Manchester Uniteds 'Loan' repayments

Hi guys,

how can i pay this bloody loan off in my save game, the interest is crippling me, i have a 94m transfer budget but i'd sooner use that to pay the loan off.

is there anyway i can do this?

thanks in advance guys

how far are you into the game?

in all my saves and my housemates, united get taken over after 3 or 4 seasons with most of the debt cleared, so dont worry about it.

But, to answer your question, i don't think you can pay off any of the loan with transfer budget funds, unfourtunately.

loan repayments are down to the board and not the manager.

if you wanted to you coulde use FMRTE to deduct the money from the clubs balance and put it towards the loan

I think this is incorrect brez22. IRL they issued Bonds (basically, new loans) that have a lower interest rate to pay of all the existing loans, almost like some ocean finance consolidation or something! The Glaziers have never once used any of their own money in either the purchase or running of Manu Utd - FACT.

The thing is with these bonds, they are re-payable in full in 'X' years rather than being paid off monthly (interest is still paid monthly/yearly), so I am looking foward to a nice situation ala Liverpool & RBS in the near future with them!

:-D

I think this is incorrect brez22. IRL they issued Bonds (basically, new loans) that have a lower interest rate to pay of all the existing loans, almost like some ocean finance consolidation or something! The Glaziers have never once used any of their own money in either the purchase or running of Manu Utd - FACT.

The thing is with these bonds, they are re-payable in full in 'X' years rather than being paid off monthly (interest is still paid monthly/yearly), so I am looking foward to a nice situation ala Liverpool & RBS in the near future with them!

:-D

Here we go again

In the game they have two debts. One of £509m (bond) and another of £231m (Payment In Kind (PIK)). The Glazers recently paid off the £231m PIK using their OWN MONEY. Just as they said they would do all along. Its nothing to do with the club. When the 11.3 patch is released, you will see that the PIK will be removed from the debt.

The remaining £509m bond has an interest rate of 8.5% which equals £43m interest per year. Which just like IRL, they can easily cover the interst repayments in prize money and TV money alone. The clubs turnover and sponsorships easily keep the club running with regards to wages and maintenance. So............they can afford to pay all the wages, they can afford to pay the interest on the debt so the debt will at least stay at £509m and the club continues to make a profit (despite what the papers say). When the figures are released for the next financial year, you will see a big difference in the state of the finances. Obviously still in debt but nowhere near what was being reported this year.

im in my 4th season,

im only asking because im a stickler for checking things and one thin gi like ot see if the club turning a profit month to month.

if indeed the takeover thing is true happy days, otherwise ill just have to put up with it

im in my 4th season,

im only asking because im a stickler for checking things and one thin gi like ot see if the club turning a profit month to month.

if indeed the takeover thing is true happy days, otherwise ill just have to put up with it

Theres not really anything you can do now as you would have started your game with the PIK included in the debt but that has now been removed. The only thing you could do if you use FMRTE is delete the debt which is listed as £231m and that should at least make your finances a bit more realistic and bring your interest payments down.

i dont use it unfortunatly, thanks for your help pal. just have to hope for some rich arabian oil tycoon or something i guess

Here we go again

In the game they have two debts. One of £509m (bond) and another of £231m (Payment In Kind (PIK)). The Glazers recently paid off the £231m PIK using their OWN MONEY. Just as they said they would do all along. Its nothing to do with the club. When the 11.3 patch is released, you will see that the PIK will be removed from the debt.

Actually the offical statement was - “The Board notes recent press speculation. The Board can confirm that there has been no dividend of Club cash.”

Therefore the only thing they said was that the payment was not made by the club and no loans have been raised against united to pay off that debt.

They may well have re-financed something else (eg american football team) in order to pay that debt - but there is absolultely no garantees that they wont then use united to refinance that debt later on.

i dont use it unfortunatly, thanks for your help pal. just have to hope for some rich arabian oil tycoon or something i guess

I understand a lot of people dont use it. Maybe they think its cheating or whatever but in this case I think its more than justified. When the new patch is released, it WILL have the £231m debt removed (confirmed by Man Utd researcher). It should have been removed in the last patch but the deadline was missed. So now the only way you can be United with the correct finances is by starting a new game which you probably dont want to do. So the only alternative is using FMRTE to remove it as it shouldnt have been there in the first place.

Also before anybody starts, its not cheating, its fixing the finances which should have been correct all along but unfortunately were not. The PIK should never have been included in the first place. From day one the Glazers said it was their own personal debt and had nothing to do with united and no money would be taken from the club to pay it off. But the researcher included it anyway. So since the PIK was taken out, the finances for United have been wrong. Only now does it show the true figure.

Actually the offical statement was - “The Board notes recent press speculation. The Board can confirm that there has been no dividend of Club cash.”

Therefore the only thing they said was that the payment was not made by the club and no loans have been raised against united to pay off that debt.

They may well have re-financed something else (eg american football team) in order to pay that debt - but there is absolultely no garantees that they wont then use united to refinance that debt later on.

They may well do. Obviously we dont know all the background stuff. But the point is, the Glazers said from day 1 that the PIK was nothing to do with United and no money from the club would be used to pay it. That is 100% true. Its been paid. Doesnt matter how, all that is important is that its not come from the club (yet). But ifs and buts arent an issues. you can only deal with fact and the fact is that it was never Uniteds debt and it should never have been included. A fail on SI/Research part I think. As I say, the only facts we had was what the people running and owning the club said. That was ignored and instead an 'opinion' was used for the finances instead of facts. So now for the last however many years the clubs finances have been wrong. Thats not acceptable to me.

Thats not acceptable to me.

Hmm. I can see where you are comming from, but from my perspective it was money raised to purchase united. Most news organisations have always said that united have over £700million debt against them, whereas its always been only £500million. The thing is the Glazers have been VERY unforthcomming with information on their financial situation involving united and thus, I think SI took the view that if all the news broadcasters put it at 700million, then without good detailed information from the glazers, they would go with that.

Hmm. I can see where you are comming from, but from my perspective it was money raised to purchase united. Most news organisations have always said that united have over £700million debt against them, whereas its always been only £500million. The thing is the Glazers have been VERY unforthcomming with information on their financial situation involving united and thus, I think SI took the view that if all the news broadcasters put it at 700million, then without good detailed information from the glazers, they would go with that.

Thats the thing that annoyed me though. For a game that is supposed to be detailed down to the last little thing, you can tjust go ignoring facts and using your own opinion just because it suits. Dont forget were talking about the media here. The same media that look for the doom and gloom in everything. The media can dig all they want. MUST can be as anti-Glazer as they want but the FACT is that everything so far that the Glazers have said they have done. Everything David Gill has said so far regarding finances and whatnot has over time been proven to be true. MUST and the media however have had a list as long as my arm of things that WILL happen to United because of the Glazers and the debt and not one yet has even got close to being true.

So as I see it, there is only one source you should be looking at and that is David Gill as he is the man that comes out and speaks about the clubs finances. He's the guy running the club and knows better than anyone how the club is run, and what money we have/dont have. And so far, everything he has said has proven to be true, no matter how ridiculous it sounded at the time.

Dont get me wrong, I want the Glazers out as much as the next fan, but so far they have kept up their end and as far as I can tell, Gill as been as open as he is allowed to be and not once lied.

I dont see how SI/Research Team can ignore the bloke running the club and think they know better. If provides a data issue saying Player X's D.O.B is wrong, they need to provide proof and it will be changed. The same for everything else. Ive lost count how many times ive provided 'proof' that the PIK was nothing to do with United. These being quotes from the guy running the club, the Glazers themselves and SAF. But no thats not good enough. Obviously they are all liars and the media and everybody else knows best. Then lo and behold, the Glazers/Gill stick to their word, the PIK is paid off and now SI have to remove it.

That is why IMO its unacceptable. One of if not THE biggest club in the world has had its finances wrong for about 3 versions of the game because other people know the finances better than the bloke running the club. Its ridiculous.

That is why IMO its unacceptable. One of if not THE biggest club in the world has had its finances wrong for about 3 versions of the game because other people know the finances better than the bloke running the club. Its ridiculous.

Sorry but where is your evidence that the finances are wrong?

Financial matters in corporations are often complicated while FM simplifies much that goes on especially when you look at the corporate structure of the Man Utd/Glazier entity.

From what I can see the last filed accounts are for year ended 30.06.10. As these are the official accounts these are what FM should be using until accounts are filed for the next year end and even then it seems like the researcher would have to pay to receive a copy (Has he done this?)

Sorry but where is your evidence that the finances are wrong?

Financial matters in corporations are often complicated while FM simplifies much that goes on especially when you look at the corporate structure of the Man Utd/Glazier entity.

From what I can see the last filed accounts are for year ended 30.06.10. As these are the official accounts these are what FM should be using until accounts are filed for the next year end and even then it seems like the researcher would have to pay to receive a copy (Has he done this?)

No my only problem is the inclusion of the PIK. If you remove the PIK, the debt is actually spot on.

All along the Glazers and Gill said the PIK was nothing to do with Man Utd. It was not a debt against the club and no money from the club would be used to pay it off. So why was it included? There is absolutely no reason why it should be. I actually provided links to quotes stating this. That is evidence. At least the only evidence people like us and the researchers are going to get hold of anyway. Its not like detailed documents of Uniteds finances gets banded about. Only guesswork from the media.

In this case, and its in black and white in the data issues forum, the researcher ignored facts and used his 'opinion' regarding the PIK. He refused to believe Gill that it was nothing to do with the club and thought it was basically a lie and another Glazer conspiracy. That is wrong. There isnt even an argument. Now its been paid off, he has removed it and you will see that in the next patch. The point is including it in the first place when it shouldnt have been there. And the point that facts were blatantly ignored and somebody thought their own opinion was more accurate than the words from the mouth of the man running the club.

Id love to see what evidence SI have to show that the PIK was part of the clubs debt.

SI don't have to show you their evidence, infact, SI has no evidence. They have given the task to someone who agreed to be the Man Utd researcher, now anything on the club matters about finances, stadia, personnel etc has to go through him for FM. It's accurate to the best of his knowledge, this doesn't mean its right, it means all that he has been able to find is what has given him that conclusion. If you have something which suggests otherwise, and is recent and up to date I'm sure he'll be grateful and happily include it in the next data lock.

A press conference from anyone isn't conclusive proof. Go ask the Stoke City chairman Peter Coates if we are in for any player, he'll always say no. The same with Tony Pulis, until it reaches a point where it can no longer be denied we always deny we are after a player. Clubs keep things quiet unless its in their best interest to release it, Portsmouths debt didn't come out until after all the owners trying to get what they could from the club were gone. Nobody actually came out and said "Well to be honest as it stands this club should close down tomorrow". If you have access to accounts, have seen reports highlighting the accounts that doesn't come from a biased internal source then by all means go ahead and use it, however, linking to a press conference or release doesn't prove anything.

SI don't have to show you their evidence, infact, SI has no evidence. They have given the task to someone who agreed to be the Man Utd researcher, now anything on the club matters about finances, stadia, personnel etc has to go through him for FM. It's accurate to the best of his knowledge, this doesn't mean its right, it means all that he has been able to find is what has given him that conclusion. If you have something which suggests otherwise, and is recent and up to date I'm sure he'll be grateful and happily include it in the next data lock.

A press conference from anyone isn't conclusive proof. Go ask the Stoke City chairman Peter Coates if we are in for any player, he'll always say no. The same with Tony Pulis, until it reaches a point where it can no longer be denied we always deny we are after a player. Clubs keep things quiet unless its in their best interest to release it, Portsmouths debt didn't come out until after all the owners trying to get what they could from the club were gone. Nobody actually came out and said "Well to be honest as it stands this club should close down tomorrow". If you have access to accounts, have seen reports highlighting the accounts that doesn't come from a biased internal source then by all means go ahead and use it, however, linking to a press conference or release doesn't prove anything.

In most cases I would agree. And I really do see where your coming from. But everything Gill has said so far has actually happened. At the time when he says it you might think its complete BS but thats not the point. The PIK was never ours. It was said from day one. But because the researcher didnt agree, wrong data has been entered for X years with crippling interest on the PIK which in the game is all being taken from the club. IRL thats not the case. They have messed up big time on this. Obviously now the true finances have been revealed, it has been ammended and the PIK removed. Thats great news (albeit 3 years or so too late and should never have been there in the first place).

All along the Glazers and Gill said the PIK was nothing to do with Man Utd. It was not a debt against the club and no money from the club would be used to pay it off. So why was it included? There is absolutely no reason why it should be. I actually provided links to quotes stating this. That is evidence. At least the only evidence people like us and the researchers are going to get hold of anyway. Its not like detailed documents of Uniteds finances gets banded about. Only guesswork from the media.

Right, so on one hand your saying SI should ignore anything in the media as it can't be trusted to be accurate and then on the other your using the same media to provide your evidence.

Can you see where you are going wrong?

As for "Man Utd finances getting banded about" Well as a Plc they have a legal obligation to file accounts once a year and these are available (at a cost) to anybody. If the PIK was listed in those accounts as debt then I expect SI to include that debt in FM irrelevant of what comments the company directors make to media sources.

Here is a link to their recent bond issue: Man Utd Prospectus

I don't expect you to read all 200+ pages of it but I want to point out the corporation structure (page 5) which shows how much more complicated it really is compared to FM and the historical financial information (pages 10-13 & 31-33) which gives figures for years ended 30.06.07, 08 & 09.

I can't comment on how accurately these have been represented in FM as I haven't looked at the FM details over the last few years.

I should also point out its very difficult for finances to be accurately portrayed within the game when the football club is only one arm of a corporation especially when the other arms are providing some of the financial backing the club receives.

Right, so on one hand your saying SI should ignore anything in the media as it can't be trusted to be accurate and then on the other your using the same media to provide your evidence.

Can you see where you are going wrong?

As for "Man Utd finances getting banded about" Well as a Plc they have a legal obligation to file accounts once a year and these are available (at a cost) to anybody. If the PIK was listed in those accounts as debt then I expect SI to include that debt in FM irrelevant of what comments the company directors make to media sources.

Here is a link to their recent bond issue: Man Utd Prospectus

I don't expect you to read all 200+ pages of it but I want to point out the corporation structure (page 5) which shows how much more complicated it really is compared to FM and the historical financial information (pages 10-13 & 31-33) which gives figures for years ended 30.06.07, 08 & 09.

I can't comment on how accurately these have been represented in FM as I haven't looked at the FM details over the last few years.

I should also point out its very difficult for finances to be accurately portrayed within the game when the football club is only one arm of a corporation especially when the other arms are providing some of the financial backing the club receives.

No the media is a perfectly good source when quotes are being used. You can't lie with quotes. And if a media source does mis-quote you you are likely to be sued. Anyway, media isnt always the written word as im sure you know. There are also video's of Gill talkin about the clubs debt and the PIK. Now unless he has a very good double, I dont think you can argue with it.

As you say, Im not going to read through 200 pages but I can guarentee there will be no mention of the PIK being part of the clubs debt. Because the simple fact is it isnt. It was said on day one and it was said the day it was paid. Even the so called experts even admitted they were wrong regarding it.

I know FM is very basic with its finances side and what you can actually include. But the fact is there are only two debt figures entered into the database. One of £509m which is the original Bond issue and the interest has been set accordingly. That is spot on. The other debt figure included was £231m for the PIK including a ridiculous interest. Now I know £231m is accurate for the PIK. I also know the interest figure inputted is correct. What isnt correct is the fact that its put down as debt against the club in the game when it clearly wasnt. For X years this PIK has been there, people playing as Man Utd have had extortionate interest and debt because of the PIK which shouldnt have been included in the first place.

So the media say the debt is £700m+. So when 11.3 is released with the PIK removed and the debt being £509m plus interest, will people say that is wrong when its not? Has anybody thought that what the media is saying about £700m+ debt maybe the Bond alone with all the years interest added? That then would be accurate and a true reflection.

Basically 11.3 will be as accurate as it can be which is good. But for the last X years, its been wrong because of a PIK that should have never been included in the first place.

No the media is a perfectly good source when quotes are being used. You can't lie with quotes. And if a media source does mis-quote you you are likely to be sued. Anyway, media isnt always the written word as im sure you know. There are also video's of Gill talkin about the clubs debt and the PIK. Now unless he has a very good double, I dont think you can argue with it.

No the media is not a "perfectly good source" and neither is any information that the company directors give (regardless of media source). The only perfectly good source are legal documents such as company accounts or the bond issue I linked to above.

As you say, Im not going to read through 200 pages but I can guarentee there will be no mention of the PIK being part of the clubs debt. Because the simple fact is it isnt. It was said on day one and it was said the day it was paid. Even the so called experts even admitted they were wrong regarding it.

You cannot guarantee anything and your opinion counts for very little when its based on media speculation.

I know FM is very basic with its finances side and what you can actually include. But the fact is there are only two debt figures entered into the database. One of £509m which is the original Bond issue and the interest has been set accordingly. That is spot on. The other debt figure included was £231m for the PIK including a ridiculous interest. Now I know £231m is accurate for the PIK. I also know the interest figure inputted is correct. What isnt correct is the fact that its put down as debt against the club in the game when it clearly wasnt. For X years this PIK has been there, people playing as Man Utd have had extortionate interest and debt because of the PIK which shouldnt have been included in the first place.

So the media say the debt is £700m+. So when 11.3 is released with the PIK removed and the debt being £509m plus interest, will people say that is wrong when its not? Has anybody thought that what the media is saying about £700m+ debt maybe the Bond alone with all the years interest added? That then would be accurate and a true reflection.

Basically 11.3 will be as accurate as it can be which is good. But for the last X years, its been wrong because of a PIK that should have never been included in the first place.

I had a quick flick through the bond issue information and to be fair I can't see any reference to a "PIK" but that said I could have easily missed it. Also this information is accurate as at 30.06.09 and I have no access to accounts for Y/E 30.06.10 which may or may not include it.

Also worth pointing out that if the bond goes through the PIK might well be removed but there will be another long term loan of £500m to be added on top of the current loans.

Just as an example of the issues SI face I noticed when flicking through that they took out a £8m loan to buy a freight terminal in 2008, how is SI supposed to include this type of transaction within the FM structure?

Well as it turned out, my 'media based' opinion was far more accurate than the researchers so what does that tell you. At the end of the day, all I did was listen to the guy running the club and hoped he was being as truthful as posible. Turns out he was.

Ive also had a flick through. I also can't find any reference to the PIK or even any other figure that it could possibly be. And if Gill is to be believed it wont be there. Because simply it wasnt the clubs debt. And now its been paid off, it wont be there next year or the year after either.

I know the financial side of FM is basic. You would think SI would try sorting it instead of adding gimmicks year after year but thats another issue. In 11.3, the debt will be spot on. Theres not a lot more I can say. The only issue I have/had was the inclusion of the PIK. Also the reasons why it was included. As I say, 11.3 should be spot on. And next November when more detailed accounts are released, it should need bringdown even further (fingers crossed).

Offically that 'other' loan is not mentioned in that financial prospectus.

HOWEVER, it does not mention any of the other holdings of the directors, against whom that loan is held.

Knowing enough about directors and their liabilities, a failing of a loan on one side is counted against the company (and vica versa, so if the company goes bust, you lose your assests to pay for the company, and the other way around) Thus without seeing the directors personal accounts you wont see that debt.

HOWEVER, as its not listed in that document, it shouldnt be in the game.

Hindsight is wonderful, but you have to remember that the Glazers had to make a very leveraged buyout of the club and their other businesses - Allied First and Tampa Bay - were struggling. This all points to a general lack of cash - if they had equity, they would have been able to find a much more favourable rate than the PIK interest rate, because it is incredibly risky. So yes, putting it on the club would have been justified.

Lots of companies have debts that are officially owned by linked companies (parent companies, child companies, directors, other owners, shareholders...) but in-game it still makes more sense to be included on the club if it's going to pay most of the debts anyway. Southampton are an example.

In a game that deals with facts in its research, I dont see why the PIK was included. It was never anything to do with the club so shouldnt have been part of the club in the game. They stated from day one that no money would be taken from the club to pay it off. Yet its inclusion in the game means im losing more money every month in debt repayments, i.e money being taken from the club.

Also the Glazers had other assets. Im sure Tampa Bay alone more than covers the value of the PIK.

You could dig deeper and say what if this and what if that but at the end of the day, FM doesnt deal in what ifs. The financial side of the game is very black and white at the moment and as far as the game is concerned, Man Utds debt is black and white. The bond IS the clubs debt and should be/is included, the PIK isnt/never was and should never have been included.

x42bn6 - If it's on United's books like the prospectus loan then United are paying it and thus it should be reflected as so in the game. The "other" loan is, or was being paid by the Glazers, so how does it "make more sense" to include debt that's not on United's books?

In a game that deals with facts in its research, I dont see why the PIK was included. It was never anything to do with the club so shouldnt have been part of the club in the game. They stated from day one that no money would be taken from the club to pay it off. Yet its inclusion in the game means im losing more money every month in debt repayments, i.e money being taken from the club.

Also the Glazers had other assets. Im sure Tampa Bay alone more than covers the value of the PIK.

You could dig deeper and say what if this and what if that but at the end of the day, FM doesnt deal in what ifs. The financial side of the game is very black and white at the moment and as far as the game is concerned, Man Utds debt is black and white. The bond IS the clubs debt and should be/is included, the PIK isnt/never was and should never have been included.

Southampton itself had very little debt, but Southampton Leisure Holdings had lots of debt. Saints struggled. Do you think it would be right to ignore the holding club's debt for Southampton?

AC Milan have very little debt. But the companies close to AC Milan in its complex structure have poor cashflows and high debt. AC Milan have been very frugal in the last few years. Do you think it would be inaccurate to not include it?

The Glazers were forced to take a highly-leveraged position - an extremely risky position - in order to get the club. They were forced to take loans with high interest rates - does this sound like a group of investors with a lot of cash (not assets - cash) lying around? Their other assets were also struggling at the time - were they really going to be able to pay off such high loans?

All in all it looked suspicious no matter what Gill says (and let's face it, he wasn't really going to say anything else, was he?). It looked like a group of investors with a businesses that were on dodgy footing and little cash (again, not assets) using LBOs to takeover a company. In pretty much all LBOs, the company being taken-over ends up responsible for paying off the debt that was used to acquire it - because of a lack of equity! That is the point of an LBO - get the targeted company to pay for the loan!

Whenever you see a takeover that is extremely leveraged (i.e. lots of debt), then pretty much any financial analyst will say the company will end up paying for the debt - because equity takeovers are much cheaper and less risky.

x42bn6 - If it's on United's books like the prospectus loan then United are paying it and thus it should be reflected as so in the game. The "other" loan is, or was being paid by the Glazers, so how does it "make more sense" to include debt that's not on United's books?

See Southampton (the club was responsible for all the debt of the holding company), Milan (club responsible for most, if not all, the group's debt), Arsenal (club is responsible for most of the group's debt), and so on.

Just because it doesn't belong to the club's company, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be included.

If the Glazers shift the debt repayments onto a holding company that is one level above Manchester United Football Club yet the club is still responsible for nearly all cashflows leading into that company, then it should be on the club.

Hindsight is lovely but I don't really see how anyone could have seen that a highly-leveraged takeover wasn't going to require the club to repay pretty much all of it.

Those 94 million transfer funds are part of the financial state of the club. Its not like they had 94 million lying around and then they gave you it to spend. They are simply notifying you that they allow you to spend so much money on transfers.

In other words, you can't allocate the funds towards your debt since they are already part of the debt.

x42bn6 - what you are doing now is the same as everybody else. You are 'assuming' that they didnt have the money and enevetably the club would end up paying it. That wasnt the case. Like I said before, FM's financial side is very black and white. Its all very well and good saying if this happened the Glazers would have to do this, and if that happened the Glazers would have to do that. As I said, the game doesnt deal with ifs and buts. It deals in facts. And the facts is the PIK wasnt Utds debt or anything to do with Utd so it shouldnt have been included. I find it laughable how anybody can argue against that fact.

When the day comes that FM can actually replicate market movements and has a financial structure that replicates real life in regards to paying debt off then fine. But at the moment its just the case of setting a debt amount, a start and end date, an interest rate and then it gets split equally over the months between the dates. Thats not how its works IRL. So like I say, its all black and white. The bond IS debt. The PIK isnt debt. End of.

Rather than arguing about this - just use FMRTE to remove the debt and then remove the cash from your bank account as well to make it fair - simples!

Rather than arguing about this - just use FMRTE to remove the debt and then remove the cash from your bank account as well to make it fair - simples!

Already have thank god. Your missing the point though. It should never have been there in the first place. And its the reason why it was put in which is more annoying.

Southampton itself had very little debt, but Southampton Leisure Holdings had lots of debt. Saints struggled. Do you think it would be right to ignore the holding club's debt for Southampton?

AC Milan have very little debt. But the companies close to AC Milan in its complex structure have poor cashflows and high debt. AC Milan have been very frugal in the last few years. Do you think it would be inaccurate to not include it?

Yes, but all the 'other' parts of uniteds finance is in that document - The parent companies, the sub companies - everything - and the debt is not listed against any of them.

I have to say, despite being against him at the begining, Stevorobbo is right - the loan should not have been in the game in the first place. Loans by chairmen put against other assets should not be in the game as, although as directors/owners in the real world these loans would eventually fall upon the club if they became insolvent, they arent part of the game, otherwise where do you stop? Do you put every morgage that the chairmen have againt the club? No, you put debts that the CLUB have the pay back. That loan was not put against uniteds finance, they are not paying it back, thus, it should not be in the game, and should never have.

Yes, but all the 'other' parts of uniteds finance is in that document - The parent companies, the sub companies - everything - and the debt is not listed against any of them.

I have to say, despite being against him at the begining, Stevorobbo is right - the loan should not have been in the game in the first place. Loans by chairmen put against other assets should not be in the game as, although as directors/owners in the real world these loans would eventually fall upon the club if they became insolvent, they arent part of the game, otherwise where do you stop? Do you put every morgage that the chairmen have againt the club? No, you put debts that the CLUB have the pay back. That loan was not put against uniteds finance, they are not paying it back, thus, it should not be in the game, and should never have.

Thank you. Thats exactly my point. We all know that if it did go tits up that it would EVENTUALLY fall on the club but as ive said before, you cant enter data on what might happen in the future. The PIK wasnt Uniteds debt so should never have been included. I can live with that though. The thing that bothered me is the fact that the researcher thought he knew what was actually going on and ignored the guy running the club. Because of that, Man Utd have had the wrong financial data for about 3 years in the game and made it pretty damn hard to keep afloat. The AI managed Man Utd found it almost impossible in most of my saves. All because of the PIK and its extortionate interest being added. But I guess its acceptable to SI and they will shrug it off as one of those things.

Thank you. Thats exactly my point. We all know that if it did go tits up that it would EVENTUALLY fall on the club but as ive said before, you cant enter data on what might happen in the future. The PIK wasnt Uniteds debt so should never have been included. I can live with that though. The thing that bothered me is the fact that the researcher thought he knew what was actually going on and ignored the guy running the club. Because of that, Man Utd have had the wrong financial data for about 3 years in the game and made it pretty damn hard to keep afloat. The AI managed Man Utd found it almost impossible in most of my saves. All because of the PIK and its extortionate interest being added. But I guess its acceptable to SI and they will shrug it off as one of those things.

As a non-united fan I have found it very amusing to see them mid table after a few seasons.

However as a Palace fan I dont find it amusing that they seem to plummet like a stone in every version of the game...

As a non-united fan I have found it very amusing to see them mid table after a few seasons.

However as a Palace fan I dont find it amusing that they seem to plummet like a stone in every version of the game...

Funnily enough the father in-law is a Palace fan. I feel your pain. Hopefully things are looking up now though on the finances side.

Thank you. Thats exactly my point. We all know that if it did go tits up that it would EVENTUALLY fall on the club but as ive said before, you cant enter data on what might happen in the future. The PIK wasnt Uniteds debt so should never have been included. I can live with that though. The thing that bothered me is the fact that the researcher thought he knew what was actually going on and ignored the guy running the club. Because of that, Man Utd have had the wrong financial data for about 3 years in the game and made it pretty damn hard to keep afloat. The AI managed Man Utd found it almost impossible in most of my saves. All because of the PIK and its extortionate interest being added. But I guess its acceptable to SI and they will shrug it off as one of those things.

So what if Manchester United set-up a new holding company (let's call it Glazer Loan Corporation) above Manchester United and took out a loan against Glazer Loan Corporation? And say the structure of Glazer Loan Corporation is such that the majority, if not all, its income comes from Manchester United? The loan isn't on Manchester United's books, yet quite rightfully it should be on the club in the game.

I don't believe the editor should deal in pure facts. Compromises must be made - look at Walcott's attributes, for example.

You also have to take into account the game treats the debt as a loan, not a bond - so the interest payments in real-life are going to be wrong. The bond compounds quarterly - so there should be no monthly interest payments - just quarterly ones. This doesn't exist in the game.

And while the interest payments will be steep, it sure beats the fact that the face value of the bond (c.£500m) needs to be paid back at maturity if it were treated as a bond. I cannot imagine how customers would feel when £500m is removed from the accounts later in the future, which would probably kill the club - in reality, the Glazers would have refinanced the deal.

Like I said, they took out a very risky LBO which usually states that they have very little equity, and in the majority of LBOs the company being taken-over ends up paying for the debt anyway. This is a fact too. The fact that we had their word is meaningless in business - there was no reason to assume that they were telling the truth especially considering the nature of LBOs which have been going on for decades and have consistently shown the same pattern - taken-over company pays for the debt.

So on one side, you have decades' worth of financial history involving LBOs, and on the other side you have the word of the Glazers. I personally don't see why a lot of people looked at the former, not the latter.

So what if Manchester United set-up a new holding company (let's call it Glazer Loan Corporation) above Manchester United and took out a loan against Glazer Loan Corporation? And say the structure of Glazer Loan Corporation is such that the majority, if not all, its income comes from Manchester United? The loan isn't on Manchester United's books, yet quite rightfully it should be on the club in the game.

I don't believe the editor should deal in pure facts. Compromises must be made - look at Walcott's attributes, for example.

You also have to take into account the game treats the debt as a loan, not a bond - so the interest payments in real-life are going to be wrong. The bond compounds quarterly - so there should be no monthly interest payments - just quarterly ones. This doesn't exist in the game.

And while the interest payments will be steep, it sure beats the fact that the face value of the bond (c.£500m) needs to be paid back at maturity if it were treated as a bond. I cannot imagine how customers would feel when £500m is removed from the accounts later in the future, which would probably kill the club - in reality, the Glazers would have refinanced the deal.

Like I said, they took out a very risky LBO which usually states that they have very little equity, and in the majority of LBOs the company being taken-over ends up paying for the debt anyway. This is a fact too. The fact that we had their word is meaningless in business - there was no reason to assume that they were telling the truth especially considering the nature of LBOs which have been going on for decades and have consistently shown the same pattern - taken-over company pays for the debt.

So on one side, you have decades' worth of financial history involving LBOs, and on the other side you have the word of the Glazers. I personally don't see why a lot of people looked at the former, not the latter.

What if, what if, what if. What if the Glazers paid off all the debt tomorrow? I dont do what ifs. The PIK wasnt the clubs debt, it was the Glazers personal debt which they said all along. They have proven that by paying it off. It is now being removed. My problem is why it was included in the first place. There was no evidence to suggest that it was the clubs debt. Only WHAT IF's.

I think the important distinction that needed to be made was against what the loans were raised, and therefore by whom they needed to be paid.

The £500+ million loan/bond/whatever was raised against United and thus (fairly or otherwise) needs to be paid by United, or at least the interrest does.

The £200 million PIK was never taken against United and didnt need to be paid by united and the interrest was not put on united, thus, it should never have been included.

I had a dig around and can't find that much but it seems the PIK loan was taken out by "Red Football Joint Venture Ltd" which you can see from page 5 of the prospectus I linked above is towards the top of the corporate structure.

As to whether it should have been included as Manchester Utd debt is a huge grey area with arguments for both sides. Its obvious that the debt belongs to the owners and is a direct result of purchasing the club but you have to consider how that would have been repaid - would any of those repayments come from Man Utd or from other business ventures. Then you have to consider what would have happened if the owners had defaulted on the debt.

I had problems with this in my save and went in the red after a bit of spending. I got a new chairman in Sir Bobby Charlton and after that, everything was great.

I had a dig around and can't find that much but it seems the PIK loan was taken out by "Red Football Joint Venture Ltd" which you can see from page 5 of the prospectus I linked above is towards the top of the corporate structure.

As to whether it should have been included as Manchester Utd debt is a huge grey area with arguments for both sides. Its obvious that the debt belongs to the owners and is a direct result of purchasing the club but you have to consider how that would have been repaid - would any of those repayments come from Man Utd or from other business ventures. Then you have to consider what would have happened if the owners had defaulted on the debt.

But it's all guesswork. In the game the PIK and it's interests should only have been put against the club when and if any evidence had suggested that club finances were in fact being used to pay it off. Such evidence was not there. By adding the loan the researcher put the club in a situation where it was unrealistically hard to manage, especially because the financial model in FM is far from perfect in the first place. I see no logical reason why he should have done that.

But it's all guesswork. In the game the PIK and it's interests should only have been put against the club when and if any evidence had suggested that club finances were in fact being used to pay it off. Such evidence was not there. By adding the loan the researcher put the club in a situation where it was unrealistically hard to manage, especially because the financial model in FM is far from perfect in the first place. I see no logical reason why he should have done that.

Thats the thing that annoys me with the researchers. When I raised this PIK issue in the 2010 data issues forum, all I kept on getting told was to provide proof that the PIK wasnt Utd's debt. I did this the best I could by providing links to quotes from David Gill, The Glazers themselves and SAF saying the PIK had nothing to do with the club but apparently that wasnt good enough. But when you ask a researcher to explain why they are putting it in the game and to show THEIR proof for including it, all you basically get is "im the researcher and what I say goes".

So my proof isnt good enough but a researchers non existant proof that has ruined the finances of this club for the last few versions of the game is good enough? It really doesnt make sense. If we knew why it was included with honest answers then maybe we could understand the thinking behind it but no.

But it's all guesswork. In the game the PIK and it's interests should only have been put against the club when and if any evidence had suggested that club finances were in fact being used to pay it off. Such evidence was not there. By adding the loan the researcher put the club in a situation where it was unrealistically hard to manage, especially because the financial model in FM is far from perfect in the first place. I see no logical reason why he should have done that.

The evidence is the large number of LBOs that have ended up that way. That is, after all, the point of an LBO - load up on debt and use it to buy a company, and make the company pay for it.

The contra-evidence at the time was David Gill's word. 'nuff said.

The evidence is the large number of LBOs that have ended up that way. That is, after all, the point of an LBO - load up on debt and use it to buy a company, and make the company pay for it.

The contra-evidence at the time was David Gill's word. 'nuff said.

But Gill and the Glazers both said it had nothing to do with the club and then it was paid by the Glazers without taking money from the club. What other companies do is down to them. If they have LBO's then end up bankrupt thats up to them. You shouldnt pass on other peoples failings onto a completely different situation. The PIK wasnt the clubs all along, it was paid by the Glazers which was said all along.

Its all 'what if's' again. Oooooohh other companies have had LBO's and gone bankrupt so WHAT IF it happens to United. Well it didnt. They stuck to their word, paid it off and used no money from the club. 'nuff said.

The evidence is the large number of LBOs that have ended up that way. That is, after all, the point of an LBO - load up on debt and use it to buy a company, and make the company pay for it.

The contra-evidence at the time was David Gill's word. 'nuff said.

I dont think this model works for sports clubs.

If you take over a supermarket chain that makes £50 million profit each year, then if you are happy with the company and dont want to expand it then you can happily take out £45 million each year and use it to pay off the loans, keeping the other 10% for minor updates/repairs etc.

A football club that has £50 million profits each year will need to spend the vast majority of that money simply to stand still, if you did the same as above then the squad would be dead within 5 years and it would take a lot more than £50 mllion to put right - and that would defeat the object because the club would now be worth less than you paid for it.

The evidence is the large number of LBOs that have ended up that way. That is, after all, the point of an LBO - load up on debt and use it to buy a company, and make the company pay for it.

The contra-evidence at the time was David Gill's word. 'nuff said.

This is not evidence. This is an assumption based on unrelated events. Barely a guess. If you're going to base United's finances in the game on pure guesswork you might as well add another billion worth of debt because who knows what else David Gill is lying about...

I played all the way through to paying off the debt.

The ground will be expanded to 100k and if you keep winning your reputation will improve and the merchandise feeders and ticket sales generated are massive. Then there is all the prize money too and my Sponsorship money kept increasing year on year as the reputation of the club did. You also get £30M a year of "other" payments." Also with regens later down the line you can normally turn a profit on them, get them cheap keep them for a few years / loan them out and other clubs will be sniffing around them and you can make a profit. I had around about a £100M net spend over 20 years yet was consistently buying the best players on the game, but made so much from selling the regens who weren't good enough.

A few seasons where I did spend the transfer budget given to me and started the season with perhaps £40M in the bank, I would be deep in the red by March and David Gill would give the club money (not a loan) and bring you back to a positive balance. He once did it when i was 60 million in the red so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

United aren't actually paying off the debt the £500M debt though as the game suggests, just the interest. The whole of Uniteds finances on it aren't done too well I think, particularly David Gill bankrolling it when he is merely the chief exec, and the debt being paid off when actually it is only being serviced and the interest payments only being met.

Once the debt goes, you become the richest club on the game in not too long.

has there ever been any confirmation whether or not the debt was secured against man utd, despite it being the glazer's debt and not the club? (just like using your house as security for getting a car loan)

if the answer is yes then indirectly the debt is related to the club until it is cleared.

has there ever been any confirmation whether or not the debt was secured against man utd, despite it being the glazer's debt and not the club? (just like using your house as security for getting a car loan)

if the answer is yes then indirectly the debt is related to the club until it is cleared.

When the PIK was taken out it was said by Gill and the Glazers that it wasnt taken out against the club. It was the Glazers personal debt and they would also not take any money from the club to pay it off. Also in the prospectus linked above there is no mention of the PIK. If it was taken against the club it would have to be included in that document and it isnt.

But Gill and the Glazers both said it had nothing to do with the club and then it was paid by the Glazers without taking money from the club. What other companies do is down to them. If they have LBO's then end up bankrupt thats up to them. You shouldnt pass on other peoples failings onto a completely different situation. The PIK wasnt the clubs all along, it was paid by the Glazers which was said all along.

Its all 'what if's' again. Oooooohh other companies have had LBO's and gone bankrupt so WHAT IF it happens to United. Well it didnt. They stuck to their word, paid it off and used no money from the club. 'nuff said.

It's not black-and-white this sort of thing though - Arsenal's finances assume the property market doesn't collapse on itself; Manchester United's finances don't assume the dollar will weaken to the point they will be forced to take money out of the club thanks to the swap.

This is what happens in the majority of LBOs and is the whole point of leveraging so much debt in order to take over the club - because of a lack of equity.

What happened in reality is immaterial. The point is that when this was supposed to be first entered into the database, you had the Glazers borrowing heavily to fund a takeover of the club at incredible interest rates, indicating an LBO. The majority of LBOs end with the company taking over the debt - this is a fact. You need to balance this against David Gill's word that the club wasn't going to absorb the debt, which is a bit rich coming from him - he's done enough lying in the past.

Hindsight is wonderful but I do not believe David Gill's word should have dismissed decades worth of LBOs ending with the company paying off the debt.

This is not evidence. This is an assumption based on unrelated events. Barely a guess. If you're going to base United's finances in the game on pure guesswork you might as well add another billion worth of debt because who knows what else David Gill is lying about...

This is silly because there is not a billion pounds worth of debt lying around' date=' be it stuck on the club or the Glazers.

It is merely the fact that this [i']is[/i] evidence for including it on - because it has happened so often in the past.

I dont think this model works for sports clubs.

If you take over a supermarket chain that makes £50 million profit each year, then if you are happy with the company and dont want to expand it then you can happily take out £45 million each year and use it to pay off the loans, keeping the other 10% for minor updates/repairs etc.

A football club that has £50 million profits each year will need to spend the vast majority of that money simply to stand still, if you did the same as above then the squad would be dead within 5 years and it would take a lot more than £50 mllion to put right - and that would defeat the object because the club would now be worth less than you paid for it.

Well, I don't think many clubs have been bought over by LBOs of such large value - Manchester United and possibly Liverpool (in terms of equity, though, I believe Hicks and Gillett put more equity proportional to debt, but can somewhat be considered an LBO. They lied about the club not paying off the debt too! Take the word of involved parties with a pinch of salt). I agree it may not apply to sports clubs - they're too risky (look at Liverpool falling out of the Champions League), the revenues are volatile, there's potentially lots of big cashflows (i.e. big transfers can be 20% of the club's value, for example) and if you buy big clubs like Manchester United and Liverpool, you may struggle to grow them to support the debt repayments (they usually posit a THIS BUSINESS MUST GROW requirement for even breaking-even).

I'm not sure I agree with the £50m profit - big supermarket chains spend hundreds of millions of pounds expanding. Where they have an advantage is they can probably cut costs better - a football club has little inventory and much fewer employees - cutting cleaners' wages in half isn't really going to benefit a Premier League club, but will probably increase profit margins for a supermarket considerably. But even supermarkets need to spend to grow - no supermarket chain stands still.

So I guess is "it depends" - but I would argue it's the best we've got. Lots of weird things happen in business - EMI getting a botched takeover by Terra Firma is one that springs to mind, or poison pills in the 1980s-1990s. Industries taking over companies miles outside their scope just for the profits; Yahoo! rejecting Microsoft takeovers... I just don't see why we had to believe David Gill considering previous history. One could argue it's exactly that - history - but as for the present, this reminds me of this silly picture:

You need to balance whatever Gill says with other bits of evidence, one of which is that the majority of heavily-leveraged takeovers end with the company paying for the debt.

You need to balance whatever Gill says with other bits of evidence, one of which is that the majority of heavily-leveraged takeovers end with the company paying for the debt.

Firstly, I dont think its appropirate posting pictures of convicted war criminals as a comparason to the owners of a football club, not matter how 'funny' you may think it is.

Secondly - that statement above is entirely right - united has been lumbered with £500+million of debt in the buy out - however the other 'debt' was never placed against the club, thus should not have been in the game, no matter how untrustworthy the owers/chairmen/whatever are.

That prospectus has to be a water tight document - if the club is suddenly hit with more debt that turns out that they were lying to bond buyers, then the club and its owners are going to be in MASSIVE legal war that they would lose.

Thus, dont ever trust what the owners say, but do trust legally binding documents.