All change of ownership and Red Knights related posts here please

Rood said:
Glad you are willing to admit that - it is the biggest problem I have with MUST. I hope you have told the powers that be over there that it was a mistake? I hope they will not repeat it
Click to expand...

There's nothing to 'admit', I don't speak for MUST. I thought it was a mistake at the time, I said so, but unfortunately MUST were under a lot of pressure to call a boycott both externally and internally (they are a democratic organisation after all).

Of course despite how the media reported it, they didn't actually call for a boycott at all. But they were always going to be portrayed as having done so by some sections (while other sections called them spineless for not calling a boycott). Such is life.
 
Redjazz said:
A ringfenced reserve is a cash free reserve that wouldn't invoke debt.
THe pik money of 70m, if it goes, would not require the use of the RCF (and it shouldn't). Spending 80m or the 'Ronaldo money' will involve the use of the RCF. In effect, the Ronaldo money is essentially borrowings against future income, money not yet received. I am not saying that Fergie would or should use the supposed 80m in one go; but if the money is truly ringfenced, he could without involving more debt. If I say I have set aside money to buy a car and end up putting most of the cost on my credit card, to what extent could I rightfully argue that I have set aside the required amount?

Our cash needs this accounting year, 2010/2011 are much heavier than the last period. According to the JCM report, 52m will leave the club to service the bond and the swap loss (31 last year). THe Glazers could take a dividend by March 2011. In addition, there is the impact of aon deal on working capital.
If we spend the planned annual budget of 25m (distinct\separate from the 'Ronaldo money'), then the cash position around march 2011 will be weak.

Based on the JPM report, and using the Q3 results from 2009 as a guide, I reckon our cash balance in March 2011 will be roughly (154m-77m) 80m. If you assume the pik money is taken by then, the balance drops to 10m.
Spending the supposedly ringfenced 'ronaldo money' by then would drop the balance to -70m (ie pretty much a full drawdown of the RCF). Future revenue(deferred income received in may/june of 2011) will have to be used to pay down the RCF so as not to breach the RCF's maintenance covenant; thereafter the cycle would repeat itself- the RCF would be called on again to meet heavy working capital needs and the process would continue until free cash flow in future years negate the need for the RCF (Notably, cash generation under the JPM report is forecast to be weak on their best estimate basis and they don't even model the annual dividend entitlement).
Spending the 'Ronaldo money' would involve a series of short term borrowings over a number of years and would incur an interest expense in each year.
Spreading the 'Ronaldo money' spend over a couple of years doesn't fix the problem; the impact on the RCF will be additive.
In conclusion, once the PIK money of 70m heads west, so does the free cash reserve formerly known as the 'Ronaldo money'. What remains, if spend, would involve heavy use of the credit card known as the RCF. And there is no way the club would put heavy player expenditure on the credit card:
1, It's not designed for that purpose; we previously had a 50m RCF which wasn't traditionally used to purchase players.
2 It's difficult to control and manage short term debt instruments such as this, especially when you have to counterbalance its use to allow for significant working capital needs at the same time.
3 There could be complications wrt to taking dividend entitlements.
4 A heavily drawn RCF together with the first lien bond would make a possible refinancing of the pik more difficult.

No, I think the RCF will be used to meet heavier than usual working capital needs- the latest refinancing allows for additional casflow out of the club. The ceiling of 75m on the RCF has the added benefit of being close to the 'Ronaldo money' amount, a useful comparable from a P.R. perspective. I expect it to be used sparingly for player spend.
Click to expand...

I see absolutely no issue with including c.£25m of credit from the working capital facility for six months of the year as part of the ringfenced transfer money. And it's not like there's £80m that should currently be ringfenced anyway. If you back at the net cash outflow on player capex over the last five years or so then you'll find it's more like £60m and that's allowing for a £25m net cash spend on players every year. The actual net cash inflow from transfer activity in the 08/09 year when Ronaldo was sold was £45m.

I don't believe our cash needs are much heavier this year compared to the same period in 09/10. Just look at MU finance plc's nine month cash flow statement to the end of March. There was a £54.5m fall in cash from the start of the year which included a combined cash outflow on interest and financing of £48.5m. There was also a £32.5m cash outflow on player capex. You mention the AON deal but fail to take into account that we're already £4m up on JP Morgan's base case scenario due to finishing second in the league last season which results in a 30% share of the CL TV market pool compared to 20% for finishing third.

On the basis of the above I could see cash being £110m as of 31 March 2011 (£160m-£50m) assuming a £25m net cash outflow on player capex. There are multiple factors which could affect that of course but it seems a much more realistic and accurate ballpark figure than your £70m based on what we know about the previous year's changes in cash flow.

With that being the case if you were then to take off the £70m cash dividend to RFJV Ltd as well assume an additional £60m net cash outflow on player capex then you'd be looking at using c.£20m of the RCF for a few months.

The difference between your figure of £70m and mine of £20m makes most of the rest of your post redundant as far as I'm concerned. There's going to be loads of cash available for transfer spending going forward even if the £70m is channelled up to RFJV Ltd. That's the reality.
 
Transfers In:
Chicharito - undisclosed fee (rumored £7,000,000)
Chris Smalling - undisclosed fee (rumored £8,000,000)
Bebe - undisclosed fee (rumoured - £7,400,000)

Total spent: £22,400,000

Transfers Out:
Ben Foster - £6,000,000
Zoran Tosic - £8,000,000
Tom Heaton - Free
Craig Cathcart - £500,000

Total Sold: £14,500,000

That's a net spend of £7.9m this summer.

Last summer?

Transfers In:
Luis Antonio Valencia - undisclosed fee (rumored - £16,000,000)
Michael Owen - Free Transfer
Gabriel Obertan - £3,000,000
Mame Biram Diouf - £4,800,000
Total spent: £23,800,000

Transfers Out:
Ronaldo - £80,000,000
Lee Martin- Undisclosed Fee (rumored - £1,500,000)
Frazier Campbell - £6,000,000
Total Sold: £87,500,000

Total net spend -£63.7m
Total without Ronaldo - £16.3m

So, based on the £25m net spend, Fergie didn't hit that limit either time.
Ringfencing the Ronaldo money means that the full £80m should still be there or at worst £63.7m

Will Sir Alex really have £88.7m net to spend next summer and will he still see no value?
 
ralphie88 said:
Except of course for the huge progress made in the last 12 months. Membership going from 32,000 to over 160,000, supporter ownership being in the election manifesto of the new government, and the issue being debated in parliament yesterday.

Keep your head in the sand if you like, makes a change from being up the Glazers' arses. :smirk:
Click to expand...

Head in the sand? :lol: Come on. Seriously.

You're kidding yourself ralphie. What did the Sports Minister have to say that gave you any encouragement whatsoever? The little he did say, before being cut off because the scouser had taken far too long in his opening statement, was essentially an admission that the government will do virtually nothing to change the status quo.

The Genie has been out of the bottle for over 100 years and he's not going back in.
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
Transfers In:
Chicharito - undisclosed fee (rumored £7,000,000)
Chris Smalling - undisclosed fee (rumored £8,000,000)
Bebe - undisclosed fee (rumoured - £7,400,000)

Total spent: £22,400,000

Transfers Out:
Ben Foster - £6,000,000
Zoran Tosic - £8,000,000
Tom Heaton - Free
Craig Cathcart - £500,000

Total Sold: £14,500,000

That's a net spend of £7.9m this summer.

Last summer?

Transfers In:
Luis Antonio Valencia - undisclosed fee (rumored - £16,000,000)
Michael Owen - Free Transfer
Gabriel Obertan - £3,000,000
Mame Biram Diouf - £4,800,000
Total spent: £23,800,000

Transfers Out:
Ronaldo - £80,000,000
Lee Martin- Undisclosed Fee (rumored - £1,500,000)
Frazier Campbell - £6,000,000
Total Sold: £87,500,000

Total net spend -£63.7m
Total without Ronaldo - £16.3m

So, based on the £25m net spend, Fergie didn't hit that limit either time.
Ringfencing the Ronaldo money means that the full £80m should still be there or at worst £63.7m

Will Sir Alex really have £88.7m net to spend next summer and will he still see no value?
Click to expand...

You're not looking at what the actual cash flows were in the 2008/09 year, both in and out. There were very significant outflows relating to the Berbatov, Nani, Anderson and Hargreaves transfers in the 2008/09 year. Surely it makes sense to use the figures in the independently audited accounts in order to accurately show what transfer expenditure has been? The whole net spend argument is ridiculous anyway. The club has spent over £200m on players since 2005 and we have an extremely strong squad with a very competitive staff cost base (wage bill)

Sir Alex will have a very considerable amount of money to spend on players next Summer. That's all there is to it.
 
ralphie88 said:
There's nothing to 'admit', I don't speak for MUST. I thought it was a mistake at the time, I said so, but unfortunately MUST were under a lot of pressure to call a boycott both externally and internally (they are a democratic organisation after all).

Of course despite how the media reported it, they didn't actually call for a boycott at all. But they were always going to be portrayed as having done so by some sections (while other sections called them spineless for not calling a boycott). Such is life.
Click to expand...

MUST actively encouraged people to not renew their season tickets. You can't deny that surely?
 
peterstorey said:
I don't see why Glazer wouldn't use as much cash as possible to pay off PIKs and use the RCF for working capital (subject to any restrictions) - he's effectively swapping 14/16% interest payments for 7/8%.
Click to expand...

Because they understandably wouldn't want to place the club under unnecessary pressure (cue laughter but the point is accurate and entirely logical). As I said before if the club outperforms JP Morgan's base case projections then it would obviously make much more sense for the Glazers to use money for PIK repayment because they could do so without affecting the club's ability to operate normally.
 
A1Dan said:
There you go again with your low opinion of United fans as spoilt glory hunters who shout sack the board if we're not winning every pot available.

Fortunately, not a true picture.
Click to expand...

There is a significant section of the matchgoing fan base who are overly emotional and accordingly behave illogically and stupidly at times. This group made themselves heard between February and April earlier this year but thankfully at a club like United such behaviour never lasts long.
 
GCHQ said:
There is a significant section of the matchgoing fan base who are overly emotional and accordingly behave illogically and stupidly at times. This group made themselves heard between February and April earlier this year.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, when we were within a point of the top of the league, having won it the previous three seasons, and going strong in our attempts to reach a 3rd consecutive Champions League final?

Yeah, it was all about the results, GCHQ. You just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
 
A1Dan said:
Oh yeah, when we were within a point of the top of the league, having won it the previous three seasons, and going strong in our attempts to reach a 3rd consecutive Champions League final?

Yeah, it was all about the results, GCHQ. You just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

No, it all kicked off and gained support when we were six points behind Chelsea in the League and very soon after the shock defeat to Leeds in the FA Cup.

Results and the sale of Ronaldo played a massive part in it. Of course the Glazers were then treated as the scapegoats post bond issue and MUST, backed by the help of the sensationalist media, were very effective in getting their misleading propaganda heard.

It's all come to a grinding halt now though, which is what I said would happen ages ago. So predictable.
 
GCHQ said:
No, it all kicked off and gained support when we were six points behind Chelsea in the League and very soon after the shock defeat to Leeds in the FA Cup.

Results and the sale of Ronaldo played a massive part in it. Of course the Glazers were then treated as the scapegoats post bond issue and MUST, backed by the help of the sensationalist media, were very effective in getting their misleading propaganda heard.

It's all come to a grinding halt now though, which is what I said would happen ages ago. So predictable.

This is my last post on this topic. I think I've made my point.
Click to expand...


Good, can we close shutters now?
 
ralphie88 said:
There's nothing to 'admit', I don't speak for MUST. I thought it was a mistake at the time, I said so, but unfortunately MUST were under a lot of pressure to call a boycott both externally and internally (they are a democratic organisation after all).
Click to expand...

Well I meant I was happy to see you admit that MUST had made a mistake on getting involved in the question about whether people should renew STs or not.
You may not be an official MUST spokesman but, whether you want to be or not, you have become the de facto MUST representative on here.
 
The roll of honour

A1Dan 253
ciderman9000000 232
Rood 191
fredthered 153
UnitedRoadRed 132
Crerand Legend 125
Julian Denny 124
peterstorey 102
KingMinger22 89
GCHQ 81
ralphie88 73
M13 66
RedRichio 60
TheMancRedDevil 58
theimperialinn 52
gambit28 51
Interval Level 50
radd 45
datura 43
Stavros 33
EdWeatherall 32
gaffs 32
Escobar 31
charleysurf 29
AgainstAllOdds 24
Crumpsall Red 24
SAred 24
Joga_Bonito 24
Spoony Youngblood 23
esmufc10 23
afrocentricity 22


Plenty of posters on both sides of the debate on there which is why these threads are as long as they are. You've even snuck on to the list yourself Spoony!
 
Rood said:
You may not be an official MUST spokesman but, whether you want to be or not, you have become the de facto MUST representative on here.
Click to expand...

So it would appear.

Although there are at least 3 MUST committee members that I know of who post on here.
 
GCHQ said:
A1Dan 253
ciderman9000000 232
Rood 191
fredthered 153
UnitedRoadRed 132
Crerand Legend 125
Julian Denny 124
peterstorey 102
KingMinger22 89
GCHQ 81
ralphie88 73
M13 66
RedRichio 60
TheMancRedDevil 58
theimperialinn 52
gambit28 51
Interval Level 50
radd 45
datura 43
Stavros 33
EdWeatherall 32
gaffs 32
Escobar 31
charleysurf 29
AgainstAllOdds 24
Crumpsall Red 24
SAred 24
Joga_Bonito 24
Spoony Youngblood 23
esmufc10 23
afrocentricity 22


Plenty of posters on both sides of the debate on there which is why these threads are as long as they are. You've even snuck on to the list yourself Spoony!
Click to expand...

Yeah but my contribution is minimal to say the least.

Let's lock this topic and go back to loving each other.
 
GCHQ said:
No, it all kicked off and gained support when we were six points behind Chelsea in the League and very soon after the shock defeat to Leeds in the FA Cup.

Results and the sale of Ronaldo played a massive part in it. Of course the Glazers were then treated as the scapegoats post bond issue and MUST, backed by the help of the sensationalist media, were very effective in getting their misleading propaganda heard.

It's all come to a grinding halt now though, which is what I said would happen ages ago. So predictable.
Click to expand...

It was the bond issue and the airing of the Glazers dirty laundry in public that led to the start of the protest. It was that and that alone that led to the meeting at O'Brien's, which led to Big Blackie being unveiled, which led to the over the top reaction by CES and the escalation of the protests. Green and gold then came along.

The green and gold campaign coincided with an exceptionally successful run on the pitch when it looked like a CL and EPL double was on the way. Which is why all the talk of the protests harming the team were complete and utter bollocks. It also improved the atmosphere tenfold.
 
ralphie88 said:
It was the bond issue and the airing of the Glazers dirty laundry in public that led to the start of the protest. It was that and that alone that led to the meeting at O'Brien's, which led to Big Blackie being unveiled, which led to the over the top reaction by CES and the escalation of the protests. Green and gold then came along.

The green and gold campaign coincided with an exceptionally successful run on the pitch when it looked like a CL and EPL double was on the way. Which is why all the talk of the protests harming the team were complete and utter bollocks. It also improved the atmosphere tenfold.
Click to expand...

Look I'm not trying to argue that the bond issue wasn't the catalyst for the protests but nevertheless it all really started to get going when we were trailing Chelsea by six points in the League and had just been beaten at home by League One side Leeds in the FA Cup. I mean frankly even I would have been looking to let off some steam by blaming someone connected to the club in the immediate aftermath of that defeat. You also had the sale of Ronaldo in the Summer and the signing of Owen which people weren't happy about.

In different circumstances there's no way the reaction would have reached the level that it did. The press wouldn't have been all over the bond issue for a start. That's the key.
 
Well if it's one bad defeat and a lack of net investment in the squad that can start those sort of protests then the Glazers really are fecked.
 
GCHQ said:
I see absolutely no issue with including c.£25m of credit from the working capital facility for six months of the year as part of the ringfenced transfer money. And it's not like there's £80m that should currently be ringfenced anyway. If you back at the net cash outflow on player capex over the last five years or so then you'll find it's more like £60m and that's allowing for a £25m net cash spend on players every year. The actual net cash inflow from transfer activity in the 08/09 year when Ronaldo was sold was £45m.

I don't believe our cash needs are much heavier this year compared to the same period in 09/10. Just look at MU finance plc's nine month cash flow statement to the end of March. There was a £54.5m fall in cash from the start of the year which included a combined cash outflow on interest and financing of £48.5m. There was also a £32.5m cash outflow on player capex. You mention the AON deal but fail to take into account that we're already £4m up on JP Morgan's base case scenario due to finishing second in the league last season which results in a 30% share of the CL TV market pool compared to 20% for finishing third.

On the basis of the above I could see cash being £110m as of 31 March 2011 (£160m-£50m) assuming a £25m net cash outflow on player capex. There are multiple factors which could affect that of course but it seems a much more realistic and accurate ballpark figure than your £70m based on what we know about the previous year's changes in cash flow.

The difference is 110m-80m; so 30m.

With that being the case if you were then to take off the £70m cash dividend to RFJV Ltd as well assume an additional £60m net cash outflow on player capex then you'd be looking at using c.£20m of the RCF for a few months.

The difference between your figure of £70m and mine of £20m makes most of the rest of your post redundant as far as I'm concerned.

As I noted above the difference is 30m. The apparent difference of 50m is merely a conceit of your choosing not to compare like with like. On the basis of an additional net spend of 60m your figure would be 20m, and mine would be 50m. On the other hand, an additional net spend of 80m (my example and the 'Ronaldo money') would push your figure to 40m and mine to 70m. The difference in either case remaining at 30m. Let's not determine what's redundant just on the basis of that little conceit of yours.


There's going to be loads of cash available for transfer spending going forward even if the £70m is channelled up to RFJV Ltd. That's the reality.
Click to expand...

My estimates balance for March 2011 is 80m, a roundup of 3m from 154m-77m, and an approximate adjustment for your 4m uplift from the base assumption. You will notice that this 4m uplift can be counteracted by a facility expenditure of c. 4m (an outlay of such an amount appeared in the Q3 account last period).
You do not make an allowance for a possible annual dividend- the bond will have been issued 14 months by Mar 31 2011. Or if you would prefer to ignore the annual dividend entitlement you could instead substitute the 25m 'anytime' special dividend.
So the difference between your 110m and my 80m can be explained by a choice of annual dividend\special dividend and the facility expenditure. I could also argue that your estimate for deferred income in your starting balance is slightly high (1m or so) given the ST price hold and the slightly poorer renewal figures. But that's small fry.
You estimate that, post the PIK outlay of 70m, a spend of 80m (the 'Ronaldo money') would translate into a 40m RCF balance- half the Ronaldo money. I estimate that such a spend would involve an almost complete (70m) RCF drawdown.
If you allow for the above considerations, especially the annual dividend\special dividend of 25m then the difference is easily explained. In either case the 'Ronaldo money' invokes further indebtedness which contradicts speak of ringfencing.
And how likely is it that the Glazers won't take an annual dividend\ Special dividend of 25m this period? Well, as Peterstorey notes, it’s much more sensible to hit the pik with as much cash as possible early on. The PIK is growing at 16+% currently; and taking an annual dividend or the special dividend together with the 70m wouldn't impact working capital needs- I determined that ar Mar 31 2011, the balance would be c. 10m allowing for 70m of PIK outlay and an annual dividend. Substituting the special dividend for the annual dividend would still leave a positive balance. And that balance allows for the planned player spend of 25m too. The only drawback of course is that more of the supposed 'Ronaldo money', if spent, converts to RCF or debt. And the implications for a heavily drawn RCF aren't redundant. I very much doubt heavy player expenditure will be heaped on the RCF; and I outlined some of the reasons above. The RCF given the equivalence of its ceiling (75m) to the 'Ronaldo money' is useful from a P.R. perspective; but I very much doubt it will be used as a substitute for the 'Ronaldo money'.
 
ralphie88 said:
Well if it's one bad defeat and a lack of net investment in the squad that can start those sort of protests then the Glazers really are fecked.
Click to expand...

You know what I'm saying. In order for the anti-Glazer feeling to thrive you need the circumstances to be right (poor results, no big name signings) to go alongside new material that the media will be interested in. You got that new material with the bond issue but that's old news now and the protests have inevitably subsided.

So if you're looking to replicate the protests of last season you need the team to perform poorly as well as some new information to emerge. You're obviously going to spin the significant accounting 'loss' that MU Finance plc will report for the 09/10 financial year. The press will lap that up even though the actual 'loss' is meaningless due to all the non-cash expenses and one-off refinancing costs that will be included within the result. Revenue and EBITDA should be up very slightly so the results are going to be absolutely fine in reality. You'll get some press coverage there which will help but that alone isn't going to be anywhere near enough. Evidence of the £70m being taken out will create plenty of media coverage even though to some extent that's already old news but it should play well anyway.

What you ultimately are going to need though is for the team to perform poorly on the pitch and I imagine the guys at MUST have also reached that conclusion.

The trouble for you guys is that we happen to be managed by Sir Alex Ferguson so I don't like your chances very much. We shall see.
 
GCHQ said:
No, it all kicked off and gained support when we were six points behind Chelsea in the League and very soon after the shock defeat to Leeds in the FA Cup.

Results and the sale of Ronaldo played a massive part in it. Of course the Glazers were then treated as the scapegoats post bond issue and MUST, backed by the help of the sensationalist media, were very effective in getting their misleading propaganda heard.

It's all come to a grinding halt now though, which is what I said would happen ages ago. So predictable.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself but if you think a couple of dodgy results made me see the Glazers for leeches they are you are sadly mistaken. The bond issue and the realisation of the financial horror they had created here finally woke me up. The fact we had to sell our best player and can no longer compete in the transfer market just shows what they have done to the club
 
Redjazz said:
My estimates balance for March 2011 is 80m, a roundup of 3m from 154m-77m, and an approximate adjustment for your 4m uplift from the base assumption. You will notice that this 4m uplift can be counteracted by a facility expenditure of c. 4m (an outlay of such an amount appeared in the Q3 account last period).
You do not make an allowance for a possible annual dividend- the bond will have been issued 14 months by Mar 31 2011. Or if you would prefer to ignore the annual dividend entitlement you could instead substitute the 25m 'anytime' special dividend.
So the difference between your 110m and my 80m can be explained by a choice of annual dividend\special dividend and the facility expenditure. I could also argue that your estimate for deferred income in your starting balance is slightly high (1m or so) given the ST price hold and the slightly poorer renewal figures. But that's small fry.
You estimate that, post the PIK outlay of 70m, a spend of 80m (the 'Ronaldo money') would translate into a 40m RCF balance- half the Ronaldo money. I estimate that such a spend would involve an almost complete (70m) RCF drawdown.
If you allow for the above considerations, especially the annual dividend\special dividend of 25m then the difference is easily explained. In either case the 'Ronaldo money' invokes further indebtedness which contradicts speak of ringfencing.
And how likely is it that the Glazers won't take an annual dividend\ Special dividend of 25m this period? Well, as Peterstorey notes, it’s much more sensible to hit the pik with as much cash as possible early on. The PIK is growing at 16+% currently; and taking an annual dividend or the special dividend together with the 70m wouldn't impact working capital needs- I determined that ar Mar 31 2011, the balance would be c. 10m allowing for 70m of PIK outlay and an annual dividend. Substituting the special dividend for the annual dividend would still leave a positive balance. And that balance allows for the planned player spend of 25m too. The only drawback of course is that more of the supposed 'Ronaldo money', if spent, converts to RCF or debt. And the implications for a heavily drawn RCF aren't redundant. I very much doubt heavy player expenditure will be heaped on the RCF; and I outlined some of the reasons above. The RCF given the equivalence of its ceiling (75m) to the 'Ronaldo money' is useful from a P.R. perspective; but I very much doubt it will be used as a substitute for the 'Ronaldo money'.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, you've just completely backtracked on your initial projections after recognising that they were inaccurate. At least show a little bit of humility and admit that. You've now thrown the special/annual dividend into the mix as well as the facility expenditure, illogically I might add, in order to make up the £30m deficit in your figures. Why would you add the facility expenditure as an extra when a 'normal' spend was already clearly included in the nine month March 2010 figures that I was using for my 2011 projection? Well I know why you've done that but it's ridiculous isn't it?

And FYI I took a slight fall in deferred matchday income into account when I was making the £160m projection.

I've already mentioned where you've gone wrong with the ringfenced transfer money and even in the completely unrealistic scenario where the £60m net (£85m net including £25m pa expenditure) is all spent in one year, the club would only require £20m from the RCF for six months in order to finance that extravagant activity.

As I've said before all people need to know is that there is a very significant amount of cash available for tranfer expenditure. That comes across abundantly clear from all the financial information that we have available to us.
 
Right, can GCHQ answer this question once and for all.

The Glazers ( according to you ) are lining up to pay off the PIK notes using the money which is in hte bank. You say there should be circa $160 million in the bank at this point.

Your assertion is that this was always going to be their plan, and that they re-financed and set up the bond issue intentionally for that purpose.

So things ( according to you ) are going exactly as the Glazers predicted they would.

Given that half the money in the bank came from the sale of Ronaldo, then please tell me

1) What would they have done if they hadn't sold Ronaldo. Where would the money have come from. Unless of course you are saying that the sale of Ronaldo was part of their plan from the start as well.

For them to have hte funds needed to clear off the PIKS they have had to sell off players. You say that paying off their debts was always their intention, so therefore it follows that you are saying whats in the bank is there because they set it up.. ergo they forced the sale of Ronaldo to allow the funds to be available to clear off hte PIKs.

2) Where will funds come from in the future to clear off other debts ie the bond issue ?.
 
fredthered said:
Right, can GCHQ answer this question once and for all.

The Glazers ( according to you ) are lining up to pay off the PIK notes using the money which is in hte bank. You say there should be circa $160 million in the bank at this point.

Your assertion is that this was always going to be their plan, and that they re-financed and set up the bond issue intentionally for that purpose.

So things ( according to you ) are going exactly as the Glazers predicted they would.

Given that half the money in the bank came from the sale of Ronaldo, then please tell me

1) What would they have done if they hadn't sold Ronaldo. Where would the money have come from. Unless of course you are saying that the sale of Ronaldo was part of their plan from the start as well.

For them to have hte funds needed to clear off the PIKS they have had to sell off players. You say that paying off their debts was always their intention, so therefore it follows that you are saying whats in the bank is there because they set it up.. ergo they forced the sale of Ronaldo to allow the funds to be available to clear off hte PIKs.

2) Where will funds come from in the future to clear off other debts ie the bond issue ?.
Click to expand...

When have I ever said that paying off the PIK debt (with Red Football Ltd cash) was always their intention? Before the credit markets froze up the Glazers would have planned to refinance the whole lot on more attractive terms without sinking any cash into it. That was their bit of bad luck. The credit crunch. The good luck they've had is that the club's internal cash resources allows them to stabilize the PIK debt following the successful refinancing of the bank debt with the bond issue. If those resources weren't there then they would have waited for credit conditions to improve whilst continuing to improve the club's operating performance.

2) There will be a refinancing Frederick (just like they were able to refinance the old senior debt six months ago despite the difficult credit conditions at the time).

- EDIT - Actually thinking about it even without that huge cash balance they could have done the bond issue and then relied on the annual dividend to keep the PIK debt in check with the expectation that continued growth would allow them to make a significant whole in it if credit market conditions didn't allow for a refinancing.
 
GCHQ said:
Jazz, your point that there should be £80m ringfenced from the Ronaldo sale was wrong. There was no conceit on my part. Your figure was wrong, simple as that.
Click to expand...

With respect, GCHQ, I take guidance from a higher authority than your good self; I refer to Davil Gill's claims that the 'Ronaldo money' is still there (made in March 2010, I believe, and repeated in May 2010). I believe you agreed with this claim in an earlier post outlining how in the event that 70m was used to address the PIK, David Gill could rightly claim that the 'Ronaldo money' of 80m was still available to Fergie. Your revised claim that my 'figure was wrong' would seem to rebut David Gill's claim and your earlier defence of it.

I have no problem with you changing your mind. Indeed, given that we overspent the planned budget in 2008/2009, I am happy to deduct the excess over plan from the 'Ronaldo money' and leave the Ronaldo reserve at 60+m. But taking into account David Gill's claim(s), and your earlier defence, you could also argue the the Ronaldo reserve remains at 80m (with the help of a contribution from the Aon prepayment, say).
In any event, spending the 'Ronaldo money' (however defined) will involve the use of the RCF. More debt. If you allow for an annual dividend (you don't) or the 'anytime' dividend of 25m (again, you don't), and one or two other considerations mentioned in an earlier post, an additional net spend of say 60m to 80m would convert to heavy usage of the credit facility.
 
GCHQ said:
Oh come on, you've just completely backtracked on your initial projections after recognising that they were inaccurate. At least show a little bit of humility and admit that.
:lol::lol:
I can see why you're such an amusing chap. How have I backtrached? I am merely trying to show why their exists a difference between your benign estimate of 110m and my more realistic estimate of 80m. How am I suppose to determine what you have included (or not) in your 110m balance? You didn't elaborate. Have you included an annual dividend or the special dividend. I've assumed they'll take one or the other (c 25m). It's reasonable to do so since taking either would not impact working capital needs and the pik is growing away at 16+%.

You've now thrown the special/annual dividend into the mix as well as the facility expenditure, illogically I might add, in order to make up the £30m deficit in your figures.

I am not trying to make up the deficit in my figure; I am trying to explain the excess in yours.

Why would you add the facility expenditure as an extra when a 'normal' spend was already clearly included in the nine month March 2010 figures that I was using for my 2011 projection? Well I know why you've done that but it's ridiculous isn't it?

Again, you need to break down your estimation of your March 31 2011 balance of 110m.

And FYI I took a slight fall in deferred matchday income into account when I was making the £160m projection.


I've already mentioned where you've gone wrong with the ringfenced transfer money and even in the completely unrealistic scenario where the £60m net (£85m net including £25m pa expenditure) is all spent in one year, the club would only require £20m from the RCF for six months in order to finance that extravagant activity.

I'll not comment but am I permitted to :lol:?

As I've said before all people need to know is that there is a very significant amount of cash available for tranfer expenditure. That comes across abundantly clear from all the financial information that we have available to us.
Click to expand...

I think that last statement could be more realistically restated:
As I've said before all people need to know is that a very significant amount of cash that could be available for tranfer expenditure will be used to pay down the PIK. That comes across abundantly clear from all the financial information that we have available to us
 
Redjazz said:
I think that last statement could be more realistically restated:
As I've said before all people need to know is that a very significant amount of cash that could be available for tranfer expenditure will be used to pay down the PIK. That comes across abundantly clear from all the financial information that we have available to us
Click to expand...

Dont be asking GCHQ awkward questions, he goes all quiet
 
GCHQ said:
You're not looking at what the actual cash flows were in the 2008/09 year, both in and out. There were very significant outflows relating to the Berbatov, Nani, Anderson and Hargreaves transfers in the 2008/09 year. Surely it makes sense to use the figures in the independently audited accounts in order to accurately show what transfer expenditure has been? The whole net spend argument is ridiculous anyway. The club has spent over £200m on players since 2005 and we have an extremely strong squad with a very competitive staff cost base (wage bill)

Sir Alex will have a very considerable amount of money to spend on players next Summer. That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

Go on, quantify it, you know you can't
 
GCHQ said:
When have I ever said that paying off the PIK debt (with Red Football Ltd cash) was always their intention? .
Click to expand...

Let me take you up on this point.

Now quite clearly, you have always maintained that their original bid offer details was never their long term objective, and that they were going to re-finance.

Any refinancing would have placed the burden of the PIK notes onto Uniteds books correct ? In which case the debts would be paid by Red Football Ltd.

So actually your entire argument is based on the theory that they would at some point put those debts directly onto Uniteds books and make Red Football Ltd responsible for paying them off.

Anyway, back to the point I was trying to get to, albeit a bit long windedly.

When they took over they showed their plans - No you say.. those weren't their plans. They were always going to change them.

Then they refinanced with new plans - Nope.. they werent their real intentions either. That was a temporary measure. They will change them.

Then they went for the bond issue - Nope thats not their plan either. They won't stick to those plans. They'll change them later on. More re-financing..

Can you not see a pattern forming here.

Is it not at all possible that the reason they keep re-financing and changing their plans is because which ever way they turn, they are hitting a brick wall and they cannot possibly make the sort of money that they thought they would and rather than changing things to extract the maximum from United, they are changing things just to stay above water.

They didnt plan to sell Ronaldo, but if they hadn't they would have bugger all chance of paying off the PIK notes, which in turn would see the debts going up and up and up and up. That being said, even with all the profits of the last 5 years, with the sale of Ronaldo, with all that extra money you keep harping on about, there still isnt enough in the bank to clear off the PIK notes.

At some point, even you, the most "trusting" of United fans, must begin to wonder if actually anything they "plan" is going to work, because so far every plan they have ever set out in black and white, they've had to go back to the drawing board and change it later on, finding it simply wasn't workable.
 
ralphie88 said:
So it would appear.

Although there are at least 3 MUST committee members that I know of who post on here.
Click to expand...

Interesting - I'm assuming they don't want to be identified?

Imagine the shitstorm if it was to be revealed that 3 club employees post on here but kept that a secret.
 
Rood said:
Interesting - I'm assuming they don't want to be identified?

Imagine the shitstorm if it was to be revealed that 3 club employees post on here but kept that a secret.
Click to expand...

Why would there be a shitstorm ?

I know of two employees of the club that do post on here on occasions.

Not that I'd ever reveal who they were, and what job they do, unless it was David Gill then I'd make sure every fecker knew who he was.
 
fredthered said:
Why would there be a shitstorm ?

I know of two employees of the club that do post on here on occasions.

Not that I'd ever reveal who they were, and what job they do, unless it was David Gill then I'd make sure every fecker knew who he was.
Click to expand...

Do you not remember the bullshit episode when certain people were convinced that GCHQ was a club employee?
In fact people still go on about that

Anyway when I say 'club employee', Im not talking about your mate Frank who sells pies at half time :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.