United Forum
Go Back   United Forum > Manchester United > Love United, Hate Glazer
Reply
 
Unread 24-01-2010, 02:05 AM
The Watcher
 
Thumbs down 70p of every pound United makes to be siphoned off by the Glazers

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010...936/penalties/

Quote:
Analysis by a City fund manager and member of the Manchester United Supporters Trust. This in depth report makes a number of observations, which lead to the conclusion that the Glazer’s will be able to suck £500m out of the club...
Quite a dense piece, but well worth sticking with. Makes for very grim reading.
 
Unread 24-01-2010, 11:39 AM
Whip Hubley
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Watcher
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010...936/penalties/



Quite a dense piece, but well worth sticking with. Makes for very grim reading.
unbelievable :shakehead:
 
Unread 24-01-2010, 01:08 PM
rubbernecker
 
Default

As good a case for non renewal as you'll find
 
Unread 24-01-2010, 01:16 PM
Street Magician
 
Default

By 2017, despite having pumped more than half a billion pounds out of Manchester United, the club will still be saddled with the £500m of debts it has today.

Jesus, that is £#%&!ing frightening
 
Unread 24-01-2010, 02:53 PM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default

Was tempted to stop reading when it said "a city fund manager said..." Stuck with it for a bit longer, but really, my question is this: With everything that's happened in the last week, let alone the last couple of years, what is the point, or the value, in projecting to 2017? Not much, other than scare tactics and sensationalism. Money will be siphoned off from United. No-one knows what the figures will amount to. We do know where it will go though. Loosely. Anyone got a list of people who've taken up the bond issue yet?
 
Unread 24-01-2010, 08:09 PM
believe
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb
Was tempted to stop reading when it said "a city fund manager said..." Stuck with it for a bit longer, but really, my question is this: With everything that's happened in the last week, let alone the last couple of years, what is the point, or the value, in projecting to 2017? Not much, other than scare tactics and sensationalism. Money will be siphoned off from United. No-one knows what the figures will amount to. We do know where it will go though. Loosely. Anyone got a list of people who've taken up the bond issue yet?
at a guess i'd go for marlo and ginners
 
Unread 24-01-2010, 11:28 PM
redloner
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb
Was tempted to stop reading when it said "a city fund manager said..." Stuck with it for a bit longer, but really, my question is this: With everything that's happened in the last week, let alone the last couple of years, what is the point, or the value, in projecting to 2017? Not much, other than scare tactics and sensationalism. Money will be siphoned off from United. No-one knows what the figures will amount to. We do know where it will go though. Loosely. Anyone got a list of people who've taken up the bond issue yet?
That's a bit unfair. We only get limited information on the finances and if we can't at least use that to show the current situation and the future situation on a relevant given date, it would leave nothing but speculation.

As to your other assertion about scare tactics and sensationalism, I've been analysing the data from the accounts and other sources for five years now. I've always tried to keep away from conclusions and likely outcomes, preferring instead to simply report the facts as they are known, while allowing the reader to reach their own conclusions.

As to your request for a list of the bondholders, I don't think this will be available until after settlement date, 29 January. The only information I have heard on this issue is there are fifty separate investors.
 
Unread 24-01-2010, 11:39 PM
wonky no
 
Default

this needs printing off and handing out at matches
 
Unread 25-01-2010, 07:04 AM
Whip Hubley
 
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by wonky no
this needs printing off and handing out at matches
agreed
 
Unread 25-01-2010, 02:21 PM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redloner
That's a bit unfair. We only get limited information on the finances and if we can't at least use that to show the current situation and the future situation on a relevant given date, it would leave nothing but speculation.

As to your other assertion about scare tactics and sensationalism, I've been analysing the data from the accounts and other sources for five years now. I've always tried to keep away from conclusions and likely outcomes, preferring instead to simply report the facts as they are known, while allowing the reader to reach their own conclusions.

As to your request for a list of the bondholders, I don't think this will be available until after settlement date, 29 January. The only information I have heard on this issue is there are fifty separate investors.
you know as well as I do that the way the figures are being reported right now is designed to be sensationalist and that the editors running these headlines are highly unlikely to have United's best interests in mind at all, be it the club or the protesters. that's all I was driving at. people take this inane satisfaction from seeing it all laid out in the media, a media that doesn't really give a £#%&! about them. i personally believe this is quite a high price to pay if the only trade off is that a few hundred muppets that the protesters would normally wish to disassociate themselves from join in with a few chants at Old Trafford.

it is fair enough to say that speculation is pretty much all there is to use because the figures don't come out as quickly as they are needed. and without doubt this speculation is valid when projected short term. i've never attacked your analysis, quite the opposite, even if i don't agree with all of it (transfers for example) but i don't think anyone projecting to 2017 actually thinks for a moment that those projections will not be adjusted fairly dramatically one way or another much sooner than that.

the list of investors is going to be very interesting. i'd imagine for a start off that a few of the old plc blue chips are back on board. i can see a few reasons why this scheme has been opposed, but you never know who might now have an interest they may wish to take further at some point.
 
Unread 25-01-2010, 06:32 PM
redloner
 
Default

I have to say that Andy emailed that FT piece to me for an opinion before he sent it to them and they've changed nothing - not a word. I didn't feel his analysis or conclusions were in any way sensationalist.

If you're talking generally about media coverage, there have been one or two particularly good approaches - David Conn and Owen Wilson in the Guardian online have been excellent. Of course, on the flipside one or two others have taken their usual chance to have a dig - Martin Samuels for instance?

I'm surprised you associate me with transfers. It's one of the things I tend to keep away from. It's so difficult to get reliable information on transfers I feel it's an area where there are often many right and wrong answers, based on the little data available.

As far as your bond investors are concerned, I think you might be surprised. I can't see L&G being involved as the issue is unrated, it probably wouldn't fit their profile, not for the corporate bond fund anyway. Many institutions would see the offer as too risky. As I'm sure you know, the old plc investors would have been equity funds, rather than bond funds, and they would have a lot more information on company performance and profitability. Not to mention buying equities gave them a voice in the running of the firm, bondholders are just another creditor.

Interesting comment from a voice from the past too, today;-

Quote:
Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Global Economist Jim O’Neill, a former shareholder and board
member of Manchester United, said the club has too much debt and its bonds are unattractive.

“There’s too much leverage going on with Manchester United,” O’Neill, a lifelong supporter of the 18-times English
soccer champions, said in a Jan. 23 interview. “It’s not a good thing. I’m not a buyer of the bond.”

The club issued more than 500 million pounds ($807 million) of seven-year bonds in pounds and dollars last week to refinance a similar amount of bank borrowing. The club took on the debt after the U.S. Glazer family bought it in a leveraged buyout in 2005.

“I value my long-term support for Manchester United better than anything else,” said O’Neill, who held 1.66 million pounds
of the club’s shares in 2005 when he stepped down from the board as the Glazers took the club private.

A spokesman for the Glazer family declined to comment.
Reply
Thread Tools
Similar Threads for: 70p of every pound United makes to be siphoned off by the Glazers
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Christian Eriksen makes Ten Hag admission as Manchester United fan group outline Glazers demand fred tissue Football Auto-Threads 0 25-12-2022 07:20 AM
Manchester United takeover latest as Beckham hint dropped and Neville makes Glazers plea fred tissue Football Auto-Threads 0 30-11-2022 01:40 PM
Gary Neville makes prediction over 'crucial' period for Glazers at Manchester United fred tissue Football Auto-Threads 0 13-10-2022 10:20 AM
Man United icon Gary Neville makes Glazers point in rebuff of Eric Cantona's Old Trafford stance fred tissue Football Auto-Threads 0 28-09-2022 12:20 PM
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:27 AM.
Copyright ©2006 - 2024 utdforum.com. This site is in no way affiliated to Manchester United Football Club.