Talking of fantasists..
Panorama: Man United - Into the Red, BBC One, Tuesday, 8 June
- Thread starter mickthered
- Start date
RK are in a difficult position. The Glazers are in no hurry to sell and the RK are not going to pay over the odds. I am unsure if the RK are playing a long game and have the ability to remain together for a drawn out challenge.
It could work the other way, if things dont go as well this season, and United fail to finish in at least the top 2, you could see a bigger swell of people prepared to join in and oust the Glazers.
What I still cannot understand, and perhaps Anders could explain this, is why the RKs took 5 years to come up with this plan.
As an expert in football financing, and takeovers, was it not obvious what was coming, and why wait till that bond prospectus to formulate a bid.
The one question I would ask the RKs above all others is what took them so long, and why did they not act sooner. Why allow Glazer more time to heap more debts on United and make it even more likely that they can palm more debts onto United.
Five years of fundraising and marketing a plan could have gained MUST a lot more funds and backing.
Nothing like someone who's knows nothing of the situation/process pronouncing on something is there mate?
As I said before, fantasist.
I can't wait for your insights....
They said Columbus was a fantasist when he told them he thought the world wasnt flat and that if you sailed far enough you'd come back to where you started.
As I said before, fantasist.
Sometimes the so called "experts" decry other peoples fantasies because its them themselves that are too ignorant to see other possibilities.
Interesting answer from Andersred. I'm wondering if those figures of saving apply if debt has increase, which I'm assuming it will because the price is higher than when the Glazers bought the club. I'm also wondering if that has factored in a return fit any personal funds put in by the Red Knights because even if all of them haven't borrowed all of the money they will still want a return in the short/medium term?
Do we know if a bid is likely? Are the reports of the bid not happening true? Are there any other bidders on the horizon?
Do we know if a bid is likely? Are the reports of the bid not happening true? Are there any other bidders on the horizon?
Not true, they all knew it was round...
Maybe Galileo with the earth not being at the universe centre would have been a better analogy
No offence, but I feel that those sort of questions simply cannot be answered on forums such as this.
Anders is in a priviliged position and has to be careful what he says. One wrong word can be used against him, as GCHQ is attempting to do.
They all laughed at Christopher Columbus, when he said the world was round. Do do do do do do....
I know the basics and I know that it has no chance of being successful.
You do know that people in the football and financial world are laughing at you guys, right?
The PIKs are secured against the assets of RFJV.
The only assets of RFJV are the 100% shareholding that it has in United.
I'm sorry, this from a guy who only deals in cash outflow and independently audited accounts rather than looking at the debt figure and future liabilities? You expect Andersred to give the RK plan over to you to run back to Joel and Avram with yet won't say what their business plan is?
And you do know every United forum you have ever joined is pissing their sides at you right...
Your 10 questions to MUST will live long in the memory of anyone who entered into the debate.. Especially as you got to question 1 and had to give up, having been made to look a complete idiot.
Go on then, indulge me. Why no chance?
He's going to give you 10 reasons why not..
Just wait...
reason 1 will appear in about 3 months..
The other 9 you can expect anytime between now and never.....
GCHQ /Eaststand/
why should anyone dignify your questions with a response when you fail to respond to questions yourself?
why should anyone dignify your questions with a response when you fail to respond to questions yourself?
Because the Glazers aren't willing to sell for a price that your little group of mini Abramovichs are able/willing to pay.
''Simples''
Anders has explained that he cannot give details of the bid, or what is contained in the plan, as he is bound by confidentiality agreements.
Even if he werent, it would be extremely foolish to divulge information on a general United forum, especially when people like GCHQ are trying their damndest to discredit everything MUST or the RKs are doing.
I disagree - football is like any other business. The powers that be in the game have spent the last 30 years running football like a business yet still claiming exemption from all the normall rules governing businesses due to its 'special status'. You cannot have it both ways I'm afraid. If you want football to be a business then you accept freedom of movement, trade, takeovers, price hikes, etc etc etc.
If you want football to be a sport then you have to accept a large chunk of money leeching from the game at present, fewer foreign players, less money, less glamour, smaller stadia, less prestige, less fanfare and top divisions that resemble the Championship. That may be a price worth paying to get kids back into matches and clubs being run by fans.
The current status quo is completely unsustainable.
No it's not. You personally don't like the status quo, that's all.
Fair enough. I stand corrected. So if I understand correctly, if the glazers default on the piks the hedge funds take equity in united? How does that fit in with the security provided for the bonds?
The status quo of football as a game taking all the perks of being a business and all the perks of being a sport? Of course it is unsustainable. Why do you think you are seeing so many takeovers? That proves that football cannot have it both ways.
Platini has spent years building football as a business brand and then has the gumption to complain about the debt clubs are carrying due to takeovers? That's part of running a business - businesses carry and service debt, sometimes huge amounts. FIFA and UEFA carry on like prize hypocrites when it comes to this matter.
Whether I like the status quo or not is quite irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether football can continue to be both a business and a sport. I do not think it can.
How has it failed? The bid is still being put together according to reports, it's just taking longer than initially envisaged which us understandable given the complexity of putting together such a bid.
Cheers fred...I must have missed that.
MUST (or rather some of their members) don't do themselves any favours IMO...as for the RK's I suppose we just have to wait and see if they can cobble together a bid.
Neither MUST or the RK's plans or intentions should be above being questioned and scrutinised and I think GCHQ and others has done just that.
As for the facts and Glazers plans...nobody on here knows what they are.
Am I wrong in thinking they were preparing a bid which has now been put on ice due to them not willing/able to match the Glazer's valuation?
It all seems pretty academic anyway if the Glazer's are not wanting to sell.
The way many premier league clubs are run is unsustainable.
United are not one of those clubs though.
United are not one of those clubs though.
Giving away 25% of the club? Surely this is a fantasy isn't it?
Andy - you're probably best placed to clear this up (and nobody else I've mentioned it to seems to have any comment), but I've always thought of this on the following basis:
If the fans' 25% is in a form of equity which contractually can never pay a dividend (which is reasonable to assume - why and how would the fans be taking a dividend?), then surely it is not worth £250m (or 25% of the club's total value) at all?
Surely the only inherent value in any stock is it's potential future dividend? And if stock can never pay a dividend it has no financial worth?
So, the red Knights could effectively give away the 25% and not lose any equity - they would now have 75% of ownership in the sense of voting rights etc, but it would still be worth £1bn (or whatever they paid / the club is worth).
Their 75% may in reality be worth a little less, as the thought that they no longer control 100% of the club may make the whole club a little less desirable to other theoretical investors (and the club / their shares are only worth what somebody would pay for them). On the other hand, they could also reasoanbly be expected not to purely give the 25% away, but to recieve some renumeration for it.
But that change in value and that renumeration have no direct link to the figure of 25% of the club's value.
Does that all make sense, or am I missing some glaring hole in the reasoning?
Google didnt pay a dividend early on if I recall as they felt the best use of that money was re-investing the cash. The stock is still worth something whether dividends are paid or not.
I doubt the RK will just give away 25% of United - makes no sense. They may issue new shares and dilute current holdings but I am not privy to their plans.
I doubt the RK will just give away 25% of United - makes no sense. They may issue new shares and dilute current holdings but I am not privy to their plans.
You miss the point - shares which currently aren't paying a dividend can still have a (sometimes very high) value, due to potential future dividends. Start-up companies generally operate on that very basis.
On what basis would shares which contractually can never pay a dividend have any value?
Unless I am mistaken, the bonds are second in line to the PIK notes, so should the shit really hit the fan, then the PIK debts have to be paid off first, and whats left would go to the bondholders.
Thats where the risks attached to buying the bonds comes in. It explains that the bondholders could lose their money should things go totally tits up, as there are other creditors that would be in line for a payout before the bondholders get their investment back.
I agree that football is a business. Too many slate the business side of football without realising what it offers us, and that football has become the way it is due to demand from the fans. The sport is fantastic entertainment, and that means people are going to pay to see it; in the modern world that means TV rights. Without the business side of football and it's corporate sponsorship Sky Sports would not exist - it would not be able to exist because there would be no money to pay for it. This is not the 60's, 70's or 80's, this is not even the 20th century, this is the cutting edge technological modern world and where there is demand there will always be business; the clocks will NOT be turned back; the technology exists to broadcast United games on a global level, the demand to see United games exists on a global level, and that combination has to be paid for. Football and business will forever be hand in hand - you can either accept that, or you can spend your days moaning about it, but you cannot change it. Get used to it.
Hang on, how is Sky Sports funded by clubs' corporate sponsorship?
It's Sky that pay the clubs millions of pounds, not the other way round... And it's us that pay for Sky!
And what do you see at half time? What do you see every five minutes before a match? What flashes across the screen everytime there's a transition to a replay? Corporate sponsorship and advertising.
As yet Google has never paid a dividend and it went public over 5 years ago and has no plans to pay a dividend.
Does the business have value? Net asset value per share - the shares have a claim on the net assets.
Even if I never expect a dividend to be paid if the cash is reinvested and the value of the business goes up so does the value of my shares as they have a claim against larger assets.
Think of it this way you forgoe all dividend payments for a lump sum at the end when you sell.
You may have already answered this and of so sorry but why are you so pro-glazer? I agree with the general gist, even if there is error in detail, that cashflow is sufficient to avoid the Glazers/United folding on the immediate future, but I can't help but be concerned that the level of debt, both of United and the Glazer empire as a whole, is so high. All it would take is another financial crisis, a failure to reach the Champions League for a few seasons or some similar and far from impossible occurance, for the Glazers empire to become insolvent and United become a pawn of the financiers at best.
As I said before, fantasist.
Surely all Reds despise the situation they have put us in even if some are more cautious than others about new ownership?
So they are willing to sell then- how much are they looking for?
If you are responding to Frosty I fear that you have completely missed his point. Which was that if football is simply a business, then it has to follow normal business law - that means no collective TV sales, no football transfer fees, no 3pm rule etc.
However football is not simply a business like any other - the Treaty of Lisbon for the first time tells us that football should act, and be treated, differently.
However it cannot have its cake and eat it.
That's an interesting question; the bond prospectus has a list of risks that could affect the club and reduce bond value, etc. I understood the old senior debt had precedence over the PIKs; I can't see the bond payments not being met and fully expect that the £500m payback would be met from a further refinancing. Depending upon the value of the PIKs in 2017, financiers may be reluctant to refinance, especially if the PIKs are anywhere near the worst case that Andersred outlined several pages ago (>£600m). The PIKs because due the same year as the bond. The thick plottens.....
I'm guessing you'd need someone with hedge fund plus bond experience to clarify it but it does raise an excellent question. Well done, have a biscuit.
I'd like for one of those who believes that football should not be run in a similar money-making fashion to other businesses to answer this question...
Why not?
The usual answer is that football supporters are unable to swap their allegence, they're effectively customers whether they like it or not.
But that doesn't answer the question.
Do you expect people to feel sorry for us and make allowances because we have high levels of brand-loyalty? Should we expect businessmen to go easy on us and give us things at less than their true market value out of pity for our football supporting plight? Jesus, if pharmaceutical companies can make billions selling life-saving drugs to goverments, then what the feck chance do we have of getting off cheaply simply because, "Oh but we can't support another team, can we!"? The world, on a whole, is anything but charitable.
The demand for football means we have to pay to see it. The finite supply of season-tickets makes them expensive. The abundance of eyes and minds watching makes corporations willing pay millions to have their logos displayed. The players receive incredible wages because they're at the source of it all. The pies and drinks in the stadiums are expensive because they know you're not going anywhere. Sky Sports is flooded with adverts because they know you're watching. Agents get huge pay-offs because the top talents are in high demand. etc. etc. etc.
Football is a business just like any other. If you think anything different then you're pitifully naive.
Why not?
The usual answer is that football supporters are unable to swap their allegence, they're effectively customers whether they like it or not.
But that doesn't answer the question.
Do you expect people to feel sorry for us and make allowances because we have high levels of brand-loyalty? Should we expect businessmen to go easy on us and give us things at less than their true market value out of pity for our football supporting plight? Jesus, if pharmaceutical companies can make billions selling life-saving drugs to goverments, then what the feck chance do we have of getting off cheaply simply because, "Oh but we can't support another team, can we!"? The world, on a whole, is anything but charitable.
The demand for football means we have to pay to see it. The finite supply of season-tickets makes them expensive. The abundance of eyes and minds watching makes corporations willing pay millions to have their logos displayed. The players receive incredible wages because they're at the source of it all. The pies and drinks in the stadiums are expensive because they know you're not going anywhere. Sky Sports is flooded with adverts because they know you're watching. Agents get huge pay-offs because the top talents are in high demand. etc. etc. etc.
Football is a business just like any other. If you think anything different then you're pitifully naive.