ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is remarkable that the anti Glazer movement remains as strong, even with the Glazers using SAF to try and calm their stormy waters. The next set of accounts will again show fans how they are draining the club for their own good. Money and not the good of Manchester United is what they are here for, ever see the photos of them at a game? They looked bored out of their minds
 
ciderman9000000 said:
That's what i thought to be honest, i just presumed i'd missed the bit Ralphie was on about.
Click to expand...

Yes the Die Die Glazer, Love United Hate Glazer & We Want Glazer Out chants and the United Against Glazer banner that was held up behind the goal for the whole second half. Easy to miss. :)

ciderman said:
It was a good atmosphere. Did i hear a Berbatov song? How did that go?
Click to expand...

Dimitar Ber-Berbatov
Dimitar Ber-Berbatov

As sung at Blackburn in 2008 but now finally taking off.
 
ralphie88 said:
Yes the Die Die Glazer, Love United Hate Glazer & We Want Glazer Out chants and the United Against Glazer banner that was held up behind the goal for the whole second half. Easy to miss. :)



Dimitar Ber-Berbatov
Dimitar Ber-Berbatov

As sung at Blackburn in 2008 but now finally taking off.
Click to expand...

I guess you could hum along till the chorus if you couldn't remember the verse.
 
ralphie88 said:
Yes the Die Die Glazer, Love United Hate Glazer & We Want Glazer Out chants and the United Against Glazer banner that was held up behind the goal for the whole second half. Easy to miss. :)
Click to expand...

I guess they just didn't stand out for me. I liked the Sheasy one shortly after kick off though, always sounds good that. I don't think anyone would be suprised to hear that an anti-Glazer chant was sung at a United game, we all know that there are certain fans who hate Glazer and they're likely as not to be inclined to start a chant about it, it's no big deal, i've joined in with anti-Glazer chants myself on a number of occasions at United.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
It did sound immense, it's just a shame that you're first reaction to hearing a good atmosphere is to start thinking about the Glazers and how much you hate them.
Click to expand...


It's like an anesthetic.... you beat Scunthorpe 5-2 and you can't feel that big glazer cock right up your ass!
 
Who do you support then, crusoe? You're a thick as pigshit wum, that much is clear, but i can't figure out what team you're supposed to be supporting.
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Who do you support then, crusoe? You're a thick as pigshit wum, that much is clear, but i can't figure out what team you're supposed to be supporting.
Click to expand...

"According to the Forbes rich list that was released only yesterday, Manchester United owners “Malcolm Glazer and Family” have a net worth of $2.4billion and lie in joint 400th place as the World’s richest, having built an empire through sports teams and real estate.

With Manchester United laden with debt brought on by the purchase of Manchester United, fans will be furious that whilst a Manchester United owner sits on $2.4billion, the Old Trafford club have to face debts up to a reported £700m."

All that is except 9000000
 
ralphie88 said:
Yes the Die Die Glazer, Love United Hate Glazer & We Want Glazer Out chants and the United Against Glazer banner that was held up behind the goal for the whole second half. Easy to miss. :)



Dimitar Ber-Berbatov
Dimitar Ber-Berbatov

As sung at Blackburn in 2008 but now finally taking off.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a David Gill is a w*nker chat as well?
 
robertsoncrusoe said:
"According to the Forbes rich list that was released only yesterday, Manchester United owners “Malcolm Glazer and Family” have a net worth of $2.4billion and lie in joint 400th place as the World’s richest, having built an empire through sports teams and real estate.

With Manchester United laden with debt brought on by the purchase of Manchester United, fans will be furious that whilst a Manchester United owner sits on $2.4billion, the Old Trafford club have to face debts up to a reported £700m."

All that is except 9000000
Click to expand...

Doh, there's me forgetting not to think and feel what an anonymous newspaper article tells me to think and feel!

What the feck's wrong with you, crusoe? I asked what team you support and you come up with this trash in reply?
 
ralphie88 said:
You couldn't hear the fans without hearing the anti-Glazer or see the United end in the second half without seeing the big G&G banner.

So yes I admit, I did think of how annoyed the pro-Glazerites on here would be and have a little chuckle to myself. :D
Click to expand...

Aye, 'cos a handful of ASBO cretins singing a few songs and waving a banner about is going to make a real difference in terms of forcing the Glazers to sell the club.

Or not.
 
GCHQ said:
Aye, 'cos a handful of ASBO cretins singing a few songs and waving a banner about is going to make a real difference in terms of forcing the Glazers to sell the club.

Or not.
Click to expand...

I never said it would. I just pointed out that it showed your claim that the campaign was over was bollocks.

And if if was just a 'handful' of protesters, I'm sure the wider United support would have had words, eh? They've not been shy in the past.
 
ralphie88 said:
I never said it would. I just pointed out that it showed your claim that the campaign was over was bollocks.

And if if was just a 'handful' of protesters, I'm sure the wider United support would have had words, eh? They've not been shy in the past.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever claimed that the campaign was over. I've pointed out on several occasions that it could regain its momentum at some point this season given the right circumstances. What is absolutely clear is that the anti-Glazer campaign so far this term has been significantly less prominent than it was in the second half of last season.
 
Ciderman is so fecking odious it's untrue

How you can look yourself in the mirror after your sob story hissy over the threat of legal action while you continue to act a jerk on a very personal level to a bloke not even fecking on here is incredulous

If I were running this place I'd turf you out, you're not worth the bother you might get this place into
 
B Cantona said:
Ciderman is so fecking odious it's untrue

How you can look yourself in the mirror after your sob story hissy over the threat of legal action while you continue to act a jerk on a very personal level to a bloke not even fecking on here is incredulous

If I were running this place I'd turf you out, you're not worth the bother you might get this place into
Click to expand...

Seconded
 
B Cantona said:
Ciderman is so fecking odious it's untrue

How you can look yourself in the mirror after your sob story hissy over the threat of legal action while you continue to act a jerk on a very personal level to a bloke not even fecking on here is incredulous

If I were running this place I'd turf you out, you're not worth the bother you might get this place into
Click to expand...

That's a bit rich coming from the caf's own queen of hissy fits. In fact, it sounds like you're having one right now, brad.

Lucky you're not running this place though, aint it?

:devil:
 
Anyway. Before we were side-tracked by ralphie's irrelevant bullshit we were having a grown-up discussion about club finances; here were the last two on-topic posts if anyone wishes to take up where we left off...

ciderman9000000 said:
A few posters seem to be asking, "What if the Glazers do not write off their portion of the PIK notes?"

Well, if we take GCHQ's assumption that the notes would have to be paid off evenly, that is, any payment towards them would have to be spread across all the notes regardless of the identity of the holder, then you'll find that the net effect would be exactly the same as if the Glazers did write off their portion of the PIK's.

In explanation of this, look above at the 'Scenario B' spreadsheet. This shows how soon the PIK's could possibly be eradicated if the Glazers wrote off their portion. Look at the 'Total PIK' level for year 2011; after the £95m payment is made and the interest added for 2010, the total of outstanding PIK debt in 2011 is £91m.

Now, consider what would happen in the same situation but instead with the Glazers' portion of the PIK notes still in place.

The Total PIK debt year 2010 would be £200m, and once interest is added at 16.5% this would increase to £233m, divided 20% - £46.6, and 80% - £186.4 between the Glazers and third party holders.

The £95m payment would then similarly have to be divided, 20% - £19m, and 80% - £76m, which would reduce the total debt to a split of 20% - £27.6m, and 80% - £110.4m between the Glazers and third parties.

Now, the Glazers have just paid themselves £19m for their 20% holding of the PIK notes, so this extra cash can be paid back in.

Split it 20% - £3.8m, and 80% - £15.2m and the new PIK totals are; 20% - £23.8m, and 80% - £95.2m.

Again, the Glazers just paid themselves £3.8m, which can again be paid back on the PIK's. You get the gist;

Split 20% - £0.8m, and 80% - £3m the new totals would be 20% - £23m, and 80% - £92.2m.

This process can continue indefinitely until you're calculating just pence, but if you stop there for the sake of sanity, look at the total PIK debt for the remainig 80%; £92.2m; remarkably close to Scenario B's £91m in the same year; i can assure you that the £1.2m difference comes only from rounding the figures up or down through various stages of each calculation; the net effect to the PIK's would be exactly the same regardless of whether or not the Glazers write off their portion.

So by buying the 20% in 2008 the Glazers have effectively already written off that portion of the debt, because an IOU to oneself is absolutely worthless; either way, whether they write off the PIK's now or continue to hold them for tax purposes or whatever, the net effect to the remaining 80% is equal.

Edit.
This is purely just a mathematical concept, perhaps anders, GCHQ or someone else could comment and expand upon its practical application?
Click to expand...

Redjazz said:
Yes, it is an iterative process that (as described above) asymptotically tends to the cancellation scenario outlined in your spreadsheet.

I think Andersred has already commented on the iterative process.

There is a pretty simple solution which, from a practicable point of view, kills the pointlessly recursive process of using ever diminishing pik returns to reduce the total outstanding pik balance still further.

The Glazers simply need to inject cash (x*dividend) into RFJV immediately prior to the pik redemption dates such that their share of the total amount redeemed ((1+x)*dividend) is equal to the amount they injected.

Solution: x =25%. (from x*dividend=.2*(1+x)*dividend)

So, for an annual dividend of, say, 30m, the glazers add 7.5m, the total pik remeption becomes 37.5m, and a week later auld Malc receives 7.5m in the post that matches the amount stolen from his piggy-bank a week earlier.

Now, if you allow for this in your spreadsheet, it will not exactly mirror the cancellation scenario but pik elimination occurs at the same time, the amount paid by the club in dividends will also match up. The total interest bill will be a bit higher though.

There are other solutions; the Glazers could use their pik proceeds as a balancing fund to adjust the amount they want to take in dividends- it is, afterall, discretionary subject to a maximum of .5*CNI.

As for the rest of your post; there are other scenarios. In fact, a whole multitude of them.

The Glazers might simply pocket the redemption proceeds thus rendering reduntant our ruminations on the vexations of recursive algorithms.
Why?
For one thing, though the club is an asset appreciator, it hasn't been a good provider of the other component of equity return- cash income in the form of personal dividends- and this is mainly down to the various covenants.
Holding the piks entitles them to a discrete dividend stream of 20% (reportedly) of an annual dividend amount that they can control (subject to a limit). With a dividend of 95m (the carveouts a.k.a. the 'Ronaldo money' plus a bit) the Glazers can reduce their pik indebtedness by 95m and collect 19m at the same time. They can no doubt find use for this money elsewhere and probably can offset the amount against losses elsewhere. They might even use the 19m to pay back the 10m loan from the club. Who knows? THe point, of course, is that the 20% of the pik proceeds is theirs to spend without restriction unlike the annual dividends and carveouts.

For another, the actual cost to them of not using their pik redemption proceeds to further unwind the pik is not as big as you might expect.
In your cancellation scenario, the Glazers cancel their share of the pik, bringing the outstanding balance down from 200m to 160m. The club saves about 110m in pik payments. However, the Glazers, in cancellation, miss out in 60+m of uunrestricted pik dividends. There is also a cost (with cancellation) in terms of missed interest expense relief of about 20m or so.
So the difference (for them at least) isn't too big over the entire period that the pik remains on the book. You might also want to factor in the Glazer's need for cash in arriving at the likeliest scenario.

Another option is for the Glazers to cancel their share of the piks after the carveout of, say, 95m is taken. The 19m (16m of the 'Ronaldo money') windfall will come in handy I'm sure.
Click to expand...
 
ciderman9000000 said:
Anyway. Before we were side-tracked by ralphie's irrelevant bullshit we were having a grown-up discussion about club finances
Click to expand...

(1) The mods have locked every thread where we were discussing the Glazers and the protests. This is the only one to debate issues like the protest.

(2) You being "grown-up"? :lol:
 
ralphie88 said:
(1) The mods have locked every thread where we were discussing the Glazers and the protests. This is the only one to debate issues like the protest.

(2) You being "grown-up"? :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm very grown-up i'll have you know, ralphie, i'm twenty-six and three quarters; only yesterday i stayed out until way past half nine, and i wasn't even on my street!
 
ciderman9000000 said:
I've had to take the day off work today with the flu actually :( I doubt even your lot could attribute the spread of the influenza virus to the Glazers though.
Click to expand...

Nah, we like to stick to facts and we can't blame the Glazers for the flu virus as we have nothing to back the claim up. They are however responsible for the debt virus that affects Manchester United, that I am sure of
 
On the contrary Big Mal is doing his best to fight the flu this winter by making sure his stadia are only half full!!

"Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the NFL team run by the Glazer family who also own Manchester United, suffered a TV "blackout" on Sunday, their 17-14 victory over Randy Lerner's Cleveland Browns prohibited from being broadcast on local television because they failed to sell all the tickets. The blackout rule is aimed at ensuring stadiums are full, yet for that first game of the season, just 41,554 fans turned up, a record low in the Bucs' 12 years at the 65,900-capacity Raymond James Stadium.
That acreage of 24,000 empty seats, an unprecedented expression of supporter disillusionment, is blamed by many on the Glazers' reduction of investment in the team, who won the Super Bowl in 2003, made the play-offs in 2005 and 2007, yet have since slumped, finishing bottom of their division last season with a dismal 3-13 record (ie won three, lost 13)."- Guardian
 
Status
Not open for further replies.