Worried about the debt at United ? What are YOU going to do about it?

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

many a true word...

On a serious note, Mafioso at Barcelona?

Originally Posted by koppas

On a serious note, Mafioso at Barcelona?

come on koppas, a man of your powers ffs? they're corrupt as £#%&!. doubt pacino's involved though. which is a shame. that would be cool.

Originally Posted by koppas

On a serious note, Mafioso at Barcelona?

Never heard of him. Did he come through the youth system?

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

maybe true, maybe not. we don't actually know the terms of the as yet hypothetical buyout.

what if someone buys it and then refloats? what if the glazers themselves could be persuaded to refloat and sell that way? is any of this possible? is it preferable to a witch hunt? is it more likely to get 'us' to where we want to be?

I may be misreading what you're saying, but you think that the protests against the glazers are part of a witch hunt??

The numbers are there in black and white - if the club continues along this course, financially it's £#%&!ed long term unless an investor comes in. The sooner the glazers are £#%&!ed off, i'm willing to bet that whoever comes in will know what the hell they're doing and not borrow against the club to the tune of £700m

Originally Posted by bigMikeA

you're right, a billionaire buy out is the best to hope for at the moment. but that's a £#%&!load better than what we have.


I think the point is, there could be huge long term damage done if the glazers are allowed to carry on running the club. They've taken one of the most profitable sports 'franchises' in the world and turned it into a debt ridden organisation.

It's a big assumption that any new owner or owners would be a step in the right direction.

Fact is United is a money making machine & anybody who is going to buy (for £1bn+) it is buying it for one thing and one thing only to make4 money.

There are no White Knights to save the situation.

Maybe the Glazers could go on Dragon's Den and get some investment for, say, a 20% stake?

Originally Posted by LaPaz

It's a big assumption that any new owner or owners would be a step in the right direction.

Fact is United is a money making machine & anybody who is going to buy (for £1bn+) it is buying it for one thing and one thing only to make4 money.

There are no White Knights to save the situation.

Reported.

Originally Posted by bigMikeA

I may be misreading what you're saying, but you think that the protests against the glazers are part of a witch hunt??

The numbers are there in black and white - if the club continues along this course, financially it's £#%&!ed long term unless an investor comes in. The sooner the glazers are £#%&!ed off, i'm willing to bet that whoever comes in will know what the hell they're doing and not borrow against the club to the tune of £700m

no. i'm saying that they themselves may see it as a witch hunt, and if they don't give a £#%&! yet they could then give even less of a £#%&!.

the thing with your hypothetical bet is that the glazers could just as easily sell to someone who would openly be in it to make a killing rather than just milking it as they are currently.

i want to know what they mean by "in it for the long haul". are there any conditions concerning any future sale of the club?

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

no. i'm saying that they themselves may see it as a witch hunt, and if they don't give a £#%&! yet they could then give even less of a £#%&!.

the thing with your hypothetical bet is that the glazers could just as easily sell to someone who would openly be in it to make a killing rather than just milking it as they are currently.

i want to know what they mean by "in it for the long haul". are there any conditions concerning any future sale of the club?

obviously anyone who buys it is in it to make money. that's kind of the point - the glazers haven't even managed that because they borrowed so heavily to take it on

Originally Posted by bigMikeA

obviously anyone who buys it is in it to make money. that's kind of the point - the glazers haven't even managed that because they borrowed so heavily to take it on

I'm not to sure that the Glazers haven't made any money out of United, there is a big diference between United making a loss & the Glazers not sucking millions out of the club.

every single phone call to the phone in on mutv should be 'love united hate glazer' until they turn the phones off.

Originally Posted by wonky no

every single phone call to the phone in on mutv should be 'love united hate glazer' until they turn the phones off.

You're on a roll.

Originally Posted by wonky no

every single phone call to the phone in on mutv should be 'love united hate glazer' until they turn the phones off.

That is actually a great idea.

But, after they turn the phones off, then what?

Originally Posted by koppas

That is actually a great idea.

But, after they turn the phones off, then what?

turn over immediately

Originally Posted by wonky no

turn over immediately

Apple or raspberry?

Originally Posted by Zorg

Apple or raspberry?

you did that in school, didn't you?

Originally Posted by wonky no

you did that in school, didn't you?

Come again?

Originally Posted by Zorg

Come again?

i made a pineapple turn over in school. home ec in 87 ish.

mass protest with eric masks on a la "Looking for Eric"

[SIZE="4"]Glazers could take £130m out of Manchester United next year
• Small print in bond offer reveals shock provisions
• Owners able to get cut of money from player sales

David Conn and Owen Gibson
Tuesday 19 January 2010

The Glazer family, who own Manchester United, can take almost £130m cash out of the club next year alone if enough lenders sign up for the bond they have launched to borrow £500m for United.

Nestling in the small print of the 322-page bond prospectus are provisions allowing the Glazers to take £70m out of the club's cash reserves, which includes the money they have received from selling players such as Cristiano Ronaldo. The document also reserves for the Glazers the legal right to pay £25m out of the club in a dividend, and half of what is termed "consolidated net income". This is effectively the club's cash profits, which based on the most recent accounts would have meant £23m being paid out last year.

The bond's terms also note that the Glazers will have the right for £6m a year to be paid to companies they own "for administration and management services", and a further £3m "in respect of services provided by directors, officers or employees" of companies the Glazers use to hold their shares in United.

That money, added to the £70m and £25m one-off payments, plus the half of United's cash profit they can take out each year (equating to £23m last year), add up to £127m next year alone.

That huge figure is in addition to the straightforward payment of interest (yield) on the £500m the club will have borrowed via the bond, which at a mooted 9%, will be £45m. That will bring the total taken out of United to service the Glazers' borrowings, which were loaded on to the club after the family bought the club in 2005, to £172m next year alone.

It has become increasingly clear since the prospectus was launched last week that its principal purpose is to allow the Glazers to take cash out of United to reduce the amounts they owe in "payments in kind" to hedge funds, which are running at a punitive £14.25% interest. Standing at £175m in the year to 30 June, 2008, the "payments" accrued £25m interest in the year to 30 June, 2009, and so stand now at over £200m. That debt is secured on the United shares the Glazer family own, and it is clear their financial priority is to use United's giant turnover and profits to pay down that debt before the interest "rolls up" dramatically.

A calculation of the total cash which the bond would entail being paid out of United in dividend payments, the yield from the bond, management fees and the possible requirement for the club to lease the Carrington training ground, is more than £500m between next year and the maturity of the bond in 2017.

If the bond issue is fully taken up by lenders, it will mean that since the Glazer family bought United in May 2005 for £810m – £540m of it borrowed from banks and hedge funds – their takeover will have already cost United £340m in cash. That comprises £220m in bank interest plus "early-repayment premiums" made when the borrowings were first refinanced in August 2006. A further £120m will have been incurred in fees paid to bankers, lawyers and other professionals – the fees for this bond issue are noted as £15m – plus £35m incurred by the club's interest rate hedging arrangements.

On top of that, the "payments" have incurred interest payable of around £124m since the Glazers first borrowed the money to buy United.

A Glazer family spokesman, who also speaks for United on financial matters, declined to comment.

Nick Towle, chair of the Manchester United Supporters' Trust, said: "It is a shocking picture. These are immense amounts of money being leaked out of United to pay banks, lawyers, the Glazers themselves and interest, to pay for a takeover none of the supporters, or the United board itself, wanted.

"United's success and profits could have been used to keep ticket prices affordable or invest in the team but instead we see this heartbreaking waste, just because one family ultimately hopes to make a profit from the club."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...e-the-glazers?