenses'' of RFJV and as such it isn't cash that can be taken out of Red Football to go towards repaying debt in their other companies.
Try again.
Ok so you have a personal problem with me you have established that. I hadnt seen your earlier post so apologies I had to read back. From the Guardian article it appears the Glazers are using the club to fund their millionaire lifestyle. Now that would include their sister who is listed as a director.Calling her a rich bitch may have been harsh and that I do apologise for, no doubt your next gripe with me wont be too far away.
With every additional post it becomes increasingly apparent that there isn't really anything new to see here... yes the Glazers are in the shit (freds been saying that from page 1) but we are operating as we have been.
Until new information comes to light (tomorrow maybe) this is all pointless, in fact some of the posts are getting a bit fanatical...
Until new information comes to light (tomorrow maybe) this is all pointless, in fact some of the posts are getting a bit fanatical...
U tell me? Read the Guardian article. Isnt it great that I have inspired you into becoming a regular caf poster?
Just a little bit fanatical. But the season ticket boycott seems to be underpinning everything. And we already have a thread for that.
Which is why this thread needs to be fact based and level headed, for each supporter a boycott is a huge decision, especially when it hasn't even been established what happens after said boycott.
I agree completely.
No, I have a problem when people try to muddy the waters in an otherwise informative thread... you haven't added much to this thread (neither have I but I tend to keep my mouth shut and read while the other more knowledgeable posters digest and present the facts), you just seem to be taking potshots at posters you don't agree with (the quoted post for example - personal problems?)
You may have made that remark of the cuff but that's a huge accusation and had it been true that would have been my turning point and maybe a few others... it turns out that it's something you made up.
Has fred exposed gchq yet?
I didn't say it was used to paying debt.
Seriously why create a straw man to back your argument?
Just shows how you like to twist things.
From the Prospectus
The preceding provisions will not prohibit:
the declaration and payment of dividends or other distributions, or the making of loans, by the Parent (Red Football LTD) or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries (for example Manchester United FC LTD) , to any Parent Entity (Red Football JV) in amounts and at times required to pay:
general corporate overhead expenses of any Parent Entity(Red Football JV) to the extent such
expenses are attributable to the ownership or operation of the Parent(Red Football) and its
Restricted Subsidiaries (for example Manchester United FC LTD) or related to the proper administration of such Parent Entity (Red Football JV),
including (i) fees and expenses properly incurred in the ordinary course of business to
auditors and legal advisors; and (ii) payments in respect of services provided by
directors, officers or employees of any such Parent Entity, not to exceed £3.0 million
in any calendar year;
You quoted a post of mine which was a response to another poster's accusation that the Glazers could take out huge director fees to repay the loans of their other companies outside of RFJV Limited.
So you like to conflate the argument together? Simple they can take out £6m per annum which can be rolled into next year plus a further £3m or do you disagree with that?
Exactly. One of the best posts in this thread.
The problem is that there are a quite a number of people on here who couldn't careless about the real facts & figures or indeed about what would actually be the consequences of a boycott and so are quite willing to just spout utter nonsense and conspiracy theories presumably in the hope of persuading as many people as possible to boycott the club. They're desperate for the Glazers and the club to fail seemingly just so they can claim to be proven ''right'' about the Glazers. They are fantasists and idealists who, quite contrary to what they claim, do not have the best interests of the club at heart.
These people quite clearly aren't to be taken seriously by anyone considering whether or not to renew their season ticket based on the financial situation at the club.
It was stated in the bond issue prospectus that they plan to set up a £6m management services agreement with the club and would not draw on the additional £3m available to cover general corporate expenses. We'll have to wait for the year ending June 30 2010 accounts to see if that's what has happened.
Where does it say that in the prospectus they will not draw the additional 3m?
That is wrong mate. I am certainly no accountant and am most definately not as clued up as many on here when it comes to finance, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out that the Glazers and subsequently Manchester United are in serious financial trouble.
Has there been strong talk about match boycotting over the ever increasing match day and season ticket prices? No. For years fans have been unhappy about that haven't they? Yet grudgingly that's been accepted by the majority. And it's Because they love the club and can't bare the thought of not watching the team.
Match boycotting has only been talked about because fans are worried about the security and the future of the club they love.
I applauded those that will stand up to the cnuts that have put our club in this position.
A boycott would have to be on a massive scale. We have ticket revenue of about £110m IIRC so lets say after a boycott that figure is halved - so United are down £55m.
United have enough resources to ride out the year with a £55m shortfall but it would mean the PIK interest rolling up even more and United not able to access the Credit Facility to buy players.
The media would jump on this and run with it - would corporate sponsors be put off? More so by the half empty stadium and negative press than fear of United going bust. So it would effect corporate revenues which is now the next plank in the Glazers plan to raise revenues.
The value of the bonds may decline if jittery bond holders panic.
United have enough resources to ride out the year with a £55m shortfall but it would mean the PIK interest rolling up even more and United not able to access the Credit Facility to buy players.
The media would jump on this and run with it - would corporate sponsors be put off? More so by the half empty stadium and negative press than fear of United going bust. So it would effect corporate revenues which is now the next plank in the Glazers plan to raise revenues.
The value of the bonds may decline if jittery bond holders panic.
Can we roll this thread, the RKs thread, the Panorama thread and the Season Ticket Boycott thread into one super thread?
Because they're all pretty much indistinguishable now. It's all about those arguing for a boycott of the club versus those who are not yet prepared to do that.
My problem with a boycott has always been that the same logic implies that you must want United to fail on the pitch, go out of the CL early etc. And that's a big leap to make.
Because they're all pretty much indistinguishable now. It's all about those arguing for a boycott of the club versus those who are not yet prepared to do that.
My problem with a boycott has always been that the same logic implies that you must want United to fail on the pitch, go out of the CL early etc. And that's a big leap to make.
- Status