Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Manchester United Financial Situation.

24567…32

Comments

  • #32
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,006 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    Paleface wrote: »
    I'm not disputing the fact that United is a viable business. I'm also not disputing the fact that the Glazers are shrewd business men with a plan for United to make even more money.

    I'm just curious as to why United fans seem to think that getting rid of the Glazers is going to suddenly make United debt free and have shed loads of cash to splash on new players because lets face it new players are the only reason anyone cares about the money. A lack of new signings in the summer would have everyone up in arms!

    I totally agree with you, not all united fans hold the opinions you express. Some of us have not jumped on the Anti Glazer bandwagon and decided to keep an open mind and adopted a wait and see approach until we have all the options available clealy defined before deciding what we think is best for the club.


  • #33
    Mr_Roger_Bongos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,470 ✭✭✭Mr_Roger_Bongos


    Im familiar with the structure of the debt, but for the improvement and education of debate (tongue in cheek considering forum), would anybody have links to some balanced articles explaining the debt structure etc?

    Perhaps pm the OP and he could linky in the 1st post?


  • #34
    Spud83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,608 ✭✭✭Spud83


    Paleface wrote: »
    You are contradicting yourself in that reply. If the Glazers bought United to make money but it isn't making a profit then what sort of money making future does it have?

    I don't think I'm contradicting myself, maybe I just didn't explain my thoughts properly. The Glaziers bought United to make money. Off course they want the club profitable, and the club is hugely profitable, the problem is the debt they placed on the club is eating up all that profit. Now the Glaziers don't care about a profit once they can service the debt. This is getting harder and harder for them.

    Now you talk about money making future. I believe the Glaziers bought the club to make a profit down the road, not off United profits but off the value of the club. The club is more valuable now then it was when the Glaziers took over due to increased revenue. Out turnover has increased massively which makes the club more valuable, but the extra profit is being eaten but the debt meaning the club has no cash despite the increased turnover.

    The Glaziers will make a profit by selling the club. If they sold in the summer they would make a profit, if they sold in 5, 10 years time they will make a profit. That is where they will make their money, not directly through yearly profits. Not to mention the millions they have already taken out of the club through expenses, and fees.
    Paleface wrote: »
    I'm not disputing the fact that United is a viable business. I'm also not disputing the fact that the Glazers are shrewd business men with a plan for United to make even more money.

    I'm just curious as to why United fans seem to think that getting rid of the Glazers is going to suddenly make United debt free and have shed loads of cash to splash on new players because lets face it new players are the only reason anyone cares about the money. A lack of new signings in the summer would have everyone up in arms!

    I don't think any United fans think just getting rid of the Glaziers is going to reduce our debt and make cash available to splash on players. Thats is why the red knights don't have the full support of a lot of United fans because they haven't put a full bid on the table. As this stage we don't know what they will offer. If it is another bid based around large sums of debt than its not going to be much if any better.

    However the Glaziers are doing nothing but damage to United in the short and long term, and that leads me to at least give the Red Knights a chance to put forward an offer, so I can try judge if that would be better or not. If they somehow can get enough cash together to get rid of the Glaziers and reduce the debt then United is big enough, and has a big enough turnover to support itself including transfers.

    Oh and new players isn't the only reason fans are worried, some clauses in the bond issue has me very worried like selling Carrington and leasing it back to United.

    Liam O wrote: »
    If the Red Knights are seriously out to help the club then why don't they offer the Glazers investment for a % of the club?

    I though I answered this, because that would help the Glaziers too much. We should be looking to get them out, as they are irresponsible owners, not looking for a way to bail them out and let them stick around and still milk the club dry. It will push up the price of any remaining percentage leaving a takeover possible unattainable, and also leave the Glaziers in charge. It would also cost them a huge chunk if not all the support of the fans.
    Liam O wrote: »
    Ok the debt is worrying but United are a huge business and get more sponsorship it seems every couple of months or so. When the Nike contract runs out in 2015 the club may sign another deal for over £250m and take a chunk of the debt with it. I feel the club will be ok.

    We needed the Ronaldo sale and half our 4 year shirt sponsorship deal upfront to make the debt payments last year and post a small profit. We won't have Ronaldo money this year, and we won't have half our sponsorship deal either. I struggle to see where they are going to get the money to pay the debt interest this year, however the bond issue may have cleared some of this problem, meaning we won't have to pay as much interest this year, but the PIKs are still sitting which have to be paid by 2017, and the bonds are also due the same year. If the Glaziers stay I suspect we will just restructure the bonds in 2017 and just pay the interest until then, and use every other pound we make to start paying off the PIKs, which still means the club itself will be running at either a loss, or breaking even.


  • #35
    Paleface
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭Paleface


    @Spuds83

    I'd be largely surprised if the Glazers sell United to anyone unless they are forced to by their financial commitments. They undoubtedly have a long term vision for United and the current climate is one which they see as a challenge to over come but nothing more.

    They have owned the Tampa Bay Buccaneers since 1995 and have not sold them despite supposedly taking money out of them to try and lower the debt at United.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/oct/24/tampa-bay-buccaneer-glazers-manchester-united

    If anything it would make more sense to sell the NFL team and concentrate on United as a bigger cash cow so to speak. So why take money out of one to help the other? Because they want to keep both.

    I predict they will sell neither. There out look has to be one of short term pain for long term gain. If that's the case United fans may well be entering into a period of short term pain just like the Buccaneer fans.


  • #36
    Spud83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,608 ✭✭✭Spud83


    Paleface wrote: »
    @Spuds83

    I'd be largely surprised if the Glazers sell United to anyone unless they are forced to by their financial commitments. They undoubtedly have a long term vision for United and the current climate is one which they see as a challenge to over come but nothing more.

    I completely agree. That is why any potential owners offering to invest in the club would be a bad move, as it would easy the burden of debt on the club but make it far easier for the Glaziers to stick around.

    The only reason the Glaziers will sell now is if they believe now is the time they will make the most profit, if they believe they can keep dealing with debt and make United worth more and more then they will stick around.

    Unfortunately the B scenario is probably more likely, and is terrible for the fans, because the debt seems to be getting worse and worse, which means team investment is likely to get worse and worse.

    Just to be clear here, I don't believe a takeover will happen this summer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to write it off.

    Paleface wrote: »
    They have owned the Tampa Bay Buccaneers since 1995 and have not sold them despite supposedly taking money out of them to try and lower the debt at United.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/oct/24/tampa-bay-buccaneer-glazers-manchester-united

    I've read that link, it has no evidence that the Glaziers have redirected money from the Bucs to invest in United. The Glaziers have not put a penny of their own money, or the Bucs money into clearing any debt at United. The debt has only gone one way at United and that is up.

    Paleface wrote: »
    If anything it would make more sense to sell the NFL team and concentrate on United as a bigger cash cow so to speak. So why take money out of one to help the other? Because they want to keep both.

    They didn't take money out of one to help the other, they just reduced the amount of spending the Bucs done, this reducing spending did not result in an increased spend at United. I have no idea what the Bucs are worth, or what the Glaziers spent on them, so I have no idea if selling them is a profitable option for them over there. I've enough trouble trying to get my head around the United figures. :)
    Paleface wrote: »
    I predict they will sell neither. There out look has to be one of short term pain for long term gain. If that's the case United fans may well be entering into a period of short term pain just like the Buccaneer fans.

    The problem is some United fans might be willing to accept short term pain if we could see the result of that being United on solid footing for the future. All I am seeing is short term pain, and long term pain.

    I really believe the only thing that has kept United successful during the Glazier tenure has been Fergie. As hard as it is to say he ain't going to be around for ever or even that much longer. What will happen when he goes could really send the club into a disasterous spiral, even that article states that they hired a rookie coach at the Bucs. If United do that it could be disaster, especially if it coincides with an even further reduction in spending.

    Can I ask you were you are seeing a long term gain? a 500 million bond has to be paid back in 2017 are we just going to restructure that again, meaning we will forever be crippled with interest payments? What about the PIK's? To me it looks like the Glaziers used the bond issue to clear the bank debt (which the had to do before they were allowed pay off the PIK's), and now for the next 7 years they are going to use every cent United earn to pay them off.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Paleface
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭Paleface


    Spud83 wrote: »
    Can I ask you were you are seeing a long term gain? a 500 million bond has to be paid back in 2017 are we just going to restructure that again, meaning we will forever be crippled with interest payments? What about the PIK's? To me it looks like the Glaziers used the bond issue to clear the bank debt (which the had to do before they were allowed pay off the PIK's), and now for the next 7 years they are going to use every cent United earn to pay them off.

    The long term gain would be having United in a situation where the income is enough to manage the debt whilst still having capital to replenish the squad when needed. Currently this is not the case which is why I mentioned short term pain.

    With increased revenue from sales due to marketing etc and also a different ethos in terms of success vs financial cost of success, United should get closer to achieving this.

    But to be honest with you I haven't much more input on the subject when it comes to looking into the finer details of the debt. I'm assuming that they will be able to restructure it again but its anyone's guess as to how or when.

    You've answered a lot of my questions when it comes to the opinion of the realistic United fan.


  • #38
    Mitch Connor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,192 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    Mitch Connor wrote: »
    It is FACT that if the PIKs aren't paid the hedge funds gain a measure of ownership of the club. If the PIKs are not secured against the club in anyway why would that be the case?

    On this issue, turns out I was wrong, according to the following:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/13/manchester-united-debt-glazer-family
    What if they default on the PIK loans?

    The hedge funds would not gain any say over the operational side of the business, but they could prevent it incurring fresh debt or paying out dividends, as well as gaining the power to block any potential sale.

    To me, it still, however, shows a measure of control over United - as they could stop the club from being sold. if the PIKs were not secured in any way against the club I do not know why they would have the power to do that. (could be reason of asset management/recovery or similar)


  • #39
    Pro. F
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    The Muppet wrote: »
    It's fact, like it or not.

    The rest of your post is theoritical, we don't do that remember?
    Where is the theory in my post? Are you denying that the PIKs are secured against Red Football Joint Venture ltd's equity in the club?
    Are you denying that the financial restructuring specifically allowed club revenue to be used to pay the PIKs?
    Mitch Connor wrote: »
    On this issue, turns out I was wrong, according to the following:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/13/manchester-united-debt-glazer-family

    To me, it still, however, shows a measure of control over United - as they could stop the club from being sold. if the PIKs were not secured in any way against the club I do not know why they would have the power to do that. (could be reason of asset management/recovery or similar)
    Not just preventing sale of the club Mitch, the hedge funds would also decide whether we borrow money (which we know is needed for player transfers) and would decide on dividend payments. That's a whole lot of control.


  • #40
    Pro. F
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,219 ✭✭✭✭Pro. F


    Mr_Roger_Bongos wrote: »
    Im familiar with the structure of the debt, but for the improvement and education of debate (tongue in cheek considering forum), would anybody have links to some balanced articles explaining the debt structure etc?

    Perhaps pm the OP and he could linky in the 1st post?

    My first post in this thread has links to articles all posted on the Financial Times news blog. They explain the finances in a lot of detail and the FT is as objective a source as there is.

    I don't think links in the OP is a good idea as deciding which articles are or are not worthy would probably become a parallel debate.


  • #41
    PHB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    Paleface wrote: »
    The thing that puzzles me about the situation is why on earth would the Glazers buy United, the biggest sport franchise in the world, and then run it into the ground??

    It just doesn't make sense.

    Maybe its that football is living in dreamland at the moment. The money clubs spend on players is totally unrealistic. The governing bodies are supposedly trying to correct this and when they do transfer fees should go down.

    The Glazers know this and could be holding out when United would be in prime position to take advantage of such a scenario with their large annual turnover.

    Put it within the context of the financial crisis. Lots of property developers thought that they could loan money, invest, and make a profit out of it. Developers would mis-analyse how much money could be made from a company, convince banks that they were right, and get the loans to do it, with no real business case to buy it off. They bought into their own hype.

    Ultimately, the Glazers thought that they could increase the turnover through increased ticket prices, decreased spends, increases matchday, increased commerical, etc. which they have done. They thought that they would be able to refinance the PIKs once they did this, but the crisis hit and money was nowhere. I'd wager the initial plan was to maximise revenues, refinance, and then sell for a decent profit having developed the business a lot. However, the crisis hit. They couldnt refinance. But they want to make a profit for time spent.

    Right now, they are paying themselves huge wages out of the club for every member of the family which is a profit to themselves. Keep in mind the Glazers put in very little of their own money into this investment. They are probably hoping some billionaire comes along and buys it out of them are a big price increase.

    When you think of the Glazers, and you wonder what the **** that they were trying to do, don't think of them as some successful business men who must have a plan. Think of them as Sean FitzPatrick and the rest of the ****wits who have caused the greatest finacial crisis of the past 60 years.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Mr Alan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    Excellent post PHB.


  • #43
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,006 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    PHB wrote: »
    Put it within the context of the financial crisis. Lots of property developers thought that they could loan money, invest, and make a profit out of it. Developers would mis-analyse how much money could be made from a company, convince banks that they were right, and get the loans to do it, with no real business case to buy it off. They bought into their own hype.

    Ultimately, the Glazers thought that they could increase the turnover through increased ticket prices, decreased spends, increases matchday, increased commerical, etc. which they have done. They thought that they would be able to refinance the PIKs once they did this, but the crisis hit and money was nowhere. I'd wager the initial plan was to maximise revenues, refinance, and then sell for a decent profit having developed the business a lot. However, the crisis hit. They couldnt refinance. But they want to make a profit for time spent.

    Right now, they are paying themselves huge wages out of the club for every member of the family which is a profit to themselves. Keep in mind the Glazers put in very little of their own money into this investment. They are probably hoping some billionaire comes along and buys it out of them are a big price increase.

    When you think of the Glazers, and you wonder what the **** that they were trying to do, don't think of them as some successful business men who must have a plan. Think of them as Sean FitzPatrick and the rest of the ****wits who have caused the greatest finacial crisis of the past 60 years.

    I though The Glazers invested nearly £300 million of their Own money on the United Buy out, that's a considerable investment by any standards.


    Nice Sean Fitzpatrick soundbite but his actions doesn't bear any similaities in fact with the Glazers to the best of my knowledge. I have seen no evidence of similar creative accounting by the Glazers , perhaps you could back up that part of your post with some evidence.


  • #44
    Paleface
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭Paleface


    PHB wrote: »
    When you think of the Glazers, and you wonder what the **** that they were trying to do, don't think of them as some successful business men who must have a plan. Think of them as Sean FitzPatrick and the rest of the ****wits who have caused the greatest finacial crisis of the past 60 years.

    I think your equating two completely different lines of business. United is hardly an office block or housing estate! It is a hugely profitable company.

    Money is tight in today's world because of property speculation not because loads of people bought companies/sport franchises and now can't sell them on to repay their loans.


  • #45
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,804 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    The Muppet wrote: »
    Nice Sean Fitzpatrick soundbite but his actions doesn't bear any similaities in fact with the Glazers to the best of my knowledge. I have seen no evidence of similar creative accounting by the Glazers , perhaps you could back up that part of your post with some evidence.

    I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong but I think the point PHB is trying to make is that the Glazers made their move for United under wildly different financial circumstances to those they currently find themselves in, in terms of the world economy.

    There is no doubt whatsoever that they had a plan starting out and very little doubt that that plan would have worked had things stayed the same.

    The trouble is that they are unlikely to have seen the economy crashing to the extent it has, since nobody else, and so their plans are likely now unworkable.

    It is, I think, not beyond the realms of plausibilty that they are basically bailing water now and hoping things changed in the short-term.


  • #46
    Mr Alan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    i presumed the point PHB was trying to make was that the Glazers exploited the insanely irresponsible levels of credit which were available during boom times. this lack of foresight that the good times wouldn't last forever was rampant in the irish banking community and it is a huge part of the reason ours and the worlds economy is in the state it's in now. its a good comparison imo.


  • #47
    Mitch Connor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,192 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    keane2097 wrote: »
    There is no doubt whatsoever that they had a plan starting out and very little doubt that that plan would have worked had things stayed the same.

    the united board had plenty of doubt that the Glazers business plan could work, hence they cut off negotiations with the Glazers and recommended that the shareholders reject the offer being made. There has always been doubt that the business plan the Glazers put together was workable.


  • #48
    UnitedIrishman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,369 ✭✭✭UnitedIrishman


    And some then made a hasty retreat from those quotes about them when the Galzers took over in order to save their jobs - i.e. David Gill.


  • #49
    Mitch Connor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,192 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    In fairness, I think Gill is good at his job, and we should be happy that both Gill and Fergie stayed despite their opposition to the take-over.


  • #50
    The Muppet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,006 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    OPENROAD wrote: »
    Do you have a link, maybe someone can clarify for me, what is the interest that utd have to pay per year and what is the average profit made by utd.
    Apologies I just saw this now, I don't have a link at the monent, As far as I can recall David Gill has said that the clubs debt is servicable.

    keane2097 wrote: »
    I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong but I think the point PHB is trying to make is that the Glazers made their move for United under wildly different financial circumstances to those they currently find themselves in, in terms of the world economy.

    There is no doubt whatsoever that they had a plan starting out and very little doubt that that plan would have worked had things stayed the same.

    The trouble is that they are unlikely to have seen the economy crashing to the extent it has, since nobody else, and so their plans are likely now unworkable.

    It is, I think, not beyond the realms of plausibilty that they are basically bailing water now and hoping things changed in the short-term.

    I agree with that and have said as much earlier in this thread, here . I didn't agree with comparisons being made between the Glazers ownership of United and the potententially criminal actions of the person he
    was making that comparison with.

    AS far as we know there is no basis in fact for such accuastions and so they serve no effective purpose in this discussion other than as a clever sound bite, Tabloid journalism at it's best so to speak.


  • #51
    20goto10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65468556&postcount=20323
    Pro. F wrote: »
    No, there's also the PIK debt... there's details on it and a discussion in the finance thread knockin around somewhere
    There's a misconception that new owners = no more debt. As if the debt will just go poof and disappear in a cloud of smoke. They may convince investors to clear the debt with the banks but the club will still be in debt with the investors, and even more so. It's like paying off your credit card debt with another credit card. You may get a good deal, maybe 0% apr for the first 6 months or even a better rate long term. But the debt is still there.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Spud83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,608 ✭✭✭Spud83


    20goto10 wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65468556&postcount=20323 There's a misconception that new owners = no more debt. As if the debt will just go poof and disappear in a cloud of smoke. They may convince investors to clear the debt with the banks but the club will still be in debt with the investors, and even more so. It's like paying off your credit card debt with another credit card. You may get a good deal, maybe 0% apr for the first 6 months or even a better rate long term. But the debt is still there.

    Sorry but where have you seen this misconception?

    The fact of the matter is we don't know if the details of any potential offer, and what that effect would have on the debt. So we can't say one way or another wether the debt would be increased, remain the same, decrease, or disappear.

    I think what most fans are hoping for is that any new owners would mean a reduction in debt through the owners investing their own money. At the moment the debt is eating up all the clubs profits and then some.

    I think what most realistic fans are hoping for is that new owners would mean a reduction in debt to a level where the club can service them and have some money left over to enable us to have a net transfer spend. While also having a long term plan for clearing the debt.


  • #53
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,804 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    20goto10 wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65468556&postcount=20323 There's a misconception that new owners = no more debt. As if the debt will just go poof and disappear in a cloud of smoke. They may convince investors to clear the debt with the banks but the club will still be in debt with the investors, and even more so. It's like paying off your credit card debt with another credit card. You may get a good deal, maybe 0% apr for the first 6 months or even a better rate long term. But the debt is still there.

    Being in debt to your own owners may be a better scenario however, since it's in their interests that the club be successful in the long tem in order to recoup the debt owed to them and to turn a long-run profit.

    Man City and Chelsea for example are in massive debt to their owners - it's certainly not as bad as being in massive debt to banks.


  • #54
    ragg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭ragg


    People keep referencing Man Utds Accounts in this thread. People even saying they have seen Uniteds financial statements...

    Can I ask where people have seen these records? United aren't a PLC so don't have to release their accounts to the public.

    Can people send me a link to where these are viewable as I would be interested to see them and apparently they are in the public domain if so many people here have seen them. Thanks


  • #55
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,804 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    ragg wrote: »
    People keep referencing Man Utds Accounts in this thread. People even saying they have seen Uniteds financial statements...

    Can I ask where people have seen these records? United aren't a PLC so don't have to release their accounts to the public.

    Can people send me a link to where these are viewable as I would be interested to see them and apparently they are in the public domain if so many people here have seen them. Thanks

    Post 10.


  • #56
    20goto10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    keane2097 wrote: »
    Being in debt to your own owners may be a better scenario however, since it's in their interests that the club be successful in the long tem in order to recoup the debt owed to them and to turn a long-run profit.
    Is it not in the Glazers interests for the club to be successful? Was the bond issue not done on the back of a 90 mill Ronaldo transfer,champions league and premier league sucess? Has the bond issue not already brought the clubs debt under control? I just think this whole thing has gotten way out of control. To say a consortium of arrogant London business men in charge of the club is better than having the Glazer family in charge is pure madness. Stock up on the prawn sandwiches! Lets not forget for many people this is purely a racial issue. They don't want Americans in charge of the club. A nation where "soccer" is primarily a girls sport. some fans are quite happy to just ignore the fact that we've had one of our most sucecssful periods under the Glazers. I'd also like to know who is making a lot of money selling green and gold scarves. mmm...


  • #57
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,804 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    20goto10 wrote: »
    Is it not in the Glazers interests for the club to be successful?

    Of course it is. The issue is whether or not their business plan remains viable (assuming it ever was in the first place) in the economic climate they have unexpectedly found themselves attempting to carry it out in.
    20goto10 wrote: »
    Was the bond issue not done on the back of a 90 mill Ronaldo transfer,champions league and premier league sucess?

    Well, an 80 million transfer, but yes. I don't see the relevance of this point to the sustainability of the club's current debt levels tbh.

    20goto10 wrote: »
    Has the bond issue not already brought the clubs debt under control?

    Define "under control"? If it means club assets potentially being sold and leased back to help pay off interest and debts if necessary then I guess so. I'm not sure how many people would find that palatable though.

    If it means incoming transfer fees (allegedly) going to pay off interest, reduced net spend on playing staff etc. then yes I guess it's somewhat under control.

    It all depends on what you find acceptable tbh. I don't see the club ever going out of business due to the debt, but that's not the limit of my own personal definition of "under control".
    20goto10 wrote: »
    I just think this whole thing has gotten way out of control.

    That's for sure.
    20goto10 wrote: »
    To say a consortium of arrogant London business men in charge of the club is better than having the Glazer family in charge is pure madness.

    What is that all about? It borders on racist hilariously enough. I don't give a shít if the owners are from London, Saudi Arabia, Florida or anywhere else as long as the club is being run resposibly.

    I don't know where the "arrogant" charge is coming from either.

    Nobody has said afaik that the Red Knights would definitely be better than the Glazers. Nobody has seen their business plan so it's impossible to say.

    If they intend to reduce the debt then they're more than likely better, if they don't they're much the same.

    I'm pretty sure everybody on here has adopted a wait and see attitude to them tbh.
    20goto10 wrote: »
    TStock up on the prawn sandwiches! Lets not forget for many people this is purely a racial issue. They don't want Americans in charge of the club. A nation where "soccer" is primarily a girls sport. some fans are quite happy to just ignore the fact that we've had one of our most sucecssful periods under the Glazers. I'd also like to know who is making a lot of money selling green and gold scarves. mmm...

    You've kind of gone off on a ramble here and I'm not very interested in engaging with this paragraph.


  • #58
    20goto10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    keane2097 wrote: »
    Of course it is. The issue is whether or not their business plan remains viable (assuming it ever was in the first place) in the economic climate they have unexpectedly found themselves attempting to carry it out in.



    Well, an 80 million transfer, but yes. I don't see the relevance of this point to the sustainability of the club's current debt levels tbh.




    Define "under control"? If it means club assets potentially being sold and leased back to help pay off interest and debts if necessary then I guess so. I'm not sure how many people would find that palatable though.

    If it means incoming transfer fees (allegedly) going to pay off interest, reduced net spend on playing staff etc. then yes I guess it's somewhat under control.

    It all depends on what you find acceptable tbh. I don't see the club ever going out of business due to the debt, but that's not the limit of my own personal definition of "under control".



    That's for sure.



    What is that all about? It borders on racist hilariously enough. I don't give a shít if the owners are from London, Saudi Arabia, Florida or anywhere else as long as the club is being run resposibly.

    I don't know where the "arrogant" charge is coming from either.

    Nobody has said afaik that the Red Knights would definitely be better than the Glazers. Nobody has seen their business plan so it's impossible to say.

    If they intend to reduce the debt then they're more than likely better, if they don't they're much the same.

    I'm pretty sure everybody on here has adopted a wait and see attitude to them tbh.



    You've kind of gone off on a ramble here and I'm not very interested in engaging with this paragraph.

    So what is it they are going to do to rescue the club? They have already said the bonds will stay in place. i.e the debt will stay in place. so you're you're talking about a change in ownership, not a rescue deal. btw, they are arrogant by the mere fact a group of lads get together and plan to take over Manchester United FC. I don't know if they picked the name the Red Knights but I do remember a news report saying they are calling themselves the Red Knights which suggested to me they did.


  • #59
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,804 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    20goto10 wrote: »
    So what is it they are going to do to rescue the club?

    Nobody knows. Nobody has said they'll do anything.

    The mismanagement of the club by the Glazers is a fact in and of itself and will remain to be so completely independent of ANY takeover bids by any third party.
    20goto10 wrote: »
    They have already said the bonds will stay in place. i.e the debt will stay in place.

    The PIK payments are the ones that are crippling the club at the moment.

    I suggest you read the links provided by Pro F in post ten of this thread before continuing, as you seem to be somewhat misinformed.
    20goto10 wrote: »
    so you're you're talking about a change in ownership, not a rescue deal.

    Until the Red Knights release a business plan, any statements like this are complete speculation and are pretty irrelevant.
    20goto10 wrote: »
    btw, they are arrogant by the mere fact a group of lads get together and plan to take over Manchester United FC. I don't know if they picked the name the Red Knights but I do remember a news report saying they are calling themselves the Red Knights which suggested to me they did.

    Whatever you think on this point tbh - I think it's nonsense fwiw.


  • #60
    Mitch Connor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,192 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    20goto10 wrote: »
    So what is it they are going to do to rescue the club? They have already said the bonds will stay in place. i.e the debt will stay in place. so you're you're talking about a change in ownership, not a rescue deal. btw, they are arrogant by the mere fact a group of lads get together and plan to take over Manchester United FC. I don't know if they picked the name the Red Knights but I do remember a news report saying they are calling themselves the Red Knights which suggested to me they did.

    The Bonds are not the biggest problem. Stating that they are is pure ignorance. The PIKs ar ethe problem, they are what need to be got rid of. The PIKs are building at 16% per year, compound, without a penny being paid off them on a yearly basis.

    The bond can be dealt with in time, the PIKs need to go ASAP. If the takeover took care of the PIKs we'd be in a much better position. I would, however, also like to see a plan in place to deal with the bond though - it does need to be looked at, but longer term than the PIKs, which are the priority.

    The Red Knights name was given to them by the media, they decided to let the media go with it.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    20goto10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    PIK loans are unsecured loans which means the Glazers are personally responsible, not the club. I agree, if the Glazers are gone then the PIK problem goes with them with that will involve giving them a price to pay off their debts, 1.25 billion maybe? And where does this money come from. Puff..out of thin air :rolleyes:


Advertisement