What other forms of major income do you believe, or more importantly, know that they've got that could service the PIKs?
Also, the £2.5bn revenue that you mentioned. I mentioned that we've got £1bn+ in debts to find in that period if we're to become debt free. Do you think that there are "only" £1.4bn ish of other costs in that period - is it realistic that we could clear the debts by 2017 and the Glazers could then milk the club at a level that everyone is more comfortable with?
Revenues under the Glazers have gone like this, as far as I am aware:-
2005/06 - £200million
2006/07 - £212million
2007/08 - £257million
2008/09 - £278million
2009/2010 - £300million????
Obviously, that is pretty spectacular growth - 50% (ish) over five years. We're not going to see that again (would be nice if we did though!).
I was working on a basis of around £300million for 7 years plus a minimum of inflationary growth which gives you not far off £2.5b. It was obviously a throwaway figure though. No one knows what the revenues will be by 2017. All kinds of things could happen between now and then.
It was just that interest payments of around £315million over the next seven years, taken in isolation, looks horrendous and I think you have to weigh it against what is likely to come in over the period in order to put it into some kind of perspective.
We don't have to find the £500million that the Bond has covered, this will be refinanced, perhaps with a further Bond Issue in 2017. There's no doubt about that whatsoever in my mind.
The thing you have to get your head around is that it is not the Glazers' intention to become "debt free". The very idea would seem ridiculous to them. Why bust your balls trying to find £500million when you can just increase revenues to cover the interest and forget about the principal amount?
If they had £500million sloshing around, they would probably use it as a down payment on other assets/businesses.
I just believe that the Glazers have personal wealth. They might not like to use it, they prefer not to expose their own money to risk and prefer to use Other People's Money as much as possible.
People like Anders would have us believe that because they don't use their own money to fund their businesses then that means that they have none.
I can't see it, personally. Malcom Glazer has been a businessman for the best part of seventy years, if he pops his clogs without leaving a bean, I'd be very surprised.
It doesn't look likely but there is always the option to sell the Buccs (or a part of it or whatever) too.
I just see how Anders likes to suggest that they have always been "lucky" - how they always seem to have "just enough" to scrape through by the skin of their teeth. I can accept a bit of luck here and there but when they continually enjoy so much luck and do the same thing over and over again, I have to wonder if some of it is accident or design.
They move money here, they refinance there - they just always seem to have options open to them and I believe that they know exactly what they're doing.
Maybe I'm giving them far too much credit though. Time will tell, I suppose.