Man Utd bonds?

thor

StevieJ wrote: »

Then again some teams now only exist because of a sugar daddy Man Utd could be floated on the stock exchange tomorrow and that 9% yield shared between the club for capex and the shareholders would look very tasty.

Can someone explain why Utd are in debt? I know that the glazers are supposed to have loaded the debt on to the club in order to buy them(like has happened at Loserpool) but exactly what is involved? If they had remained on the stock market they could easily have bought all the players they did and had more money left over(not having to pay any interest). Unlike Leeds, Real Madrid or the big Italian teams Utd really could have funded everything they wanted and not had to borrow a penny

Ian_W

thor wrote: »

1)Can someone explain why Utd are in debt?
2)If they had remained on the stock market they could easily have bought all the players they did and had more money left over(not having to pay any interest).

1) Glazers borrowed heavily from Banks and Hedge Funds to buy the club - end of! Some of the interest rolls-up rather than being repaid worryingly increasing the amount of debt. :mad:
2) Don't know all the ins and outs but it is allegedly the case that as a publicly quoted PLC they would have had much more difficulty buying and selling assets (players) given to-days valuations than as a privately owned company. However, if they had to go private to compete it would have been much better to have found a suitor who could actually afford the price without having to go so much into hock!

dunstonh wrote:

Its like having an interest only mortgage and taking another one out to pay the monthly payments.

Poor analogy for an IFA dh! :rolleyes:
It's actually an attempt to remortgage from 14.25% (rolls-up, not being repaid!! :eek:) to the Hedgies to 9% on the Bond market. A bit like swapping Equity Release for an interest only mortgage if you want an analogy.

Seems the warm weather training in Qatar wasn't a strange choice of venue after all - STORY. Hmmm, will City be the richest club in the world for much longer? :cool:

EDIT to add:
A football club conservatively valued at £1.2billion -
that'd be Leeds United then? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Thrugelmir

The Glazers have also taken £23 million out of the club for consultancy fees and a family member has been lent £10 million.

Football is going to implode.

piggeh

dunstonh wrote: »

Cheeky. I was born in Chelsea and saw my first game (against Fulham) when I was 6. So, at least I am loyal to to my place of birth and my first team.

I think you have to consider the usage of the words 'most chelsea fans' witihn the quoted statement

But then, most fans of [insert any FL club pretty much] do not live in [name of immediate conurbation club is named after].

People move away, live a few miles away, etc, so support their local club, but aren't actually in the conurbation the club is in. Chelsea. The borough of Kensington & Chelsea only has a population of 158,000 so of course most Chelsea fans don't live in Chelsea!

Anyway...

I would only ever buy football bonds if I am a supporter of that club and willing to accept the money may not be paid back for a while. They will probably ask bondholders to extend payment terms etc and rely on their loyalty as supporters.

I think Arsenal fans were a bit upset about their bond a few years back (early 90s) because they subsequently got fleeced.

thor

Ian_W wrote: »

2) However, if they had to go private to compete it would have been much better to have found a suitor who could actually afford the price without having to go so much into hock!

I guess they shareholders saw dollar signs and sold out. Certainly UTD as a PLC could have more than afforded all their big buys.