News has emerged today that the Glazer family will pay off £220m PIK loan.
Have they sold a stake of the club to raise the money? Have they sold off another of their assets? Or have they refinanced or borrowed more against the club?
Details are still pretty murky but this potentially could be very good news. But then potentially very bad news too.
AndersRed, The Telegraph, and The Guardian.
Alexander Büttner Anders Lindegaard Anderson Antonio Valencia Ashley Young Ben Foster Betting Blog Busby Babes Carlos Tevez Chants Chris Smalling Competition Contributing Writer Cristiano Ronaldo Current Players Danny Welbeck Darren Fletcher Darron Gibson Da Silva Twins David Beckham David De Gea David Moyes Dimitar Berbatov Domestic Cups Edwin Van der Sar Eric Cantona Europe FA Fans Federico Macheda FIFA Football News Forum Gabriel Obertan Gary Neville Injuries International Interviews Javier Hernandez Ji-Sung Park John O'Shea Jonny Evans Just For Fun Kits Legends Live blog Louis Saha Manchester United News Match Day Match Reactions Michael Carrick Michael Owen Nani Nemanja Vidic Nick Powell Ole Gunnar Solskjaer Owen Hargreaves Past Players Patrice Evra Paul Scholes Phil Jones Poll Pre-Season Rants Reclaim Our Club Rio Ferdinand Rivals Robin van Persie RoM's Best Articles RoM At The Audi Cup Roy Keane Ryan Giggs Shinji Kagawa Shop Sir Alex Ferguson Site News Sponsored Post Staff Stats Tomasz Kuszczak Tom Cleverley Transfers/Rumours UEFA United > England Video Wayne Rooney Wes Brown Youth Zoran Tosic
© 2006-2013 Republik Of Mancunia: A Manchester United Blog by Scott the Red | Privacy Policy
Man Utd News 24/7
I hope Its not another case of borrowing money to pay back money. How ridiculous is that by the way? Wouldnt get away with that in any business!
Looks like good news
It’s economics. It so much complicated. We’ll never know.
Hope dies last, so i hope it’s good news for us..
Don’t get too excited fellas. The Gimps are shitting bricks after seeing what happened over at the Dippers and are busy blocking off all avenues that might lead to a similar forced sale at under value.
The Glazers are only interested in two things — themselves and money, And they don’t car how the two are kept together — or who suffers in the process.
This is neither a sudden outburst of respobsibility or generosity. It’s all to shore up their (self)interests.
we wouldn’t want the glazers to buy the club in first place .. but seeing the latest financial results and the support they gave to SAF according to his own statement last summer.
i say let them stay.
there is a saying in my country “a creasy man you know is better than you don’t know”.
I agree with bruce thomas. I think the Liverpool situation forced their hand. I just hope they didn’t take any money out of the club.
bruce thomas – but Gill will make the most of it, you know.
For more info on it, I’d recommend:
http://andersred.blogspot.com/
http://www.footballeconomy.com/content/glazers-pay-pik-notes-how
Also look out for stuff from:
http://swissramble.blogspot.com/
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-home/columnistarchive/Stefan%20Szymanski-columnist-4106-archive.do
Seems to me it’s a simple case of re-financing, replacing debt that was accruing interest at 16.25% with debt that will accrue interest at a much lower rate. Makes sense. If it’s true they haven’t taken money out of the club, and I can’t see them issuing new shares and/or selling shares to raise money, this seems the most likely scenario.
Doesn’t mean that the bastards aren’t still bleeding the club dry though. All I know is that, being the Glazer’s, there will be many hidden things meaning it’ll be hard to discover the whole truth about what’s happened.
They’ve probably sold the OT naming rights
And now over to Martin Tyler…
“Here come Manchester United, out of the tunnel, lining up at the Durex Femidom Arena
— and it’s LIIIVVE!”
Let’s just hope they have sold their OWN assets and not simply borrowed yet more money
Perhaps they sold Wazza’s image rights? great!
if a burglar stole 15 quid, then gave me back a fiver, I’d still knock his block off.
The most likely scenario is that the Glazer family have refinanced, with the PIK debt converted to new debt at a lower interest rate and secured on Red Football Joint Venture’s (United’s parent company) assets. The assets held by RFJV is one – Manchester United.
My guess is that this is just delaying the inevitable repayment of this debt. Short term good news if you want new signings at United next summer, long term pain because more than £700 million debt must be paid at some point unless United is to pay interest in perpetuity.
It seems much less likely that a new investor has come in – the Glazers have show no inclination to sell part or all of the club before, unless somebody is paying a heft premium over and above true enterprise value.
Redemption rate of the PIKS is closer to £243m, rather than £220m.
I’ve written up some more details here if you’re interested – http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/glazers-pay-off-243-7m-pik-debt-but-where-did-they-get-the-money/
Perhaps they’re spending some of the cash they’ll be getting for Rooney in the near future.
Although I should add that financial analyst David Bick thinks this is most likely a precursor to a full or partial sale to a new investor in the club
@bruce thomas
lol….
I hope this is good news and I hope they don’t take money out of the club. If PIK loans are paid out of Glazers money then I have to say that our financial situation will improve dratically. Not saying our financial condition is bad as of now, we are in pretty healty state now also but they carry very high rate of interest and the sooner they are paid in full the better.
IMHO Glazers seem like good businessmen, they know what they are doing. If SAF gives them his backing then I think we should trust him.
Cheers for that United Rant, although I think xol sums it up pretty well.
I’ve just heard some finance guy on sky sports news saying it is more than likely they are readying to sell part of or all of the club as by paying off the pik’s they can leave the other debt and make a nice profit on what they originally paid out.
United Rant @ 13:13: “My guess is that this is just delaying the inevitable repayment of this debt. Short term good news if you want new signings at United next summer, long term pain because more than £700 million debt must be paid at some point unless United is to pay interest in perpetuity.”
It’s called “business”. Only someone with unlimited access to unlimited amounts of cash could do otherwise.
The real unasked question in all this is why Sheikh Mansour – who has unlimited access to unlimited amounts of cash – would buy ManShitty rather than paying the Glazers a huge profit to buy the best ?
And, the corollory to the unanswered question: is there anyone else out there with unlimited access to unlimited amounts of cash who wants to buy a footie club ?
Bruce baby, please explain why we should trust the Glazers, surely you can only make that judgement if they are fully transperent about thier plans, which they never have been so for you to say lets just trust them is truly laughable.
Not hears the SKY report, I wonder how long before the Red Knights come out of the woodwork agian
Thing is…
Are these guys beginning the road to sell United?
Some of the guys yesterday made such a mention…
Interesting times ahead…
@mattbw — baby
Where on earth have I ever said “trust the Glazers”? !!!
I despise the cunts and the archives will show that I always have. I think you’re confusing AB’s reply above to my posts with MY opinions. Go back and check.
I wouldn’t trust the Glazers with a fucking used bus ticket, mate. Shit, you’ll get me a bad name.
you can only hope MG, though if we are bought I cnat see whoever buys us wont attach the debt to the club as its far greater then Liverpools, it would be a laugh if a rival Arab with more than citys lot bought us to go head to head, well I can dream!
My sincere apologies bruce i was paraphrasin waht someone els wrote about you, If you worried about a bad name you shouldn’t support UTD, every fucker hates us anyway
It was the real AB that said it, he is either;
A wum
a LFC fan
a CFC fan
or a city fan but he’s probably all of them at one point or another
We still hate Glazers, even if this eases the rope around our neck slightly!!!!!!!!
Apparently Sir Alex walked in to the Glazer AGM with two shovels, and told them to take their PIK.
on bloomberg at 1139am
Manchester United’s owners agreed to pay off a high-cost payment-in-kind loan worth about 220 million pounds ($353 million), according to a corporate filing by the English soccer club.
Red Football Joint Venture Ltd. will “prepay 100 percent from the outstanding loan on Nov. 22,” the team’s parent company said. The document, called a voluntary free-payment notice, was signed by Joel Glazer, co-chairman of Red Football, and was sent to the holders of the loan. Philip Townsend, a spokesman for Manchester United, declined to comment.
The Glazer family, which also runs the National Football League’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers, bought the 18-time English soccer champion in 2005. United supporters have protested against owners because of the debt they’ve added to the team. The Glazers were shouldering 16.25 percent annual interest charges on the PIK debt because of concern they’d face fans’ anger if they used the soccer club’s cash to pay off the loans.
“From a portfolio manager’s standpoint, it’s tantamount to ‘the Grinch who Stole Christmas,’” said Mark Baker, chief executive officer of ADM Capital Europe, which holds some of the PIK debt. “The Glazers are eliminating arguably the best asset in the European High Yield universe from a risk/return perspective. Delighted for the fans but our portfolio will miss the 16.25 percent coupon.”
Fans’ Protests
The Glazers aren’t going to take any money out of the club to pay down the debt and the payment isn’t secured against the team. The debt is being repaid privately by the family, which hasn’t revealed the source of the funds. PIK loan interest rolls up annually and increases the amount owed.
The Glazers bought the 18-time English champion for 790 million pounds. In January, they converted a bank loan secured against the team into a 526 million-pound bond. Under the bond’s terms, the Glazers could make a one-time withdrawal of 70 million pounds from the club to pay down the PIK loan.
Anti-Glazer protests increased after details of how the owners were financing the once debt-free club were revealed in the bond prospectus. Thousands of supporters took to wearing the green and gold colors of the team’s original incarnation, and a group led by Jim O’Neill, chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, emerged as a potential buyer.
16.25 Percent Interest
The PIK loan issued in August 2006 to Red Football Joint Venture is held by fewer than 10 investors, mainly hedge funds. The facility started out as a 138 million-pound loan, accruing annual interest of 14.25 percent. That rose to 16.25 percent after the club breached a debt-to-earnings ratio agreement. The Glazers bought back between 15 and 20 percent of the loan in 2008.
The PIK loan to United was due to mature in 2017. If the Glazers had held the debt until then, they would have owed almost 600 million pounds at the current interest rate, according to Bloomberg calculations.
PIK holders were contacted by representatives of United’s owners last week and agreed to a waiver allowing the family to take 50 million pounds out of the team to buy back that amount of the bond. That permission isn’t needed now that the Glazers are buying back the PIK debt.
United today said the club’s first-quarter loss narrowed as it made more from sponsorships.
The team had a loss of 4.8 million pounds in the three months ended Sept. 30, compared with a loss of 7.7 million pounds, according to a corporate filing. Commercial turnover rose 25 percent to 24.2 million pounds. Gross debt declined to 509.4 million pounds from 514.7 million pounds.
Since the Glazers’ purchase, United has won three domestic league titles and took the Champions League in 2008.
The club has increased revenue from various sources since the takeover, notably in commercial operations. A London-based sales team has negotiated sponsorship and partnership deals in industry sectors across the world.
United is currently third in the Premier League, three points behind leader Chelsea and one behind Arsenal.
Let’s not speculate too much, hurts the brain unnecessarily. I for one don’t have that many zeroes to the left of the decimal point. But if I convert them into Zimbabwean dollars…
ok yor yor
YorYor says:
Let’s not speculate too much, hurts the brain unnecessarily. I for one don’t have that many zeroes to the left of the decimal point. But if I convert them into Zimbabwean dollars…
We’ll just bury our heads in the sand, fuck off back to city
Whatever be the case…at least the killing loans are off the books….16.25% interest in todays almost zero-interest rate regime is CRIMINAL…..Even if they’ve refinanced, I’m sure its at a lower rate which is probably not the best case scenario but at least we now have to contend with lower interest rates….
And the fact that they havent taken out money from the club is a minor victory for the club and the supporters because the wording of the bond prospectus clearly suggested that that would be the case……It seems all the fan opposition and outrage is causing them to have a rethink…
hope your right red devil
Hopefully, they’re getting ready to sell and not before time either.
@willierednut … and hopefully, if that is the case, the new partners or owners won’t be worse than the ones we already have. Nope, not sticking up for them, just saying that I wouldn’t want us to end up with something worse, either in a business sense or a football sense (or both).
In a business sense, what would be worse would be more loans, perhaps even worse loans.
In football sense, it would be some asshole who thinks his money entitles him to run the football side, like faxing team sheets to Sir Alex on game day, or by dictating that we must buy or sell this or that player — we’ve seen it with other clubs and I don’t want it to happen here. Apart from anything else, if that happened, I am sure it would drive Sir Alex out of the club, and that would be a crime.
And of course, if it is a partnership, there’s always the nightmare prospect of having partners who ultimately don’t agree with each other. Seen that happen with the Dippers. Please, please, not that…
Malcolm is old, he’ll die soon
What ever way you look at it this is a good thing.
Man Utd without PIKS is better off that Man Utd with PIKS.
StatesideAussie – That’s goes without saying mate. The Glazers have pillaged enough money out of United, never thought they were in it for the long haul. Can’t see the red knights being involved in any of this, so it begs the question, who’ll be in the running to take full ownership of the club?
All they need to do now is sell the Tampa Bay Bucs for about 520 million and we’re good to go
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/458112436?-11193
More details please?
@ IrishRed
Not trying to pick a fight mate but it’s called refinancing. It happens all the time in business and real estate.
I can’t see there being any downside to this. I’m racking my brain to think of the kind of strategy they are using right now, but it is tough when you don’t know where the money comes from. Chances are they realized that the 16% interest wouldn’t allow them to justify their ROI on the club so they either used their own money (from another investment) or refinanced or sold part ownership. Either way is fine by me. They aren’t planning on selling, because if they were, they wouldn’t have paid this loan off. This is a good thing as far as I can tell. It might also have to do with them 1) gaining support from fans (although very little) or 2) complying with fair trade rules for the Champions league.
Ryan7 – Then why don’t they meet with fans and discuss these issues? We’ve already seen with Liverpool, that things can get out of control, when people aren’t talking. The fans have a right to know whats happening, with the club.
@willierednut
I agree that would be a good idea for them to talk to the fans. I’m not saying it’s right, but I personally would not want to talk to such emotionally charged people. Let’s just agree that we both want what is best for United.
@mattbw7
Read properly before commenting. I said “If SAF gives them his backing then I think we should trust him.” It means Trust SAF.
If you can’t understand this then you are
- a dickhead
- a whore
- a bitch
- or a gay but you are probably all of them at one point or another.
I don’t see the point in what seems to be entirely negative speculation at this point. This looks like a good thing, and if it isn’t we can’t do anything about it yet anyway. Would it kill people to have a little hope every now and again?
When they sell the club, I’ll be doing cartwheels down the street, is that enough hope for you? lol.
@Doghouse
Exactly mate. Glazers not taking money out of the club to pay loan even though they have made a provision for it is a great news.
Do we know that for certain? Lets wait until the full facts come out, before we make a proper judgment.
The PIK loans are the loans that the Glazers are responsible for.
Sorry to be a party pooper, but all the Glazers are doing is getting rid of a sword that is hanging over their heads.
QUESTION: Where did the money come from?
…if they are using Manchester United as security for another loan then this is nothing to be happy about.
…the Glazers other business interests were not performing well the last time I checked.
@willierdnut
Quote-
In a 19-word statement accompanying the release of a quarterly financial update to bond holders released this morning the club’s holding company Red Football Group said: “The Board notes recent press speculation. The Board can confirm that there has been no dividend of Club cash.”
The Glazer family is understood to be preparing to pay off around £220 million in high-interest ‘payment-in-kind’ loans borrowed to fund the purchase of Manchester United.
In a letter to PIK lenders yesterday Joel Glazer said that the family intend to pay down all the PIK debt next Monday. The source of the funds they will use to pay off the loans remains unclear.
Source -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/8135870/Glazers-family-set-to-pay-off-220m-in-high-interest-loans-borrowed-to-fund-purchase-of-Manchester-United.html
The Real AB – So, the only question is where they got the money from then, that’ll be interesting.
mattbw7, you saying something to me?
@willierednut – Yeah that is a question of everyone’s mind right now. Hopefully it’ll be made clear soon but knowing Glazers they will keep silence on this too. They don’t communicate with the fans, do they??
wereever the money is coming from aslong as its not utd has to be a good thing. stateside aussie @14.26 pretty well repeated my sentiments on the last glazier thread.the glaziers are on the worlds richest list so when it comes to buisness and buisness plans they know what their doing.yes i want the glaziers out and yes i hope some multi billionaire comes in on a white horse but the most likely scenario is stateside aussie@14.26.as far as i can see the glaziers had a long term plan from the beginning and its just unfolding now
Makes me feel all better. 43 seconds. Rafael v Tevez.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvmVaSdg_M8
Wayne – Yeah, sell the club for a huge profit.
@willierednut thats the goal of any buisnessman and to get rid of them someone is going to have to pay alot of money because revenues keep going up every year,this is my biggest concern again referring to stateside aussies point
as fans most of us have a problem with owners treating utd as a buisness, i think we have to ask how many utd fans out there have enough money to buy the club and not care if he/she loses money i’m guessing a very small %.why did the shiek buy city a ego thing or a game maybe its to see how much money it takes the challenge of going against utd who knows,if he gets bored city are fucked,look at chelsea the buisness plan was to buy players win things to get a world wide name and the profits would come well the profits never came and over the last few years chelsea really haven’t spent that much.its impossible to include the spanish clubs both are in debt but get assitence from the goverment not sure how that works.what i’m trying to say is what most fans hope and pray for is probaly not going to happen.when the fair play rules kick in utd and aresenal will be in the strongest positions because neither team bought into the madness of those other 4 clubs.
All the information is so murky, would be nice to know more. But we know it probably won’t happen, because when it comes to financial dealings the Glazers are as ‘transparent’ as a brick wall.
The club’s statement is reassuring. It does make me wonder where that money came from. Maybe a 3rd party has entered the fray. Who knows? But the main worry for me right now, is that with the debt reduced, SAF will have funds at his disposal next summer.
wayne, good points, and forms the basis of why I am of the opinion that no one can safely say we’re gonna be in for better times if the Glazers got bought out.
And anyway, as long as the money doesn’t come from the club, it doesn’t really concern us what they do with debt that is tied to them. If it really is a third party buying part of the ownership, we’d definitely know by 22 Nov, since most wouldn’t be content to be a “behind the scenes” partial-owner of a club like United, not after splashing out that amount of cash.
agree with wayne and YorYor…
The one thing i like about glazers is that they dont SEEM to be meddling in the football related decisions…they leave that to the experts unlike chelski and man shitty…Imagine if the sheikh had bought united…i can see us gettin totally screwd! they wud never let sir alex do as he wants…mite meddle in everythin…hu knos…and ven they get bored, they jus leave the club n go…
If you the think the Arbabs wouldn’t let SAF manage United, without interference, then you don’t know the man.
@willierednut city is a toy to this guy and he has his hands over every decision,if someone like that took over utd sir alex would be in conflict with him and more than likely quit,look at chelsea he pretty well runs the club the manager and staff mean nothing to him.thats always going to be a problem you run into when the owner is a billionarie and the club is a toy,theres alot of proof of that in the nfl already it just brings on a whole other set of problems.
Not with SAF, as you say, he wouldn’t stand for it and imo, they would have more respect for a man like SAF. More importantly than that, they would have to deal with our fans, who wouldn’t take to kindly to SAF getting messed about.
I’ve always said that I have no problem with an owner making money out of Utd, I think nowadays its par for the course, my problem is that we have a massive debt that is a burden to the club. Now if they clear the debt or someone comes in and clears the debt, then let them make money!! as long as money is being ploughed back into the club and there is no debt and they realise the fans play their part and raise prices in relation to the wages your everyday supporter earns I will be more than happy!! Utd can more than cope with running itself and giving an owner a nice tidy sum to boot!! I would still prefer it to be someone other than the Glazers who owned us but as I said my only problem is the debt!!
@willierednut that will just bring us back to the problem we have now,the fans being unhappy with the owners just from a different perspective,lets assume sir alex does get left alone how long before he retires.lets not forget abramovich got rid of mourinho because he wanted to run the team,look at all the top class managers abramovich has got rid of it doesn’t matter to him who you are
No one touches SAF, no matter who the owner is since they know of his status with the fans, players etc….But once he retires, then I can easily see a new owner or even the current ones wanting to put in their person and getting more involved with who we buy, sell etc.
maybe only mourinho would not stand for it, but any other manager would become heavily “assisted” by the owners.
Wayne – It’s all speculative mate, who really knows what would happen, but I’d like to think any owner, whoever it might be, would respect the man.
@willierednut i would hope your right,thing is billionaries have big ego’s and if they don’t give a shit about money its just a big game for them,thats the other side of the coin in getting a billionarie owner normally want to interfere because the club is a extention of their ego.anyway only time will tell but i’m just very wary of who utd might get.that doesn’t make me a glazier fan it makes me a realist
@ Wayne
The Spanish clubs are in a lot of debt but what allows them to spend without breaking any debt covenants is that they negotiate their own TV deal. The gap is so huge that at the beginning of the 2009-2010 season Barca and Real got 105 million quid from TV deal each and Valencia(3rd) got 37 million.
The entire PL negotiates the TV rights as a whole.
If United negotiate own TV deal, no other club would ever win the league as our viewership is more that Barca and Real combined.
@urval87 thanks i never knew that
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/8137807/Manchester-United-debt-repayment-QandA.html
Thanks United4eva, a little more clarity, at least for me.
From what I gather, the bond’s “interest” was levied right at the start – kinda like borrowing more than you get.
On paper, it’s 526M, but United actually received 4xxM, or something like that. So we’ve incurred the interest at one go, and not something of an annual concern.
So we’ve got what, 7 years to save 526M, which works out to be about 75M per year.
The Glazers do not have any money all their other assets are not doing well, so where did they get the money to pay this off. Even if they do pay £220 million off remember we still owe £526 million to the bank and they also have their personal debt of £500 million. The need the club to not only service the Manchester United debt but also their own personal debt so I would not be jumping for joy just yet.
And no I would not want an owner like Manchester City because they will want to come in and dictate who the manager should buy and how the team should be run even though they know fuck all about football.
Just found out who the Glazers’ new mystery investors are — Tom Hicks and Geroge Gillet
Where is the money coming from?
This one, I will believe it when I see it.
Grandma Esther Glazer suddenly came across a few hundred million dollars stuffed in her matress.
or
Wayne Rooney decided to loan the Glazers some of his new salary to pay off the debt.
or
Joel Glazer won big in poker last week during a game with Tevez, Toure and Adebayor.
Naming rights?
AFAIK the “fair play” rules relate to spend compared to turnover. If this is the case then United are in a far healthier position than most EPL clubs due to the internal wage capping.
I do not think that debt repayments come into the equation, as it is designed to be blanket wage capping by the back door.
I cannot believe that any of this will be good for United.
I think the naming rights is a very good suggestion.
@urval87 … what you is true, but it is not the whole story. Both Real and Barcelona sold their TV rights to a company called Mediapro, who, back in June this year, filed for bankruptcy protection from its creditors (which, of course, would include Barcelona and Real). Mediapro is in dispute with another TV rights-holder, AudioVisual Sport, who are suing each other. As you can imagine, it is very messy. It’s a bit difficult to follow the story, since most of it is in Spanish.
But some astonishing facts emerged after Barcelona FC’s presidential elections in June/July. The new president hired independent auditors to go through the books, and they concluded the club is, in a word, insolvent. This resulted in Barca having to go, begging bowl in hand, to some banks and borrow (from memory) 125 million just in order to keep paying their staff and players.
Not only that, but it also turned out that Barcelona’s rights deal with Mediapro was purely verbal in nature: there was no signed contract, in fact, no written deal at all. Given that we are talking about hundreds of millions, and one of the world’s most well-known football clubs, this is simply amazing. Amazingly stupid, in fact.
Of course, we don’t know how this will pan out. Mediapro’s bankruptcy application was based on the claim that since AudioVisual Sport was refusing to pay fees owed to Mediapro, Mediapro could not meet its commitments to its creditors, which would include Real and Barcelona. Mediapro recently won an important decision against AVS, but the case is not over. Presumably, it may drag on for months, even years. In the meantime, as long as Mediapro remains “protected”, presumably its creditors have to stand in line and wait (and since one of them. Barcelona, doesn’t even have a written agreement, I have to assume they will be standing further back towards the end of the line).
Meanwhile, who knows how they are continuing to function, financially?
Anyway, it is a cautionary tale (and one that is, in some ways, highly amusing to someone who hates both clubs with a passion) … but it does go to show that in the end, there really is no perfect model of ownership in football. (If anyone has any updates on the Mediapro story or Barcelona bankruptcy story, please post them!)
No Thereal AB tghis is what you said
IMHO Glazers seem like good businessmen, they know what they are doing. If SAF gives them his backing then I think we should trust him.
Shall I dissect that your two sentences, The first, in your opinion not SAFs you say they seem like good business men, for who exactly, for UTD?
Second sentencs as has been said before SAF has two choices as an emloyee he can either fuck off or tow the line, now given that he aint gonna fuck off cos he’ s invested too much of his life into UTD (and been well paid for it) he has no choice he can’t bad mouth them or he could be sacked.
And you could be right about some of the things you say about me but seeing as you opinion on the Glazers is so misguided I don’t think I need to pay much attention, btw have you a problem with people who may be gay?
YorYor says:
mattbw7, you saying something to me?
I thought I had said it, if all this makes you head hurt then fuck off
I have very mixed feelings about selling our own tv rights on the one hand you want to see a competitive league but on the other why on earth should UTD subsidise other clubs, either we are business or we are not. The EU forced the PL to sell some rights to someone other than sky or the beeb cos it contravened competition law, this they did with the stuff you see on ESPN, but its really a fudge.
There has be something wrong when the bottom club in the PL receives 30 mill, what a joke, Im not saying they should get nothing but all those fans that crow at UTD’s debt problems should shut the fuck up or we should sell out tv rights independently then we’ll see where the debts end up, only I think we should get a written contract unlike Barca.
Interesting barca facts there, stateside. i have nothing to add apart from a 3rd rate rumour site announcing our impending signing of messi.
Positive news indeed, even though some people as always look for the negatives.
Over the next 12-18 months the club will continue to improve it’s balance sheet and add to the silverware haul, but I still expect that green and gold sombrero (accompanied by the latest strip) will continue to obscure my view at the matches
All the speculation DOES amuse me. “they are doing this ” “They are selling that” ” Blah , blah blah”. Truth is nobody knows but we are about to soon find out.
@mattbw7 think your take on sir alex is wrong if he felt there was a injustice being done to the club he’d speak out theres no fucking way the glaziers could sack him it would be a all out muntiny,plus as willierednut said he’s not the kind of man to tow the company line and be walked over
mattbw7 … I think that the argument for selling TV rights collectively (and thus sharing the spoils) is that without the other clubs, there’s no league … or no competitive league. Without a league that’s at least a little bit competitive, who would watch? And if audience numbers fell, what good would that do us? I’m not saying I agree 100%, but there is some merit to that argument.
The other aspect is no club can unilaterally decide whether to abandon this agreement or not, because anyone who did would face the prospect of truly going it alone (that is, being dropped from the league altogether). Now that the deal is in place, there would have to be widespread support for ditching it. I am sure the other major players would be in favor: us, Chelski, Arsenal, Shitty, the Dippers (I mean “major players” in business terms, not footballing ability!). Maybe Spurs, too. But I couldn’t see the minows agreeing to even consider this (correct me if I’m wrong, but the suggestion has been raised previously with the PL and never got anywhere). I mean, who the fuck is going to pay even 10 quid to watch Bolton take it up the ass each week? Hahahaha!
Well that aint me Paul, I cant see Sombrero within twenty feet of where I sit, I agree with you on the liability reduction it can only be a good thing but lets not pretend it was done for the clubs sake.
It can only mean one of two things
1,they are getting ready to sell.
2,if they had allowed the PIKs to continue it would have wrecked them, the reason they have probably been allowed to get out is because the interest rate was so high that they will have had repayment opportunites during the course of the PIKs life as you normally find that if you try to pay off a finance agreement early you will be hit with a penalty ie most asset finance is front ended so you pay all of the interest off in the first 12 to 24 months then you start to eat into the capital which is pretty standard as its over a fixed term with the PIKS its different as the interest was added and compounded at the end of each year hence why there will have been repayment windows.
wayne says:
@mattbw7 think your take on sir alex is wrong if he felt there was a injustice being done to the club he’d speak out theres no fucking way the glaziers could sack him it would be a all out muntiny,plus as willierednut said he’s not the kind of man to tow the company line and be walked over
Oh Im sure he fight his corner internally its just common contract law that says if you bring your company into disrepute you can be sacked, as for a mutiny its wishful thinking, the glazers plunged us into 700m plus of debt and we as group of fans have done nothing.
Stateside Aussie
The other aspect is no club can unilaterally decide whether to abandon this agreement or not, because anyone who did would face the prospect of truly going it alone (that is, being dropped from the league altogether
Its the other way round as the clubs have to completley agree to sell collectively not the other way around, the PL cant throw UTS out because they the PL along the rest and besides its against EC competition law
@mattbw7 every utd fan would boycott if sir alex was fired,alot of us just don’t understand what the end game is of the anti-glazier movement as far as i can make out its to ruin utd so the red knights/must can buy utd cheap i won’t support any movement that wants to ruin utd,firing sir alex would be a totally different thing
According to Gill over the last 4 years the ‘Piks are nothing to do with the club, thats the owners liabilities blah blah blah lie’. Now all of a sudden a united statement reads ‘ no dividend has been used to pay the Piks’. If we had nothing to fear with the Piks then why put a statement out to confirm none of uniteds cash flow has ben used.
This has the hallmarks of spin and more spin from Gill and the Glazers and it seems to me some people on here still have there heads in the sand. There fear was another protest movement starting up if they took the full dividend they could of 70mout of the club to pay down part of the piks, so they have re-financed at lower interest rates and instead of a lump sum being taken from club funds they will take smaller dividends each year to pay down this new loan and hope nobody notices.
So were the Piks somthing to do with United? Yes they would have used united funds to pay them off and united as a club was secured on them. Will the new re-financed loan be something to do with united? Yes they will use united funds to pay the loan off and United again will be the security for the loans.
Always remember whatever the Glazers do in there financial shenanigans they are doing for the benefit of themselves and not for the long term benefit of Manchester United.
LUHG
Not sure what more United fans could have done tbh, once we floated on the stock market, we were fair game to be bought out. The SOS like to think their campaign forced out Hicks and Gillet, when in reality, it was RBS that brought an end to them balloons.
wayne says:
@mattbw7 every utd fan would boycott if sir alex was fired
Soory Wayne but it just isnt true, you would be angry i guess you amy miss a couple of games but in the end we would go back. In any case the Glazers aren’t going to sack SAF cos they know there will be a significant backlash but it wouldnt be a boycott.
SAF knew in 2005 he could have come out and destroyed the Glazers bid to takeover but he didnt and the reason as now is complex but my guess is and thats all it can be cos none of us know SAFs mind is 1, he has to much at stake at heart he is a football man and he wants to leave having left UTD as the undisputed best club in the country in terms of honours and as yet we are at least 1 PL and two CL wins away.
2, he was as now constrained by contract law, you and me will have it in our contracts that we cant badmouth our company for someone like him those clauses will be written so tightly there is no wriggle room.
3, in addition to contract law during the time of the take over if he had come out against the Glazers and ruined the sale he could’ve and would’ve have been sued by Coolmore as company takeover states that it is illegal for any employee to disseminate information that could harm current or future investors, SAF would have lost everything.
mattbw7 … I think you may have missed the point I was making. The PL clubs currently have a joint agreement that requires TV rights to be sold collectively, and which prevents individual clubs selling their own rights. That deal has been done and it’s been in place for a long time. It’s true that the PL couldn’t FORCE any club into this arrangement, because that would violate competition law, but the plain fact is that all the clubs agreed to it voluntarily. (Surely, you are not suggesting that the current PL agreement is illegal, right?)
So if one club decided not to participate, that club would face a number of issues.
First, the other clubs could continue on their merry (collective) way, still calling themselves the PL.
Second, the maverick club would be in breach of the existing agreement that they voluntarily signed. They could therefore be sued for breach of contract. And, being in breach, they could then be excluded from participation in the PL (I don’t know this for sure, since I am not a lawyer, and I haven’t read the PL agreement; but it seems reasonable that the PL agreement would bind clubs to playing by the “rules”, and would specify some form of punishment for those that refused).
Third, the maverick club (or clubs, if more than one) would then be on their own. They would have to set up an alternative competition, market it, get buy-in from the PL’s buddies in Europe (in order to play there), and all that stuff, which just seems impractical. True, a PL without the top 6 teams wouldn’t be in great shape … but neither would an alternative league that consisted only of those 6 teams (and had no prospect of playing in Europe). It would also be interesting to see how the English FA reacted to that, too. The FA isn’t the PL, but they’re close. A breakaway, rebel league of one team is a total non-starter; but even a break-away league of six top teams wouldn’t be much better: no European CL or UEFA Cup, no other teams to play against at home, no FA cup, not even the Carling Cup, just the same six teams running around playing against each other…
I missed a credit card payment once.
My interest skyrocketed past 27% interest.
So what did I do….
applied for a card with a different bank w 8% interest and shifted the balance
that said after seeing all the picks of the whole Glazer family
they are an ugly bunch
very ghoulish looking too which is kinda ironic after all they are sucking the life blood out of the club
MUST is absolutely right, its time the Glazers fucking came out and made a statement on what the hell their intentions are with our club.
@willierednut … “Not sure what more United fans could have done tbh, once we floated on the stock market, we were fair game to be bought out. ” Good point, and one that seems to be forgotten by those with short memories. I still remember the day I heard that we had floated. I remember, very clearly, wondering who would buy us and where that would lead. I also remember the day I heard it was the Glazers, and people were starting to object, and I thought to myself: “Well, wtf did you expect?” The minute the club was floated, we lost all say. Sorry, but there it is.
@mattbw7, you seem incapable of having a decent conversation if all you can do is ask people to fuck off. Perhaps you should apply your own advice to yourself.
If you’re a promoter of negativity and feel delighted in doom-mongering, by all means do it but stick your own finger in your ass and not point it around.
mattbw, i’m tongue in cheek re: the sombreros but I am surprised that more folks aren’t openly delighted by the news.
Paul H – There is a massive party in Manchester, take it you didn’t get an invite?
YorYor says:
Let’s not speculate too much, hurts the brain unnecessarily. I for one don’t have that many zeroes to the left of the decimal point. But if I convert them into Zimbabwean dollars…
whats that about a decent conversaton you fucking halfwit.
Paul H says:
mattbw, i’m tongue in cheek re: the sombreros but I am surprised that more folks aren’t openly delighted by the news.
I know Paul I was having a laugh, though sadly you do get quite a few new shirt and G&G scarf combos near me and I sit in the Stretford End but that’s football fans for you most of them either haven’t a clue or don’t give a fuck, I mean if you look at regular contributers to debates on here we do seem a small bunch no matter what your view point is.
We may be a sizeable minority but we are still a monority, MUST brag about 160,000 plus members but only 200 show up to a protest in Manchester sad really, the only true constant is the team and I’m at least glad of that, give us a wave on Saturday.
StatesideAussie sorry but you have it wrong UTD are only compelled by the current TV contract because its signed, the clubs allow the PL to negotiate collectively on thier behalf not the other way around. UTD could I suppose be thrown out of the PL but the problem there, is what excuse could they have its that that would be illegal as they would be excersising their right under EC compettiton law to seek thier own deals and lets face the PL needs UTD as well.
The EC threatened the PL with legal action if again sold all its live games to one bidder hence why ESPN have live games also, this the thin end of the wedge, it happens in france, italy and spain so its hardly unheard of.
And while we are on about the PL it was supposed to reduce to 18 teams to a produce a stronger league and b to help the national team by reducing the amount of fixtures, the reason why its never happened is cos its the teams that have the power, no PL club chairman is going to vote for a smaller league cos that means two more of them will be sweating under thier collar.
As I’ve said before we are either a business or we arent
I’ve heard enough anti – MUST crap from the loud minority, making out that a whole fucking stand of paying, passionate and vocal Stretford End regulars want to damage the club.
FUCKING PISS ANTS, bugger off back to your boring bloody financial plasic world.
mattbw7 … I guess we will never agree on this, then. But in actual face, the PL is a corporation that is owned by the 20 clubs who make it up — they are legally the PL’s shareholders. Each has an equal vote (plus the FA has power of veto in certain things, including rule changes). No-one forced UTD to sign up. We did it because at that time, we wanted to. I guess we could pull out, but then we would be in breach of the existing contract, which we signed voluntarily. There’s a big difference, in law, between signing a contract of your own free will, and signing one because you have no choice. Big difference.
As for whether the existing agreement is legal, the EC has its own ideas, and some of them are pretty kooky (think “bananas” and “curvature”). However, the EC ruling did not result in selling TV rights to ESPN, as you say. It was the EC ruling that resulted in breaking Sky’s monopoly, and resulted in Setanta picking up some rights. ESPN only came into the picture later, when Setanta collapsed.
But forcing the PL to sell to multiple bidders is not the same as ruling the whole idea of a collective agreement illegal. In fact, the PL’s practice of selling rights collectively has been investigated more than once, by both the Office of Fair Trading and the UK Restrictive Practices Court, and in both cases, it was ruled to be OK. So that question has been asked and answered, legally.
I agree the PL should be reduced to 18 teams, or even 16. Get the dross out! But your statement about why the PL chairman won’t vote for it is nonsense, because the chairman doesn’t have the casting vote. As explained earlier (and as can easily be verified at Wikipedia and elsewhere), the PL is owned by the clubs, who all get an equal vote. And in this case, the FA would probably have a vote too. The chairman is there to facilitate meetings and run them, but he is not a dictator. I don’t know what the PL articles of association require, in terms of a majority decision, but but I would imagine that none of the minow clubs would vote for that proposal, and that together, that would be enough to defeat the idea.
No need to mention Setanta really as Im well aware of them however the point is that the PL where forced to sell a portion of live games to a third party, ie not SKY
I said a PL club chairman as in each individual chairman of a PL club, cant believe I have to explain this.
Thanks for commenting on bananas and cuvature if thats the level you want to take it to ok,
Its not a question of the legality or otherwise of the PLs position as it will be tested again when the next contract is up, the point difference Iam making is UTD could go it alone and thier is nothing the PL could or would do about it, not in the least because at least 5 other clubs would follow suit rendering any PL action useless and my real overiding point is are we a business or are we not.
@Bruce thomas @ 12.57…….you have been reading my posts on here mate.Regards James Mckenna of the spirit of shankly blog and what they achieved. Like your thinking though……….if only!
This shitting of bricks is it gonna develop the improved south stand.? lol
As normal xol…… spot on if we dont have a focal point how do you collect the information and keep the “two hundred” protesters together.
King Eric is right though, at the present point in time its all speculation and a variety of guesswork.
As we will never publicy see their financial information in the states its all a minefield to navigate through.
The socialism I believe in as everyone working,for each other,everyone having a share of the rewards.
Its the way i see football,the way I see life. Pull together for this aim, we will be rewarded.
Get the Glazer out of United.
mattbw7 … the misunderstanding over what you meant by PL chairman was an honest one (given that the PL itself does have its own chairman), so fuck off with your attitude. Spent the best part of my life bandying words with politicians, businessmen and assorted others, do don’t lecture me. The bananas and curvature remark was meant as a light-hearted comment on the bureaucrats who run the EU, so you can get fucked on that score too.
If you think that because at least five other clubs would follow us in this sort of action, I agree (and I already said so — I even named the most likely ones). But those clubs would be ostracized by the others, and by the FA, and by the European leagues/organizations too. If you think that six clubs running around playing against each other, and only each other, constitutes a marketable business, then it’s you who doesn’t know the meaning of the word “business”, pal.
Fuck off. You’re a joke.
@mattbw7, exactly – so it’s either you adore negativity and doom-mongering, or you’re Zimbabwean and feel strongly against your national currency being joked about. If it’s the latter, I apologise. If it’s the former, you can take your comments and opinions and shove it up yours.
So you’re a genius – let’s see you bail out the club with the great ideas you have. Take what’s left of your brain and cherish it.
Guys, just help me out. Why people in UK aren’t able to watch 3pm kickoffs and the company from US have the rights to broadcast it.
It’s all about the package that the broadcasting company negotiated with the PL isn’t it?
Naturally, having it “live” would cost more, and there are lots of mechanics in the background such as the perceived popularity of the league (by the PL) etc.
My guess is that the PL takes the population, apply some complex formula to it to get an estimated viewership, followed by what they expect each viewer to pay (dependent on the national average wage etc, if at all), and the amount of commercial slots for the local broadcasting corp to sell, and then come up with an initial price (along with some buffer) for the broadcasting company to base negotiations on.
But that’s just my guess.
Oh, not that it explains why you don’t get live kickoffs… perhaps it was because no one’s willing to pay… Doesn’t Sky do it anymore?
yar yar and aussie
You both made incorrect and silly statements, I merely pointed them out to you, though I give you some credit yar yar as to why there no live 3pm games you almost got it though the formula is probably less complex, its viewes that the 3pm kick off times are the most traditional time for supporters to attend matches and if live games where habitually shown it would over time reduce attendance, not only in thePL but the rest of the divisions in england and scotland.
Hey Aussie why do you feel the need to comment on how you have spent your life bandying words with politicians, businessmen and assorted others are we supposed to be impressed and take you more seriously.
Anyway gents will you be attending the game on Saturday!!!
Yeah, that’s why people who aren’t rich enough to go to the stadium just sit home and listen to the radio ?
But those clubs would be ostracized by the others, and by the FA, and by the European leagues/organizations too
Statside Aussie
So are Barca, RM, Bayern, Lyons etc ostracized by thier own associations or uefa, No.
“Hey Aussie why do you feel the need to comment on how you have spent your life bandying words with politicians, businessmen and assorted others are we supposed to be impressed and take you more seriously.”
Lol…
For a minute I thought it was Paul H….turns out it wasn’t….
Hey Corea
I’ve done my time at that, it does help living 30 mins tops from the stadium but you dont have to be rich to attend games
mattbw7 – yeah. as well as travelling to London to away games. To be honest getting sky is always not the cheapest scenario. Although you can go to the pub and watch the game from there. Not sure though what are the laws in Britain concerning showing the games at the pub.
LMAO!
http://www.tribalfootball.com/articles/man-utd-chief-gill-glazers-have-delivered-1256251
of course he was fast.
laughing because of the disbelief of some and the pride of the other bunch.
Anyone heard about a new rule by the UEFA on the wage of players???
Corea says:
mattbw7 – yeah. as well as travelling to London to away games. To be honest getting sky is always not the cheapest scenario. Although you can go to the pub and watch the game from there. Not sure though what are the laws in Britain concerning showing the games at the pub.
Sadly away games are out, I have a family so time and cost are a factor plus UTD operate a loyalty pot put simply if you aren’t already in it you’re unlikely to get an away ticket in anycase.
Pubs often show away games at 3pm by illegally tapping into european broadcast networks
@mattbw7 – the same situation at my place. the only difference is that the law in this field is always 5-10 years in the past compared to European Union so most of the time i don’t have to bother whether i would be able to watch the games. I’ve had sky uk at home for a couple of months now, so for 3pm kickoffs i am left with internet or the pubs where they have those European broadcasters.
The ultimate aim though is to come to OT of course and i think next few years is the term.
where in the world are you Corea
@mattbw7 – Moldova. Near Romania. I hope to obtain Romanian citizenship sooner rather than later so getting visa won’t be the problem and the rest is pie.
Wow, that is some traveling, if you ever do get the opportunity to get here you must do it, I was at the Liverpool game last year and about a dozen guys from the United Supporters Club in Salonika where in attendance, all different age groups and with thier own jackets embroidered with the name of thier fan club, it was great to see, how anyone can ever denigrate what some people call day trippers when they visit our club dismays me, I think its terrific that fans from all over the world make an effort to see a game.
Good luck and hope to see you soon
mattbw7 – tnx. but it’s a bit closer than coming from India for example. the problem is that sometimes you should sacrifice drinking an odd beer sometimes for a year in order to attend a single game. i guess it must be a weak excuse.
November 17, 2010 at 9:40
Red Devil says:
For a minute I thought it was Paul H….turns out it wasn’t….
The bloody cheek of it…..
we all have lives to lead and following UTD is only a part of it, I guess Im just fortunate I follow a club that is 30 mins by car from where I live, a small town called Chorley just north of Manchester. I must get on with some work for now but no doubt we’ll chat again soon.
Paul H
I’ve seen you describe in great detail your high living and high company you keep before….Perhaps a trip to sunny Barbados brings back some things to memory fella….
Red Devil – Lets hope he stays there mate. Only joking Paul.
@mattbw7, so you can have a decent conversation after all.
To clarify, how is asking for some non-speculation a wrong/silly statement?
On the 3pm live broadcast issue, I didn’t think the legislators were that archaic – seems like Singapore isn’t the only autocratic state that believes deprivation of alternatives is the best form of preservation (of revenue).
Well, they can’t block/QoS every port on the internet, so eventually they will have to combat streaming. And fail miserably. By then, they will realise they are losing out on TV revenue, and they will then want to have live broadcasts. Or prevent the sale of broadband services and force everyone to return to dial-up days.
The only way to guarantee match attendance, is to value-add the experience, or give prepayment discounts. I wonder whether United will ever consider this – pay a discounted lump sum (ST+ticket prices for all home League Games and forecast of Carling/FA/UCL games, less 10-20%) and automatically get tickets to every single home game. Lose 10-20% revenue but get money right at the start of the season. For away games, allocation is already tight, so I don’t think there would be any concern over not selling them. Until the day all grounds in England can seat 40-50K that is.
Hey there willie mate…. yeah…sunny barbados ain’t a bad place to be!
“But then potentially very bad news too”……
I’m sorry but unless they’re paying off the PIKs by borrowing money to do so at an even higher interest rate then there is no way this could be bad news. Of course doing that would be absolutely insane and pointless so it’s fair to say that’s not what they’re doing. If they’re borrowing money at a lower interest rate from elsewhere to pay them off then it’s good news regardless of whether the new loan is secured against the club or not. The PIKs may not have technically been secured against the club but to default on them would have resulted in the club being affected because it was owned by the Glazers. This is a reduction of our overall debt and increases our financial fluidity so in no way shape or form can this be bad news for the club.
A Financial Fluff Or Secured Safe Haven?
http://www.theunitedreligion.com/2010/11/financial-fluff-or-secured-safe-haven.html
Lol. Well most of the time it’s sunny Manchester for me, where I haven’t been rubbing too many shoulders recently. Although I did spot our captain and his lad in the local supermarket recently
Hi Yor Yor
Even though UTD arent quite selling out every game they are still at around 75k in the stadium most days, only the early stages of Carling Cup suffer but thats more to do with the level of opponent and the type of team SAF puts out. So the reason you will never see live games screened legally in the UK at 3pm on a Saturday is to protect those teams that get lesser attendances especially those in the lower leagues where many will have a fave prem team and if its bad weather they may take the option of say watching a big PL game rather than going to support thier team and if you get people breaking those kind of habits it wouldn’t be good.
Ah yes, I forgot about the lower leagues. Makes good sense then.
Has anyone got any information on this “Springfield forward” a financial institution that seemingly have just replaced the current piks for the Glazers, with a slightly less punishing interest rate.
Just reading on the Telegraph site or is this just more speculation.
Anybody shed any light on this please?
Catch any updates later, Cheers.
@mattbw7 – yeah, i guess championshit games are played at this time.. but i just can’t believe supporters in England would choose the other side in the premiership insted of going to support the local side. It can’t be about England, can it ?
*championship of course
it is Corea, the reason live football is not transmitted in the UK at 3pm on a Saturday is to protect attendances in all divisions, why are you so surprised at that
And for the longest time, you’ll always find a bar, who’ll show premier league football, though they’re trying to stop it, cunts.