ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

[Stavros]

People used to sometimes borrow a portion of their acquisition costs, the leveraged buy-out is a relatively recent phenomenon one that encourages asset stripping and short termism. It's entirely unhelpful to the economy at large not just football and could be stopped by changing the tax laws which were never intended to facilitate such take overs (as Osbourne suggested in fact until his masters twisted his arm).

The purpose of an LBO is to make a large acquisition without having to commit a lot of capital. The acquirers also want to maximize shareholder value by attempting to create a stronger and more profitable combined entity. The buyer needs to ensure that the expected synergies materialize in order to realize financial returns. Today, however, LBOs are increasingly used as a way to make an average company become a great company.

LBO's are generally used to make strategic investments that would result in long term gain. There may be strategic downsizing (lay-off's etc), but these are aimed at making a company profitable over the long haul.

Ofcourse they are a very risky propsition and if handled wrongly would ultimately result in bakruptcy...and this risk is enahnced by an unstable economy...and in our case the recession spelt bad news for our club.

I think you are confusing this with a hostile take over (which overlaps and may form part of an LBO but is not a exact match), where in a big company purchases a small comapany for a tactical advantage, which would be more of a carnivoral approach to this.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

One asset was the season ticket waiting list. Stripped.

The demand for tickets is being stripped.

Not everything is necessarily tangible.

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

Ronaldo?

Absolute fanny.

 

[ciderman9000000]

One asset was the season ticket waiting list. Stripped.

The demand for tickets is being stripped.

Not everything is necessarily tangible.

Are you seriously suggesting that our owners are asset stripping United? If so then, in response, i'd seriously suggest that you seek medical advice; you've become fecking delusional.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

One asset was the season ticket waiting list. Stripped.

The demand for tickets is being stripped.

Not everything is necessarily tangible.

That's not what 'asset stripping' means - they're not material assets.

Asset stripping would be things like selling off the training ground, Old Trafford, players registrations etc to raise money and then removing this money from the club. As far as I can see, the Glazers' strategy isn't to asset strip the club - there would be little sense in that as they would decimate the value of their main asset, the club - but rather to maximise revenues (which leads to increased ticket prices and the like), minimise costs if possible, and wait for the value of the club to appreciate.

My guess at the moment is that their strategy will likely work out, at the expense of the fans of course.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

Are you seriously suggesting that our owners are asset stripping United? If so then, in response, i'd seriously suggest that you seek medical advice; you've become fecking delusional.

Only in the sense that they're reducing the saleable value of the product by decreasing demand for it. In real terms, we know that the fans will back the new owners (for the short term at least).

 

[Stavros]

One asset was the season ticket waiting list. Stripped.

The demand for tickets is being stripped.

Not everything is necessarily tangible.

From when was a waiting list considered an asset? And what do you mean by demand for tickets being stripped. I though it was some fan clubs that supported boycott of tickets as a form of protest?

 

[ciderman9000000]

The sale of one or two assets, tangible or not, is not asset stripping.

Asset stripping is the systematic breakdown of a company and sale of it's component parts individually for more than the company as a whole was worth.

The sale of an asset or two then is not asset stripping unless it complies also with the definition above. Rather, it's just standard business practice to sell an asset when such action would be beneficial; especially if the business is a football club and the asset in question is a player; it happens all the time and, for reiteration's sake, is not asset stripping!

 

[ralphie88]

Rather, it's just standard business practice to sell an asset when such action would be beneficial; especially if the business is a football club and the asset in question is a player; it happens all the time

Although a club needing to find £60m+ a season in interest payments is, of course, likely to be under more pressure to sell assets than one which isn't.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Although a club needing to find £60m+ a season in interest payments is, of course, likely to be under more pressure to sell assets than one which isn't.

Not necessarily, no; there are many other factors that would need to be considered other than just the extent of a club's interest payments. As an example, for a club such as United with a huge annual turnover, such interest payments would be quite affordable; yet a club operating at a loss such as Aston Villa, even without £60m annual interest payments to make, would be under much more pressure to sell assets.

 

[Crerand Legend]

The sale of one or two assets, tangible or not, is not asset stripping.

Asset stripping is the systematic breakdown of a company and sale of it's component parts individually for more than the company as a whole was worth.

The sale of an asset or two then is not asset stripping unless it complies also with the definition above. Rather, it's just standard business practice to sell an asset when such action would be beneficial; especially if the business is a football club and the asset in question is a player; it happens all the time and, for reiteration's sake, is not asset stripping!

Was Ronaldo not a player then?

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

Was Ronaldo not a player then?

Alright crerand. I give up. We sold ronaldo against his will to service the debts.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Was Ronaldo not a player then?

What?

 

[Crerand Legend]

Alright crerand. I give up. We sold ronaldo against his will to service the debts.

Not against his will which deflected blame but we HAD to sell him more than he wanted to go, two months previous we wouldn't sell them a virus, what changed that attitude? The departure of Tevez and Ronaldo was driven by the huge Glazer debt and the impending bond issue

 

[robertsoncrusoe]

Selling Ronaldo wasn't asset stripping though, was it? It was the sale of one asset which, considering the huge fee involved and the player's non-commitment to the club, was the logical thing to do in the circumstances; it was not asset stripping. Asset stripping is the breaking down and selling of all of a company's assets because individually they're worth more than the company as a whole. Selling Ronaldo had absolutely nothing to do with asset stripping, which is not going on at United despite the protestations of peterstorey's ill-informed bullshit.

Fabregas also had a " non- commitment " to his club but he's still there!

 

[MDFC Manager]

Fabregas also had a " non- commitment " to his club but he's still there!

We were offered money equivalent to Ronaldo's value. Arse were offered no where close enough to Fabregas's valuation.

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

Not against his will which deflected blame but we HAD to sell him more than he wanted to go, two months previous we wouldn't sell them a virus, what changed that attitude? The departure of Tevez and Ronaldo was driven by the huge Glazer debt and the impending bond issue

Utter bollocks.

 

[robertsoncrusoe]

It was his 'dream' to play for RM. We could not have retained him by any means. No way that could be classified as asset stripping.

Like I said- Fabregas 'dreamed' of playing for Barca

 

[Kraftwerker]

I can't believe that there's retards who think Ronaldo would still be here without the Glazers.

 

[Kraftwerker]

Like I said- Fabregas 'dreamed' of playing for Barca

Fabregas' situation is identical to the situation we were in with Ronaldo in summer '08. We got him to stay one more year.

Fabregas will be gone next summer, as with Ronaldo in summer '09.

Stop being a spastic.

 

[robertsoncrusoe]

That's not what 'asset stripping' means - they're not material assets.

Asset stripping would be things like selling off the training ground, Old Trafford, players registrations etc to raise money and then removing this money from the club. As far as I can see, the Glazers' strategy isn't to asset strip the club - there would be little sense in that as they would decimate the value of their main asset, the club - but rather to maximise revenues (which leads to increased ticket prices and the like), minimise costs if possible, and wait for the value of the club to appreciate.

My guess at the moment is that their strategy will likely work out, at the expense of the fans of course.

So where is the money disappearing to?

 

[robertsoncrusoe]

The sale of one or two assets, tangible or not, is not asset stripping.

Asset stripping is the systematic breakdown of a company and sale of it's component parts individually for more than the company as a whole was worth.

The sale of an asset or two then is not asset stripping unless it complies also with the definition above. Rather, it's just standard business practice to sell an asset when such action would be beneficial; especially if the business is a football club and the asset in question is a player; it happens all the time and, for reiteration's sake, is not asset stripping!

Nice one!
So we'll just call it asset selling then......... they still sold Ronaldo though.

 

[MDFC Manager]

I can't believe that there's retards who think Ronaldo would still be here without the Glazers.

This.

Fabregas' situation is identical to the situation we were in with Ronaldo in summer '08. We got him to stay one more year.

Fabregas will be gone next summer, as with Ronaldo in summer '09.

Stop being a spastic.

And this too.

 

[robertsoncrusoe]

Alright crerand. I give up. We sold ronaldo against his will to service the debts.

No.

Since you guys assure us that the club has plenty of money in hand to easily pay it's debts we could have kept Ronaldo against his will and still serviced the debts.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Nice one!
So we'll just call it asset selling then......... they still sold Ronaldo though.

They didnt want to be seen indulging in slavery.

 

[robertsoncrusoe]

Fabregas' situation is identical to the situation we were in with Ronaldo in summer '08. We got him to stay one more year.

Fabregas will be gone next summer, as with Ronaldo in summer '09.

Stop being a spastic.

Total guesswork!

Facht- Ronaldo was sold
Spechulation- Fabregas might be.

 

[Kraftwerker]

No.

Since you guys assure us that the club has plenty of money in hand to easily pay it's debts we could have kept Ronaldo against his will and still serviced the debts.

We did keep Ronaldo against his will for a whole season. His form dipped as a result too. Why would we force him to stay longer, and make him more unhappy?

Besides, we got a decent replacement, who made PFA team of the year. Are you unhappy with Antonio Valencia?

Do you even support United?

 

[Kraftwerker]

Total guesswork!

Facht- Ronaldo was sold
Spechulation- Fabregas might be.

The only guess-work going on is you guessing that Ronaldo would still be here only for the Glazers.

It's a fecking stupid opinion to hold, and makes you look like an idiot.

 

[Rood]

So to recap this thread was revived with some relatively interesting news about the PIK, yet the usual muppets still manage to turn the conversation to fecking Ronaldo

This is what we should be discussing - the rest has been covered several times:

Glazers' buy-back reduces Old Trafford interest burden - Premier League, Football - The Independent
The mystery of how the Glazer family are sustaining the most punishing interest repayments on their £750m Manchester United debt became clearer last night after reports suggested they had wiped a significant portion of it out...

 

[Commadus]

So should we use a German system where only half of interest costs can be written down against profits.

The Anglo Saxon model encourages takeovers which fuels nice fat fees. What are the statistics 4 out of 5 M&A loses shareholder value.

 

[Crerand Legend]

So to recap this thread was revived with some relatively interesting news about the PIK, yet the usual muppets still manage to turn the conversation to fecking Ronaldo

This is what we should be discussing - the rest has been covered several times:

Glazers' buy-back reduces Old Trafford interest burden - Premier League, Football - The Independent
The mystery of how the Glazer family are sustaining the most punishing interest repayments on their £750m Manchester United debt became clearer last night after reports suggested they had wiped a significant portion of it out...

Hmm it might bother you but the truth usually continues to rear its head, he was sold mainly because we had to. Calling people muppets because you have no answer to questions is a bit classless

 

[MDFC Manager]

So to recap this thread was revived with some relatively interesting news about the PIK, yet the usual muppets still manage to turn the conversation to fecking Ronaldo

This is what we should be discussing - the rest has been covered several times:

Glazers' buy-back reduces Old Trafford interest burden - Premier League, Football - The Independent
The mystery of how the Glazer family are sustaining the most punishing interest repayments on their £750m Manchester United debt became clearer last night after reports suggested they had wiped a significant portion of it out...

Well my lack of business/accounting knowledge makes me redundant to the above discussion. Can you put it n simpler words , this recent development?

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

Hmm it might bother you but the truth usually continues to rear its head, he was sold mainly because we had to. Calling people muppets because you have no answer to questions is a bit classless

Hes calling you a muppet because you are talking speculative bollocks as usual.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Hmm it might bother you but the truth usually continues to rear its head, he was sold mainly because we had to. Calling people muppets because you have no answer to questions is a bit classless

Thats right, except not for reasons which you think.

 

[Kraftwerker]

Hmm it might bother you but the truth usually continues to rear its head, he was sold mainly because we had to. Calling people muppets because you have no answer to questions is a bit classless

Do you honestly think Ronaldo would still be here, if the Glazers weren't?

Seriously?

 

[Crerand Legend]

Hes calling you a muppet because you are talking speculative bollocks as usual.

Are you two in the same class at primary school? similar behaviour. It has already been well established that we had to sell plus get AON to pay up front to make the books look good for the bond issue

 

[Rood]

Well my lack of business/accounting knowledge makes me redundant to the above discussion. Can you put it n simpler words , this recent development?

In simple terms, the amount of money that the Glazers owe on the PIK loan is lower than anyone thought because they pulled off a very clever move at the height of the financial crisis.

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

Are you two in the same class at primary school? similar behaviour. It has already been well established that we had to sell plus get AON to pay up front to make the books look good for the bond issue

Well established? Really? I'll need a link for that because I missed it and suspect you are making it up. Not for the first time.

 

[robertsoncrusoe]

The only guess-work going on is you guessing that Ronaldo would still be here only for the Glazers.

It's a fecking stupid opinion to hold, and makes you look like an idiot.

We were discussing the fact that the glazers took 13 million in 'management' fees -used the 13 million to buy 42 million of depressed PIKs debt which the club now owes in full to the bastards and on top of that they are back-charging the full 16.5% interest on the 42mil to the club. I make that 55 million we gave them plus the privilege of paying an extra 7 million a year on top- all of which the bastards get tax free!- fecking you once and then fecking you twice.
You seem OK with that- sounds slightly masochistic to me though.

The Ronaldo thing is a side issue that some other asshole brought up regarding asset stripping. We are better off without him, my beef is with the money disappearing.

 

[Transfer United Till I Die]

We were discussing the fact that the glazers took 13 million in 'management' fees -used the 13 million to buy 42 million of depressed PIKs debt which the club now owes in full to the bastards and on top of that they are back-charging the full 16.5% interest on the 42mil to the club. I make that 55 million we gave them plus the privilege of paying an extra 7 million a year on top- all of which the bastards get tax free!- fecking you once and then fecking you twice.
You seem OK with that- sounds slightly masochistic to me though.

The Ronaldo thing is a side issue that some other asshole brought up regarding asset stripping. We are better off without him, my beef is with the money disappearing.

Just for the record, do we actually know that the Glazers are holding the the PIKs and taking the interest rather than just writing it off? And do you know they bought it with the management fees? Im sure it had been speculated by Andersred that the loan had paid for it.