United Thread 2015/16

[Vienna_70]

Mourinho is a **** but he's no mug. He'll know all about Giggs being a treacherous little shit and won't want the poisonous **** anywhere near him.

The family man always looks royally pissed off every time scum score.

 

[CheethamHillBlue]

I suspect "Good, but as expected" is close to the mark.

I agree. They had to improve not only because of increased revenue but because there was no Champions League fixtures/money the previous year. We need them to finish 5th or less again.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I suspect "Good, but as expected" is close to the mark.

Good-ish. Probably still going to report £500m+ revenues but maybe not quite a high as they originally thought. but while their investors may care, I suspect their fans won't give a fuck if Sunderland do them this weekend.

 

[mat]

Mourinho is a **** but he's no mug. He'll know all about Giggs being a treacherous little shit and won't want the poisonous **** anywhere near him.

Exactly.

Hopefully he'll end up like captain Marvel. Whoring himself throughout Asia for ale and the occasional bunk up.

 

[stony]

Exactly.

Hopefully he'll end up like captain Marvel. Whoring himself throughout Asia for ale and the occasional bunk up.

Even rags don't like Giggs.

 

[mat]

Even rags don't like Giggs.

In that case he'll become a real life version of boogie nights. Crying in the back of someone's car in Moston trying to knock one out...

 

[TCIB]

Mourinho is a **** but he's no mug. He'll know all about Giggs being a treacherous little shit and won't want the poisonous **** anywhere near him.

"look at my wife you fucker and i will run over your bollocks like i did the utd touchline a few years back"

 

[2sheikhs]

So is this good or bad figures for them? yes or no will do

Yes

 

[TCIB]

So i just caught up on the days news, fair do's big numbers were impossible not to see with all the cash rolling in to footy at an increased rate.
They still have huge debt and have not really paid any off if i see it right, this is fine as it is the guts of their failings imo.

They are having a review of their youth setup hehe, sorry that sounds to convenient with the demands for 15% cuts.
I am 100% sure this review is not fully for the benefit of the club, one eye is on cutting costs, it has to be, there is no other way this happens.
I say that as they have said themselves 15% cuts in each department.

They may be trying to streamline it a bit, not for efficiency as a priority but saving a few bob whilst hopefully maintaining something of a youth setup.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Only 15% of the shares are traded, why would they make any difference at all? The answer is none at all. If they needed to borrow they could easily borrow as much as they wanted to up to a figure the finance company thought the club and it's assets were worth and could be repaid, which is just under two billion pounds at todays figures. You can't equate their share price to their financial stability. They are not any day soon going to roll over and die, seriously.

I don't think you grasped what I was saying. The club's borrowings are not the issue (except they're only worth about £1.6bn at the moment not £2bn) but most of the assets, Old Trafford included, are used as security for their borrowings.

The majority of shares are held by the Glazers. The Glazers have another business called First Allied Corporation, which manages shopping malls. They own those malls and rent the units out to shops. It's like a huge buy-to-let operation where the plan is that the rental payments cover the interest on the mortgages on the malls. Just prior to the crash in 2008, they re-mortgaged these malls heavily. The security was presumably the malls so as long as they're worth more than the mortgage and the interest payments are covered, everything's fine. The crash put a stop to that however and a number were in default with some going into liquidation.

The Glazers also presumably had to borrow money to repay the PIK notes they used to finance the purchase of united. That may well have been done using their united shares as security as these seem to be the one tradeable asset they have. Also, if the mortgages on the malls are higher than the capital value of those properties, they may have been asked for additional security. Again, their united shares are an obvious source for that. If the share price goes down significantly (even after a $1 rise today they're down 20% on recent weeks) they may be asked for more security as the value of that security goes down.

The First Allied malls are at the low-end of the market, without the prestigious anchor tenants that other malls have, and the future for anything but high-end malls generally is bleak, with many shutting down. The Glazers clearly aren't making anything out of this business as they're taking £2.5m each out of united each year and one at least has sold a large block of shares. They therefore need united to be financially successful to keep the share price high as it appears to be their only liquid asset and may be propping up other the other part of their business holdings as well as personal borrowings. If the share price were to collapse, it could seriously hurt them.

I've often wondered why they haven't got rid of united, when they had the chance to get £2bn or more. I suspect that they either can't sell the shares (as they're tied up in securing other borrowings) or that the £2bn they might have got isn't even enough to cover their various liabilities.

 

[manctheknife]

I don't think you grasped what I was saying. The club's borrowings are not the issue (except they're only worth about £1.6bn at the moment not £2bn) but most of the assets, Old Trafford included, are used as security for their borrowings.

The majority of shares are held by the Glazers. The Glazers have another business called First Allied Corporation, which manages shopping malls. They own those malls and rent the units out to shops. It's like a huge buy-to-let operation where the plan is that the rental payments cover the interest on the mortgages on the malls. Just prior to the crash in 2008, they re-mortgaged these malls heavily. The security was presumably the malls so as long as they're worth more than the mortgage and the interest payments are covered, everything's fine. The crash put a stop to that however and a number were in default with some going into liquidation.

The Glazers also presumably had to borrow money to repay the PIK notes they used to finance the purchase of united. That may well have been done using their united shares as security as these seem to be the one tradeable asset they have. Also, if the mortgages on the malls are higher than the capital value of those properties, they may have been asked for additional security. Again, their united shares are an obvious source for that. If the share price goes down significantly (even after a $1 rise today they're down 20% on recent weeks) they may be asked for more security as the value of that security goes down.

The First Allied malls are at the low-end of the market, without the prestigious anchor tenants that other malls have, and the future for anything but high-end malls generally is bleak, with many shutting down. The Glazers clearly aren't making anything out of this business as they're taking £2.5m each out of united each year and one at least has sold a large block of shares. They therefore need united to be financially successful to keep the share price high as it appears to be their only liquid asset and may be propping up other the other part of their business holdings as well as personal borrowings. If the share price were to collapse, it could seriously hurt them.

I've often wondered why they haven't got rid of united, when they had the chance to get £2bn or more. I suspect that they either can't sell the shares (as they're tied up in securing other borrowings) or that the £2bn they might have got isn't even enough to cover their various liabilities.

 

[manctheknife]

Interesting.
You may be able to enlighten...what has happened to that 500mill bond issue?...I think it was due to mature in 2017...if so, its coming on top...I presume the bond holders will want at least there money back and a little more?...has this disappeared, it never shows up in the numbers...

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Interesting.
You may be able to enlighten...what has happened to that 500mill bond issue?...I think it was due to mature in 2017...if so, its coming on top...I presume the bond holders will want at least there money back and a little more?...has this disappeared, it never shows up in the numbers...

They repaid some and refinanced most if not all of the rest of it I believe. Repayment of those new borrowings isn't due until 2027.

 

[manctheknife]

They repaid some and refinanced most if not all of the rest of it I believe. Repayment of those new borrowings isn't due until 2027.

A very tangled web then....deferring payback another 10 years?...who lends money out on that basis without a great rate?...

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Hilarious piece from the BBC..... they don't even compare the rags to City as one of the rivals, but include Liverpool!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z9j9j6f

 

[blue b4 the moon]

I'd guess that we'll only know when they're in real shit as the accounts are all in shaddows in the Caymen's when they have to flog the swamps name......

The Ocean Finance Old Trafford has a nice ring to it.

 

[laserblue]

Hilarious piece from the BBC..... they don't even compare the rags to City as one of the rivals, but include Liverpool!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z9j9j6f

But they do repeat that bullshit about them having 659 million fans though.

From what I heard some time ago that totally bogus figure is based on a market research company asking a ridiculously small sample of people (a few thousand) some unremarkable questions. These apparently included showing them a picture of the club crest minus the wording and a photo of Shrek and asking them if they ever watch the rags on TV. Anybody who could identify the pics or who confirmed they watch the rags on TV (which most football fans - including many City fans - do at some time or other, even if it's only to watch them playing their own teams) was classed as a 'follower'. (Note not as a 'fan'). They then extrapolated that figure as a percentage of the world's population and came out with the ludicrous total of 659 million 'followers'. The rags then changed 'followers' to 'fans' and Operation Bullshit was complete.

 

[Bill]

I've been watching their "would you want Mourinho as manager" poll,just to prove to a thick rag how fickle and full of shit their fans are.
The poll started when he was at Chelsea and 71% were saying no way would they touch him,he's over rated,a ****,eye gouging twat ETC.
Chelsea sack him and it goes to 79% in favour of having him..."he's the special one"...."best of the best"...blah,blah,blah.
Nothing happens in the few weeks after his sacking and its dropped to 51% and he's back to being a ****,vile bastard ETC.
Latest rumours and hey presto it's back up to 80% in favour and yep,he's a fuckin God.

love this.

 

[abudabuser]

But they do repeat that bullshit about them having 659 million fans though.

From what I heard some time ago that totally bogus figure is based on a market research company asking a ridiculously small sample of people (a few thousand) some unremarkable questions. These apparently included showing them a picture of the club crest minus the wording and a photo of Shrek and asking them if they ever watch the rags on TV. Anybody who could identify the pics or who confirmed they watch the rags on TV (which most football fans - including many City fans - do at some time or other, even if it's only to watch them playing their own teams) was classed as a 'follower'. (Note not as a 'fan'). They then extrapolated that figure as a percentage of the world's population and came out with the ludicrous total of 659 million 'followers'. The rags then changed 'followers' to 'fans' and Operation Bullshit was complete.

But they do repeat that bullshit about them having 659 million fans though.
They may have a far greater following than us globally but that is only because of their history. We are catching up quickly so nothing to worry about. Without baconface they can't attract top players so they may beat us in popularity but we beat them in riches and on the pitch where it most matters.

 

[super_city_si]

I hope they do get Mourinho. His football is boring as fuck. Have you ever tried watching chelsea when he was in charge? The rags love their crosses in volume and he wont provide that.