[Soundburst]

Manchester United Ltd, the worlds most supported club has filed with US regulators to float stock.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/0...86219620120703

[djdhrubs]

It's a relatively small amount, compared to the debt.

When you think that £500 million has gone out of the club in the last few years just to service interest, and think what might have been done with that money for the team, raising £60 million odd quid will make a minor dent.

[Papcx]

This is more likely to get a "real" value of the club.

Then the glazers can re-structure the debt again leaving us as also-rans in the transfer market for years to come.

Or hopefully, they are pulling out in a planned methodical way.

[djcla]

Originally Posted by Papcx

This is more likely to get a "real" value of the club.

Then the glazers can re-structure the debt again leaving us as also-rans in the transfer market for years to come.

we can only hope

[djdhrubs]

Originally Posted by Papcx

This is more likely to get a "real" value of the club.

Then the glazers can re-structure the debt again leaving us to continue to be also-rans in the transfer market for years to come.

Or hopefully, they are pulling out in a planned methodical way.

Corrected for you!

[Papcx]

Originally Posted by djdhrubs

Corrected for you!

Yeah that's probably more accurate.

[JimmyMac]

Originally Posted by djdhrubs

It's a relatively small amount, compared to the debt.

When you think that £500 million has gone out of the club in the last few years just to service interest, and think what might have been done with that money for the team, raising £60 million odd quid will make a minor dent.

I agree, very small amount in the whole scheme of things, could it be them testing the water a little bit first to see what the possible response could be to a future sale?

Any idea on what percentage of the club is up for grabs in this process?

[taffster5]

Seems an awfully low amount, and even then it's not pure profit as you having the running costs of adminstration while you're a listed company and all having to meet all the disclosures required by the regulators. Most of which you can find out anyway, but it'll be a lot easier to find. You rarely see any football clubs as sound investments on the stock markets anyhow, not really sure why they're bothering considering the initial Asian listing was muted around $1bn.

[liamt]

i hope the glazers **** off. they are killing the club. sell us and let a rich sheik buy us!

[djdhrubs]

Originally Posted by jimmymac2213

I agree, very small amount in the whole scheme of things, could it be them testing the water a little bit first to see what the possible response could be to a future sale?

Any idea on what percentage of the club is up for grabs in this process?

Yeah sounds right, probably testing things and who knows they might go ahead with the Singapore stock market floatation in a more aggressive larger scale way. Who knows about a future sale...we can only hope but how many people out there are gonna spend over 2 billion quid just buying the club, then spend even more investing in transfers/ development?

To put things in context, weren't City bought for £220 million? Not too expensive, and then over £500 million was invested in transfers alone.

I'm afraid I know nothing about business/ the stock market, but I read that those who buy the shares in New York will have fewer voting rights than usual, and no dividends.

In terms of percentage of the club, I don't think anyone can give you an accurate answer. But I think United is valued at over 2 billion pounds now, so you do the maths and 60 million quid is a tiny percentage.

[JimmyMac]

I hear its something like there are A and B class shares, the offer is for A class shares and the glazers will keep all of the B class shares. B class shares are worth 10 times the vote of A class shares.

You'd have to hope it is with a view of something bigger in the long term, £60 million is about enough to pay off the interest for a few years I believe. They must have some kind of plan to do something with the debt as even the the simplest of people can see how much more money they could make with a debt free club!

[jalaldevil]

Originally Posted by liamt

i hope the glazers **** off. they are killing the club. sell us and let a rich sheik buy us!

Desperate are we?

How United supporters have had a change of heart on Sheiks.

[liamt]

Originally Posted by jalaldevil

Desperate are we?

How United supporters have had a change of heart on Sheiks.

well, look how well we were doing before the yanks took us over? they have bled us dry, while city have been given a massive boost and are now a quality side.

its not like we need billions ploughing in, just lose the ******* who made us get into debt so what money we make we can use and not just pay off debts with it.

[Greg]

It's really shocking just how much actual cash Man U have lost purely on interest and other charges since the Glazers took over. That £500M would most likely have seen the stadium expanded and several top players bought.

[liamt]

Originally Posted by Greg

It's really shocking just how much actual cash Man U have lost purely on interest and other charges since the Glazers took over. That £500M would most likely have seen the stadium expanded and several top players bought.

exactly.

consiering city only cost 220million. we could have bough them and closed them down or made them wear pink floral dresses as their kit.

either way it is costing us games and therefore titles.

[djdhrubs]

Originally Posted by Greg

It's really shocking just how much actual cash Man U have lost purely on interest and other charges since the Glazers took over. That £500M would most likely have seen the stadium expanded and several top players bought.

And probably a couple more Champions league trophies won.

On the flip side, just to play devil's advocate, the Glazers have massively expanded United's commercial income and done a bunch of foreign sponsorhip deals. You could argue that would have happened anyway though.

But there's no doubt that huge amounts of money have left the club and without the Glazers, they'd be neck deep in cash right now. You only have to read this blog to appreciate how much trouble the Glazers have brought us:-

the andersred blog

[Stu V]

Originally Posted by djdhrubs

On the flip side, just to play devil's advocate, the Glazers have massively expanded United's commercial income and done a bunch of foreign sponsorhip deals in order to further line their own pockets. You could argue that would have happened anyway though.

Fixed

[liamt]

Originally Posted by Stu V

Fixed

eloquently fixed!

they are like bloody leaches.
#
if only --> glazers:

[andyparksy]

Originally Posted by jimmymac2213

They must have some kind of plan to do something with the debt as even the the simplest of people can see how much more money they could make with a debt free club!

Am afraid to say the whole problem is that this statement is fundamentally wrong......... They bought the club using debt instead of large amounts of equity (ie their own cash) and so as long as the value increases the return on the investment is multiplied considerably.

Without being condescending-

Original price £100 you put in 5 and debt of 95. If the club make 25 (through income and net sales) even after paying say 20 in interest, and move to a value of just 105, they have made a 100% return.

If it was all equity, even with no interest costs, they would only have made 25% and would have had more risk as well

As long as the ongoing operations can service the debt, even at silly levels, they will be making a killing on the actual investment they had to make.

From an investment point of view it really is a no-brainer-the trick is getting hold of the debt in the first place but with the income stream utd have that was possible even at these silly levels of gearing. The choice was buying it with your own money or somebody else's, and then comparing the potential returns to the cost of servicing the debt. For them getting utd it must have been an exceptionally easy investment decision - the people taking the risk are the loan holders, but they are getting a good return to compensate

[kopchoir]

Thing is they were floating in the far east markets and now trying the is markets desperate for cash.
Who would want to invest in a company that you don't get any dividend you get no voting power and based in the caymans you can hide the finances for 5 years.
Prospectus talks of the debt
The filing says "our indebtedness could adversely affect our financial health and competitive position" and reduce "the availability of our cash flow to fund the hiring and retention of players and coaching staff."

United also warns that new UEFA spending restrictions "could negatively affect our business."

Half a billion quid in interest payments and not even paying off the capital.

Made in Manchester owned in America registered in the Caymans

[andyparksy]

Would agree with pretty much all of that but do think this is just a dipping a toe in exercise......... Either that or the first of a series.

All of the prospectus statements are true, but you have to remember they are always written in language like that as the regulators insist on warnings all over the place. Even "safe" investments are.

Then again, a subordinate class of minority shares would be about as far from "safe" as you could get.

Utd's biggest hope would be for the listings to fail and hope the pressure from the debt holders leads to a greater sharing of the club on a future listing at a much reduced price! Not going to happen though

Glazers are laughing

[YNWA1892]

Originally Posted by liamt

well, look how well we were doing before the yanks took us over? they have bled us dry, while city have been given a massive boost and are now a quality side.

its not like we need billions ploughing in, just lose the ******* who made us get into debt so what money we make we can use and not just pay off debts with it.

Good!!

I have no sympathy for United whatsoever look at the Yanks that screwed Liverpool and the gloating from United fans over the predicament Liverpool are currently in because of it.

There needs to be a drastic overhaul in the way people can buy football clubs, it's happening to too many clubs spending above their means or having owners buying them without having sufficient finances in place.

[YNWA1892]

Originally Posted by jalaldevil

Desperate are we?

How United supporters have had a change of heart on Sheiks.

Funny how it would be acceptable for them but not City

[Jay Z]

This is a fantastic article on bleacher report about how the Glazers have still supported Sir Alex and David Gill's running of the club and how they have got a business model in place which is sustainable and profitable.

Why Manchester United's Owners Are Not as Bad as Some Fans Think | Bleacher Report


IF we were owned by Sheikhs, yes that will bring unlimited funds, BUT will that mess up a successful business model which has increased our commercial revenue? Made us profitable?, grown our business on a global scale where we have secured DHL, Thomas Cook, Hublot and other top partners? increased our fanbase to 659M?


This is all where City posted an annual loss of £197M, based on a turnover of £153M, with a wage to turnover ratio of 100%, losing £161 on each ticket sold.


If we ran our club like the Chelsea's and City's of this world, we would be bust by now, because of the so do the real United supporters not support the flotation to the NYSE? Would you not support the flotation to the Sngapore Stock Exchange was it should it happen?

So guys, take some time out and read the article, it is a fascinating read into how we run our club and how the business has gone from strength to strength inclufing on the field since the Glazers took over.

[kopchoir]

Originally Posted by YNWA1892

Good!!

I have no sympathy for United whatsoever look at the Yanks that screwed Liverpool and the gloating from United fans over the predicament Liverpool are currently in because of it.

There needs to be a drastic overhaul in the way people can buy football clubs, it's happening to too many clubs spending above their means or having owners buying them without having sufficient finances in place.

To be fair SOS and MUST held a meeting about a joint protest given the feelings of the 2 most succeful teams in england being shafted.
Must wanted to come to the table SOS declined i know many united fans who were just as digusted about the state of LFC than some LFC fans.

I know lots of LFC fans who would want them to suffer im one of them but i wouldnt want them to go out of business say.
Just they had to sell all their best players and suffer for a bit like we had to,

Reina
Arbeloa Agger Skertl johnson
Macherano
Alonso Lucas
Gerrard Suarez
Torres

[kopchoir]

Originally Posted by Jay Z

This is a fantastic article on bleacher report about how the Glazers have still supported Sir Alex and David Gill's running of the club and how they have got a business model in place which is sustainable and profitable.

Why Manchester United's Owners Are Not as Bad as Some Fans Think | Bleacher Report


IF we were owned by Sheikhs, yes that will bring unlimited funds, BUT will that mess up a successful business model which has increased our commercial revenue? Made us profitable?, grown our business on a global scale where we have secured DHL, Thomas Cook, Hublot and other top partners? increased our fanbase to 659M?


This is all where City posted an annual loss of £197M, based on a turnover of £153M, with a wage to turnover ratio of 100%, losing £161 on each ticket sold.


If we ran our club like the Chelsea's and City's of this world, we would be bust by now, because of the so do the real United supporters not support the flotation to the NYSE? Would you not support the flotation to the Sngapore Stock Exchange was it should it happen?

So guys, take some time out and read the article, it is a fascinating read into how we run our club and how the business has gone from strength to strength inclufing on the field since the Glazers took over.

I read a lot of Andersred and if he says its bad its bad always better to listen and read a real fans perspective

[andyparksy]

Whilst there are some things in there (the article above) I agree with, there is a lot more that I think is just wrong and approached from the wrong angle......... You might say spin.......

Some comments earlier but I, and a lot of others would certainly not welcome a sugar daddy owner. At all. Would prefer to be uncompetitive rather than risk it all on the whims of an outsider, but that's just my opinion.

As for them bringing success, commercially and on the pitch, I can't stop feeling people need to remember the difference between effect and causality. Yes, utd have won things and signed contracts under them but to say it is down to them???

The problem I have with them which the article mentions in a positive way, is that whilst debt funded takeovers are quite common in business, they're still a massive risk for the underlying business, ie the club. The risk in this case is not from the business going bust, it will be sustainable by hook or by crook, just the pressure it brings to run it in a certain way, which is not going to be compatible with what supporters would see as success. It's this disconnect between the clubs interests and the owners interests that is the problem........ If you don't believe me look at ronaldo sale - ok, he was leaving but what to do with the receipts??? Owners plans or "club's" plans.......

[liamt]

Originally Posted by kopchoir

To be fair SOS and MUST held a meeting about a joint protest given the feelings of the 2 most succeful teams in england being shafted.
Must wanted to come to the table SOS declined i know many united fans who were just as digusted about the state of LFC than some LFC fans.

I know lots of LFC fans who would want them to suffer im one of them but i wouldnt want them to go out of business say.
Just they had to sell all their best players and suffer for a bit like we had to,

Reina
Arbeloa Agger Skertl johnson
Macherano
Alonso Lucas
Gerrard Suarez
Torres

im a united fan but i personally think we have been more crippled by US owners than liverpool. you were in decline well before they took over.

anyway, as a united fan since 82 i have no love for liverpool but i would hate to see our 2 clubs (the most prestigious 2 english clubs, IMO) be ruined by bad owners.

[YNWA1892]

Originally Posted by liamt

im a united fan but i personally think we have been more crippled by US owners than liverpool. you were in decline well before they took over.

anyway, as a united fan since 82 i have no love for liverpool but i would hate to see our 2 clubs (the most prestigious 2 english clubs, IMO) be ruined by bad owners.

Hicks & Gillet bought Liverpool in 2007, in 2006 we finished 3rd, in 2007 we was 4th and were runners up in the Champions League, winners in 2005, FA Cup winners in 2006.

That doesn't sound like a club in decline to me at all.

Hicks & Gillet Liverpool and we was a day from administration, they sold all our good players so no I don't believe for one moment the Glazers have screwed United more that what the two muppets did to Liverpool.

[JimmyMac]

The Manchester United company to be floated has been registered in the Cayman Islands. Investors will be invited to buy class A shares in that company, which will carry 10 times less the voting rights of the B shares the Glazers will issue to themselves. Nor is there a plan to pay dividends to the investors. They are asked to buy shares in the expectation their value will increase as Manchester United, described in the document as "one of the world's leading brands", further exploits its commercial potential.

Glazers' plans to float Manchester United make the heart sink | David Conn | Football | guardian.co.uk