Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
feck me.
We exchanged floating for fecking FIXED RATE. It’s right there, in your fecking post laughing man.
We do. Page F-44 of the Annual Report, the senior secured notes that are just over half the total borrowings (GBP $347M). At a rate of 3.79% annually, denominated in USD.
https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/documents/Man Utd-20f-2022-09-24.pdf
Firstly. Its a portion of it.
Secondly, if you dont understand what an interest rate swap is, then don't comment on it.
Thirdly, do we have variable interest rates on the majority of our loans?!
Weren't you the one who was so confident that interest rate rises wouldn't affect our debt?
You going to be around if Qatar takes over?
Couldn't resist could you?
Why did you change your mind about who's behind the takeover?
finally.
Let’s just remind you again….
Imagine thinking our loans were fixed term rates
You're borrowing from a fecking investment bank not your local regional bank mortgage
Keep laughing though
Well, he just in a short conversation changed his mind about us having fixed rates for any loans, first the idea was a complete joke, then he read a passage he misunderstood, then he started name calling and taking the piss out of anyone who can’t admit they are wrong online.
Then… he admitted we have fixed rates, but still wouldn’t admit his posts were wrong.
So him changing his mind about the ownership, he changes his mind like he changes his underpants, whatever fits his narrative at the second he punches the words into his smartphone.
Well you certainly aren’t it seems. Almost never right would be more on the money.
Ffs, do you people read? We've made losses the previous two seasons spending like we have and that's still not enough for a PL title. If we have to use the money to pay off debt and fund a new stadium, how do you think that would work?
finally.
Let’s just remind you again….
Keep laughing though
Absolutely mental that you still think interest rates won't affect our debt/interest payments and capital repayments.
I mean its clear as day that a significant portion of our debt including the revolving facility is highly variable.
Nope, plus Howson is clearly as clueless as some here as he is talking about ‘shareholders’. I wouldn’t hang your hat on this video.
Firstly. Its a portion of it.
Secondly, if you dont understand what an interest rate swap is, then don't comment on it.
Thirdly, do we have variable interest rates on the majority of our loans?!
Weren't you the one who was so confident that interest rate rises wouldn't affect our debt?
Firstly: lolz but glad you finally admitted it.
Secondly: aye, you should take your own advice there.
Thirdly: no
And finally, no, I’ve never made that argument. My argument is that our debt is extremely serviceable.
Let’s remember this club, not those arsehole owners, managed to service a PIK debt of 16.5% for years. We can absolutely afford to service this debt, even without a state owner.
I do wonder if some are blinded by the idea of having bragging rights and just needling the rest of the PL with this bottomless pit of wealth (which guarantees nothing) when a debt free United could compete with the best anyway?
If Qatar win the bid, the same "cheat code" accusations levelled at others will apply to us, but nobody seems bothered about that?
If Qatar win the bid, the same "cheat code" accusations levelled at others will apply to us, but nobody seems bothered about that?
I'm sorry?
I'm asking about this:
Not sure which countries don't have thousands of deaths behind its wealth and prohibitive laws for gay people and women at some point in time?
What has that got to do with the Qatari bidders anyways? Is this Sheikh Jassim guy imparting these rules? Was he responsible for these deaths? Or shall we just lump them all together. Qataris are all one and the same.
Casual racism at its finest.
First you acknowledge that this is a state bid, like the Saudis. However, they have to put up a front to seem independent, for appearances.
Then, later, when Qatar's iffy record with foreign workers and human rights come up, you suddenly disregard all that and ask what this Jassim guy has to do with the state of Qatar, even calling it racism.
How come? The reason Qatar as a state is relevant is, as your yourself said so clearly, that it's a state backed bid.
Absolutely mental that rather than admit you were wrong you start making a new argument that I’ve never made.
I stand corrected.
But half of our outstanding debt IS at a variable rate, which is subjected to interest rate rises.
Which regulus thinks isn't going to affect us at all
I see your point. And tend to agree.
I'm not welcoming with open arms. And if we do get taken over I won't blindly defend the new owners.
Is this guy reliable? I mean, has the gobby Ratcliffe PR contingent actually said the same? I recall something about Ineos absorbing it. Is that bollocks now?
As I've repeated ad infinitum.
State backed and state owned are two different things.
Whether or not you think its for appearances is not relevant.
So if you're so knowledable about this Jassim fellow, then what on earth has he done to contribute to the human rights and foreign workers issues in qatar?
And will you be supporting the club if we're bought by Qatar?
Dude, Laurie has literally just said he’s been told the existing debt wouldn’t be cleared. He’s regarded as a tier 1 source. Who cares what Howson is saying. Is Laurie no longer a trusted source?
You were one of the posters hanging your hats on just pure opinions. No trusted source has ever claimed Ineos would clear the existing debt. Laurie has just confirmed that.
Hallelujah.
But half of our outstanding debt IS at a variable rate, which is subjected to interest rate rises.
Which regulus thinks isn't going to affect us at all
So rather than say sorry pal for calling you “clueless
” and “not the brightest bulb” and an “arse”, you’ll just make up an argument I never made.Nice one mate, nice.
Source?
Hallelujah.
So rather than say sorry pal for calling you “clueless
Nice one mate, nice.
Just stop regulus.
I mean you were quoting bond issuances that matured in 2017.
Lets not pretend you have a clue.
You’re embarrassing yourself in here. Take a rest, throw some cold water onto your face.
I said we took out the bonds originally to obtain fixed term rates, in response to you laughing that investment banks give out fixed rates.
But sure, if it makes you feel better when you’ve had such a nightmare, you hold onto that and your made up argument about higher debt costs.
Al-Thani is irrelevant, it's a state bid. Like the Saudis, as you said. The Saudis own Newcastle.
And you are the one who said it was for appearances. If it's so different, who do they have to pretend to be independent?
What guarantee are you looking for? Doubt people are expecting quadruples if Qatar arrives.
“From what I’m being told” is hardly definitive is it?
Change of control clause. That is all.
It's an investment. Look at the Glazers, how much did they buy United for? Putting aside the fact the cnuts put the debt on the club.
And then how much did they sell it for?
The asset will go up in value over the long term anyway.
Of course the Saudi's own newcastle.
Thats because they went through their sovereign fund to purchase the club.
You can't say the same for the Qatari bid. Now you could make a case that the Qataris are doing so too, but just in a much more discrete manner, however that hasn't been verified yet.
But is it the current Emir who wants to bid for the club? Or is it just Jassim and his family?
I'm not going to sit here and say I know. I don't. It very well could be the state. Then on the other hand you have the case of Malaga ownership which doesn't seem to be related to the state at all.
Don’t bother mate there are people in this thread who have made their minds up they have gone head first blindly into state backed is the same as state owned.
They don’t see the separation and think it’s all a big smokescreen because QIA want to own both United and PSG.
They say things like “WELL HOWS THE WOMENS TEAM DOING FOR PSG” and “THEY ARE ANTI HOMOSEXUAL” but ignore the pro LGBT campaigns by PSG who they claim will own United.
It’s a waste of breath.
As for the Laurie and Howson podcast , I will say this I do not like Howson at all but he’s spot on in what he says INEOS doesn’t just obsorb half a billion of debt then fund 2bln stadium etc out of nothing companies require a return on investment and it would almost certainly be a consolidated debt to be paid by the clubs earnings back to INEOS whether it’s in 10 years or over 100 it’s still debt.
Further to this WTF is Laurie doing on Stretford Paddock he was the one blathering on about online fans and how it would be unfair if “Qatar owned” United.
Really disappointed in the coverage of this takeover little to no genuine reporting or Acknowledgement of the details.
What do you mean?
People need to understand that when we say “they aren’t buying it for profit”, we aren’t saying it won’t be a brilliant investment for them in the long run.
It’s like prime Real Estate, a sound investment. For year on year profit and dividends it’d be a terrible deal.
Oh my days...
Then can you tell me why our debt has increased over the years?
And do you think in our 2023 (or even 2024) financials, that our interest payments will stay stagnant or will they be higher?
Very racist of you.
Blimey! Don't take everything as a challenge, mate. I recall reading or hearing it on Sky when Ratcliffe's bid was mentioned. I don't actually remember exactly where, which is why I asked the question about it being bollocks.. I was hoping other knowledgeable people on here might remember or know if it was true or not.
Howson and his business degree?
INEOS make no ROI in sport, so only Ratcliffe and his partners can claim to have any idea about why they invest and seem to enjoy losing lots money in sport. Howson certainly can’t and neither can we.
Oh my days...
Then can you tell me why our debt has increased over the years?
And do you think in our 2023 (or even 2024) financials, that our interest payments will stay stagnant or will they be higher?
Once again an argument I haven’t made, in fact I posted to you earlier that our debt is very serviceable. This club serviced a PIK debt on 16.5% interest for years and years, we absolutely can service higher debt costs without state or state backed ownership.
I think you might have overused “Oh my days”.
Stop embarrassing yourself with made up arguments now, unless you can find the post where I claimed our debt servicing costs won’t increase (hint: you won’t find it, it doesn’t exist).
You like a rabid dog in here tonight, and I can’t believe the shame of your none fixed rate “expertise” hasn’t at least brought you back down to Earth for a minute. Just chill out pal, it’s a forum, it’s alright to be wrong, I’ve been wrong loads on here, it all evens itself out.
You must be one of the glazer siblings.
1.1b taken out of this club and you think its "servicable".
We're already seeing the affects of our finances seeping into all aspects of the clubs performance, infrastructure, recruitment etc.
- Status