Can you explain in what way you think the sale of the bonds would have been jeopardized had we kept Ronaldo?
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
Can you explain in what way you think the sale of the bonds would have been jeopardized had we kept Ronaldo?
To be fair, that is actually an interesting question and to be honest I dont have an answer.
As we know, the fine details of the PIK are sketchy at best - it could of course be the case that they were not able to pay them off until now due to the original terms.
yeahI've already put something to Anders on this (see above) - still awaiting his response.
I think you have misunderstood - the issues about first charge on senior debt and restrictions on what money can be used for what only applies to cash from United - here we are talking about Glazer personal wealth.
Without the sale of Ronaldo what would the accounts looked like? Hardly a great advert for people to buy bonds. They also got an advance from AON I believe to give them an even bigger shine, does make you wonder where all this cash is that we are generating.
So the selling of Ronaldo didn't make the books alot better than they should have been then, now come on. It has been well established they needed a strong set of accounts to sell the bonds and without the Ronaldo money they would not have been impressive even if they did not show a loss. I am convinced that the running for the eventual transfer of Ronaldo in June of last year was made by the Glazers, it sticks out like the nose on your face.
By the sounds of it though the owners had no problem at all selling the bonds, every man and his dog wanted in on them. You think that was simply because we sold Ronaldo?
Ahh but without the Ronaldo money on the accounts would the bonds have sold so well, that was the whole idea of the exercise for gods sake. They were taking no chances our friends the Glazers and quite honestly it is plain to see what their business practises are
Yes. I see now. I merely thought that it was a case of debt repayment priority and the banks had priority over the others (whatever the source of the funds).
I can't now decide whether it is "our side" or "Anders' side" who is putting the cart before the horse.
If the personal wealth was there, why go down the PIK route in the first place (or at least to that extent)?
My own theory on this was stated earlier - it is better to borrow money rather than pay a massive amount of your own up-front. Grow revenues, pay the interest and inflation makes you quids in because of the lack of significant upfront cash investment and you haven't exposed a penny of your own money.
From the Glazers' point of view, at least, the value of their asset has grown more than their PIKs (£800million vs £1.2-1.5billion and a debt of £100million vs £200million) and the rest of the borrowings have now been sorted.
Bad investment?
Should Glazer and personal wealth all be mentioned in the same sentance, they have got any
Now you're just being a WUM.
No I can assure you I am not. The sums regaring the Glazers heve been beat to death on these threads covered recovered and recovered again. If I had seen one piece of info that I could have accepted proved that Manchester United were safe in Glazer hands I would have put my hands up, I haven't. They have done serious damage to this club, wasted millons, drove up supporters costs, weakened the playing squad and have the potential to do much worse. It says it all when every opposing set of fans are singing their praises everywhere we go, you lads might not realise what they are doing but the opposition fans do
Yes that's why people do LBOs rather than pay in cash and why in LBOs you retain the senior debt. That's not an answer to the question.
You have to remember that PIKs (a rare instrument) are short-term, almost "bridge" financing that fill gaps in equity. They are very risky (for the lender) so are very expensive (for the borrower). You pay them off very, very fast. In fact barely 12 months was gone before the original PIK/prefs were refinanced.
These new(ish) ones should have been repaid about a year later through another refinancing but the credit crunch put paid to that idea.
My question is - if they are rich, why haven't they repaid any of the PIKs themselves? Is there any rational explanation other than being skint? Rood's repayment terms answer isn't right according to the conversations I had with people in the club in 2008 and 2009. They were repayable as early as 2007 (with break fees like the original prefs).
Actually, Rosie, the question posed by Crerand is an interesting one: If we didn't have the 'Ronaldo money' sitting in the bank, could MU finance have gone to market seeking the same permitted payments and expect the market to accept the guidance yield being offered?
What do you think?
Edit: It would be good to get a certain fund manager's view on this as well, just for balance, like.
The silence is deafening Redjazz aint it?
Could Red Football have raised the bond on the same terms without the Ronaldo cash being on the balance sheet?
Hmmm. Tricky one.....
Hmmm. Tricky one.....
It would be interesting if it hadnt been asked and answered several times in this very thread!
Since you are new (unlike CL) I will respond to say that I believe the bond would still have been a success regardless of Ronaldo.
I'm sure at least some, if not most, of those who purchased the bond are clued up enough to realise that 2009 was an exceptional year - even if you strip out Ronaldo or just use the figures from 2008 or 2007, you can see that our club is hugely profitable on an operating level.
The bond prospectus shows our EBITDA is strong and has been growing year on year - that is the vital indicator at the end of the day.
I am willing to accept that without the sale of Ronaldo, that they might have had to scale back the amount of money they could take out of the club.
But that doesnt mean they would have had any issue in raising that amount of money at that yield.
Well, thanks Anders but I think you need to be telling Commadus the good news, not me.
If that is good news they are in the shit. The mall location is not all that it's across the road from Global Supermarket a down market retailer.
Just look at the stores in that strip mall and if that is one of their best locations then I would be surprised.
Their other malls in Herndon are in better locations as it's near Dulles Airport. Bloom is more upmarket and the rents around that area will be far higher than aruond Manassas.
That's hilarious. Seriously? You are saying they could have had a £95m RP clause (two clauses in fact) with a cash balance of £66m (£30m ex the Aon prepayment)? So effectively the RCF could have had to be called to meet one of the coupon payments in the first year?
Really seriously? You don't normally do wind-ups.
EDIT: Just saw your answer. Fair enough...
See my post above - here I was responding more to the general question about raising that amount of money with that yield rather than more detailed specifics.
Well, thanks Anders but I think you need to be telling Commadus the good news, not me.
I just said it isn't going bust and it's one of the more expensive (large) properties they own. As I keep saying, dopey financing structures are more probably more important than trading performance. Portsmouth Station has a manageable mortgage that will be fine if the US is (properly) out of recession in two years. For all our sakes let's hope that's the case.
Profitable yes until the Glazer interest bill is factored in and you "believe" is hardly a convincing answer. I am sure our transfer policy in the period leading up to the bond issue was tailored in such a way to produce an impressive profit, as matter of fact the dogs on the street know that. I am glad however at least you tried to answer redjazz's question, you certainly NEVER answered the question when I have asked you before
Well you will have to forgive me if I find it difficult to put too much faith in 'conversations I had with people in the club'!
Regardless, it could well be the case that the Glazers dont have a pot to piss in - I am not really trying to argue otherwise, just presenting an alternative view to the hypothesis you put forward - the point is that we dont really know.
But to be honest, even if they are skint, I dont really give a shit because unlike other clubs we dont need any cash to be injected by the owners (which of course is the whole reason we were such a prime takeover target in the first place).
You can say whatever you want about the Glazers other businesses but as I keep saying it doesnt change the fact that Manchester United is a hugely profitable business that generates enough cash to service all its debts and still have plenty left over should Fergie wish to strengthen the squad.
Rood
What in particular would they have scaled back? And by how much?
I am not disputing 'they would have had any issue in raising that amount of money at that yield'. But to do so they would have had to amend the section relating to permitted payments in the prospectus. 146m in the bank entitled them to 2 carve-outs of 75m and 25m, what would 66m get them?
No idea - can't really be arsed to think about past hypotheticals as I don't see the point.
Yes I noticed you edited it!
Bit strange an hour after I already responded
Anyway I still cant be arsed - apart from to note that is it a bit stupid to just remove the £80m and ask a question about it as if everything else would be the same. For example, we wouldnt have bought Valencia etc etc - that's why I can't be bothered with rehashing the past - what's the point?
I might be wrong here but I detect a weariness in you here Rood. If I'm right, I can empathise. I am fast becoming tired of these circular arguments, hypothetical questions and speculative predictions.
For the time being, the discussion generally seems to have run its course.
It is now just a rehash of a rehash of a rehash of the same, tired points.
In an attempt to inject some life into it, one person has even gone to such lengths as to visit a Glazer owned mall and report his findings but when all is said and done, no one actually gives a shit and we're all just waiting for West Ham, really.
The Glazers will probably take what they have to take, there'll be a bit of reporting in the papers with the obligatory soundbite from Drasdo and then it will all be forgotten a month later as we start all over again, awaiting Anders' next installment of his one-eyed detective routine.
Then one day, the Glazers will decide to sell the club and we'll have new owners to bitch and moan about.
The thing that will annoy us the most, however, is when a defender strays from the post at a set-piece.
To be fair to Evans, I think he had to come off the post to stick on Zamora. If Evans was to stay on the post then someone else should have been picking Zamora up; it was kind of a 50/50 situation; Stay on the post incase an attempt at goal comes your way and leave Zamora open and unmarked in the six yard box vs. Leave the post unguarded but stick tight to Bobby Zamora. Unfortunately for United Evans went tails whilst the coin landed heads.
So the anti-Glazers have spoken to people within the club and have visited a mall to get an idea of footfall at one of the three main declared Glazer businesses to see if that's sustainable and could indeed contribute to covering the cost of the PIKs.
The apologists meanwhile sit there like the grumpy cnuts out of the Fast Show snearing at everything or deciding that they can't be bothered answering the more stretching questions (maybe because the answers do sit with their viewpoint) then wonder why people think they're being twattish.
The apologists meanwhile sit there like the grumpy cnuts out of the Fast Show snearing at everything or deciding that they can't be bothered answering the more stretching questions (maybe because the answers do sit with their viewpoint) then wonder why people think they're being twattish.
This is actually back to where you came in a few months back.
It's all your fault
Oh come on, URR, you can't count a poster visiting a bloody mall and saying, "Yeah, looks a bit shit," as valid research into how and when the PIK's will be paid off.
On that logic we can all look at our TV's during the West Ham match and say to ourselves, "Yeah, looks rammed in there," concluding that the PIK's aren't really an issue anyway.
Besides, you're missing the point. Nobody ever really thought that the malls were going to pay for the PIK notes, so why the big exposè to reveal that - shock horror - it's unlikely going to be profit from the badly recession-hit malls that pays for the PIK notes? It's all just a big andersred-herring case of "No shit, Sherlock!"
On that logic we can all look at our TV's during the West Ham match and say to ourselves, "Yeah, looks rammed in there," concluding that the PIK's aren't really an issue anyway.
Besides, you're missing the point. Nobody ever really thought that the malls were going to pay for the PIK notes, so why the big exposè to reveal that - shock horror - it's unlikely going to be profit from the badly recession-hit malls that pays for the PIK notes? It's all just a big andersred-herring case of "No shit, Sherlock!"
It's as valid as GCHQ's "in the know" type claims without revealing how he knows the stuff he claims to. Not everything he's said about is in the accounts.
GCHQ again flatly believed that I had been in receipt of a season ticket invitation despite only having booked 3 FA Cup tickets for the Boro tie in Jan 2005 because it didn't suit his opinion. You can't just repudiate evidence because you don't like it!
That's a facepalm at best. Borderline double facepalm.
Not really, he's highlighting that all Glazer businesses appear to be struggling to some extent. Both limited supply and demand businesses have gone from big season ticket waiting lists to general sale in best case scenario, a fact that you cannot deny. They are giving Bucs tickets away so that they can screen the game.
Fair enough but if it wasn't for the Glazers, we wouldn't be relying on "kids" like this though, we'd have spent billions on a time machine and we'd have a 28 year old Jaap Stam back in the centre of defence.
As peterstorey notes, we were already at this point way before you arrived!
There was a brief bit of reinterest when andersred was introduced but apart from a few spreadsheets there hasnt been much added to the discussion.
When people start talking about the footfall at Aldi in a random mall in USA then you know that people have lost sight of the big picture.
Apart from transfer muppetry, there was little else to discuss after the World Cup ended so these threads kept us occupied during the dry summer months, but now the season has started so I have no interest in continuing the same circulars.
If anyone has any new points to discuss then let me know - otherwise we await the next set of financials and we can start the process all over again!
So, what do you guys think of these Glazer fellas then?
In my defence, I was having a lot of these discussions on Anders' own blog several months before I even joined the Red Cafe.
It has now got to the stage where I vaguely remember saying some things but I can't remember if it was on there, in the Newbs or in the mains so I lose track of just how much I have repeated and where.
Perhaps the next set of financials will reveal something discussion worthy but I am beginning to doubt it to be honest. Almost every future scenario has already been speculated upon and discussed to death and so nothing would come as a surprise from here on in.
Except one thing perhaps - if the Glazer DON'T take £95million at some point during this financial year! Now THAT would blow a few minds - and arguments!
Do your own research. If that is Glazers most valuable Mall I would be laughing. Look on a map and see it's location its near Manassas Mall and about 10 minutes from Virginia Gateway which is more upmarket and far far bigger. Now if the Glazers owned Virginia Gateway they would have had something really substantial.
As to their other Malls in DC area they are for local residents - small on the US scale of malls and will never attract the major retailers.
- Status