I think its you my friend that has the lowest intelligence on this site. All Liverpool said was they would adhere to the rules, and their strategy to do so was to increase growth and cut costs. Arsenal have done the same thing. It was Manchester United that demanded that the FFP be fast-tracked into the PL. In other words, the bullies have finally met their match, and have been stomped on and they don't like it one bit. Were they crying foul when they were paying £29 million for 18 years olds? Of course not. Were they crying foul when they were the first club to pay close to £30 million for a centre-back 11 years ago? Of course not. With David Gill now working for UEFA and ready to suck Michel Platini's dick at every opportunity, they will get their own way. However it won't do them much good, as neither Liverpool or Arsenal have debt repayments, they are well capable of picking a fight with Manchester United and winning.
Yep first to pay £30million Not the first to pay £15million though.... Never splashed £100million in one window either as it goes. Our record has remained at around £30million for over a decade. Its lower that Liverpools for example and considering our 3 near £30million ( rooney was 25.6m ) signings were all well established players its probably isnt wise for you as a Liverpool fan to question them considering a certain Andrew Carroll who you signed as a completely unproven striker for £35million. Even Rooney had proved more that Carroll and he was near enough £10million cheaper.
UIR needs to make his mind up, we are either victims at the hands of the 'Money men' or we have spunked more money up the wall than any other club. You can't have it both ways UIR! Diego, this I'm not a WUM I am constantly wummed so you joining them won't make the slightest bit of difference mate!
Not surprised by this, you talk scribble, why do you find it hard to understand simple things like the PIK`s are gone so no more interest being paid on them, FFP means clubs are expected to be self sustaining which United are, debts will only cause a problem to any club if they cannot be serviced by the clubs income. You make some fair points but seem incapable of taking in what other people say if it does not fit your version of the truth, this is what makes me ask are you a wum or stupid.
The PIK loans(£220m)were paid for by further borrowing? It's been said that the aftermath of the PIKS's debt will only vanish if IPO flotation is successful. So the PIK's have been replaced by the borrowing(debt)it cost to get rid of them? You should really explain the whole issue of the PIK's instead of picking the bits out that suit you.
Didn`t think i needed to explain since the PIK`s were paid off by the Glazer`s not by the club borrowing more. If you know different please post something to prove this extra borrowing exists. EDIT sorry never noticed the question marks at the end of each statement, are you asking me if you are correct?
Of course, why else would there be question marks? High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3b46647c-2f00-11e0-88ec-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz25vRovKJC In November, the Glazers, who never discuss their ownership, paid down the £220m of punitive high-interest payment-in-kind (pik) loans taken out in 2006, a year after they bought the club in a highly leveraged £790m deal. The club, which had accrued more than £20m of interest on those loans, has remained silent on how the pik loans were repaid.
Sorry the links keep asking me to sign up for the FT and wil not allow me to read the articles, do they state United borrowed money to pay off the PIK`s or not?
The club and the Glazers both kept quiet as to how the £220m was paid, if the Glazers paid it they'd have made it a priority to let the fans know but the silence on the issue points to the opposite. Cant blame Utd fans for finding ways to reassure themselves about the debt really, but **** happens in the world of finance and greed.
So just speculation and wishfull thinking then, the financials will have to show if it was more borrowing (you can`t hide that), please don`t get like whonext and make a fool of yourself.
What United fans have seemed to failed to realise is that the only way the Double Glazers will make any return on the New York Stock Exchange is if the price drops. They sold 10 million shares for $14 each, should those shares rise to $20 it will cost the Glazers £200 million to buy back shares that they sold for £140 million. In other words they must pray that those shares drop to $12 by the time it comes for them to buy them back. It may come to pass that the Glazers will pay off their debt in 2017, the bad news will be, that it will be with a loan.
They have made there money. While they may want to buy them back at some point there isnt really anything to suggest they will. The share price really doesnt mean **** all to them anymore.
Stop being foolish Diego, the Glazers move the registration of the debt around to hide having to disclose information of their dealings. Very naive of you to think otherwise tbh. So yes the PIK's debt has been paid but the £220m it cost was paid by saddling Utd with more debt. Unless you care to post a link to prove otherwise?
As pointed out earlier their was no conformation by MUFC or the Glazer family as to which entity paid off the £220m PIK loan. So seeing as you're a financial wizard on all things to do with the Utd debt you will no doubt be able to prove it was indeed the Glazers that paid the £220m?
Thats exactly what has been said. The Glazers take out loans to pay off loans. Another thing that they have failed to realise is, that the FFP states that any club cannot be in debt of more than 15% of the clubs worth. So supposing Manchester United are worth £1.4 billion(10% being worth £140 million), their £655 million debt( Thats £435 million+ £220 million owed on the PIKS) is worth more than 15% of their overall valuation. Therefore they would be breaking the rules of the FFP, that means no European football. So whinging and crying about having the FFP's in place may not be the best idea, when you're unable to adhere to the rules of the FFP.
Page, its down to you to prove they were refinanced and the debt saddled on the club not the other way round. Considering our debt is below £400million now I suspect the debt wasnt placed on the club as it would be shown on our latest account.
