Dave_Og Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Whatever REAL....I was not in the process of arguing the point of Chris Moore...just trying to clarify a situation, however you make it sound as if Chris Moore did nowt......whereas in fact he gave the club £4.5m less £1.00, how, where, why, or for what or from whom it came is irrelevant, he would have HAD to account for it at some later date, as his business was subjected to serious fraud investigations at a later date..... and we all know the outcome ! I believe you will find that that figure was shown as a figure from his personal funds - how he got them or how they got into his bank account is something we can only guess at now Torex has some chequered history ! I think you'll find the outcome hasn't come out yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 The fact is that they are profitable and we make a loss. The debt is a result of the Glaziers transfering the cost to them of buying the club from their personal account to the club, not that disimilar to taking an equity release loan on your house. If they hadn't done that they would just be taking far bigger profits out of the club to fund their personal debt. If Glazier offered the club for £700m he would have people biting his arm off. They're in the :censored:e if the banking system is still as fragile as some analysts are claiming, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 They're in the :censored:e if the banking system is still as fragile as some analysts are claiming, though. Not sure about that - it reminds me of when the Northern Rock trouble first started, and people with a mortgage were worried. If I owed a bank £700m I would sleep content in the knowledge that they were saying their prayers for my total success every night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Not sure about that - it reminds me of when the Northern Rock trouble first started, and people with a mortgage were worried. If I owed a bank £700m I would sleep content in the knowledge that they were saying their prayers for my total success every night. It depends. Another phase in the banking crisis and the bailouts might stop. You can't bail them out indefinitely. And what will happen then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) Not sure about that - it reminds me of when the Northern Rock trouble first started, and people with a mortgage were worried. If I owed a bank £700m I would sleep content in the knowledge that they were saying their prayers for my total success every night.Much of the credit advanced against Man Utd is due for repayment between now and 2013. At the time the loans were taken it would have been reasonable to assume that they could be refinanced easily should full repayment of the capital not be available. The credit crunch has massively changed that scenario. If a bank's liabilities (savings accounts and wholesale funds) are exceeded by their assets (loans) they are basically insolvent. Calling in loans as and when they are due to be repaid/refinanced is one way to avoid insolvency because it brings the asset values back in line with the liabilities of the bank. What would you do if you were a lender who couldn't raise the funds to lend? Ultimately if a lender goes bust the assets (loans) remain as does the commitment from borrowers to repay the debt. Edited June 15, 2009 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Much of the credit advanced against Man Utd is due for repayment between now and 2013. At the time the loans were taken it would have been reasonable to assume that they could be refinanced easily should full repayment of the capital not be available. The credit crunch has massively changed that scenario. If a bank's liabilities (savings accounts and wholesale funds) are exceeded by their assets (loans) they are basically insolvent. Calling in loans as and when they are due to be repaid/refinanced is one way to avoid insolvency because it brings the asset values back in line with the liabilities of the bank. What would you do if you were a lender who couldn't raise the funds to lend? Ultimately if a lender goes bust the assets (loans) remain as does the commitment from borrowers to repay the debt. The bottom line is that even ManUre isn't Too Big to Fail. (Rejoice!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but as the sometimes-wrong MEN reported a week ago: Record profit for United James Robson June 04, 2009 UNITED have made a world record operating profit for a football club, according to the latest figures announced. The Premier League champions made £71.8m for the season 2007-8 to put them at the top of the money tree globally. Their revenue of £257.1m also saw them outperform the rest of their Premier League rivals - with figures suggesting they are bucking the global economic crisis. Giant But they are still behind Real Madrid (£289.6m) in terms of revenue generated, though that owes much to the slump of the pound against the Euro. The figures - compiled by Deloitte's Annual Review of Football Finance - come a day after United announced a new £80m shirt sponsorship deal with American financial giant Aon Corp. That deal and the results published by Deloitte will be further justification to the Glazer family that they are fully capable of servicing the £500m debt leveraged to buy the club in 2005. So even if the Glaziers do owe $700m rather than the 500 quoted above, they turned a margin over over 10% on it last year. That, ladies and gentlemen, makes it an absolutely golden investment even in boom times, never mind in a global recession. If for any reason the Glaziers couldn't re-finance the debt there would be any number of institutions eager to buy it off them and give them several hundred million extra into the bargain. Sorry folks, but they are not in any trouble whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 So even if the Glaziers do owe $700m rather than the 500 quoted above, they turned a margin over over 10% on it last year.Before or after interest charges (believed to be fixed at 8%)? That, ladies and gentlemen, makes it an absolutely golden investment even in boom times, never mind in a global recession. If for any reason the Glaziers couldn't re-finance the debt there would be any number of institutions eager to buy it off them and give them several hundred million extra into the bargain.I don't think they're in any trouble whatsoever although refinancing the debt (as I doubt they are going to repay it) may not be as easy as they exepcted in the current climate, especially as bank liquidity remains an issue for any borrowing beyond 12 months. Ultimately they are a saleable asset worth more than the debt owed. But being big on its own does not make a business immune from failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 The people I work for have just reduced their debt to the tune of approx. £500m. I'm pretty certain other companies are currently undergoing the same debt restructuring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostofcecere Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 The fact is that they are profitable and we make a loss. The debt is a result of the Glaziers transfering the cost to them of buying the club from their personal account to the club, not that disimilar to taking an equity release loan on your house. If they hadn't done that they would just be taking far bigger profits out of the club to fund their personal debt. If Glazier offered the club for £700m he would have people biting his arm off. Agreed on the ability to make profits issue, but their interest payments alone are $124M a year and last year and their PBT was reported at $22M. It would seem to invest in the team they would need to sell (step up Mr.Ronaldo) just in the same we we would have to. A drop in TV money rights or failure to reach the Champions Leaugue would be disaterous for them, and with Taggart due for retirement in the near future the wheels could come off during the rebuilding process...... or let's hope so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.