Can one of you City types (Tricky?) explain how it is that Glazer's takeover

will "saddle Man U with ?500m of debt"?

The papers seem to be suggesting that Glazer borrows the money to buy the shares, takes over, and then gets the club to pay off his loans. But (a) that would amount to the company paying to acquire its own shares, wouldn't it? And that's banned in English law; and (b) unless he actually TRANSFERS his own debts to Man U (which would be v difficult) then they remain HIS debts, not the club's - it's just that he would divert revenue from the club which would otherwise be used for footballing purposes towards his own coffers and use it to pay off his debts?

Posted By: Old Git, May 13, 10:20:51