benno2

Rafa has said all along in press conferences that he's confident we'll sign him to be fair. Whether Masch has been told this is hard to say, but I would guess he has. All that has been seen recently to counter this is a couple of supposed links to Italy and some quotes from Masch, that may well be made up, on some pretty disreputable internet speculation sites. The likes of Oliver Kay are now saying he will be signed, so boohog's view may well be right that this is a cash flow issue may well turn out to be right. I guess it won't be too long before we know. It's not ideal doing it this way and the whole Masch situation is an odd one to start with, but in the new world of LBO's that we live in, it seems cashflow is king and that we may well have to live with this sort of thing.

So are you in the trade and speak from a position of knowledge on the subject? Or are you guessing that this is the way this should work, in your view? Just like I'm guessing, and awaiting confirmation one way or another, about the way I think it probably works.

I don't know this inside out, but hadn't we already spent millions on architects fees so far? Also, how much work after winning the contract actually is there for architects? They're not leading the project, that's somebody else, they're not building it either. Clearly, they will be involved in the build stage, but a huge portion of their work must go into the initial design stage. Not many companies can afford to put that level of work in for nothing. Does anybody here work in the field?

I'd be amazed if there's no fee involved for this sort of work. But will happily bow down if anyone contradicts this that actually knows.

Perfectly plausible also, with Gillett taking a back seat because he likes to be seen as the cuddly one.

We don't know, but there's no way that an architect firm would put months of work into a stadium design for free, is there?

I've got to say that does make more sense and my memory of the interview might be wonky. I'm trying to find it on youtube without success so far.

I think that £525m of the debt is secured on the club, but we may as well talk the same with them as we are with us, the Glazers will want the whole debt to be paid for out of profits so that would be £790m to our £600-650m (hence arguable). You raise a good, interesting point about us being better off (or further forward relative to where we are) after the debts are cleared. The big issue is that we'll have a much tougher time getting to that point with lower current profitability and a worse team.

G&H definitely had an agreement that Hicks couldn't buy Gillett out. Gillett said so in interview. But then I'm taking their word for that ... As to the timing of re-financing, we've constantly been told by various outlets that this was going to happen prior to a sale anyway and would not preclude a sale. Not all commentators agree on this, but many have said it. The original bridging loan is due very soon anyway, so not to conclude re-financing would be suicide. Anyway, I'm just trying to make some sense of a very confusing set of info like anyone else. It's all wild summation.

With the stadium finance almost certain to be on the club, then the Mancs will have less debt than us to service (arguable), much greater level of current income (unarguable) and a better starting point from here teamwise (sadly unarguable). So you decide.

Is it possible that Gillett has agreed a sale to DIC, but Hicks, stubborn bugger that he is, is holding out for more and they're still negotiating? It certainly seems that Hicks has a much greater appetite for the fray than Gillett, who maybe knows that his bridges are burned here, whereas Hicks doesn't care and is just holding out for a better deal.

The question of whether either have a stake in HKS is not an inferrence, it's a question. If business is won by companies they have a stake in then they profit from it. The word 'kickback' was obviously a bad choice in my original post given it's grubbier connotations. But the question is very easily answered by both men concerned. I probably have gone over the top and you're right in that we have no legal rights to know. But you also imply that fans have no stake at all in this. Given the position the club is in now of having to fund its own purchase, doubts about the owners have multiplied and I think it's right to ask questions. The club got AFL involved at the half-way stage to provide competition as stated by Parry. Given that an increased budget of £300m rather than £200m for the original Parrybowl was obviously in mind from the start, would it not have been a good idea for competition to have been provided at the start of this? Arch-capitalists surely know its value better than anybody. HKS were always in poll position with planning permission already provided for a design they only had to modify and get down to original cost expectations. So club money has been thrown away now on inviting a second submission from AFL. Is this not at least slightly suspicious given that HKS could hardly lose from the start? At best, it is another example of incompetence. Whether letting us know details of the failed bid is wise or not, is a good question, especially if everything is above board. I'd just be happier knowing that everything is.

I voted no. If I were in G&H's position (if they are staying) and to dispel press pressure, quash the rift rumours and promote mid-term stability, I'd offer him a 1-year extension. That gives him three years from the end of this season, which is plenty and would be the first time that they have given him a deal, which ought to tell Rafa and the press something, at least for the rest of this season. By the season's end we could have won the FA Cup and CL. But the pressure on the CL is enormous now given the financial millstone around the club's neck. As is securing 4th spot. Some sort of commitment to stability is needed to help secure this. It's very difficult to know how much of an effect the furore has had on the team, but I really doubt it's that great. Given this, the fact that we've struggled this season is undeniable and a good part of this has to be lain at Rafa's door. Overall, we've done nothing but tread water in the league. As an aside, if Rafa is as astute and thorough as he's meant to be, he'll scrutinise the finances, work out what it means for future spendability and reject an extention anyway.

We have not one iota of evidence that they've done anything at all on this front in the year they've been here, other than starting a tv channel, which are known to lose money. At least MUTV is supposed to. The extra stadium income is a long way off too. In the meantime they've a total of £350m worth of debt to service. It doesn't matter that some of it is secured on Kop Football (Holdings) Ltd. That company's one asset is LFC. If the portion of debt secured against KF(H) is to be serviced by G&H themselves (something there is absolutely no evidence for) then the club may be able to service the rest. If not, then with the stadium loan, however that is staged, the club would have to come up with profits of nigh on £100m annually to service the total debt, make a dent in paying off the loans on a 20 year schedule to payback (this is a guess, but if it's longer then more interest is payable) and provide a normal net spend.

In which case, why invite AFL in at all? The only sound reason is to keep HKS on their toes. But this option was always open to them for the original re-design.

There's no transparency as to how and why these plans were chosen over the alternative design. It's true that going for this design won't mean a new planning application will have to be submitted, we'll be able to build this one without doing anything more on that front. But we will need some sort of permission to use the 10,000 seats not included in the original design. How likely is this without incurring further expense and thereby debt? Is this tantamount to a new planning application anyway? If so, then the one definite advantage of the HKS design over the AFL virtually disappears. Given that the two clowns have spent borrowed money on this process which is now (or about to be) saddled on the club, I think we need some answers. After all, the AFL design was rumoured to be cheaper and therefore would be less burdensome on the club in terms of further debt. If these rumours are unfounded, then they should tell us and also show us the stadium we could have had. At no point did it ever seem likely that AFL would be chosen. Do G&H have some sort of tie in with HKS, so that if they do sell up, they still get some sort of kick-back out of the stadium build anyway.

Will we ever get to see the other design it competed with? Or is this just like all Iraqi reconstruction going to Haliburton and it's jobs for the boys? Do either of G&H have a stake in HKS?

Last 18 months according to soccerbase.com: Everton £15m nett Man City £14.8m nett Spurs £17.8m nett Villa £27.5m nett West Ham £24.6m nett Sunderland £39m nett Liverpool: £41.17m nett according to the same site and not including the sale of Momo. Disclaimer: Spurs have one player down as no fee who I believe cost £6.5m (Boateng), so absolute accuracy could be out. Torres is shown as £26.5m, with Garcia out for free. So what I've done here is probably pointless.

The amount of debt being secured against the club has become the reddest of red herrings. It's who services the total debt that is the key. Given all the machinations we've seen so far and the history these two have with their US franchises, the debt will only be serviced by G&H in extremis. It will fall on the club to churn out the profits to service it.

We also get more money for players because there's more money being spent on players with the new tv deal.

Apart from bigging himself up on national TV and radio to Villa fans.

Has nobody else come to the conclusion that there's no way the whole 'club has to pay for £600m worth of loans' thing can possibly stack up for anybody? Not the banks involved, not G&H either. There must be elements to this that are not being reported/picked up on. It's simply inconceivable that this toytown business-plan could possibly get past the banks.

Why would the banks, not to mention G&H, think it can work then? Too much of this speculation just doesn't add up at the moment.

I've only seen it reported that Hicks cannot buy Gillett out.

The other thing is, how on earth do G&H expect this to work unless they are paying the initial £350m loan in the expectation of seeing the club valued at £1bn down the line? Long-term capital growth is surely the only way of making the sort of profit on the deal to the extent that they expect. It's not a fat lot of use them going down this route and having to sell off a debt-ridden club for £1 like Ken Bates buying Chelsea all those years ago. Risking nothing is one thing, but gaining £1 out of it isn't great business. The chances of us being able to churn out profits of £100m annually in order to finance repayments and team must be virtually 1bn - 1.