rss twitter facebook mobile

Another Analysis Of The Debt

There is plenty of talk about our debt issues at the moment, where just like in 2005, the less than satisfying performances have come at a time of more doom and gloom about the Glazers.

I received an e-mail this morning from a poster on the blog asking me to share some of his analysis with the readers. He works in a financial planning department, is a qualified Chartered Accountant, and has Masters in Economics and a Masters in Finance. In summary, a pretty smart cookie.

I’ve edited his analysis and hopefully this should give us all some more understanding of what is going on at our club at the moment. This is not sugar coating the issue, rather weighing up the negatives, as well as the positives, thanks to a situation we’ve been forced in to because of the Glazer takeover.

First, let’s try to clear up some common misrepresentations:-

- There is a difference between Profit and Cash Flow. Profit made on player sales represents the difference between the sale value of the player minus the written down value of the player in the books of the company. So to say that the entire amount of £80.7m mentioned in the accounts as profit made on Cristiano Ronaldo is wrong as Cristiano was bought for around £12.8m and after accounting for accumulated depreciation/amortisation (which would be a small amount in his case as he was a very young player when bought and his remaining ‘estimated economic life’ would be long) I would say the figure related to Ronaldo is closer to £70m. The remaining £10m is down to sales of other players and youth team/ reserve team players that we have moved on, which is likely to continue in the future as well because United have recently sold on the youth players we think are not good enough to make it at Old Trafford.

- Similarly I read some comments on the lines of “If we had purchased Carlos Tevez for £25m, our profits would have been lower by £25m.” Again not correct. Players are the operating assets of a football club and any purchase made will reflect in the cash-flow statement and not in the Profit and loss statement. So if had in fact purchased Tevez for 25 million, our profits would have been almost unaffected except for the annual depreciation on him, which would have worked out to £2m pounds assuming an estimated working life of 10 years (he is 25 now, so him playing until 35 is a justified assumption)

- Financially, the GLAZERS and THE CLUB are now virtually one and the same, whether we like it or not. Underneath all the corporate veil and the mesh of companies (holding companies, subsidiaries, etc) the sad truth of de-listing is that the company and the Glazers are now one, whether we like it or not. The Glazers debt is virtually our debt, so we can safely say that the secured debt mentioned in the accounts is bollocks and the real debt is closer to £710m pounds after including the PIK loans of around £200m on the Glazers personal Balance sheet. There is nothing the club can do to stop siphoning off of funds from the club to the Glazers and that is sadly a fact for all of us.

The published accounts are as follows:

United accounts

Match day Revenue is more or less maxed out and shouldn’t exceed £110-112m next year as almost all Old Trafford games were already at full capacity this year, and so no substantial further rise can be foreseen. Unless you consider we are due another yearly rise in ticket prices. There is also the future potential of increasing capacity in the South Stand.

Media Revenue can be expected to rise further to an estimated £105-110m as the payments from the Premier League on media engagements continue to rise. Media revenue is also dependent on United reaching the last stages of the UEFA Champions league and cup games.

Commercial Revenue is again expected to rise next year to around £80-82m as the new shirt sponsorship deal and deals with Airtel and other commercial partners kick-in in full next year. This year figures reflect only a small part of those as they were struck in the middle of the year. The full benefit of those will be realised in 2010 with commercial revenues likely to be significantly higher next year.

Based on the above estimates, the picture for next year should be as follows:

united accounts prediction

The EBITDA is the key figure that we must focus on, because it represents the cash available for us to repay the debt and interest as well as finance the player purchases.

The depreciation and amortisation figures are just book entries and do not involve cash outlays, which is the key thing for any leveraged acquisition. (Believe me I know what I’m talking about as I work in the Financial Planning department for a company called Tata Steel which itself was involved in $12 bn leveraged buy-out of Corus Steel in the UK, which many of you might know about as it has been in the news lately with Gordon Brown involved in some discussions with the company). As you know, we cannot depend on profit on player sales as they are a one-time ‘extra-ordinary’ income and such huge windfall profits cannot be expected every year.

Also, we must keep in mind that losses on player sales might occur in the future, such as the loss on Louis Saha, Juan Sebastian Veron happened in the past, we may see the same for players such as Nani, Owen Hargreaves, etc. if they are moved on for less than their written down value.

The original Glazer line of giving Sir Alex £25m a year seems to be partly covered, as out of the approx EBITDA of £90-95m every year, £25m could go to player purchases (plus any profit from player sales could be safely re-invested after paying off the tax on capital profits – yes, profit on sale of players do attract taxes!) leaving around £60-65m cash for payment of interest and repayment of debt.

However the real spanner in the works has been thrown in on account of the financial markets going into free-fall. This meant that the Glazers could not refinance the extremely high interest bearing PIK loans (14.25%) and this led to extremely high total interest payments over the last few years (£41.9m and £45.5m is just the interest on Secured bank loans part – add the PIK part as well and the total is closer to £68-70m every year). Also, the cash saved by the club over the last few years from not using up the £25m a year transfer fund (the club has a net spend of £32m over the last few years I think as pointed out by Scott when comparing Sir Alex Ferguson’s spending with Rafa Benitez) has all been lost on fruitless expenses such as derivative fees, fees to financial institutions, hedge losses, etc.

Also, these PIK loans are lowest in the hierarchy of repayments; any repayment would first have to go towards the bank secured “Senior” loans of around £510m remaining on the balance sheet.
You could easily ask why not pay-off these extremely high interest loans first to get rid of them – the answer is that it would not be allowed by the “Senior” bank lenders as these PIK loans are ‘Junior’ loans which can be repaid only after senior debt is repaid.

Also other restrictive covenants based on profits/losses, EBITDA multiples, etc. would be imposed leading to restricting our movements in the transfer markets.

This is where this BOND issue of almost £500m comes in. If it is successful, then the senior loans of the bank could be paid off. This means that the hierarchy of loans is gone. The bonds are planned to be secured on the clubs assets and if you read one of the articles where it says the Glazers can then use the remaining cash at the moment to pay dividend to themselves whereby they can use £70m or so to pay off the PIK loans or use it as they deem fit.

This is where I think, this bond issue is going to help us. It removes the restrictive covenants that the bank loans have put on the club, enabling us to pay off the crippling PIK loans quickly, as well as have greater freedom in financial matters such as further raising of funds.

The Revolving credit of £75m that the club seems to have signed is basically a short term measure or a working capital loan – it should NOT be used to buy players because in principle, short-term funds should only be used for short term assets (and long term owned funds for long term assets) as otherwise there will be ‘asset-liability mismatch’ in financial jargon leading to other issues and expenses such as the hedging loss suffered by the club to match the interest rates, exchange rates etc.

Conclusion: Despite all of Sir Alex’s protestations to the contrary, he does not have all of the £80m from Cristiano Ronaldo’s sale. In theory, yes he does still have that amount of money in the bank account/cash flow, but if the above bond issue does go through as planned, and the Glazers do indeed take away around £70m of the remaining cash, then Sir Alex might just have to restrict his spending. Coming from a working class Scottish background and will put financial prudence and long term financial safety of the club first over immediate success.

Positives: All is not lost, if the PIK loans are taken care of, then in the long term the rest of the bonds and loans can be re-financed, plenty of takers should be available considering that the business model remains essentially healthy and sound. Young players coming through this club are exciting and very large reinforcements are not needed anyway, just a few decent players here or there should help us tide through. EBITDA levels are expected to remain competitive.

Negatives: The club must continue to build on its success. A drop outside the top four could be financially disastrous. We simply cannot afford to finish outside the top four as it would involve a straight loss of almost £40m a year (£25m from UEFA plus all the matchday revenue and commercial revenue brought by it.) Our days of break the bank signings seem to be over. Even if we do make any marquee signings, it will be out of borrowed funds (the revolving credit facilities) and would put us under great pressure to succeed to balance the books in the long run, making the situation even more precarious. Sir Alex knows this and hence the constant assertions of there being “no value in the market.”

The Glazers have taken the club for a ride and needless expenses on financial institutions could been avoided. However, we must also keep in mind that all this was in some ways necessary to move away from being a PLC which was also holding us back as was highlighted by Sir Alex himself at the time of the takeover. Some of these expenses were a necessary evil, but the financial downturn came at the wrong time which has made the situation even worse then it had to be. This answers the question as to why David Gill later approved the takeover in the first place (at the second time of asking the offer from the Glazers was improved upon over the first offer).

We cannot just wish away the Glazers, so the sad truth is we must stick with them and hope people such as David Gill are able to steer it away from all the complications and that the players under Sir Alex are able to continue their success.

The analysis has been restricted to the amount of publicly available information as the club is now no longer a PLC and hence information is not freely available about the goings on inside the club.

A big thanks to Abhay (Red Devil) for sharing this perspective.

——————-

JOIN MUST

We want the Glazers out on Facebook


About Scott

Scott is the editor of Red Matters - 50 Years of Supporting Manchester United and an author of Play Like Fergie's Boys and Not Nineteen Forever. He writes for ESPN, The Metro and Bleacher Report. Follow @R_o_M on Twitter.

View all posts by Scott »

 

138 Comments

  1. Onkar says:

    @ To all,

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/jan/13/manchester-united-finances-glazer-family

    Just read this link…. It has highlighted few points few risk factor from the bond issue prospectus nicely…..

  2. Onkar says:

    @Red Devil,

    Yeah, and copy of Prospectus which I have with me contains around 20 pages of RISK FACTORS…

    Shit.. Look like its a very business…..

  3. Onkar says:

    @Red Devil,

    Same things may happen to other teams.. I agree but there are not many teams around which are EXPOSED to such amount of D/E situation…..

  4. Red Devil says:

    @ Onkar

    An Operating lease is out of question, its good that at least that much is clear right at the beggining. We cannot even think about letting Old Trafford being sold.

    In one of the lines in the prospectus, “The Carrington training ground will not be encumbered and may in due course be transferred to a holding company or affiliate of the Parent. In the latter event, we will be granted a lease in respect of the Carrington training ground,”

    I was thinking that the Glazers will transfer Carrington to the holding company in lieu of the bond proceeds of 500 mn to be given to the club by MU Finance PLC to pay back the bank debt. Then the Glazers are going to lease it back to the club and demand a lease fee from the club as a way of siphoning off more funds to themselves in a legal way (which hopefully they will use to repay the PIK loans, but they are free to use in manner they please!) this would mean we are paying a annual fee to use our own damn ground!

    As for Third party transfer and lease back, I have a different theory…. Even a financial lease is not devoid of risk as the asset is not transferred to the Lessee if there is a default in the lease payments (though unlikely at this juncture cannot be ruled out in future if situation worsens)

    Secondly, a positive NPV for us would mean a negative NPV for the Lessee assuming the same opportunity cost of capital ( a fair assumption since the asset in question remains the same for both the parties — in fact the asset “Carrington” is even less valuable to say a financial institution and its discounting rate should be higher than us, what would a bank do with a football training complex for God’s sake!!)

    In any case our bargaining power in a “Financial” Sell and lease back arrangement is lower as why would any person be interested to buy an asset and give it back on an immediate financial lease if he did not have something to gain financially from the whole transaction?? Just think about it….

  5. Red Devil says:

    @ onkar
    The only problem that the entire transaction will solve is the timing of cash flows… other than that, we are bound to lose from the transaction in a strict financial sense

  6. Corea says:

    Red Devil – i would have to study for some months in order to fully understand your last post :)
    But we (fans) just have to understand at least the basic formula, i think.
    Sadly it is a part of the supporting the club nowadays. Maybe not for everyone.

  7. aig alex is god says:

    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/manchester_united/s/1188847_united_fears_laid_bare?

    anyone read this?. It says United supremacy is under threat and future looks grim for United. Depressing article

  8. urval87 says:

    Scott,
    This is a really impressive financial analysis done by the two of you. I am impressed with the kind of analysis that has been done on the raw data.
    According to me, one major point that was missing was the rate of interest on the bonds to be issued and the prevailing interest rate on the secured debt. If the rate of interest on the bonds becomes higher, then it might not be a very wise decision. One thing that I read somewhere also stated that we made hedging losses to the tune of 35 million quid. This will not happen every year. The club is actually sitting on a lot of hidden cash as nearly 82 million quid is in non-cash expenditure. I do believe that Sir Alex does have the resources to purchase players. I think more than the transfer fees, it is also a question of the sky high wages. Since from April 1, the prime tax rate will become 50%, thanks to Mr. Darling, Mr. Brown and the quagmire that is Labour, players will start demanding after tax salaries. To obtain top signings, we dont have money to burn like City, tax rate on foreign players in Spain is 25%, and the squad rotation being used by Sir Alex is also not a great attraction.

  9. Red Devil says:

    @ Corea and AIG Alex is God

    The post addressed to Onkar is not meant for “non-finance” professionals so dont even bother going through it…will give you a right headache :)

    Also dont pay too much attention to that link on guardian or manchester evening news…

    As i said, it is a standard legal requirement to lay down potential risk factors to the investors in black and white.

    If you think about it, we already knew all of that before….
    1) Didn’t we know that there was a chance that Sir Alex’s successor might not be as successful as him

    2) Didn’t we know that attracting and retaining top players is necessary for any football club to succeed….etc etc

    So dont be unduly depressed by reading those articles.. Pray to the Lord and BELIEVE…

  10. Corea says:

    50% tax rate is a problem and i addressed the issue when it had been first mentioned. This means clubs like Madrid may be more attractive to the players. Salaries is the most important thing in football and it makes premiership vulnerable. Platini want equal possibilities for all teams in Europe and i can’t understand how the above mentioned would help the matter. On the one hand the government, on the other hand football.
    In this circumstances the academy is very important but players grow and not all of them a like Paul Scholes and they will demand better salaries as they develop.
    Maybe it is more of a problem for a lesser teams, i am not sure.

  11. Onkar says:

    @Red Devil,

    “a positive NPV for us would mean a negative NPV for the Lessee assuming the same opportunity cost of capital”

    I may not agree with this statement in totality. because of the obvious spread factor that banks would enjoy. Secondly, for me we are talking about the piece of land for god’s sake bro… I don’t need to tell you how valuable it can be in terms of investment. And why on earth you are looking at this things as a useless business from the financier’s point of view.
    He is definitely not going to see at the Carrignton as a ground or something, he is going to invest his money by looking at it as a piece of land or shall i call it as REAL ESTATE investment. And there is large probability that any speculative investor may in turn like take this opportunity, as real estate prices have not recovered fully, so he will get the good deal, to add to that any one at this point in time see that Man UTD as a club is very vulnerable situation right now so even though minimum but, there is probability of default there, which will appeal any speculator investor and I can tell in total capacity as a Market Analysts working for one of the Banker…
    And given all these…. First, banker will always get his spread and still it can be a profitable business for us compared to high yielding junk bond.
    Secondly, Any speculative banking experts (with some what contrarian view) would like to take this chance given that Real estate prices have not rebounded world over a lot which gives some ROOM FOR EARNINGS….

    So on the contrary to what you are saying as a market analyst, I think this can prove to be a very appealing transaction for both parties, with lot to earn…… Even though its albeit SPECULATIVE kind in nature….

  12. Onkar says:

    @Red Devil,

    I have already explain in my last reply that personally I don’t that we are to loose much more (even if we do as you feel) compared what we are loosing in current situation.. Due to all the interest and finance charges that we are going to incur…

    So now about…
    “The only problem that the entire transaction will solve is the timing of cash flows…”

    Again… I don’t know what exactly this means.. Now, as a layman (forget for a minute that I am a Market Analysts), don’t you think I would be also concern over the fact that we are making +ve cash flows in near term or not… I mean I know one thumb rule that If I am not in the best shape to survive short term forget about the long term business. I mean, what we all read in economics, in long run all cost are variable which is not the case in short term, so if you are not able recoup your all the cost in short term then you are in trouble…

    And forget about all this Short run long run business, All I know what will happen if I don’t get ‘PAISA’, CASH, Liquid Cash that’s all. All this profit and everything is fine, but if CF are -ve then its of no use, I mean we are making tonnes of EBIDTA but if it is not sufficient to pay the INTEREST CHARGES then we are not going to sustain to see LONG RUN at all.
    So for me what matters is what is happening with the cash. Thats all….

  13. aig alex is god says:

    Red Devil

    Thanks mate. Your words are very reassuring.

    i did not understand much of the comment you wrote to Onkar but your explanation yesterday has made things much more clear

    Hope things improve in the future and the club is in safe hands after SAF

  14. Onkar says:

    @Red Devil,

    I may not be sounding to you as a prudent investor or analysts.. But, believe me Man UTD LBO is different what you have seen in your company. I mean there you were dealing with the REAL ASSETS which we can value but not here.
    I don’t need to explain you that Value of the MAN UTD as WHOLE (i.e. BRAND) is far more valuable than the Sum of its PART (i.e. SOTP).So, if unfortunately we are not going to sustain in shorter run and we see slump in the form then the Value of Real assets (i.e. OT, Carrignton etc) may not diminish but the value of MAn UTD as a BRAND will fall very fast due to the Intangible component (BRAND EQUITY) that will fall very fast… And thats why I desperately feel that even though it may not be proven prudence approach but we need take some quick step today.. OR what ever we are reading that we are valued at more than 1bn GBP, it may not remain there for long…

    I think we can certainly agree on this….

  15. Onkar says:

    @Red Devil,

    On the contrary to what you are saying, Risk Factor things, even though that is mandatory requirement here, but given the amount of leveraging we have, and nature of business we are in, where the VALUE OF BUSINESS IS FAR MORE THAN THE SOTP due to BRAND EQUITY, we need to look at it very seriously.
    As the value of BRAND EQUITY can diminish in no time…
    Imagine you all, we had the best three years spell in recent history, still we could not pay of the single penny of the principle value, in fact it has increased by almost 20%, then what would be the case if wee have three years of bad spell….
    I think you all are good enough imagine what I am saying….

  16. Asshat says:

    BORROW another £75m?

    Borrowing to help ease the debt? Genius!

    See UK Economy 2008-present…

  17. Red Devil says:

    @ Onkar

    Firstly, I am not trying at any point to question your credentials as a financial analyst at all. A healthy difference of opinion is and should be encouraged. I was just trying to highlight what I felt about the situation. Lets analyse your arguments one by one.

    !) Carrington as real-estate – It is quite obvious that the function of a bank is to deal in funds/cash not other assets. A banker will always try to help out the borrower say by restructuring the loan or agreeing to an extension, rather than take over the secured asset. That is the norm in almost cases, especially in infrastructure. For a bank to take over Carrington and sell it on, the bank will have to undertake significant costs to make the land saleable. its not as if its a barren piece of land, there are structures in place and a lot of funds in terms of redevelopment costs and expertise will be required to make it attractive to real estate investors, add to that the current uncertain financial and real-estate sector and you can quite understand why I arrived at the conclusion I did, and somethi8ng you allude to yourself in one of your posts…it is a HUGELY SPECULATIVE transaction and Speculation=Risk=Risk Premium which means raising the cost of capital.

    2) Banks earning a spread: The objective and correct way of valuing an asset is by using the Cost of Capital based on the risk characteristics of the asset, not on where you are going to source the money from to buy that asset. That is a fundamental principle of finance. Just answer the following question, Whose Cost of Capital will you use to value an acquisition target? a) the acquirer’s cost of capital OR b) the target’s cost of capital?

    3) Read the article carefully…. I quote ” The EBITDA is the key figure that we must focus on, because it represents the cash available for us to repay the debt and interest as well as finance the player purchases.
    The depreciation and amortisation figures are just book entries and do not involve cash outlays, which is the key thing for any leveraged acquisition.”
    I have already pointed out that the EBITDA is the key as that is where we are going to repay our debt and interest and fund player transfers….so I dont understand what you are on about when you say “And forget about all this Short run long run business, All I know what will happen if I don’t get ‘PAISA’, CASH, Liquid Cash that’s all. All this profit and everything is fine, but if CF are -ve then its of no use, I mean we are making tonnes of EBIDTA but if it is not sufficient to pay the INTEREST CHARGES then we are not going to sustain to see LONG RUN at all.”
    You are either repeating my point as I see it or have just lost the flow of what you are trying to say…..

    Our EBITDA in the forseeable future is SUFFICIENT to pay off the interest and debt provided we can refinance the PIK loans and the bonds at the time of their maturity.

  18. Red Devil says:

    @ Onkar

    About your argument on brand equity, I agree that Brand valuation is different from valuation of real assets.

    However to suggest that Brand equity can diminish in no time is foolhardy.

    Brand Equity and goodwill is built over a period of time, its not a short term phenomenon. That is why Manchester United is Manchester United and Chelski are Chelski or Citeh are Citeh. Brand Equity comes with trust, and history and tradition, which cannot be eroded in one day. Short term success is one thing, Building on a tradition of more than a 100 years is entirely another.

    Besides value of Brand equity has got nothing to do with our outstanding increasing. Our outstanding debt ( Glazer’s PIK part) increased because the Glazer’s did not pay up the interest on the PIK part due to shortage of cash flows in their personal sphere….nothing to do with Brand value of Manchester United. In fact if you see the accounts closely, Man United’s secured bank debt has actually reduced from 2008 to 2009.

  19. Onkar says:

    @Red Devil,

    Neither I tried to put my credential forward nor I am trying to prove anything here as far as my profession goes.. I am just trying to keep matter separated from the accounting entries.. That is all….
    What ever I said regarding Cash was the reply to your quote regarding the timing the CASH-FLOWS. If re read the whole thing you will come to know what I meant…
    Secondly, I know what is the function of the banker as I have already in one of replies that I am a banker….
    But, what we are talking about is the whole leasing part of the business.. In that transaction I had to talk about bank because you brought the banking aspect in the context… But, you don’t always need to be a banker to get in to these kind of arrangement, do you??? Secondly, we are not talking about the Banking system in India are we?? What we are talking about the is the western banking system, where banks have already found wanting due to there involvement in last real estate fall (crash), where they did lot of speculative transaction involving real estate through their Investment banking Arms. So, there for them Speculation is not a new concept is it???
    And that is why pointed out couple of things which you either missed or by passed.
    Firstly, even though it is speculative in nature we all know that real estate prices have not bounced back in western region countries from there lows a lot. Which gives them the opportunity to enter at right time and price which will offer them good returns…Which means even though speculative not that RISKY…..
    Secondly, Banker with contrarian approach will take this opportunity…

    I think I almost summed up what I meant there.. In this reply…
    Though I have to agree that Banks/Any FI will have to take in to consideration development cost for sure….

  20. Onkar says:

    @Red Devil,

    See bro… All this talk of tradition and everything is fine.. But, we have to accept that there is major chunk in the asia who are just fair weather fans, which may shift there loyalties on the first instance…

    Ans as far your argument about the tradition, goodwill, reputation it just hold any substance bro from the valuer’s point of view and bot from fan’s perspective… See, for valuer the thing is simple, what is the kind of mass appeal that this club is creating, what is kind of premium this club is getting in the merchandise market so on so forth…These are the questions and criteria he will check and value and it has nothing to with how old your tradition is….
    He will have to answer that whether he feels this appeal will continue or not that is it…
    And trust me mate it is far easier to value real assets than your intangibles.. I mean we all know what has happened in case of Satyam here in India. His value diminished to 1/20 from original in just one day… I know not comparable but can you this kind of thing happening to any Steel company even in the such circumstances. The answer is BIG NO. Because, no matter what steel company will have real assets which value will diminish to 1/20 overnight but goodwill can…
    I know something like this may not happened but point here is mate that we are all banking ourselves saying that we are valued at around more than a bn GBP so if something goes wrong we are too bog to fall. But, the point we are ignoring is what is the value of real assets. I am sure if we plan to sell them all it will not be even half of what we are valued and that is the trouble for me…
    Thats why I said that BRAND EQUITY is making us justify the kind of situation we are in other wise we all know what happened to LEEDS as they never any BRAND EQUITY. So as long as we are enjoying it take the measures.. cause you never no what is store for you….

  21. Onkar says:

    @Red Devil,

    Anyway buddy, had a great time chating with you on some hard core finance… It was serious fun isn’t it??? We almost turned this United blog into a Finance Blog…

    But I have to say that I am in office all time and now the pending work is catching up… See ya soon… Keep up the great work like today’s article..

    Cheers…..

  22. Red Devil says:

    @ Onkar

    The point I was trying to make when saying the function of the banker is simply that banks are not made to be speculative entities…which is why they failed when they went for excessive speculation leading to the Financial Crisis in the first place.

    Contrary to what you are implying, I was talking keeping in mind the Western banking system the entire time…. The banks in the west (USA and UK ) have been decimated by the downturn and crisis with most of them requiring significant government investment and ceding of ownership to the Govt, just to stay afloat ( I am quite sure you know that though being a banker as you take great pains to remind us!)

    Also as per the Basel Accord, greater capital back-up is required for riskier investments by banks.

    In light of the above, ( plus you yourself have posted that they have been found wanting in this respect in the recent past!! ) dont you think Financial institutions are going to be averse to such highly speculative transaction, given that they have just burnt their figures (that is if the banking regulators and governments allow them in the first place!)

    I think a lot of what you have written in your last post contradicts yourself..just read your own post carefully.

  23. Red Devil says:

    @ Onkar

    Always nice to discuss ideas and exchange views on financial topics, its my livelihood for god’s sakes!! :) yeah it WAS, such a long time since I had to delve into topics like valuation and all….just got reminded of the old times and books :)

    Where do you hail from by the way and where are you working?
    Maybe we could get in touch or catch up!

  24. Onkar says:

    @Red Devil,

    I am from Mumbai, working with in Management grade of the PSU Bank as an Credit Analysts. Where we basically deals with corporate credit…
    Yeah.. I agree even for me the Finance is my livelihood and Credit is the reason for life… Yeah! we can certainly get in touch soon….

  25. Onkar says:

    @Red Devil,

    I am not a regular here.. Seems you are.. Actually, I got the link for your article from some other blog which I regularly visit….
    And yeah towards the end I left wanting in my thoughts as well..Mainly due to (as I said), the pending work is catching up….

  26. Red Devil says:

    can I have your e-mail address or something to contact you…

  27. Red Devil says:

    which blog do you regularly visit….where’d you get the link?

  28. Corea says:

    Red Devil – you can exchange your email adresses using PM at the RoM forum, mate.

  29. Onkar says:

    @Red Devil,

    Yeah.. My Email Id is onkar_damle@indiatimes.com

    I am a regular visitor on redrants.com and I got the link from there….
    There we normally have some feisty affairs in term of brainstorming discussion and debates.. In all the United fans specially here that place is famous as a doom and gloom place.. But I like the nature of it.. I just hate to see everything from the from Red tinted glasses even though I am a mad United fan….

    Anyway, don’t forget to drop me a test mail from your email id.. Looking forward for it….

  30. Onkar says:

    Ooopppss I wans’t aware of that.. Scott can you just delete the lst comment where I have given my email id…
    Sorry for this thing.. as i was not aware PM thing….

  31. aig alex is god says:

    Onkar

    Good to see another person from Bombay. By the way i too live in Bombay. Just asking, are you a maharashtrian?

  32. Onkar says:

    @aig alex is god,

    Yup… Can you just guide me on how to use this PM thing in ROM forum.. If you are aware of it….

  33. Corea says:

    Onkar – this was just an advice if you don’t want to show your email address to others on here. ;)
    In order to use PM in the RoM forum you just have to register there. (simultaneously with Red Devil)
    By the way, i’ve heard the majority of people in India speak english ? And very well indeed. ;)

  34. Red Devil says:

    @ Corea

    Always ready to mingle with fellow Reds :)
    its abhay.bhaniramka@gmail.com if you’d like to get in touch!

    I didn’t get your joke about our English levels though :D

  35. Corea says:

    Red Devil – in fact, i was serious, mate ;) Many people from India here. I was just wondering.

  36. Muggaz says:

    Maybe the British government can bail out the English institution that is Manchester United like they bailed out RBS et al??? that would be hilarious.

  37. Anonymous says:

    @Muggaz
    That occurred to me back in 2005, that if we went belly-up we could be “nationalised” and a portion of every ABU’s taxes would go towards paying for our players…

  38. RedDevil says:

    @ ^^^^^^^^
    That would be funny indeed!! :D
    but I dont think we can expect any such favours from the govt. I heard the Queen is an Arsenal fan as well as the PM

LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Log in with your Facebook or Twitter account: