Manchester United Rumours Archive October 13 2010

13 Oct 2010 21:32:20
Manchester United Rumours
In response to
13 Oct 2010 19:10:03
Manchester United Rumours
United r not gonna sign de gea or lindegarrd but adler instead. he is more experienced than lindegard and also would be cheaper than de gea who has already built a reputation

that would be a smart move.
He is actually better then Neuer, he was just unlucky to get injured before the world cup, he was already confirmed as Germanys No 1.
And he is a mad United fan, he even has a single release clause in his contract which is specifically for United, noone else.

13 Oct 2010 19:06:30
Manchester United Rumours
Manchester United Rumours
Retire: in. january:
scholes lindergaard £6m
giggs in.summer:
vds defour £10m
neville bale £24m
out: ganso £5m(pablo hen
park £7m rique lima)
diouf £3m ( give cleverly a chance!)
da laet £1m
anderson
£9m
HARGREAVES IS BACK! ! ! !:)

@Ganso has a 50m buy-out clause, so stop with the dreams lad, oh and Diouf & De Laet are worth double the amount you have quoted. Oh and no one will be retiring in January, well perhaps Hargreaves if he crocks again.

13 Oct 2010 17:39:00
Manchester United Rumours
Retire: in. january:
scholes lindergaard £6m
giggs in.summer:
vds defour £10m
neville bale £24m
out: ganso £5m(pablo hen
park £7m rique lima)
diouf £3m ( give cleverly a chance!)
da laet £1m
anderson
£9m
HARGREAVES IS BACK! ! ! ! ! !:)

13 Oct 2010 16:07:56
Manchester United Rumours
"Also Gill has said on many occasions that the United revenue will not be used to pay for the PIKs, why would he lie? I mean sooner or later he would get found out, so why lie? Could he be telling the truth? Could our revenue remain untouched? Could people just be being paranoid?"

- All Gill's statements about this are from before the refinance and the Bond Issue. I believe one of the terms of United's loans was that they wouldn't be responsible for PIK repayment. This is probably why Gill made the statements he did at the time - i.e. he had to. I've actually got a high opinion of Gill - I think he's an excellent Chief Exec working under difficult circumstances. Anyway, the prospectus for the Bond Issue clearly laid out a path for up to £130m to be paid or loaned to Red Football Joint Venture Ltd and that the sum could be used to clear that companies' indebtedness - which is the PIKs.

"How much is Carrington worth? Will Red Football Ltd buy it then lease it back?"

- The prospectus gave the club the option to transfer ownership from the club itself to Red Football Joint Venture Ltd (parent company of the parent company). It wouldn't be a buy-out as such, just a transfer of where the asset lies. However, RFJV could then charge the club rent (effectively) for using the facility. This is a very common business practice, to be fair - many companies have a holding company that owns their premises - the company then pays rent to the holding company. This is advantageous as a) it reduces profits at the company itself, meaning less revenue goes to the taxman and b) it gives the owners a cash float they can access in the holding company and, if required, a separate source of revenue.

DarkLard08

13 Oct 2010 14:54:32
Just one correction on my last post - it is of course Red Football JOINT VENTURE Ltd that Red Football / United are in debt to.

Just to throw something out there - what if a solution to the long-term debt was to sell a 50 year lease on Old Trafford to company xyz and then for United to lease it back? It isn't that dissimilar to the arrangements Madrid, Barcelona and the 2 Milan clubs have. . Although, of course, no naming rights allowed.

DarkLard08

13 Oct 2010 14:45:24
Manchester United Rumours
Question for DarkLard08

How much is Carrington worth?

Will Red Football Ltd buy it then lease it back?

13 Oct 2010 11:58:29
Manchester United Rumours
~I have just been told that United are targeting Lindegaard as Van Der Sar's replacement, its all over the papers i know but i have just been told by a very reliable source that Lindegaard will be United's first signing in January. He will cost around 4m. Another target is Defour, Fergie likes to give players a year to see how they recover from their injuries and he is now ready to go for Defour, he is valued at just 10-12m.

Another target is Gareth Bale, Fergie really wants this guy but its unlikely to happen unless Spurs fail to qualify for the Champions league. After having a sniff at the Champions League once, he is likely to want more and United can offer him more. Spurs value him at 30m whilst United value him at 20m. I would imagine they will meet in the middle. A twist to this rumour, again something i heard from my source is that Fergie wants him as a left back to replace Evra in the future.

25m would be a large sum for a left back but then again he is just 21 and can play left wing if needed.

Lindegaard - 4m
Defour - 10m
Bale - 25m
Cleverley
Welbeck

Carrick - 8m
Park - 6m
Owen - Free
Drinkwater - 1.5m
Chester - 1m
De Laet - 2m
Gibson - 5m
Diouf - 6m

Neville
Van Der Sar
Scholes
Giggs

TOTAL NET SPEND £9.5m

Sydney!

13 Oct 2010 11:09:58
Manchester United Rumours
SIR ALEX IS NOT SPENDING BIG BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT WHEN HE RETIRES THE NEW MANAGER WOULD REQUIRE REBUILDING TIME AND A LOT OF CASH
THAT IS WHY HE IS NOT SPENDING BIG
BUT HE WILL SPEND BIG ON A GOALKEEPER IN NEW YEAR AND IT WILL BE A BIG SURPRISE

13 Oct 2010 10:38:31
Manchester United Rumours
Just got to correct some more financial innacuracies:

"They are paying the debt though? Well sort of they pulled out a 500M Bond Issue. In which 40M a year has to go towards paying off, luckily enough for us the money MUFC makes can pay that off every year, that's the case right now anyway."

- The current payments on the Bond Issue are interest only, i.e. the debt itself is not reducing

"The bad is that we lost 83.6M, not a small number by any means, and 67m of that 83.6M is due to one off payments & the debt related to the bond scheme/issue. The other 16.6M may be due to player transfers, I am unsure though."

- We made an operating profit of £100m, but a net loss of £83m. That is a difference of £183m, not £83m. The £183m was made up of around £12m net on players, £67m extraordinary costs and over £100m servicing existing debt (the bond and PIK interest)

"And yes there really is 165M in bank that can be used for transfer money; the figures were released to the public less then a week ago?"

- The £165m is the business' float - it would need around £50m - £60m cash just for day-to-day operation. That leaves £100m. I would suggest that most of that would be held back either to help repay PIKs or guard against a possible £70m shortfall next season if we fail to make the Champions League. Remember, we had £230m cash in the bank 6 months ago - and none of that got used for transfers.

DarkLard08

13 Oct 2010 10:38:25
Manchester United Rumours
Manchester United Rumours
If the Glazers are so smart, why did they get Utd in £1bn debt? And that talk about £160m in the bank, laughable. Don't you think that would've been used to clear some of the debt?

@United are EXACTLY 521.7m in debt, 509.5m of it is set up in bonds and cannot be paid off until 2017.

13 Oct 2010 09:50:37
Manchester United Rumours
Anderson to porto