ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.

UnitedRoadRed

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
5,761
Location
Manchester
It is strange... if you're wilfully ignoring the whole point.:rolleyes:

The whole point of the revelations about the parlous state of the Glazers other finances is that there is no money anywhere else to pay off their personal PIK debts, so it pretty much guarantees that money will leave United for this purpose.
Gill has publicly stated that the PIKs are the Glazers' business and nothing to do with United. Andersred is asking if this remains the case.

Pretty straight forward really.
Gill has publicly stated that the PIKs are the Glazers' business and nothing to do with United.

The Bond prospectus states that they are secured against RFJV whose sole assets are a 100% shareholding the Red Football. Doesn't sound like a shopping mall or gridiron business to me.
 

charleysurf

Obnoxious, abusive bellend who is best ignored
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
16,298
It is strange... if you're wilfully ignoring the whole point.:rolleyes:

The whole point of the revelations about the parlous state of the Glazers other finances is that there is no money anywhere else to pay off their personal PIK debts, so it pretty much guarantees that money will leave United for this purpose.
Gill has publicly stated that the PIKs are the Glazers' business and nothing to do with United. Andersred is asking if this remains the case.

Pretty straight forward really.
But the argument in this thread for the last few days was about money leaving RedFootball to pay for the US businesses, i.e. an argument over whether "indebtedness" in this paragraph in the prospectus included Glazer assets outside RedFootball:
"we may, without restriction, make a distribution or loan of up to £70.0 million to our immediate parent company, Red Football Joint Venture Limited, that may, in turn, use the proceeds of that loan for general corporate purposes, including repaying existing indebtedness."

Why has the argument been moved to the PIKs?
When everyone talks about United debts being 700m+ they always include the PIKs don't they?

If they are not paid off then the debts will just keep rising, 800m, 900m etc.

Is that what AndersenRed really wants?
 

Sir A1ex

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
27,949
Location
Where the goals come from.
But the argument in this thread for the last few days was about money leaving RedFootball to pay for the US businesses, i.e. an argument over whether "indebtedness" in this paragraph in the prospectus included Glazer assets outside RedFootball:
"we may, without restriction, make a distribution or loan of up to £70.0 million to our immediate parent company, Red Football Joint Venture Limited, that may, in turn, use the proceeds of that loan for general corporate purposes, including repaying existing indebtedness."

Why has the argument been moved to the PIKs?
When everyone talks about United debts being 700m+ they always include the PIKs don't they?
There have been two similar but distinct arguments going on:

One in here about whether money can actually leave the whole RF/RFJV set-up and directly pay off the malls etc.

Another both in here and on Andersred's blog about whether RF money will go to pay off the PIKs, contrary to what Gill has said.

AndersRed has never said anything about the first argument (other than, possibly, that he doesn't think it is the case) he has entirely focussed on the second. So no, it's not an odd or contrary question he asks in that letter.

If they are not paid off then the debts will just keep rising, 800m, 900m etc.
Is that what AndersenRed really wants?
If Gill is telling the truth, and they have no impact on united, then yes, that is vastly preferable to it turning out that Gill is lying and them being paid off with United's money.
As long as United is safe and keeps its money Andersred, along with myself and most others don't really give a feck how big the Glazer's PIK debts are if they are totally separate.

Unfortunately I think we all know the reality of situation, so AndersRed is trying to get Gill to admit it.
 

UnitedRoadRed

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
5,761
Location
Manchester
But the argument in this thread for the last few days was about money leaving RedFootball to pay for the US businesses, i.e. an argument over whether "indebtedness" in this paragraph in the prospectus included Glazer assets outside RedFootball:
"we may, without restriction, make a distribution or loan of up to £70.0 million to our immediate parent company, Red Football Joint Venture Limited, that may, in turn, use the proceeds of that loan for general corporate purposes, including repaying existing indebtedness."

Why has the argument been moved to the PIKs?
When everyone talks about United debts being 700m+ they always include the PIKs don't they?

If they are not paid off then the debts will just keep rising, 800m, 900m etc.

Is that what AndersenRed really wants?
Not according to Gill
 

MikeUpNorth

Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
19,948
Is it not blindingly obvious that money from the club (up to what the Bond provisions allow) is going to be used at some point to pay off the PIKs? The Glazers don't own the club for a laugh, they own it as a revenue stream and appreciating asset.
 

charleysurf

Obnoxious, abusive bellend who is best ignored
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
16,298
There have been two similar but distinct arguments going on:

One in here about whether money can actually leave the whole RF/RFJV set-up and directly pay off the malls etc.

Another both in here and on Andersred's blog about whether RF money will go to pay off the PIKs, contrary to what Gill has said.

AndersRed has never said anything about the first argument (other than, possibly, that he doesn't think it is the case) he has entirely focussed on the second. So no, it's not an odd or contrary question he asks in that letter.
Well, next time we get a scare story about Uniteds debts now being 800m due to the PIKs I'll be sure to point out that the PIKS don't matter.
 

peterstorey

Specialist In Failure
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
37,293
Location
'It's for the Arsenal and we're going to Wembley'
Is it not blindingly obvious that money from the club (up to what the Bond provisions allow) is going to be used at some point to pay off the PIKs? The Glazers don't own the club for a laugh, they own it as a revenue stream and appreciating asset.
The first tranche of PIKS was refinanced and lumped on to the club so I would be surprised if they didn't pay for the rest at some point.
 

Rood

nostradamus like gloater
Scout
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
21,419
Location
@United_Hour
Well, next time we get a scare story about Uniteds debts now being 800m due to the PIKs I'll be sure to point out that the PIKS don't matter.
Well said - it seems some people are trying to have it both ways. One moment they scream about the huge debts, but the next they are getting upset at the notion that some of the debts might get paid off !!
 

charleysurf

Obnoxious, abusive bellend who is best ignored
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
16,298
Unfortunately I think we all know the reality of situation, so AndersRed is trying to get Gill to admit it.
Fair enough. But I'll certainly feel better about Uniteds solidity if the PIKS are paid down. Not as good as I'd feel if we didn't need to worry about them at all obviously, but that just does not seem to be true, and I can't agree with Gill on that if that is what he is saying.
 

UnitedRoadRed

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
5,761
Location
Manchester
Well said - it seems some people are trying to have it both ways. One moment they scream about the huge debts, but the next they are getting upset at the notion that some of the debts might get paid off !!
And some people don't even understand what charleysurf was talking about. Imagine that!
 

Dublin Red

Full Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
445
Location
Who's asking ?
Disingenuousboy comes piling in right on cue...:rolleyes:
As I read it Andersred is asking the same question all be it a little more loaded. We know the Glazers can take a certain amount of money from the club and pay off some of the Pik debt with it if they wish.

I would imagine he will get basically the same answer.
 

fredthered

I want Peter Kenyon back
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
17,845
Location
UK
It is strange... if you're wilfully ignoring the whole point.:rolleyes:

The whole point of the revelations about the parlous state of the Glazers other finances is that there is no money anywhere else to pay off their personal PIK debts, so it pretty much guarantees that money will leave United for this purpose.
Gill has publicly stated that the PIKs are the Glazers' business and nothing to do with United. Andersred is asking if this remains the case.

Pretty straight forward really.
People need to start looking at things in a broader context here.

The Glazers now owe $1.9 billion over their entire business empire. Whether it be United, First Allied, The bucs..

Now forgetting who owes what, and to whom, the fact is that Malcolm Glazer owes all that money, and it needs to be repaid. Interest charges are accruing all the time, and at present he has enough equity to cover his liabilities, however the longer those debts remain unpaid, the less the margin between equity and liabilities becomes. When the equity becomes less than what he owes, then the shit has really hit the fan.

Now forgetting who owes what, and who they owe it to, the fact is Malcolm Glazers debts are increasing daily and somewhere in his business empire he has to find the funds to pay them.

As Andersred has found out, First Allied isnt making any money ( far from it ). There simply isnt any spare revenue to pay off any of the debts. We dont know for certain what income he is getting from the Buccaneers, but given that EBITDA last year was estimated to be $80 million or so, then it doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out that there isnt going to be a treasure chest of cash laying somewhere in their offices.

That leaves only one place left available where he can draw funds from. We know for 100% certainty that there is £94 million sat there in the bank. Where that money is targetted for, we can merely speculate. But one thing is 99.999% certain. Its not going to be used for players or expansion of the ground, or new facilities. It is ultimately going to be used to help clear off some of his debt. Where that debt is, and who owes it, isnt really the issue. The fact is that money is going to benefit Malcolm Glazer and not Manchester United.

So, once he's paid out that money what next...

Well we know for sure that they can draw on the funds of United almost at will. Once certain criteria are met then he has almost a free hand to do what he wants with 50% of all the profits. He can put the lot in his pocket, or he can pay off more of his debts.. Again, no benefit to United.. Its all benefitting himself.

The question you all should be asking yourself isnt whether this affects United. Of course it affects United. We are part of the Glazer empire as much as what the Buccs or First Allied are. He owns us.. He can do what the hell he likes with us. its his business. If he wants to turn us into MUFC Pizza parlour, he is perfectly within his rights to do it. If he wants to turn our first team into a travelling circus troupe in pretty lilac tutus, then he can. Its his choice.

If he wants to shut the doors of Old Trafford and make the team play behind closed doors, he can. No one can stop him..

He holds the cards now. He is the one with all the aces. If he decides to use £150 million from United to pay off his debts at the buccs, theres not a blind fecking thing anyone can do to stop him.

He is playing the fiddle. You dance to it.. Just because you dont like the tune hes playing, doesnt mean he's got to stop playing....

The only time he will stop playing is when someone takes his fiddle and rams it right up his fecking arse......
 

Dublin Red

Full Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
445
Location
Who's asking ?
People need to start looking at things in a broader context here.

The Glazers now owe $1.9 billion over their entire business empire. Whether it be United, First Allied, The bucs..

Now forgetting who owes what, and to whom, the fact is that Malcolm Glazer owes all that money, and it needs to be repaid. Interest charges are accruing all the time, and at present he has enough equity to cover his liabilities, however the longer those debts remain unpaid, the less the margin between equity and liabilities becomes. When the equity becomes less than what he owes, then the shit has really hit the fan.

Now forgetting who owes what, and who they owe it to, the fact is Malcolm Glazers debts are increasing daily and somewhere in his business empire he has to find the funds to pay them.

As Andersred has found out, First Allied isnt making any money ( far from it ). There simply isnt any spare revenue to pay off any of the debts. We dont know for certain what income he is getting from the Buccaneers, but given that EBITDA last year was estimated to be $80 million or so, then it doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out that there isnt going to be a treasure chest of cash laying somewhere in their offices.

That leaves only one place left available where he can draw funds from. We know for 100% certainty that there is £94 million sat there in the bank. Where that money is targetted for, we can merely speculate. But one thing is 99.999% certain. Its not going to be used for players or expansion of the ground, or new facilities. It is ultimately going to be used to help clear off some of his debt. Where that debt is, and who owes it, isnt really the issue. The fact is that money is going to benefit Malcolm Glazer and not Manchester United.

So, once he's paid out that money what next...

Well we know for sure that they can draw on the funds of United almost at will. Once certain criteria are met then he has almost a free hand to do what he wants with 50% of all the profits. He can put the lot in his pocket, or he can pay off more of his debts.. Again, no benefit to United.. Its all benefitting himself.

The question you all should be asking yourself isnt whether this affects United. Of course it affects United. We are part of the Glazer empire as much as what the Buccs or First Allied are. He owns us.. He can do what the hell he likes with us. its his business. If he wants to turn us into MUFC Pizza parlour, he is perfectly within his rights to do it. If he wants to turn our first team into a travelling circus troupe in pretty lilac tutus, then he can. Its his choice.

If he wants to shut the doors of Old Trafford and make the team play behind closed doors, he can. No one can stop him..

He holds the cards now. He is the one with all the aces. If he decides to use £150 million from United to pay off his debts at the buccs, theres not a blind fecking thing anyone can do to stop him.

He is playing the fiddle. You dance to it.. Just because you dont like the tune hes playing, doesnt mean he's got to stop playing....

The only time he will stop playing is when someone takes his fiddle and rams it right up his fecking arse......
What's the direct link between First Allied and United's finances?
 

MikeUpNorth

Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
19,948
The fact that Malcolm Glazer owns them both and if he wants to transfer money between the two he can do..
Yesterday you were saying the bond provisions were ambigous as to whether the £70m could leave RFJV; what's convinced you that is the case?
 

wr8_utd

:'(
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
38,388
stretty_ender #MUST shouldn't be using funds donated by fans to
threaten #MUFC fans on a message board. Ridiculous waste of money & will damage their rep.

and

tretty_ender Hearing that #MUST threatened redcafe.net with legal
action over the comments of a member about Duncan Drasdo. Shocking if true

From twitter. Is that true? :eek:
 

Transfer United Till I Die

I am totally in the know, honest
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
7,627
Location
pessimismium
Sorry fred, are you saying that at any time glazer can remove £150m from united and transfer it out of the group to the buccs because we both know that's bollocks. You repeatedly undermine your case with ridiculous overexaggerration and inaccurate facts.
 

Rood

nostradamus like gloater
Scout
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
21,419
Location
@United_Hour
For everyones interest here is a question that was asked to Andersred and his response:

Anders - can you clarify how you see this revelation affecting United in the future?

Are you suggesting that First Allied is unable to save itself without an external cash injection?

Is the suggestion that the PIK repayments will be put to one side whilst the glazers channel money out of United to save their other businesses?

Or are people reading too much into it, when the article is just meant to illustrate that United will definitely have to pay off the PIKs themselves?
Thanks for your comment. You identify some important questions.

Just to be totally clear, I am NOT suggesting United's cash will be used to bail out First Allied. I am trying to show two things:

1. The Glazers' other business (excluding United) CANNOT pay off the "their" PIKS. Only United has the cash flow to do so. This flies in the face of David Gill's statements (and those of various apologists) about the PIKS.

2. Less importantly, rather than being experts at managing debt in companies, in their original business (in a market they are supposedly experts), the Glazers have totally screwed up the level of debt taken on. Not reassuring when they and their employees tell us all is well.

Hope that's clear.

anders

In my opinion, Andersred has wasted a whole load of time in not proving very much of any importance here.

1) He does seem to have some personal issue with Gill and is pulling him up for his comments about PIKs which is fair enough I suppose.
However I, and others, have said all the way since the bond prospectus was issued that it gave the Glazers the option to use club funds to pay down the PIKs so this is old news as far as I am concerned.

2) So the Glazer commercial property business in the USA has had some problems? Wow that really is a revelation - it's not like the US just went through the biggest property crash in living history or anything :wenger:
 

ralphie88

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
14,356
Location
Stretford
1) He does seem to have some personal issue with Gill and is pulling him up for his comments about PIKs which is fair enough I suppose.
I don't think that's personal. Gill is the one with his head permanently above the parapet to be shot at. It's not the Glazers, it's not United's Director of Communications. It actually reminds me a bit of Jose Mourinho's tactics of focusing all the attention on himself so that his players don't get it. So hardly a surprise that it is Gill who andersred is addressing on each occasion.
 

Rood

nostradamus like gloater
Scout
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
21,419
Location
@United_Hour
ralphie you keep popping in and out nowadays without answering a lot questions that various people put to you (myself included) - why is that?
 

Sir A1ex

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
27,949
Location
Where the goals come from.
He does seem to have some personal issue with Gill and is pulling him up for his comments about PIKs which is fair enough I suppose.
However I, and others, have said all the way since the bond prospectus was issued that it gave the Glazers the option to use club funds to pay down the PIKs so this is old news as far as I am concerned.
So why does Gill feel the end to keep pushing the lie that the PIKs don't affect us?

It's a very pertinent issue that I'm glad AndersRed is pushing.

If it doesn't bother you, I don't know why you spend so much time every day in these threads banging on about it, but we've been through that, haven't we?
 

fredthered

I want Peter Kenyon back
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
17,845
Location
UK
Sorry fred, are you saying that at any time glazer can remove £150m from united and transfer it out of the group to the buccs because we both know that's bollocks. You repeatedly undermine your case with ridiculous overexaggerration and inaccurate facts.
Where does it say its bollocks..

Find me one piece of evidence that says he cant.

Then I'll provide you with three bits of evidence that says he can.
 

fredthered

I want Peter Kenyon back
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
17,845
Location
UK
Is that it Fred because that argument has been pretty much shot to pieces here already?
Where has it been shot to pieces.

You mean GCHQ says it isnt possible.

Sorry, but I'll show you exactly where it says GCHQ is wrong.
 

Crumpsall Red

New Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
3,126
Location
Strippers and whores.....
Sorry fred, are you saying that at any time glazer can remove £150m from united and transfer it out of the group to the buccs because we both know that's bollocks. You repeatedly undermine your case with ridiculous overexaggerration and inaccurate facts.
Excuse my ignorance but what prevents him from moving money around his business empire?
 

UnitedRoadRed

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
5,761
Location
Manchester
If there is anything, it is covenants on the various debts.

To what extent this is actually the case is the issue.
Is there anything to prevent an intercompany loan from RFJV and First Allied or RFJV and Buccs? Not that they'll give a feck about the Buccs compared to us because without the United cash cow to milk they're fecked.
 

wr8_utd

:'(
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
38,388
stretty_ender #MUST shouldn't be using funds donated by fans to
threaten #MUFC fans on a message board. Ridiculous waste of money & will damage their rep.

and

tretty_ender Hearing that #MUST threatened redcafe.net with legal
action over the comments of a member about Duncan Drasdo. Shocking if true

From twitter. Is that true? :eek:
Anyone?
 

wr8_utd

:'(
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
38,388
No :confused:

There is no reply. I just went back to the previous page.

Oh ok you posted in the other thread. SOrry :D

I had deleted it from there because I thought this is the more relevant thread.
 

Sir A1ex

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
27,949
Location
Where the goals come from.
I had deleted it from there because I thought this is the more relevant thread.
Fair enough.

That's all I know, I'm afraid. Sounds like playground / handbags stuff to me, but Ciderman and a few others clearly see it as some sort of massive P.R. disaster for MUST and are spreading talk of it wherever they can.

Personally I'm not going to worry too much if a member of MUST's heriarchy is in personal dispute over dodgy claims made by some bloke on the internet.
I'm certainly not going to stop supporting the MUST cause because of it. That would be like changing which party you vote for because of the actions of one MP - it's the policies that count.

I'm not sure anybody at MUST has even done much wrong other than try and stop clearly libelous claims which undermine their entire existence from being spread, though it's possible this may have been done a little clumsily.
Only Niall can confirm if there's anything to it really, and you've got more chance of communicating with you dead relatives via Derek Acorah than with communicating with Niall via the internet.
 

fredthered

I want Peter Kenyon back
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
17,845
Location
UK
Is that it Fred because that argument has been pretty much shot to pieces here already?
This is taken directly from Andersreds' blogs and gives the precise details of what they are permitted to withdraw from Uniteds accounts.

Now please pay particular notice of the underlined bits.

1.Pay an immediate dividend to Red Football Joint Venture Ltd of £70m (page 130 note 13).
2.Pay an additional dividend to Red Football Joint Venture Ltd of £25m whenever they wish (page 130 note 14).
3.Transfer Carrington (for free) to another Glazer company, sell it and let the new owners lease it back to the club (page 78 and onto 79 "Real Property").
4.Pay £6m a year to the Glazers in management fees (page 100).
5.Pay £3m a year in "general corporate expenses" to Glazer companies (page 129 note 10b).
6.If EBITDA is at least twice the interest bill, pay 50% of the net cash profits of the club to parent companies in dividends (page 127 note c(i)).


You will see that only TWO of the above 6 cases are specific where the money can go to.

The rest are quite clear. The funds can go to the Glazers themselves, or to OTHER parts of his business. Parent companies, sister companies, whatever he likes.

Now lets look at another case scenario. Supposing they decide to transfer Carrington to First Allied. First Allied would then own Carrington (the prospectus makes it quite clear he's permitted to do it ).

First Allied would then rent carrington to Manchester United.

The money is then going directly from MUFC to First Allied, and its 100% legal, 100% legitimate, and 100% allowable.

Now you tell me thats not moving money between the two sides of his business.
 

Rood

nostradamus like gloater
Scout
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
21,419
Location
@United_Hour
Yes but Fred you are just making up hypothetical scaremongering scenarios that havent happened and even Andersred says he was not trying to prove that!
 

MikeUpNorth

Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
19,948
Fred, I seem to remember the Bond prospectus detailed that Carrington could only move inter-group, i.e. stay within Red Football. Is this not the case? Can someone clarify this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.