ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think all this demonstrates is than noone has got a fecking clue what's going on and that all comment is utter speculation. Good stuff rood. As you were..

Quite right - I, and others, have been saying for a while that all the talk about the PIKs was pointless because no one knows the details. Andersred has tried to convince us that he had some kind of ITK detail about it all but it turns out he was as clueless as anyone else on that score.


You sound pleased that the fans are being shafted in a new and unusual way.

No Im just pleased to be proven right yet again - one day you will realise that everything I have been telling you is the reality of the situation. That doesnt mean I like it, it is just the way it is and sooner or later you will have to accept that or end up turning into a bitter old loon like fred.

I dont really see how this news makes any difference to the fans anyway - but Im sure MUST et al will find a way to negatively spin it that way.
 
Personally I'm loving the strength in depth in our squad so far this season.

I know loads of people who love the ACS and paying 40% more for their seats than they were five years ago.

I think whoring our "brand" round the world and pricing out our core support is great.

I prefer owners who make one public statement about the club in five years.

Every penny from one-off windfalls like selling the best player in the world should go to the owners in my view, why should we care?

If the owners avoid paying any tax on the club's profits then good luck to them, Salford doesn't REALLY need a maternity unit. The public sector is bloated and this is a good market discipline.

I like the reputation of the greatest football manager in the history of the English game being besmirched. Adds to the spice.

This trend of replacing long standing reds with tits with credit cards and megastore bags HELPS the atmosphere. It really does.

Everything is great. I have no idea why people make a fuss.

Sit down, watch the match and shut up.

Time for your Valium I think.
 
And just before I go to bed Anders, what would you now calculate the chances of your little group of Red Knights buying out the Glazers to be, in the not too distant future?

Hmmm why the sudden desire to change the topic GCHQ?

As far as I can see it, what has happened is that the Glazers have taken money out of United to essentially pay off a portion of their PIKs. Which, of course, are "nothing to do with United" (C) David Gill 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010.

Still no need to panic, because the other PIKs are nothing to do with United, we won't end up paying those off, oh no. And the Ronaldo money is still there of course. All is well. :rolleyes:
 
Quite right - I, and others, have been saying for a while that all the talk about the PIKs was pointless because no one knows the details. Andersred has tried to convince us that he had some kind of ITK detail about it all but it turns out he was as clueless as anyone else on that score.

No Im just pleased to be proven right yet again - one day you will realise that everything I have been telling you is the reality of the situation. That doesnt mean I like it, it is just the way it is and sooner or later you will have to accept that or end up turning into a bitter old loon like fred.

I dont really see how this news makes any difference to the fans anyway - but Im sure MUST et al will find a way to negatively spin it that way.

You've just contradicted yourself. If it was "pointless" to speculate about the PIK's, why do you deserve any credit for doing exactly that?

In fact, you do deserve credit for making an educated guess based on no evidence whatsoever. But, contrary to what you said earlier in the thread about others arguing against you, it would have been completely irresponsible for anyone to accept something that was not supported by any evidence. Skepticism in that situation was the only reasonable option, even if that speculation ultimately turned out to be correct.
 
:rolleyes:

Haven't you ever heard of the terms marketing, advertisement, publicity, business partners etc? 'Whoring' is a strange word to use under this context, unless you against us improving our brand value. :nono:

Apologies for the late night rant, a little OTT in the cold light of day. :o

On a more serious note and reflecting on this PIK purchase a little more, the "good for the club" vs. "makes no difference" boils down to what the Glazers do with their 20% share of any redemptions.

The bought the loans in late 2008 (post-Lehman), they certainly haven't cancelled them as the whole lot were still in the 2009 accounts.

Working on the assumption that the bond restricted payments are used as we all expect, the club only gains from this purchase if the Glazers recycle their 20% of redemption payments back into RFJV to fund further redemptions (and so on in an iterivative process for those mathmatically inclined). Now they might do that if (for example) they can't pay a 50% of CNI dividend one year, but there is no guarantee.

If they just trouser their share then all that has changed is that it isn't just a bunch of hedge funds making a mint on the PIKs, it's our beloved owners too.
 
I don't why you are apologising Anders the points you made are the whole crux of the matter, the Glazer fan club on here and there seems to be more than I originally thought need to wake up and the smell the coffee
 
Time for your Valium I think.

Ignoring the fact he's 100% right in everything he says about the club's finances. All that money in "manaagement fees" for our fine custodians.... well spent.

Maybe that valium will come in handy for the rest of us soon.
 
Apologies for the late night rant, a little OTT in the cold light of day. :o

On a more serious note and reflecting on this PIK purchase a little more, the "good for the club" vs. "makes no difference" boils down to what the Glazers do with their 20% share of any redemptions.

The bought the loans in late 2008 (post-Lehman), they certainly haven't cancelled them as the whole lot were still in the 2009 accounts.

Working on the assumption that the bond restricted payments are used as we all expect, the club only gains from this purchase if the Glazers recycle their 20% of redemption payments back into RFJV to fund further redemptions (and so on in an iterivative process for those mathmatically inclined). Now they might do that if (for example) they can't pay a 50% of CNI dividend one year, but there is no guarantee.

If they just trouser their share then all that has changed is that it isn't just a bunch of hedge funds making a mint on the PIKs, it's our beloved owners too.

It makes no sense for the Glazers to just ''trouser their share''. Why do that when the only threat to their £1.25bn Red Football Limited shareholding is the PIK debt?

The Glazers will want to take as little cash as possible out of the club to stabilize that PIK debt. They are long term owners who are completely focussed on the appreciation in value of their asset. They know that the club needs to continue to invest in order to sustain future growth. There are significant capital investment projects in the pipeline such as a major piazza and ''fanzone'' area in close proximity to the East Stand. The club will continue to invest heavily in players after a £200m outlay over the past five years.

They aren't going to starve the £1.25bn crown jewel in their portfolio of cash. You know that but you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. That's the issue here.
 
Hmmm why the sudden desire to change the topic GCHQ?

As far as I can see it, what has happened is that the Glazers have taken money out of United to essentially pay off a portion of their PIKs. Which, of course, are "nothing to do with United" (C) David Gill 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010.

Still no need to panic, because the other PIKs are nothing to do with United, we won't end up paying those off, oh no. And the Ronaldo money is still there of course. All is well. :rolleyes:

Sorry, what was I was supposed to be responding to? One of Andersred's bizarre rants?

We don't know how much the Glazers paid for the 20% portion of the PIKs. It could have been £15m, it could have easily been £25m. We don't know, so to link that transaction to a smaller £10m loan that was taken out several months after the PIK purchase was completed is highly speculative to say the least.
 
Ignoring the fact he's 100% right in everything he says about the club's finances. All that money in "manaagement fees" for our fine custodians.... well spent.

Maybe that valium will come in handy for the rest of us soon.

Oh do come on. Maternity units, whoring our brand? Ridiculous melodrama.
 
Ignoring the fact he's 100% right in everything he says about the club's finances. All that money in "manaagement fees" for our fine custodians.... well spent.

Maybe that valium will come in handy for the rest of us soon.

A combined total of just £13m in management fees over a four year period when the business generated in excess of £900m in revenue during the same time frame. Big fecking deal.
 
Interesting that the Independent is the only newspaper to have reported the excellent news about the PIK debt. Perhaps the story broke too late yesterday for Friday's edition but I'm sure they're looking to put a negative spin on it. No doubt Andersred/MUST have been busy all day helping with that.
 
It makes no sense for the Glazers to just ''trouser their share''. Why do that when the only threat to their £1.25bn Red Football Limited shareholding is the PIK debt?

The Glazers will want to take as little cash as possible out of the club to stabilize that PIK debt. They are long term owners who are completely focussed on the appreciation in value of their asset. They know that the club needs to continue to invest in order to sustain future growth. There are significant capital investment projects in the pipeline such as a major piazza and ''fanzone'' area in close proximity to the East Stand. The club will continue to invest heavily in players after a £200m outlay over the past five years.

They aren't going to starve the £1.25bn crown jewel in their portfolio of cash. You know that but you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. That's the issue here.

Could you expand a little on that please? How much do they plan on investing into it and what sort of income do they expect it to provide?
 
You've just contradicted yourself. If it was "pointless" to speculate about the PIK's, why do you deserve any credit for doing exactly that?

In fact, you do deserve credit for making an educated guess based on no evidence whatsoever. But, contrary to what you said earlier in the thread about others arguing against you, it would have been completely irresponsible for anyone to accept something that was not supported by any evidence. Skepticism in that situation was the only reasonable option, even if that speculation ultimately turned out to be correct.

You have taken comments from 2 seperate posts which are about different aspects!
It is the more recent speculation about PIK which is pointless because we need to wait for the next set of accounts to add anything new to the picture. We had plenty of worthwhile discussion about it in the past (although this was mostly based on very little real evidence). The bond prospectus gave us some insight into what was going on but we havent learned much since then - until now.

Even now we know relatively little of the details - apparently the Glazers bought some of the PIK at massive discounts but we dont actually know how much or at what price. But of course, we already see speculation trying to link the purchase to a directors loan, eventhough that was probably taken after the supposed event !!

My comments to ralphie refer to a long history of discussion I have had with him and not really just about any specific evidence about the PIKs (that is just one of many areas which I believe back up my POV) - ultimately this is more about the Glazers' business acumen and how safe the future of the club is in their hands.
This side of the issue all comes down to the fact that some people (andersred, ralphie, MUST etc) like to paint our owners as penniless chancers who conned their way to owning the club and are now struggling to keep it going.
My view has always been quite different, I believe the are successful businessmen who know exactly what they are doing. This is proven by 5 years worth of revenue and profit growth which has lead to the value of the club rising by anything upto 100% (and that is during the worst recession in living history!).

The PIK has always been used as a stick to beat them with - even now andersred is putting up charts showing what value the PIK would rise to by 2017 if left unpaid. This is completely ridiculous as that will never happen!
I would say that the revelation that the Glazers actually bought back some of this PIK at a huge discount also points to them being far more shrewd than the doom mongers ever give any credit for.

You do not need to like the Glazers or how they do business to recognise that they are successful businessmen who have added significant value to the club, it would not be in their interests to do anything to damage the value of their asset - this is why I am not worried about the future of the club under their ownership.
 
You have taken comments from 2 seperate posts which are about different aspects!
It is the more recent speculation about PIK which is pointless because we need to wait for the next set of accounts to add anything new to the picture. We had plenty of worthwhile discussion about it in the past (although this was mostly based on very little real evidence). The bond prospectus gave us some insight into what was going on but we havent learned much since then - until now.

Even now we know relatively little of the details - apparently the Glazers bought some of the PIK at massive discounts but we dont actually know how much or at what price. But of course, we already see speculation trying to link the purchase to a directors loan, eventhough that was probably taken after the supposed event !!

My comments to ralphie refer to a long history of discussion I have had with him and not really just about any specific evidence about the PIKs (that is just one of many areas which I believe back up my POV) - ultimately this is more about the Glazers' business acumen and how safe the future of the club is in their hands.
This side of the issue all comes down to the fact that some people (andersred, ralphie, MUST etc) like to paint our owners as penniless chancers who conned their way to owning the club and are now struggling to keep it going.
My view has always been quite different, I believe the are successful businessmen who know exactly what they are doing. This is proven by 5 years worth of revenue and profit growth which has lead to the value of the club rising by anything upto 100% (and that is during the worst recession in living history!).

The PIK has always been used as a stick to beat them with - even now andersred is putting up charts showing what value the PIK would rise to by 2017 if left unpaid. This is completely ridiculous as that will never happen!
I would say that the revelation that the Glazers actually bought back some of this PIK at a huge discount also points to them being far more shrewd than the doom mongers ever give any credit for.

You do not need to like the Glazers or how they do business to recognise that they are successful businessmen who have added significant value to the club, it would not be in their interests to do anything to damage the value of their asset - this is why I am not worried about the future of the club under their ownership.

this. I've stayed out of this discussion because I haven't read the details or seen the financials, but the one logical flaw in the argument of the doomsayers is that it makes no sense for the glazers to damage the value of the investment in the club.

Nor does it make sense to break up the club in anyway and sell it (as united as a whole is much more valuable than the sum of its parts)

The only observations I can make on the matter is that the glazers bought the club when debt was cheap. Then the GFC happened. Whilst I doubt in their wildest dreams they would have expected this turn of events and probably forecasted they could refinance to cheaper debt down the track, the fact they aren't actively trying to sell the holding or show no interest in selling their holdings speaks volumes to me that although things probably aren't exactly falling to their initial plan, that the situation is not 'dire'.

I would assume the lack of perceived squad investment as some form of budgetary constraint (probably as a result of current credit market conditions) but the fact that 7m could be made available for a little known player suggests to me that if SAF WANTED to buy, money would be made available
 
bend over and spread 'em

Get this then- the Glaziers took 13 million in 'management fees" last year and they then used that money to buy some of the PIKs debt with a face value of 35 million- so the club now owes them the 35 million as well and to cap it all are having to pay 16.5% interest on the 35mil. on top!!
:lol::lol::lol:Is this legal?
 
perhaps I don't understand the PIKs but I would have thought that the 35m face value is what is due and payable on maturity. The fact that they obtained it at a deep 'discount' suggests that the interest will bring it up to the 35?
 
Get this then- the Glaziers took 13 million in 'management fees" last year and they then used that money to buy some of the PIKs debt with a face value of 35 million- so the club now owes them the 35 million and to cap it all are having to pay 16.5% interest on the 35mil. on top!!
:lol::lol::lol:Is this legal?

Nope. And it's inaccurate too.
 
It makes no sense for the Glazers to just ''trouser their share''. Why do that when the only threat to their £1.25bn Red Football Limited shareholding is the PIK debt?

The Glazers will want to take as little cash as possible out of the club to stabilize that PIK debt. They are long term owners who are completely focussed on the appreciation in value of their asset. They know that the club needs to continue to invest in order to sustain future growth. There are significant capital investment projects in the pipeline such as a major piazza and ''fanzone'' area in close proximity to the East Stand. The club will continue to invest heavily in players after a £200m outlay over the past five years.

They aren't going to starve the £1.25bn crown jewel in their portfolio of cash. You know that but you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. That's the issue here.

The Piazza and the fanzone which as a family man I would be interested in, where did you read or hear this? it is news to me I must admit. Your portfolio of cash statement I must admit made me laugh, did you not mean portfolio of debt in all their business's including their crown jewel
 
Cheers for the info anders

I would like to point out that I had put foward the possibility that the Glazers had repurchased some of the debt at discounted prices on several occasions in the past.
Of course, the usual suspects told me I didnt know what I was talking about and reeled out the standard worst case scenario bollocks!

It is nice to be proven right (again)

Where have you said this ?

I am gonna do what you do and ask for the posts to back that up.

I don't recall you ever saying anything like that. In fact you are the biggest exponent of the theory that they would be paying off the PIK debts with the money in the bank..

You've completely changed your tune.
 
Where have you said this ?

I am gonna do what you do and ask for the posts to back that up.

I don't recall you ever saying anything like that. In fact you are the biggest exponent of the theory that they would be paying off the PIK debts with the money in the bank..

You've completely changed your tune.

Oh yeah that's right! You told everyone that five years ago you'd accurately predicted everything that's happened at United since our new owners took over the club but it turned out that you were full of shit and had actually just been indiscriminately spouting whatever angry crap was popular at the time with no original thought of your own whatsoever and then when about one percent of you inane prophecies of doom vaguely turned out to resemble something getting towards what one might consider to be a meagre reflection of reality then you brazenly declared yourself the caf's very own reincarnation of Nostradamus and bent over and started sucking your own dick like some kind of spasticated e-gimp; thanks for reminding us, fred!
 
Where have you said this ?

I am gonna do what you do and ask for the posts to back that up.

I don't recall you ever saying anything like that. In fact you are the biggest exponent of the theory that they would be paying off the PIK debts with the money in the bank..

You've completely changed your tune.

I've put forward the possibility that the Glazers had bought back some debt at discounted prices on a few occasions (mostly around the time that the media stories about our debt being available to purchase at a discount) - I have also mentioned how the PIK could have been a mechanism for the Glazers to take income from the club.
No idea when or in which thread unfortuantely - at some point I might attempt to find it when I have the time.

Also I still believe they will pay off more PIK with excess cash from the club so nothing has changed there either.
 
An interesting article I thought

German club fans set for boycott


By John Sinnott

Two historic matches take place in the industrial heartlands of England and Germany this Sunday that throw into focus just how little Premier League fans have been able to influence boardroom change.

Thousands of Liverpool supporters will make the trip to watch their team play Manchester United at Old Trafford, with large majorities of both sets of fans unhappy about the way their clubs have been run by their respective American owners. Over in Germany, thousands of Borussia Dortmund fans are similarly unhappy - with the major difference that they will not be travelling to watch their team take on Schalke in the Bundesliga.

A boycott has been organised in protest against a hike in visitor ticket prices and 1,500 Dortmund fans have already returned their tickets. Many supporters have been unable to get refunds but still will not travel.
More than 300 different Dortmund supporter groups across Germany are involved in the boycott, which is designed to highlight unease at being asked to pay more than 22 euro (£19) for a standing ticket. Last season, Schalke were charging 13.50 euro for the same match, while Liverpool fans will have to fork out £51 for a ticket at Old Trafford.

"This protest is not aimed towards Schalke but against the price hike which basically every club here in Germany is part of," Stephan Uersfeld, of the German fanzine Schwatzgelb, told BBC Sport. "Now, for the first time, the 20 euro mark has been crossed by a club and we are no longer willing to sit back and find out what happens next. It is time to raise our voices, no matter what club it is." Uersfeld, who pays 184 euro (£152) to watch Borussia's 17 home Bundesliga games as well as one European match, insists football supporters have more power than they might think. "We are part of the game, part of the business, but people do not take us seriously," he said. "What happens if the fans don't show up? Can they be replaced by another audience?"

In the past, some English fans have been prepared to boycott the club that they support, notably the bands of supporters that formed FC United and AFC Wimbledon. FC United was set up in 2005 in protest to how Manchester United had moved further away from its local supporters, culminating in the takeover of the club by American owner Malcolm Glazer. AFC Wimbledon began its existence in 2002 to preserve the local club's history after a decision was taken to move the club from its original west London base to Milton Keynes with a new name of MK Dons.

"The Wimbledon Independent Supporters Association had a database of 1,500 members," said long-standing AFC Wimbledon supporter Laurence Lowne, who helped mobilise opposition to former Wimbledon owner Charles Koppel's plan to move north. "We had lines of communication in play and were very active," added Lowne, who was part of a boycott of Wimbledon's home game with Rotherham in 2002 that saw just 849 fans attend the match - one of the lowest Football League crowds in history.

But it is telling that these supporters chose to set up alternative clubs rather than hang around - in the case of FC United - for the likes of the Glazer family to start listening to their concerns.

"There is an anti-intellectual strain in English culture," said Dave Boyle, chief executive of Supporters Direct, which aims to create the conditions in which fans can secure influence ownership of clubs. "Many fans aren't interested in taking collective action. For many, football is about getting away from the wife, kids and their working life. "On the other side of the coin, there aren't that many enlightened chief executives. People like Ivan Gazidis at Arsenal are in the minority. Too many take the view: 'What's the worst that can happen if I don't take these fans seriously?'"

While some fans decamped to set up FC United, the Manchester United Supporters' Trust (Must) has been fighting a campaign to force the Glazer family to sell the Premier League club. In the summer, Manchester United failed to sell out their season ticket allocation, selling 51,800, compared to its target of 54,000, but blogger and United season ticket holder Andersred, who has written extensively about the club's finances, believes boycotting Old Trafford matches would be more symbolic than practical. "I'm sure David Gill et al would worry if the television showed banks of empty seats, it certainly takes away from the "allure" of United and Old Trafford," he said.

"The interesting time will come when United have a poor season.
"With unsold season tickets already, the time could come in future years when there are a significant number of unsold seats - perhaps in the aftermath of Sir Alex Ferguson's retirement if that leads to a dip in form."
Back at Anfield, James McKenna - who is a Liverpool fan and member of the supporter group Spirit of Shankly - burst out laughing when he heard how much Schalke were proposing to charge Dortmund fans even after a price increase from last season.

A Schalke season ticket for a seat behind the goal costs £292
In June the price of a Kop seat booked online rose to £680 with the main stand priced at £732 - a 7% increase. his season McKenna, who helps run the Spirit of Shankly - one of the supporter groups unhappy about the way owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett are running the club - decided to give up his season ticket in protest at the Americans' continued presence at Anfield. "I took the decision I didn't just want to support them financially," said McKenna. We have thought of boycotting them. But supporters think it's our football club and they don't want to be pushed out and lose their identity. "I've made a decision to give up my season ticket, but it's difficult for others who have been given their tickets by their fathers. "A boycott would have to be regular and sustained to make it work, but it probably would be successful. It sends a powerful message that they can no longer be depended on for our financial support. "Having said that there is a lot of apathy. People just don't care and they just want to watch 90 minutes of football."

Sunday's match is not the first time this season that German fans have voiced their unhappiness as Schalke coach Felix Magath has found to his cost. Prior to Magath's arrival the club and fans would routinely hold extensive discussions over proposed ticket price increases. Magath has pursued a different management style, sacking the club's supporter liaison officer Rolf Rojek, who had been in the job for over 20 years, and dismissing fans' protests, saying they were a "small" group of supporters. That prompted 3,000 Schalke fans to wear T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "The Small Group" for the season opener at Hamburg. Their action has forced Magath to back away from his confrontational managerial style and he spent time talking to supporters before he wrapped up the signing of Klaus-Jan Huntelaar from AC Milan.

But protests in Germany are not just confined to Dortmund and Schalke.
On 9 October supporters from 30 clubs under the umbrella of three nationwide supporter organisations are planning a demonstration in Berlin to "Save our fan culture".

For United and Liverpool fans unhappy at the way that the Glazers and Hicks and Gillett have been running their respective clubs, attempts to have a say in the boardroom have been vocal, colourful and have garnered plenty of column inches, but so far, have been largely futile.

Influencing the likes of United chief executive David Gill and his Anfield counterpart Christian Purslow has proved nigh-on impossible, mainly because dialogue between boardroom and the fans is practically non-existent.
McKenna says the Spirit of Shankly has met Purslow once but that was at the request of the Liverpool fan group, and when BBC Sport asked Liverpool to give examples of ways in which the club engaged with fans, they failed to provide any response.

"All the dialogue has been one way, with us going to Purslow," said McKenna.
Manchester United, on the other hand, provided a statement outlining the club's fans forum which meets three times a year to debate club policies and "reflects the varied sections of the club's fan base". Both Must and Shareholder Liverpool FC, which is campaigning for fans to have part ownership in Liverpool, say that potential buyers are keen to allow fans a greater say in the way their clubs will be run.

But the new dawn of new ownership structure, which incorporates fans, remains some way off. "One day we will have the keys to Liverpool - maybe not in my lifetime - but I genuinely believe it will happen," said McKenna.
Simon Chadwick, professor of sport business strategy and marketing at Coventry University, goes as far to suggest a link between German fans' desire for collective action and Germany's success in reaching the semi-finals in the 2010 World Cup.

I have been going to Anfield for 35 yeArs, it's a part of my life, but am so fed up with what's going on with football in general, that the love has gone from the game.

"The Germans have a sharp sense of democracy and of the rights of people to openly express their views," said Chadwick. "Dortmund fans, rather than feeling embarrassed or that they should not express opposing or confrontational views, are likely to have taken the view that it is their entitlement to take this form of action. "Interestingly too, despite German 'openness' and democracy, ultimately, German society operates on the basis of consensus rather than unilateral action.

"As a footnote to this, I don't think British people have the same notion of consensus or collective action that the Germans do. "I guess, in many ways, what happened in the summer at the World Cup is a microcosm of the differences between Germany and England. "The group, the team, is always more important than a series of individuals. Moreover, I don't think the British, as a society, have the same strongly defined sense or acceptance of direct action as the Germans."

Boyle also suggests that it's not just clubs that are guilty of non engagement - the Football Association is equally unconcerned about listening to supporters' concerns. "There are 10 million football fans in England and over 100 FA councillors, but there is only one FA councillor who represents fans' concerns, despite Lord Burns' recommendation that there should be three," he added.

"The FA is public property, yet fans are not allowed a voice. I've got more ability to influence the House of Lords than I have the FA."
 
Seems clever by the Glazers I must admit.

They borrow money from the club to buy a discounted loan which they know the club has to pay back in full with interest and I'd bet my bottom bollock that at this point if it's legally possible they will write off their outstanding loan from the club.

Very good move buy them but further strengthens the argument that the fans are being shafted.
 
Seems clever by the Glazers I must admit.

They borrow money from the club to buy a discounted loan which they know the club has to pay back in full with interest and I'd bet my bottom bollock that at this point if it's legally possible they will write off their outstanding loan from the club.

Very good move buy them but further strengthens the argument that the fans are being shafted.

The fact that the Glazer's treat the fans with absolute contempt has already been established. Further shoody dealings from shoddy ruthless businessmen
 
fecked twice

Seems clever by the Glazers I must admit.

They borrow money from the club to buy a discounted loan which they know the club has to pay back in full with interest and I'd bet my bottom bollock that at this point if it's legally possible they will write off their outstanding loan from the club.

Very good move buy them but further strengthens the argument that the fans are being shafted.

And it's all tax free!!
They pull millions out of the Manchester economy and ship it abroad simultaneously cheating the British tax man with this crafty dodge and the fans bankroll the whole deal!
 
That's a bit of an odd way of looking at it .....

Don't United employ 800 odd Manunicans?
Yes and a few very well paid foreigners. I think his point is that the exchequer is losing £M to fund Glazer's acquisition (even more so if they keep the Glazer-owned PIKS as a tax deductable and write it off at the end).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.