Thanks. So, leaving aside the possibility that someone like Rupert Murdoch could have a stake in this shower of shit (and therefore leaving aside any conflict of interest), the official debt of this lot (tied as it is to the Glazer's personal debt) could be 100s of millions more than declared, if the Glazers hang on to them, so to speak?
I hope you're right. It sounds like a dream scenario from our point of view. They won't sell because they can't get enough to repay their debts, so they keep leaching money out of it to service their debt while the debt increases because the American business is making a loss and the whole vicious cycle goes round and round till it goes bump.
That's right. There's United's gross debt of around £450m and we can see that as it's part of the published statements that a quoted company has to make. But there's also the holding company in the Cayman Islands whose accounts we don't have access to. They certainly used their shares in United to secure the PIK loans so it's a fair bet they used the same assets to secure whatever replaced those. They are supposed to have put about £250m cash into the original purchase but even that was probably borrowed against the malls.
Thanks, mate. I'll sleep well tonight.
And the point I was making was that, if they have used their shares to provide security against large borrowings that we don't know about, the value of the security will obviously be determined by the share price. And if the banks deem that there is insufficient security due to the falling price, they'll want more or they'll presumably call in the loans. As an example, if a bank lends someone £1m and demands 120% security, the borrower might put up 1m shares valued at £1.20 each. If those shares dip to £1 each, there's only enough security for £800k, meaning £200k isn't adequately secured. That means either more security is needed or all or part of the loan may be called in.
The BBC is part of the establishment, rather than a mere mouthpiece for it, although its nauseatingly obsequious coverage of the Royal Family bears testament to the fact it performs both roles with great avidity. I disagree about its output being tendentiously pro-Tory, however. Most of its senior management are members of the metropolitan bourgeoisie who harbour centre-left leanings. 'The Establishment' in this country is a little more layered than you seem to be suggesting.
You can understand that Sky & BT would be rag friendly as they're commercial organisations relying on subscription and advertising revenue who presumably know their audience. But why have the BBC got their collective head so far up the rags' arse that the dentist has to push it to one side to do a filling?
Ha ha same here pal, it makes my blood boil.