Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

Mgoraf

Samich wrote: »

As I said earlier, once the money goes into the debt the money is gone forever. What happens if Rooney gets injured for the season and we need to buy a 40m pound striker, we'd have no money.

Lets be realistic here, the money that is going to the Glazers will in no way shape or form be used for transfers, even in the extreme example you have given.

On transfers, the prospectus states we expect to spend £50m net this year on 'capital investment'. Also mentions a cash balance of £70m at the end of June.

kryogen

DM-ICE wrote: »

To be a dick, is SAF listed or not?

I can't read the doc just yet. On phone with minimal internet access.

No, he is not senior management of the club so he is not listed under that, he would come into the selected employees part.

They have not been named obviously as I am sure there are plenty, consultants and non employee directors are also listed. The value is supposed to be 288mil, (taking it at mid level) a lot of money to go around.

DM_7

Samich wrote: »

As I said earlier, once the money goes into the debt the money is gone forever. What happens if Rooney gets injured for the season and we need to buy a 40m pound striker, we'd have no money.

If Rooney gets injured and United need to buy a player the Glazers WILL NOT be going to their PERSONAL fortune to pay for a replacement.

You seem completely incapable of seperating the Glazers money from the clubs money.

The Glazers don't put any of their own money into the club. Its not like Chelsea or the City owners where they put their own money in. Glazers don't put their own money into United and there are no indications that they ever would.

The IPO willl be used to pay debt and pay individuals. None of the money will ever be available to buy players.

Samich

Mgoraf wrote: »

Lets be realistic here, the money that is going to the Glazers will in no way shape or form be used for transfers, even in the extreme example you have given.

On transfers, the prospectus states we expect to spend £50m net this year on 'capital investment'. Also mentions a cash balance of £70m at the end of June.

Why do you say this? Because they're not clearing as much debt as they said?

Samich

DM-ICE wrote: »

If Rooney gets injured and United need to buy a player the Glazers WILL NOT be going to their PERSONAL fortune to pay for a replacement.

You seem completely incapable of seperating the Glazers money from the clubs money.

The Glazers don't put any of their own money into the club. Its not like Chelsea or the City owners where they put their own money in. Glazers don't put their own money into United and there are no indications that they ever would.

The IPO willl be sued to pay debt and pay individuals. None of the money will ever be available to buy players.

Didn't know Man City or Chelsea were rich clubs.

Mgoraf

Samich wrote: »

Why do you say this? Because they're not clearing as much debt as they said?

If they planned on using the money for transfers then they wouldn't be taking it out of the club lol.

Red Crow

POSSY wrote: »

Are you serious? In all reality who expected the Glazer's to spend all the IPO money on the debt? From a business point of view that would be a very stupid thing to do. You'd loose tax write-offs concerning the loss, the debt is more than manageable, they are sacrificing very little in terms of club capital. It's a business lads.

And you know the ironic thing I see happening? Once the Glazer's get the company debt-free, take some nice dividends and then sell it. The purchaser will probably use some form of leverage to buy it!

The tax write-offs would be dwarfed by the lowering of interest and then bringing the company out of debt. Our aim should be debt free not manaegble debts. It's about managing expectations and yours are clearly very low.

POSSY wrote: »

What were the lies?

About the use of the IPO and lack of disclosure of a vested interest by the relevant parties.

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Cheers lads. Will look forward to trying to get a greater handle on this stuff tomorrow. Interested to see what the mainstream media make of it too. Night all

Best of luck dude! I will hopefully be in the same position as you in few years.

Blatter wrote: »

In fairness we weren't really lied to. Led to believe something different yes, but not really lied to.

The original prospectus was a draft and it did state that it was subject to change.

That's not good enough imo. It's misleading at it's best.

kryogen

My list has grown by one member tonight, almost up to ten! Wahey!

Samich

Mgoraf wrote: »

If they planned on using the money for transfers then they wouldn't be taking it out of the club lol.

ok lol. I have no more to add from what I've said so I won't say anymore.

DM_7

Samich wrote: »

Didn't know Man City or Chelsea were rich clubs.

I covered what you are getting at in my previous post.

City and Chelsea owners put money into the clubs, yes.

Uniteds owners never put their own money in. No indications suggest they ever would. This 50 million you keep going on about from last season was money the club hgenerated itself. It wasn't money the Glazers took from their personal wealth and just gave to Manchester United.

if you are going to reply to me at least read my post first.

Samich

kryogen wrote: »

My list has grown by one member tonight, almost up to ten! Wahey!

Good man, doubt you'll see this. Should be an offence to say you're putting someone on ignore.

DM_7

kryogen wrote: »

No, he is not senior management of the club so he is not listed under that, he would come into the selected employees part.

They have not been named obviously as I am sure there are plenty, consultants and non employee directors are also listed. The value is supposed to be 288mil, (taking it at mid level) a lot of money to go around.

Thank you, I missed the selected employee part.

Samich

DM-ICE wrote: »

I covered what you are getting at in my previous post.

City and Chelsea owners put money into the clubs, yes.

Uniteds owners never put their own money in. No indications suggest they ever would. This 50 million you keep going on about from last season was money the club hgenerated itself. It wasn't money the Glazers took from their personal wealth and just gave to Manchester United.

if you are going to reply to me at least read my post first.

If the Glazers cared solely about lining their own pockets then why didn't they withdraw that 50 million from last season then?

POSSY

Eli Manning wrote: »

The tax write-offs would be dwarfed by the lowering of interest and then bringing the company out of debt. Our aim should be debt free not manaegble debts. It's about managing expectations and yours are clearly very low.

My expectations aren't low, they are realistic. There is a well functioning business plan in place where by the debt is being constantly reduced without sacrificing much ownership in their part. Yes they could spend all the money from this IPO on the debt, but why would they? Your expectations seem to be as follows: IPO->Clear all debt-> Go mad and spend as much as city/chelski. The problem with that idea is that even if we spent all available cash on players and wages, Roman and the Sheiks would just pay more than they do now. The fact is the Glazer's have from thier perspective a good business plan in place.

Mr. Guappa

Samich wrote: »

If the Glazers cared solely about lining their own pockets then why didn't they withdraw that 50 million from last season then?

A once off £50 million "splurge" is peanuts at the top level, plus the players brought in would not be on astronomical wages. They spent just enough of the clubs money to keep their asset competitive on the pitch and therefore relevant worldwide and making them money.

Samich

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

A once off £50 million "splurge" is peanuts at the top level, plus the players brought in would not be on astronomical wages. They spent just enough of the clubs money to keep their asset competitive on the pitch and therefore relevant worldwide and making them money.

How much more are they planning to take out of the club again?

DM_7

Samich wrote: »

If the Glazers cared solely about lining their own pockets then why didn't they withdraw that 50 million from last season then?

That is something I could try and answer but not tonight, even if I did answer it would be based on opinion rather than fact.

I'm not sure why you are asking that now though. You were going on about the Glazers spending their own money on players. Are you going onto another topic to try and make your original point somehow make more sense?

One last time Glazers won't be using their own money to buy any players.

I won't be replying any more tonight on this topic, i'm off to get some sleep.

EDIT: see Mr. Guappa's post for a reply re keeping assett competitive

Mr. Guappa

Samich wrote: »

How much more are they planning to take out of the club again?

This time or on the next go-round?

GSPfan

I've absolutely no knowledge of how all this works and I try avoid Glazer discussions because its not fun and people get very irate.

In saying that.... What happened to the PIK's? Didn't they get cleared and no one knows where the money came from?
Well what if the Glazers used their own money or money from other ventures and this money is paying that back?

Samich

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

This time or on the next go-round?

This time, on the IPO thingy.

DM_7

GSPfan wrote: »

I've absolutely no knowledge of how all this works and I try avoid Glazer discussions because its not fun and people get very irate.

In saying that.... What happened to the PIK's? Didn't they get cleared and no one knows where the money came from?
Well what if the Glazers used their own money or money from other ventures and this money is paying that back?

Its a good question.

The way they plan to pay money to people like Gill makes me wonder if that would actually be the case. But its certainly possible.

kryogen

GSPfan wrote: »

I've absolutely no knowledge of how all this works and I try avoid Glazer discussions because its not fun and people get very irate.

In saying that.... What happened to the PIK's? Didn't they get cleared and no one knows where the money came from?
Well what if the Glazers used their own money or money from other ventures and this money is paying that back?

The money raised from this IPO thats going to the Glazers would not be enough to cover what the PIK's cost.

It would also be quite a leap to think the Glazers would use their own money, it really is a last resort for them historically, not just talking about United.

Whatsisname

I'm trying to understand all of this and I'm getting a grasp of it but, we're not gonna end up like Leeds/Portsmouth are we? surely not?

Sorry for this question, I'm expecting to be eaten alive for it.

Your Airbag

The Glazers are activaely and have worked on the debt before so I'm not jumping on the bogey man bandwagon view of them that all they want to do is line there pockets and they don't care if they sink the club......just yet.

What we know is that we are in debt but they have and are again trying to work on that debt, but maybe not as quick as we would all like.

Ok, some signs are worrying, like all of their busniesses are in debt. Does this mean they are bad owners or is this just how they operate? Malcolm Glazer did takeover the, at the time, nearly bankrupt Zapata Offshore and successfully diversified it into fish protein and Caribbean supermarkets.

They are floating the club and reaping some of the returns. Is it naive of us to think they would do otherwise? Possibly. Is all the IPO money going on debt what we all wanted? Yes but isn't it wishful thinking to hope that when busniess men strike a big money deal like the IPO deal that they wont take a return on their investment at the same time if its possible?

In January 2010, with debts of £716.5 million they refinanced through the bond issue worth £504 million, enabling Utd to pay off most of the £509 million owed to banks. The annual interest payable on the bonds is £45 million pa expire on Feb 1st 2017.

We comment on news about UTDs financing as its happens and The IPO deal is another major talking point but it is a gradual step in getting rid of the debt. None of us here can really claim to know how big buisness works. They are going to service a sizeable chunk of debt with this deal and with the bonds expiring in 2017 it will free up further funds for the remaining debt and who knows what they have planned in the future.

Its not the news we all expected but its not all negative either. Oh and People calling for Fergies head are just overeacting.

kryogen

Whatsisname wrote: »

I'm trying to understand all of this and I'm getting a grasp of it but, we're not gonna end up like Leeds/Portsmouth are we? surely not?

Sorry for this question, I'm expecting to be eaten alive for it.

Short answer?

No I would not think so, be extremely surprised if something like that happened.

I would stake my life on it being a no

Jame Gumb

Whatsisname wrote: »

I'm trying to understand all of this and I'm getting a grasp of it but, we're not gonna end up like Leeds/Portsmouth are we? surely not?

Sorry for this question, I'm expecting to be eaten alive for it.

Hi There.

Nobody should be afraid to ask a question.

I don't see how we could end up like Leeds or Portsmouth TBH. United's "EBITDA" (essentially the club's annual earnings) is circa £95m. From memory, Arsenal shares recently changed hands for an amount based on a valuation equal to 13 times EBITDA. If you apply that multiple to United, the club's worth about £1.25b. Post IPO, it sounds like United will have debt of circa £330m.

Leeds ended up owing something like £80m when the club was worth far less than that and Portsmouth ended up in similar circumstances.

If you live in a house worth €1m, have a mortgage of €280k and have an extremely well paid job, you're in good shape financially. That's United.

If you live in a house worth €125k, have a mortgage of €1m and you're unemployed, you're in terrible shape financially. That was Leeds and Portsmouth.

Hope the above helps.

Night Folks.

J

Pro. F

alproctor wrote: »

Bottom line is regardless of whether you agree or disagree with how the Glazers are running the club, it is their business, they have shown incredible business ability, and are not going to run the club into the ground.

They will run the club into the ground if it turns out that that is the most beneficial course of action for them (this is quite unlikely because United seems to be the most profitable business interest of theirs). They will also run the club into the ground if they find themselves backed into a corner and that is their only course of action available.

Make no mistake, leveraged buyouts like the Glazers' of United are high risk strategies. Businessmen like the Glazers buy things with other peoples money and play it fast and loose in the hopes of making a profit. If this particular business venture (or a combination of their ventures including United) fails then the Glazers can just start again with no particular lose to themselves.

POSSY wrote: »

Are you serious? In all reality who expected the Glazer's to spend all the IPO money on the debt? From a business point of view that would be a very stupid thing to do. You'd loose tax write-offs concerning the loss, the debt is more than manageable, they are sacrificing very little in terms of club capital. It's a business lads.!

The tax savings from the debts' existence are far outstripped by the interest payments on that debt every year. From the calculations that I did previously, which I can't find now, the debt is not "more than manageable" and will actually need re-financing before it falls due. If you disagree with that then post up your club earnings, interest and repayment calculations.

"It's business" doesn't cut it. Everybody knows it's business. The thing is, the Glazers are in the business of managing all of their ventures, dealing with all of their debts and making money for themselves. The usual plan is that that will fall in line with keeping United stable and turning a profit, but it is in no way guaranteed that that will continue to be the case. For all we know the Glazers have some massive debts that need urgent repayment right now and their only option is to take money from United to pay them off.

Whatsisname

kryogen wrote: »

Short answer?

No I would not think so, be extremely surprised if something like that happened.

I would stake my life on it being a no

Well thats a sigh of relief, from reading the previous pages, it seemed all doom and gloom bar the exceptions of some posts!

Jame Gumb wrote: »

Hi There.

Nobody should be afraid to ask a question.

I don't see how we could end up like Leeds or Portsmouth TBH. United's "EBITDA" (essentially the club's annual earnings) is circa £95m. From memory, Arsenal shares recently changed hands for an amount based on a valuation equal to 13 times EBITDA. If you apply that multiple to United, the club's worth about £1.25b. Post IPO, it sounds like United will have debt of circa £330m.

Leeds ended up owing something like £80m when the club was worth far less than that and Portsmouth ended up in similar circumstances.

If you live in a house worth €1m, have a mortgage of €280k and have an extremely well paid job, you're in good shape financially. That's United.

If you live in a house worth €125k, have a mortgage of €1m and you're unemployed, you're in terrible shape financially. That was Leeds and Portsmouth.

Hope the above helps.

Night Folks.

J

When its simplified like that, its alot easier to comprehend, thanks for that!

I dunno why people are overreacting so much, I may not know a whole lot about this situation, but surely its not as bad as it could be, especially with the announcement of the deal with Chevrolet ontop of the recent DHL one, aswell as the rest of our sponsors and money generated, have a bit of optimism people!

GSPfan

In Malcolm Glazer we trust.

Samich

GSPfan wrote: »

In Malcolm Glazer we trust.

Yes!

Haha sack Fergie. One of the funniest things I've heard on this forum. :pac:

GSPfan

If the Glazers somehow done a deal to sell the naming rights to the stadium for something mental like £100 million and it all went on paying the debt, Would you guys be up for that?

Samich

GSPfan wrote: »

If the Glazers somehow done a deal to sell the naming rights to the stadium for something mental like £100 million and it all went on paying the debt, Would you guys be up for that?

Emirates could give 53 million per season to Madrid

It'd prob take getting used to, but you'd get used to it! :P

Your Airbag

GSPfan wrote: »

If the Glazers somehow done a deal to sell the naming rights to the stadium for something mental like £100 million and it all went on paying the debt, Would you guys be up for that?

Eh no. Would you?

Whatsisname

GSPfan wrote: »

If the Glazers somehow done a deal to sell the naming rights to the stadium for something mental like £100 million and it all went on paying the debt, Would you guys be up for that?

No, not a chance. Old Trafford could and should never be renamed. It'd just change to something **** aswell, look at Newcastle, "St. James Park" to "Sports Direct Arena", just not the same..

kryogen

GSPfan wrote: »

If the Glazers somehow done a deal to sell the naming rights to the stadium for something mental like £100 million and it all went on paying the debt, Would you guys be up for that?

Not in the foreseeable future no.

To be honest I would never be happy about it, there are some circumstances where I could accept it though.

Your Airbag

It can feel the skin trying to crawl off my body just at the toughts of it.

What up and coming company would we be forever affiliated with? In todays market it would probably be an e-company like Facebook but less successfull.

Oh my god "The Angry Birds Stadium" :eek:

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Your Airbag wrote: »

Oh my god "The Angry Birds Stadium" :eek:

The place would be full of women on their time of the month.:pac:

Your Airbag

kryogen wrote: »

Not in the foreseeable future no.

To be honest I would never be happy about it, there are some circumstances where I could accept it though.

Before I release the hounds, exactly what circumstances are you talking about?

mufcboy1999

Tbh it would deeply sadden me if they renamed old Trafford. It's arguably the most historic club ground in football, it's a unique stadium.

Samich

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

Tbh it would deeply sadden me if they renamed old Trafford. It's arguably the most historic club ground in football, it's a unique stadium.

It's not gonna be Old Trafford for the rest of time though

I wouldn't like it changed though.

kryogen

Your Airbag wrote: »

Before I release the hounds, exactly what circumstances are you talking about?

End of the world stuff, choice between going bust or sacrificing the name I sacrifice the name.

Can't really think of any other situation I would be able to accept it though

Maximus Alexander

Samich wrote: »

It's not gonna be Old Trafford for the rest of time though

Why not? It has been Old Trafford for 102 years.

Sheffield United's Bramall Lane has been named as such for 147 years.

Chester Racecourse has yet to sell naming rights despite operating for 473 years.

Owen_S

I wouldn't mind if the name was changed from Old Trafford.... for £1,000,000,000

Samich

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Why not? It has been Old Trafford for 102 years.

Sheffield United's Bramall Lane has been named as such for 147 years.

Chester Racecourse has yet to sell naming rights despite operating for 473 years.

All good things come to an end. Things will never stay the same, I think anyways.

Your Airbag

Owen_S wrote: »

I wouldn't mind if the name was changed from Old Trafford.... for £1,000,000,000

I would. Its sacrilegious to even talk of it

Eathrin

I was under the impression that after the IPO the debt would be cleared. So that's not right?

Owen_S

Eathrin wrote: »

I was under the impression that after the IPO the debt would be cleared. So that's not right?

It has the potential to raise an amount of money almost equal to our current amount of debt, but only a fraction will actually be used to pay the debt.

Winston Payne

Agape at the calls for SAF to resign. Nothing's changed as far as his position goes ideologically and all it would do is destabalise the club.

tupac_healy

event wrote: »

On the first bit in bold:
For all you know he has been playing out of his skin for the last two years and is playing the best football of his career.
Yet you write him off due to one game? Its a good job you're not a scout.

Only the whole second paragraph, no need to get your knickers in a twist, I wasnt talking about yourself, more so the general feeling in the SF

Look, to be fair I could try and go at this again from yet another angle and waste more of our time. Your opinion differs on this subject to mine, the simple and basic answer to your first question is: Based on the fact that Maicon was widely considered one of the best fullbacks in the world (See, scouting skills right there :rolleyes:) before that game, taking into account what happened, I would not have him on the list of possible signings for us.... simple....

If you even bothered to read my reply in the second paragraph you would not have replied 'I wasn't talking about yourself' as I had already posted similar in my response to you.... I merely asked that you seperate 2 seperate points as to not put words into my mouth, as implied by your 2nd paragraph....


Oh can we just move on from this one please.....

Giggsy11

Phew.. that was some read, the last 10-15 pages. Few very good posts with few details to back it up and few very ignorant posts just for the sake of it and with no real purpose.

Kind of disappointed with this IPO thing, would have loved to see at least most of it being spent on debt. I think few have said we will save around 4-5 Million in interest payments. Not sure about that as I read few reports saying it is around 30M considering all the corporate taxes and all that ****.

I'm not good at all these, so very much open to correction.