Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by sammsky1, Jan 2, 2010.
Why would they want to keep that secret?
I'd guess as it's not been finalised? We heard nothing of City being bought until the day it happened, there wasn't even a hint ADU were in talks, many companies don't like takeovers going public until completion.
EDIT: and yes, this is me being VERY optiistic.
The way Glazers bought Manchester United was short of playing roulette. Fortunately United have had good years on the field during their tenure, reflecting in good financial performance.
Maybe the Red Knights were the winners of that Euro Millions rollover?
Then put the whole lot on Haye 3rd Round, we have got it sorted now
I think we may be on to something here, Haye said himself he held on til the third, maybe he's invested?
Great. Now we don't have to sell O'Shea.
Also I thought the PIKs would have no bearing on our debt anyway. Since they were Glazer's responsibility they were not part of the debt of the club.
Well, the Tariq Panja info that "PIK holders were contacted by representatives of United’s owners last week and agreed to a waiver allowing the family to take 50 million pounds out of the team to buy back that amount of the bond" implies to me that they have gotten the money from this by a new loan, not by selling equity.
They wanted to pay the PIKS at least partly out of cash (50m in cash, 170m in the new loan), but in the end stumped for paying the PIKS completely with a new loan. And it maybe the G&G campaign that made them do that. Although if the new loan is secured against the club then its not much of a victory.
Rio: "To reduce the debt would be fantastic if it's true. When I get back to the club i'm sure I'll be told exactly what's happening."
Twitter will be waiting Mr. Ferdinand.
That can't be a real Rio tweet. It has punctuation and fully spelled words.
It isn't from his twitter, but the England press conference, which someone else tweeted.
You don't think that the biggest global recession in living memory was a tad unlucky?
andersred Andy Green
#MUFC on PIKs unlikely to hear anything until publication of RFJV accounts at Companies House, timing of that uncertain, was Jan last time.
Yeah, I'm sure you will, Rio
So this thread is good to run for a while yet
PM below from ralph250 in the newbies. I guess it depends whats the 'bond' that Tariq is referring to. I assumed it was the PIKs, not the bond issue debt.
Can someone tweet Tariq about this? I'm pretty sure it's the PIK debt though.
Hi, I was the one that referred Anver to the twitter feed. The above is how I first read it, but I think I made an oversight. Is he not referring to the bond issue secured on United.
Ie. club want to use £50m of club cash to additionally reduce the £500m bond issue debt, but needed a waiver signed to do so.
Now they've cleared the PIKS now longer need that, so removed that obstacle, and so is now dependent on any redemption periods. Though doing it now, is inconsistent with:
"The notes, issued by MU Finance, are due in 2017 but there is a call option that allows the borrower to buy it back in three years".
FT Alphaville » Man Utd edition (updated)
Reading that is a take over a possibilty then?
I don't see why. Why would they ever have had to ask the PIK holders for a waiver to get at the clubs cash if they had a big cash influx coming from an equity buyer?
Perhaps, does not look like we are going to know anytime soon
It is about much more than just this new development, that is only a small part of the bigger discussion. It is about 5 years worth of negativity and bitterness which has mostly proven to be completely unfounded.
Many people have walked away from our club as a result of this misinformation and that for me is the saddest part - I want to set the record straight to make sure others do not make the same mistake or at least that they are given the correct information before making a decision.
But, because nobody is privvy to the Glazers plans, people have based their opinions of the running of MUFC on gossip and guesses....it appears the Glazers did afterall have more business sense than people thought.
Not that MUST or their supporters will give them any credit.
Oh so the huge amounts spent on interest the ACS the increased ticket prices the lack of team investment had nothing to do with negativity and bitterness, its all down to mis information about the Great Glazer family
I have given my detailed views on ACS, ticket prices and team investment on several occasions - I have no interest in repeating myself, especially not to you.
This. People can't get all bitchy about how secretive they are and then criticise about a business plan they know nothing about but think they do because of unsubstantiated rumours. Rumours which so far have proven to be wrong at every single turn. Not once. Every time.
The long term problems with the Glazer ownership have not gone away you know that is why they get repeated again and again
No - it is clearly about the £500m bond.
Basically he is saying that the Glazers want to use some of our cash reserves to repurchase the bond debt - if they arent using it for the PIK then it would make sense to use it for that. So we could see our total debt levels come down to even yet lower levels - which would be great!
I'm not sure Marching. As I said before it was a risky purchase. We have seen with other clubs and owners the risks involved. Some of the negative press and gloom was justified. It was a very fine line they tread. We still have 500 Million debt.
Chelsea, City, Leeds, Portsmouth, Liverpool and Newcastle among many others were all on the verge or went into administration. MUST had very good reasons to see the glass half empty.
I don't see how that is as clear as you seem to think. If someone with a twitter account could tweet Tariq then we could maybe sort this point out though.
Just out of interest how much revenue does the ACS pull in every season?
So let them come out and reassure us then, their secrecy causes the rumours and they bring it all on themselves
TBH I couldn't tell you but it must be worth while when they persist with something as unpopular
To me it is completely clear, there is only one 'bond'.
But I dont expect you to take my word for it, feel free to have it confirmed anyway you want, but you will find out sooner or later that I am right!
Would be great to see the debt decrease no doubt. However, the team needs to remain competitive and would need the cash for investment towards players.
We have £150m in the bank.
Spending £50m on buying back some bonds still leaves £100m - is that enough for you?
Assuming they're not plundering the £90M as we speak to pay the PIKS.
It would seem that are not doing that Pete, the source of the money remains a mystery
£100m is good - £150m would be a lot better. I'm off to the Transfer Forum.
Just a thought, is the timing of this not a little convienient? A week after the quarter's financial report is released they decided to clear the toxic debt and are now rumoured to be looking at using the clubs cash reserves to release some of the Bond?
Am I being cynical in thinking that they could be denying the club's money is being used in one way when they plan to use it in another and they have the maximum time they could get before we see the next figures (3 months) to swing some P.R or prepare books in such a way it limits damage?
Well they hadn't done it up to the point when they published the accounts - who's to say they won't before Monday?
I have no problem with that but nobody knows what they are doing only the mysterious aloof Glazers
Separate names with a comma.