United Forum
Go Back   United Forum > Manchester United > Love United, Hate Glazer
Closed Thread
 
Old 20-01-2010, 03:14 PM
Surfers do Charlie
 
Default Re: £716.5m in debt

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Chalten
how long will fergie put up with this?

surely he's had enough.

nft.

He's already said that next season will be his last, and I can't see him changing his mind again.

The only thing that might do would be a rich new owner with big pockets but I think next season would be a good time for him to go.
 
Old 20-01-2010, 06:08 PM
redloner
 
Default Re: £716.5m in debt

See comments;-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Withers
The bond can't pay the PIK's it just refinances the existing debt on the club of £500 million. TRUE

It doesn't even lower the interest, we paid £40 million approx on it before and we will pay approx £40 million on it after the bond is issued. TRUE

The reason they are doing it is the old debt has certain conditions tied into it such as the Glazers can't pay themselves a dividend. So the Glazers have said as soon as the bond is done they are taking a dividend of £70 million to pay off part of the PIK debt. The PIK debt isn't linked to the club it's their own personal debt. TRUE. EXCEPT THE PIK IS SECURED ON THEIR SHARES

In short the refinance doesn't help our cash flow one jot, it just allows the Glazers to nick the Ronaldo money to pay off their own debt. TRUE

Oh and they have arranged a £75 million overdraft so when we buy players in the summer it looks like we always had money to spend after all. TRUE

I'm sure if I have the wrong end of the stick redloner will let us know ALL FINE
 
Old 20-01-2010, 07:40 PM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default Re: £716.5m in debt

with their PIKs secured against their shares the £70m dividend they are reportedly eyeing would need to be a finely balanced exercise would it not? surely they can't look to take too much value out of the club unless they're prepared to lose the value of the shares they have in it? it has been fairly obvious all along that they'd use the club to pay off the PIKs, so it's no great surprise, even if seeing it written down in an official document it is shocking to see just how brazen it appears. hope that makes sense btw...

disagree that it's necessarily true that they're basically nicking the Ronaldo cash or that they are trying to retain a facade of transfer cash being available all along.

seems to me they're simply rolling with the changing times to try and make sure the football side continues to drive the business at the levels they need it to, which is basically what their stated intentions were from the start.
 
Old 20-01-2010, 09:34 PM
redloner
 
Default Re: £716.5m in debt

The bad news is, the PIK debt interest rate is increasing to 16.25% pa because the Glazers' debt level is higher than what was agreed with the hedge funds. The penalty is a 2% increase in the rate payable.
 
Old 20-01-2010, 10:01 PM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default Re: £716.5m in debt

Quote:
Originally Posted by redloner
The bad news is, the PIK debt interest rate is increasing to 16.25% pa because the Glazers' debt level is higher than what was agreed with the hedge funds. The penalty is a 2% increase in the rate payable.
so the hedge funds have completely and utterly stitched United up then
 
Old 20-01-2010, 10:11 PM
redloner
 
Default Re: £716.5m in debt

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb
so the hedge funds have completely and utterly stitched United up then
Absolutely no doubt in my mind where the blame for this should end up. Those idiots from Florida wanted this so badly, they signed up for anything regardless of the consequences.

Blaming the hedge funds, is like blaming the scorpion. It's in their nature...
 
Old 20-01-2010, 10:31 PM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default Re: £716.5m in debt

Quote:
Originally Posted by redloner
Absolutely no doubt in my mind where the blame for this should end up. Those idiots from Florida wanted this so badly, they signed up for anything regardless of the consequences.

Blaming the hedge funds, is like blaming the scorpion. It's in their nature...
well yeah, but it's in all these c***s' natures, so why excuse one and not the other?

the Glazers are an unfortunate conduit in the bigger picture here as far as I'm concerned - unfortunate for us, I mean. obviously, on the face of it it's all down to them. but everyone knows that they absolutely could not have done it on their own, and that there are a whole load of other leeches involved.

talking of which, any chance of a bit of background on which of those other leeches they have close connections with? anything known about the reynolds people who own the Bucs stadium etc?

i'm convinced there is a major trail of corruption, vested interests and conflicts of interest around all these c***s that is just waiting to be exposed.
 
Old 20-01-2010, 11:26 PM
That Boy Ronaldo!
 
Default Re: £716.5m in debt

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb
well yeah, but it's in all these c***s' natures, so why excuse one and not the other?

the Glazers are an unfortunate conduit in the bigger picture here as far as I'm concerned - unfortunate for us, I mean. obviously, on the face of it it's all down to them. but everyone knows that they absolutely could not have done it on their own, and that there are a whole load of other leeches involved.

talking of which, any chance of a bit of background on which of those other leeches they have close connections with? anything known about the reynolds people who own the Bucs stadium etc?

i'm convinced there is a major trail of corruption, vested interests and conflicts of interest around all these c***s that is just waiting to be exposed.
According to Wikipedia the county own the stadium, here's a brief outline of how the new stadium came about;

Quote:
Immediately upon purchasing the Bucs in 1995, new owner Malcolm Glazer declared Tampa Stadium inadequate and began lobbying local government for a replacement.[5] After discovering that the Glazers were exploring moving the team to another location, the city of Tampa and Hillsborough County came up with a plan to fund a new stadium as part of a "Community Investment Tax", which was put up for a referendum.

As part of the campaign to pass the referendum, Glazer promised to pay half the cost of the new stadium if fans put down 50,000 deposits on 10–year season ticket commitments. The drive fell 17,000 deposits short, the offer was withdrawn, and the Bucs did not pay any of the stadium's construction cost.

On September 3, 1996, the voters of Hillsborough County, Florida approved, by 53% to 47% margin, a thirty–year, half–cent sales tax to build new schools, improve public safety and infrastructure, and provide the Buccaneers with a new stadium. Voting precincts reported record turnout. The team signed a stadium lease in which the local government must pay for almost all of the stadium expenses while the franchise keeps almost all of the proceeds.
 
Old 21-01-2010, 12:29 AM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default Re: £716.5m in debt

sorry yeah, naming rights I meant. and not reynolds, either, but raymond!

http://raymondjames.com/


suppose if anybody had found anything by now on these or anybody else it'd have been mentioned. can't be for the want of trying, and there's no way I would ever believe any of these f***ers are clean. i'm pretty shit at trawling the net myself though.
 
Old 21-01-2010, 07:19 AM
Pete's Shoes
 
Default Re: £716.5m in debt

At least David Gill is still being paid which I'm sure we're all glad about, dunno how he copes on that salary tbh

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...m-to-Gill.html

MANCHESTER UNITED chief executive David Gill earned £1.8million last year as the club plunged further into debt.
Gill's wages increased £100,000 from 2008 and £320,000 from 2007.

The news comes when cutbacks are being made, including denying 'non-essential' staff free breakfast at the training ground.

Accounts showed that United's parent company Red Football Joint Venture Limited racked up an overall debt of £716.5m this year - up £17m.

Figures also show the Glazer family paid £68.5m in interest in 2009.

But the parent company did show an overall profit of £6.4m compared to a loss of £47m the previous year.

That is entirely down to the £80m from the sale of winger Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid.

Incredibly, a spokesman for the Glazers said the debt did not have a bearing on club operation.

He said: "The club has a £50m surplus to work with once the interest payments have been made."



Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...#ixzz0dEVMeSUp
Closed Thread
Thread Tools
Similar Threads for: £716.5m in debt
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Debt. Appletango Off Topic 70 09-12-2009 05:06 PM
The Debt Tumescent Throb Off Topic 11 11-02-2009 09:06 PM
£765,000,000 - That's a lot of debt Mr_Ed Football 2 05-05-2008 12:50 PM
Debt George Bestial Off Topic 22 11-01-2008 01:40 PM
Debt. Bunker Buster Off Topic 73 17-09-2007 07:06 AM
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:24 PM.

Copyright ©2006 - 2018 utdforum.com. This site is in no way affiliated to Manchester United Football Club.