nitrogen:


The Arab money no dey too flow again sef. City borrows to fund the club’s activities.

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/chelsea-debt-financing-todd-boehly-clearlake-owners-abramovich-premier-league/

just imagine..I no get issues with Glazers cuz dem dey do their best (my opinion though). business no easy to run especially Club like Man Utd.

Today, man utd is not even one of the clubs with the largest debt. Wait, if we consider clubs that owe indirectly e.g. Chelsea, City even PSG, (debt held at holding company level), Utd owe almost nothing and won’t even feature in this list.

Look at the two pictures below. Check how the press is using Man Utd to catch cruise because the fans are gullible.

Why include Utd (number 9 on the log) and Barca (number 1) in the headline? Why not Barca and Juventus. An average Utd fan will read the headline and start shouting ‘Glazers have milked Utd’.

nitrogen:
Look at the two pictures below. Check how the press is using Man Utd to catch cruise because the fans are gullible.

Why include Utd (number 9 on the log) and Barca (number 1) in the headline? Why not Barca and Juventus. An average Utd fan will read the headline and start shouting ‘Glazers have milked Utd’.

Dem know say na only Man Utd fans dey word 'Debt' dey trigger.

patrickmuf:
I saw your first post and to be honest, you fired the first shot and it was aimed at nitr.ogen...It was not necessary and that's why he was brash in his reply...Ni.trogen is not one that goes the way of insult...

No matter what, try to make your points without insulting others as you have been doing before now even if yours is the popular opinion...

It says a lot when you relate any post about Glaziers sympathizers to Nitrogen.

Look at the initial post. It was about people that say a particular thing. I literally stated it specifically. People that say 'Sebi they're spending money now'. How's that about Nitrogen?

patrickmuf:
Why do you like misrepresenting someone else's opinion?

I said we can get him to compete with Rashford in the mean time whilst Elanga and Garnacho develop their game and their physique afterwards he can be trained to play as a CF so he can compete with Martial post Ronaldo as he has the qualities to play as a CF if well coached but you don change am to mean I said he should come and play as a CF...You guys sometimes overrate the EPL.

If a small team signs him and in 2-3 seasons we return for him and the fee is £80m it's still you guys that will curse the club for failing to buy him now...There's no guarantees as far as transfers are concerned, it's all a risk...

When Danny Ings was at Burnley, I suggested we get him as an option coming from the bench but almost everyone here objected to it but looking back now, Ings would've done a very good job for us...

I am also certain if someone here had suggested Malacia for 12m, some of you would've countered the person...The thing is for some of you, if the price quoted for a player is not in the region of £70-100m then the player is not good enough...

No one here was against Malacia's signing when he got linked to us.

Question is have you actually watched this Gakpo?

nitrogen:
Look at the two pictures below. Check how the press is using Man Utd to catch cruise because the fans are gullible.

Why include Utd (number 9 on the log) and Barca (number 1) in the headline? Why not Barca and Juventus. An average Utd fan will read the headline and start shouting ‘Glazers have milked Utd’.

You forgot to add that before glazers united was debtless. The debt you are seeing there is due to the Glazers.

Debt accrued due to player purchase and other things related to a club is being compared to debt put on the club by the owners.

If I talk now, they'll say I started something.

Jodera:
Meaning he'll play as Cm with a more defensive-aware Dm. Still same thing I'm saying.

If he's less of a roamer and more of a ball recycler, it would have been better.

He likes to drop very deep to pick the ball, deep like DM position, pick from there, move it forward. The ball winner go likely play more of CM

Trevor012:

You forgot to add that before glazers united was debtless. The debt you are seeing there is due to the Glazers.

Hmmmm, so the debt was carried forward indefinitely from 2005? Lol. Whatever debt you see today is due to player acquisition and operating costs. Companies pay down debt and borrow everytime.

ChristoBam:
Debt accrued due to player purchase and other things related to a club is being compared to debt put on the club by the owners.

If I talk now, they'll say I started something.

What did the Glazers use the current debt to do? Tell us!

How much do we pay in debt repayment yearly again?

Given our revenues, with those debt numbers, we must have renovated the stadium, built new facilities and signed a trio of Mbappe, Neymar and Felix, right?

ovoP:
City isn't United.. If you buy a small team, you'll need more investment to make it big, than buying a bigger team at the top.. City didn't spend much(net spend) in this window, because dey have a good team, but a bad team will need more investment..

I didnt even see this post

Man City that Sheikh bought was like Crystal Palace of Today while Man utd that Glazer bought was like Liverpool or Man City of today

So which will cost more Crystal Palace or Man City and which will need more investment to fight for the title

nitrogen:


Hmmmm, so the debt was carried forward indefinitely from 2005? Lol. Whatever debt you see today is due to player acquisition and operating costs. Companies pay down debt and borrow everytime.

The debt you are seeing there is due to the buyout leverage glazers used in buying the club not player acquisition or operating cost.

Trevor012:

The debt you are seeing there is due to the buyout leverage glazers used in buying the club not player acquisition or operating cost.

That’s not true. So, the buyout debt has a 20 year term? How does that sound to you?

An average Utd fan thinks the debt on the books today is the acquisition debt. Damn!

An average football fan should just watch football and keep their noses off how the clubs are run, abeg!

nitrogen:


That’s not true. So, the buyout debt has a 20 year term? How does that sound to you?

You think we have paid the debt finished or what? We have been paying interest without touching the actual debt. Pik loans carried an extremely high rate of interest because the Glazers borrowed so much money that the bank doubted their ability to pay back. The annual interest payments alone from the first six years of Glazer ownership were £75m, that's about £450m between 2005-2010 taken away from the club and paid to banks thanks to your darling Glazers. It was in 2010 the loan agreement was restructured and m interest dropped. we started paying 20m per annum to service the debt.

nitrogen:
An average Utd fan thinks the debt on the books today is the acquisition debt. Damn!

An average football fan should just watch football and keep their noses off how the clubs are run, abeg!

Baba United debt is the same one from the 2005 Acquisition. Go and do your research.

Trevor012:

You think we have paid the debt finished or what? Pik loans carried an extremely high rate of interest because the Glazers borrowed so much money that the bank doubted their ability to pay back. The annual interest payments alone from the first six years of Glazer ownership were £75m, that's about £450m between 2005-2010 taken away from the club and paid to banks thanks to your darling Glazers. It was in 2010 the loan interest dropped and we started paying 20m per annum to service the debt.

Tell me which lender will give you a loan for 20 years. Also, what’s PIK? I am not sure any of that still exists in the books. Go check the 2021 annual report.

Trevor012:

You think we have paid the debt finished or what? We have been paying interest without touching the actual debt. Pik loans carried an extremely high rate of interest because the Glazers borrowed so much money that the bank doubted their ability to pay back. The annual interest payments alone from the first six years of Glazer ownership were £75m, that's about £450m between 2005-2010 taken away from the club and paid to banks thanks to your darling Glazers. It was in 2010 the loan agreement was restructured and m interest dropped. we started paying 20m per annum to service the debt.

How long have we been paying this debt? Even countries don't stretch loans over such a large period. How are we only paying interest, did we miss any repayment?
I think Nitrogen knows more about how these things work than you do, or probably anyone else here. If we never defaulted on any payment there is no way we should only be servicing interest on one loan since 2005. There is usually an agreement over how long it'll take to repay a loan, the interests are factored into the calculation.

Trevor012:

Baba United debt is the same one from the 2005 Acquisition. Go and do your research.

These guys writing the articles bring in sensationalism so you guys can continue to read their stuffs. Do you want to see the annual report? I can share it here, just that you need to take your time to read it and understand what’s going on. The debt is not carried from 2005, no lender will give you an 18 year loan. It sounds ridiculous!

melodyogonna:

How long have we been paying this debt? Even countries don't stretch loans over such a large period. How are we only paying interest, did we miss any repayment?
I think Nitrogen knows more about how these things work than you do, or probably anyone else here. If we never defaulted on any payment there is no way we should only be servicing interest on one loan since 2005. There is usually an agreement over how long it'll take to repay a loan, the interests are factored into the calculation.

Go and do your own research then bring facts to counter me. Loan agreement was restructured many times to lower the amount of interest rate being paid. Since 2005 we have paid 700m plus on interest alone in servicing thee debt. We haven't even touched half of the debt.

nitrogen:


Tell me which lender will give you a loan for 20 years. Also, what’s PIK? I am not sure any of that still exists in the books. Go check the 2021 annual report.

Baba do research and bring up facts. The debt you are seeing there is the same debt from 2005.

melodyogonna:

How long have we been paying this debt? Even countries don't stretch loans over such a large period. How are we only paying interest, did we miss any repayment?
I think Nitrogen knows more about how these things work than you do, or probably anyone else here. If we never defaulted on any payment there is no way we should only be servicing interest on one loan since 2005. There is usually an agreement over how long it'll take to repay a loan, the interests are factored into the calculation.

I am also struggling to see how a loan can be stretched to 18/20 years. Even infrastructure operating companies (e.g Airports and Power companies) with tangible assets that have lives of close to 30 years struggle to raise 20-year loans. I know this because I live and breathe it. I have structured lots of lots of these transactions with size that far exceed Utd’s enterprise value.

Most times, only governments can pull it off. Reason we see 20 and 30 year bonds issued by federal governments and some municipals.

nitrogen:


These guys writing the articles bring in sensationalism so you guys can continue to read their stuffs. Do you want to see the annual report? I can share it here, just that you need to take your time to read it and understand what’s going on. The debt is not carried from 2005, no lender will give you an 18 year loan. It sounds ridiculous!

Bring whatever you want to bring. Many financial experts and even individuals on redcafe have done their own research and it's all the same thing. Look how much we have paid on interest alone.

Trevor012:

Go and do your own research then bring facts to counter me. Loan agreement was restructured many times to lower the amount of interest rate being paid. Since 2005 we have paid 700m plus on interest alone in servicing thee debt. We haven't even touched half of the debt.

It’s tough to restructure same loan many times. It’s not a good thing, it means the business is struggling and after 2-3 restructurings of the same loan, lenders will either take over the asset at some point or find ways to exit and won’t ever come close to you again. This sends a message to other lenders.

melodyogonna:

How long have we been paying this debt? Even countries don't stretch loans over such a large period. How are we only paying interest, did we miss any repayment?
I think Nitrogen knows more about how these things work than you do, or probably anyone else here. If we never defaulted on any payment there is no way we should only be servicing interest on one loan since 2005. There is usually an agreement over how long it'll take to repay a loan, the interests are factored into the calculation.

Nitrogen is wrong.

Trevor012:

Bring whatever you want to bring. Many financial experts and even individuals on redcafe have done their own research and it's all the same thing. Look how much we have paid on interest alone.

The interest you see there is cumulative. Includes interest on acquisition debt that has since been paid off and on debt obtained for business activities.

Stop swallowing stuffs from the press.

MRTA7:


Nitrogen is wrong.

Lol, tell us the right thing.

For anyone that cares, check the cashflow and indebtedness section and tell/show me where the acquisition debt and PIK loans are.

https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/documents/2021-mu-plc-form-20-f.pdf

nitrogen:


It’s tough to restructure same loan many times. It’s not a good thing, it means the business is struggling and after 2-3 restructurings of the same loan, lenders will either take over the asset at some point or find ways to exit and won’t ever come close to you again. This sends a message to other lenders.

Go and do you research on P.i.k loans. That was the system glazers used for the leverage buyout.

nitrogen:


The interest you see there is cumulative. Includes interest on acquisition debt that has since been paid off and on debt obtained for business activities.

Stop swallowing stuffs from the press.

The amount you see there is the cumulation of the annum interest payment made in servicing the debt that your glazers dropped on the club since 2005.