All change of ownership and Red Knights related posts here please

Virtuoso · 3rd February 2010, 12:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahul

If he does takeover the club you can bet the headline will read: " United sold : Done Deal "

Anyway so he's a multi-millionaire. Thats not nearly enough. We need more money money money.

Well he's worth £510m apparently, and if you consider that the 'Red Knights' are meant to be up to 50 businessmen then the whole consortium and their aims seem more substantial.

CnutOfAllCnuts · 3rd February 2010, 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahul

If he does takeover the club you can bet the headline will read: " United sold : Done Deal "

Anyway so he's a multi-millionaire. Thats not nearly enough. We need more money money money.

We don't need a sugar daddy. We need an owner who runs the club sensibly. The club generates money itself.

R_Kelly · 3rd February 2010, 12:30

I'm starting to get a little more optimistic about this Red Knights talk. I had somewhat dismissed it as pie in the sky but it seems to be moving in the right direction.

PeteReDevil · 3rd February 2010, 12:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by R_Nick

I'm starting to get a little more optimistic about this Red Knights talk. I had somewhat dismissed it as pie in the sky but it seems to be moving in the right direction.

Same here. "Only" takes 10 Fred Dones. But still it all comes down to the glazers

CnutOfAllCnuts · 3rd February 2010, 12:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by R_Nick

I'm starting to get a little more optimistic about this Red Knights talk. I had somewhat dismissed it as pie in the sky but it seems to be moving in the right direction.

Still think it is a pie in the sky, as I don't think the Glazer will sell.

4everUtd · 3rd February 2010, 12:42

can one of these red knights be a royal arab please haha

Clique · 3rd February 2010, 12:57

Unless the group of knights had 50 people as rich as Fred Dones, its still a pie in the sky.

Supposing they each had 800 million pounds and the club cost 1 billion, 10 people would need to shell out 12.5% of their entire fortune worth.

Thats a scenario, not sure if any of the people quoted are worth as much. Surely not 10 people.

I'm not dismissing the idea, but unless some ultra rich supporters decided to end it all, don't think its as easy as it is made out to be. That or someone needs to send Bill Gates our "Micheal Owen type" brochure

CnutOfAllCnuts · 3rd February 2010, 13:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clique

Unless the group of knights had 50 people as rich as Fred Dones, its still a pie in the sky.

Supposing they each had 800 million pounds and the club cost 1 billion, 10 people would need to shell out 12.5% of their entire fortune worth.

Thats a scenario, not sure if any of the people quoted are worth as much. Surely not 10 people.

I'm not dismissing the idea, but unless some ultra rich supporters decided to end it all, don't think its as easy as it is made out to be. That or someone needs to send Bill Gates our "Micheal Owen type" brochure

Need the 50 people to invest £20m each.

Interval Level · 3rd February 2010, 13:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clique

Unless the group of knights had 50 people as rich as Fred Dones, its still a pie in the sky.

Supposing they each had 800 million pounds and the club cost 1 billion, 10 people would need to shell out 12.5% of their entire fortune worth.

Thats a scenario, not sure if any of the people quoted are worth as much. Surely not 10 people.

I'm not dismissing the idea, but unless some ultra rich supporters decided to end it all, don't think its as easy as it is made out to be. That or someone needs to send Bill Gates our "Micheal Owen type" brochure

You don't need someone to pay off 1 billion for the club. 200-220 million for the Glazers and another 200 million for the PIKs and we'll be in a much much better position.

R_Kelly · 3rd February 2010, 13:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by CnutOfAllCnuts

Still think it is a pie in the sky, as I don't think the Glazer will sell.

Offered the chance to make a tidy profit and get out before things start getting really out of hand with protests etc I think they'd take it.

CnutOfAllCnuts · 3rd February 2010, 13:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by R_Nick

Offered the chance to make a tidy profit and get out before things start getting really out of hand with protests etc I think they'd take it.

I don't think they'll be scared by the prospects of larger scale protests and boycotts.

I think we're stuck with them for the forseable future.

R_Kelly · 3rd February 2010, 13:13

It's not just a case of them being scared by the prospect of protests and boycotts, they have to consider the image of the club to potential investors/sponsors etc. If the club is known world wide to have fans railing against its owners and boycotting matches then who will want to plaster their brand all over it? Plus they know they have to refinance in the future, which will be far from straight forward.

"They are stubborn bastards" is, although true, too simplistic. They have to consider the long term options, and if we make enough noise it will make their lives sufficiently hard enough that they have to consider their position.

Clique · 3rd February 2010, 13:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by CnutOfAllCnuts

Need the 50 people to invest £20m each.

Becomes simpler if the numbers are greater. But do we have 50 people willing to part with 20 million? And if they do, where will we get money for potential transfers after that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interval Level

You don't need someone to pay off 1 billion for the club. 200-220 million for the Glazers and another 200 million for the PIKs and we'll be in a much much better position.

I thought we had solved the problems we call PIK's with the money from the Bonds?

CnutOfAllCnuts · 3rd February 2010, 13:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clique

Becomes simpler if the numbers are greater. But do we have 50 people willing to part with 20 million? And if they do, where will we get money for potential transfers after that?

What do you mean?

CnutOfAllCnuts · 3rd February 2010, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by R_Nick

It's not just a case of them being scared by the prospect of protests and boycotts, they have to consider the image of the club to potential investors/sponsors etc. If the club is known world wide to have fans railing against its owners and boycotting matches then who will want to plaster their brand all over it? Plus they know they have to refinance in the future, which will be far from straight forward.

"They are stubborn bastards" is, although true, too simplistic. They have to consider the long term options, and if we make enough noise it will make their lives sufficiently hard enough that they have to consider their position.

Hence I think we are stuck with them for now. The current protests etc will not have a long-term negative effect on the brand and the value.

Clique · 3rd February 2010, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by CnutOfAllCnuts

What do you mean?

Well an idiotic question to be true. But wouldn't the future owners be asked to contribute to the future transfers?

A say 20 million per year on current trends? Where do we get this from? Profits of the club?

CnutOfAllCnuts · 3rd February 2010, 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clique

Well an idiotic question to be true. But wouldn't the future owners be asked to contribute to the future transfers?

A say 20 million per year on current trends? Where do we get this from? Profits of the club?

The club generates its own money. United don't need a sugar daddy.

Interval Level · 3rd February 2010, 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clique

I thought we had solved the problems we call PIK's with the money from the Bonds?

That was the intended plan. don't have verified news that the PIKs have been paid off.

Basically, all we need is someone to first invest 220 million and buy out the Glazers. Then some additional cash to manage the debt better.

Clique · 3rd February 2010, 13:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by CnutOfAllCnuts

The club generates its own money. United don't need a sugar daddy.

Not while Fergie is in charge, thats for sure.

R_Kelly · 3rd February 2010, 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by CnutOfAllCnuts

Hence I think we are stuck with them for now. The current protests etc will not have a long-term negative effect on the brand and the value.

The current protests are the starting point; the first handful of snow at the top of the hill as you start rolling up a snowball. The idea is that once we get things moving the snowball will be large enough to engulf redbeard and his family and roll off the edge of a cliff.

theimperialinn · 3rd February 2010, 13:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by CnutOfAllCnuts

Need the 50 people to invest £20m each.

It's a fantasy.

Interval Level · 3rd February 2010, 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clique

Not while Fergie is in charge, thats for sure.

Whats that supposed to mean?

CnutOfAllCnuts · 3rd February 2010, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by theimperialinn

It's a fantasy.

I think it's easier to find the money and the investors than to get Glazer to sell.

theimperialinn · 3rd February 2010, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clique

Becomes simpler if the numbers are greater. But do we have 50 people willing to part with 20 million? And if they do, where will we get money for potential transfers after that?

Without the interest payments the club is a cash cow. Player transfers would be self funding - like under the Plc days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clique

I thought we had solved the problems we call PIK's with the money from the Bonds?

The money from the bonds cleared the senior bank loan, not the piks.

Clique · 3rd February 2010, 13:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interval Level

Whats that supposed to mean?

Thats supposed to mean, We tend to get the best players with very little nett spend with Fergie around.

It was a very simple sentence internal.

Interval Level · 3rd February 2010, 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by theimperialinn

Without the interest payments the club is a cash cow. Player transfers would be self funding - like under the Plc days.

The money from the bonds cleared the senior bank loan, not the piks.

What was the rate we were paying on the bank loans? Was it less than the Bond Interest rates of 9%? If so, out interest obligations should be rising this year.

also what surprised me was the Ronaldo money wasn't used to pay off the PIKs. The PIK principal has increased this year.

theimperialinn · 3rd February 2010, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interval Level

That was the intended plan. don't have verified news that the PIKs have been paid off.

That was never the plan.

Pre-bond issue United's debt was structured like this:

£500m senior bank loans
£200m PIK loans

The covenants attached the the SBLs stipulated that the Glazers could not use club generated funds to pay off the PIK debt, hence why it is stated as being their personal debt.

After the re-structuring our debt now looks like this:

£500 bond issue
£200 PIK loans
£75m bank loan (not likely not used yet)

The bond issue is covenant light, therefore allowing the Glazers to pay off their own personal (PIK) debt using funds generated from the club.

Some people say the bond issue is beneficial for the club. I'd counter that argument with the fact that its allows the Glazers to take £200m from the club to clear their personal debts.

theimperialinn · 3rd February 2010, 13:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interval Level

What was the rate we were paying on the bank loans? Was it less than the Bond Interest rates of 9%? If so, out interest obligations should be rising this year.

also what surprised me was the Ronaldo money wasn't used to pay off the PIKs. The PIK principal has increased this year.

The interest rate on the senior banks loans were hedged at 5% (£25m)

This new bond issue is at 9% (£45m)

Therefore post bond issue physical interest payments have gone up by £20m pa.

MadDogg · 3rd February 2010, 13:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clique

And if they do, where will we get money for potential transfers after that?

Get rid of the debts and the clubs profit easily covers any transfers we want to make (unless we wanted to go Real/Chelsea/City-style and splurge 100m+ in a single window). If I remember correctly we've been running at around 60m a year profit over the last couple of years. It's just that the interest payments on the debts pretty much wipe that out at the moment.

There would be no need to go begging the owners to spend their own money, unless they tried to take every last bit of the clubs profits straight into their own bank account.

Interval Level · 3rd February 2010, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by theimperialinn

That was never the plan.

Pre-bond issue United's debt was structured like this:

£500m senior bank loans
£200m PIK loans

The covenants attached the the SBLs stipulated that the Glazers could not use club generated funds to pay off the PIK debt, hence why it is stated as being their personal debt.

After the re-structuring our debt now looks like this:

£500 bond issue
£200 PIK loans
£75m bank loan (not likely not used yet)

The bond issue is covenant light, therefore allowing the Glazers to pay off their own personal (PIK) debt using funds generated from the club.

Some people say the bond issue is beneficial for the club. I'd counter that argument with the fact that its allows the Glazers to take £200m from the club to clear their personal debts.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You said that it isn't the plan to pay off the PIK debt with the bond money. Then you go onto say the bolded part that the bond money is being used to pay off the Glazers debt.

Also, I'd rather it pay off the personal debt. The club is carrying the interest burden. I'd rather we pay 9% rather than 16.25%.

TA I.INN

Clique · 3rd February 2010, 13:48

Quote:

Manchester United's first bond issue, launched barely a fortnight ago, is in danger of falling flat after analysts confirmed it has become one of the market’s worst performers this year.

Last week, the club confirmed it had raised the £500 million investment they sought to get the club’s spiralling debts under control. However, the price of United’s £250 million sterling denominated bonds has tumbled to just 93 per cent of their original face value, while the value of the $425 million of dollar-denominated bonds has fallen to 94.5 per cent of their face value. More than 50 low-risk investors, primarily insurers and pension-fund providers, stumped up the cash at a fixed annual interest rate of 9 per cent. However, if an investor had bought a £100,000 bond, he would have made a loss of £5,000.

Some analysts are claiming the bonds have been priced too highly, although the club have declined to comment.

“In a benign credit market, Manchester United is one of the worst performing bonds since the beginning of 2009,” Suki Mann, a credit strategist in London at Societe Generale, told the Financial Times.

United had initially raised the funds after club officials embarked on a week-long series of “road shows” across three continents, sporting a “warts-and-all” 322-page prospectus in a desperate bid to woo investors. According to the latest accounts for the year ended June 2009, United owed £509 million to international banks.

The money raised through bonds will be used to pay back that debt, secured against the club. But while the annual interest bill will remain largely unaffected, United, crucially, will be freed of the strict financial conditions imposed by lenders that would have made life extremely difficult for the Barclays Premier League champions if they were less successful on the pitch.

United will face an annual interest bill of £45 million on the bonds, similar to the £41.2 million paid in the last financial year, but unlike the debt at present secured against the club, the bonds do not mature until 2017.

Supporters’ groups who have campaigned for the removal of the Glazers are appalled at the amount of borrowing.

Source:Manchester United bond issue suffers from lack of support | Manchester United - Times Online
...

theimperialinn · 3rd February 2010, 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interval Level

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You said that it isn't the plan to pay off the PIK debt with the bond money. Then you go onto say the bolded part that the bond money is being used to pay off the Glazers debt.

Also, I'd rather it pay off the personal debt. The club is carrying the interest burden. I'd rather we pay 9% rather than 16.25%.

TA I.INN

Clearing the senior bank loans with the bond issue facilitates the repayment of the piks because the bonds are covenant light. The SBL prohibited the Glazers from paying the piks with future club profits.

Therefore in order to pay the piks the SBL had to be repaid first.

MancFanFromManc · 3rd February 2010, 13:56

I've played in a regular Tuesday match and we've always called ourselves (cos we're such wits!

) The Tuesday Knights. Even at this early stage I can pretty much rule us out of Red Knight contention - tho I would if I could !

Doesnt pay to get too excited by this, but wouldnt be the dogs bollox of a solution to the plight thrust upon our beloved club

Joga_Bonito · 3rd February 2010, 14:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interval Level

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You said that it isn't the plan to pay off the PIK debt with the bond money. Then you go onto say the bolded part that the bond money is being used to pay off the Glazers debt.

Also, I'd rather it pay off the personal debt. The club is carrying the interest burden. I'd rather we pay 9% rather than 16.25%.

TA I.INN

No, the bond issue now allows the PIK's to be paid down using future profits. Previously, with the senior debt (~£500m) taking precedence over the junior debt (the PIK's), they weren't allowed to pay down the PIK's, which accrue 14.25% interest each year, and later this year becomes ~16%. That means that the £200m is growing massively each year, and prior to the bond issue the Glazer's weren't allowed to use the clubs funds to pay it down, because the senior debt must always take precedence.

Now that the bonds have replaced the senior debt (roughly £500m senior debt for £500m bond issue), those restrictions have been removed.

Interval Level · 3rd February 2010, 14:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by theimperialinn

Clearing the senior bank loans with the bond issue facilitates the repayment of the piks because the bonds are covenant light. The SBL prohibited the Glazers from paying the piks with future club profits.

Therefore in order to pay the piks the SBL had to be repaid first.

Makes sense now. This is some real mess here. So we have not got to content with 4% more interest,ie 20 million more just so that we can start paying off high interest PIKs for which we pay around 33 million as interest. But our normal income is hardly enough to pay off all of the interest (bar last year wherein we sold Ronaldo).

This could be a highly dangerous strategy from the face of it. We could just end up adding another 20 million to our payments without actually earning enough to pay off the PIKs.

Damn!

theimperialinn · 3rd February 2010, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interval Level

Makes sense now. This is some real mess here. So we have not got to content with 4% more interest,ie 20 million more just so that we can start paying off high interest PIKs for which we pay around 33 million as interest. But our normal income is hardly enough to pay off all of the interest (bar last year wherein we sold Ronaldo).

This could be a highly dangerous strategy from the face of it. We could just end up adding another 20 million to our payments without actually earning enough to pay off the PIKs.

Damn!

We dont actually pay the pik interest, it gets added to the loan like a giant credit card. By 2017 that would have been approx £500m without intervention.

Interval Level · 3rd February 2010, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by theimperialinn

We dont actually pay the pik interest, it gets added to the loan like a giant credit card. By 2017 that would have been approx £500m without intervention.

Is it because we don't earn enough? Or are the terms just like that?

Thanks for the great info, mate!I'm just trying to figure what the Glazers thought process is. They do have some of the best finance guys in the world, so there must be some logic to all of this.

Adzzz · 3rd February 2010, 14:33

This was just on the one o'clock northwest regional news on BBC. Fred Done had a mini interview, he's said no 'formal' communication has happened but that he's interested and that the Red Knights do actually exist.

This might be a goer.

theimperialinn · 3rd February 2010, 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Interval Level

Is it because we don't earn enough? Or are the terms just like that?

Off the top of my head I think the PIK went from £175m to £202m over the last financial year which suggests that no interest was paid.

I would have have to double check that to confirm.

Roodboy would probably be our best bet.

UnitedRoadRed · 3rd February 2010, 18:28

50 knights at £40m each. Gets the club, gets the main stand sorted, gets proper replacements for Scholes and Giggs and other bits of squad improvements.

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

All change of ownership and Red Knights related posts here please

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

3rd February 2010, 12:30	#83 (permalink)
R_Kelly No Lifer Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: How do you expect to run with the wolves come night, when you spend all day sparring with the puppies? Posts: 38,660	I'm starting to get a little more optimistic about this Red Knights talk. I had somewhat dismissed it as pie in the sky but it seems to be moving in the right direction.

3rd February 2010, 12:42	#86 (permalink)
4everUtd Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: "But every single game I play [is a highlight]. Every time I pull on a United shirt, I have to check myself. It's me, Quinton, playing for Man United!" Posts: 731	can one of these red knights be a royal arab please haha

3rd February 2010, 12:57	#87 (permalink)
Clique First Team Sub Join Date: May 2009 Location: Mermania Rulez!!!...Merms come back!!! Posts: 5,125	Unless the group of knights had 50 people as rich as Fred Dones, its still a pie in the sky. Supposing they each had 800 million pounds and the club cost 1 billion, 10 people would need to shell out 12.5% of their entire fortune worth. Thats a scenario, not sure if any of the people quoted are worth as much. Surely not 10 people. I'm not dismissing the idea, but unless some ultra rich supporters decided to end it all, don't think its as easy as it is made out to be. That or someone needs to send Bill Gates our "Micheal Owen type" brochure

3rd February 2010, 13:13	#92 (permalink)
R_Kelly No Lifer Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: How do you expect to run with the wolves come night, when you spend all day sparring with the puppies? Posts: 38,660	It's not just a case of them being scared by the prospect of protests and boycotts, they have to consider the image of the club to potential investors/sponsors etc. If the club is known world wide to have fans railing against its owners and boycotting matches then who will want to plaster their brand all over it? Plus they know they have to refinance in the future, which will be far from straight forward. "They are stubborn bastards" is, although true, too simplistic. They have to consider the long term options, and if we make enough noise it will make their lives sufficiently hard enough that they have to consider their position.

3rd February 2010, 13:56	#113 (permalink)
MancFanFromManc Red Rascal Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Was in the Nou Camp, and was in Moscow... Anyone for Munich? Posts: 6,602	I've played in a regular Tuesday match and we've always called ourselves (cos we're such wits! ) The Tuesday Knights. Even at this early stage I can pretty much rule us out of Red Knight contention - tho I would if I could ! Doesnt pay to get too excited by this, but wouldnt be the dogs bollox of a solution to the plight thrust upon our beloved club

3rd February 2010, 14:33	#118 (permalink)
Adzzz Astrophysical Genius Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Don't Put My Swag on a Pedestal, I'll leave you like Owen Hargreaves at a Medical, passing me ain't credible Posts: 21,983	This was just on the one o'clock northwest regional news on BBC. Fred Done had a mini interview, he's said no 'formal' communication has happened but that he's interested and that the Red Knights do actually exist. This might be a goer.

3rd February 2010, 18:28	#120 (permalink)
UnitedRoadRed First Team Sub Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Manchester Posts: 5,619	50 knights at £40m each. Gets the club, gets the main stand sorted, gets proper replacements for Scholes and Giggs and other bits of squad improvements.