United Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
34yearsandstillgoingstrong said:
Given the Glaizers announcement that they are placing 9.5M of their shares on the secondary market I thought it might be useful to clarify a few points :
ManUre "A" Shares ( 43.3M paid up and issued )
Same par value as the "B" shares i.e. $0.0005 or to put it another way 2000 to the $ ( see below ! )
Same Dividend as the "B" Shares (£10M in total -last accounting year - £24M previous year )
ONE vote per share ( against TEN for the "B" Shares )
These "A" shares are traded on the NASDAQ and the price ( varies minute to minute ) is the one quoted in these posts
The Glazers owned 5% of these A shares ( they have to convert their "B" shares to "A" shares to sell them )
60% of the "A" shares are owned by ( just ) 3 entities -Baron / Lindsell / Massachusetts
ManUre "B" Shares ( 119.7M paid up and issued )
Par value- as above
Dividend- as above
TEN Votes per share - the Glaizer Family wholly control the "B" shares and so retain almost total control
As above - to sell their "B" shares they must convert them to "A" shares ( and so diluting their voting power)

Sorry that this is so technical and I'm no expert but I add a few (personal) observations in the hope that I might generate a few more informed comments as to what the Glaizer's intentions might be ( bless them ! )
(1) The par value is crucial to understanding the Glaizers : their capital input into ManUre is a mammoth £59,000!
Man City Shares have a par value of £1 and the good Sheikh's capital input into Man City is £1,316,000,000 (Compare!)
(2) There really aren't many shareholders in ManU and one can assume that the above mentioned Baron/Lindsell work closely with the Glaizers to maintain the price. Who are Baron/Lindsell . To quote the last auditeds " almost 100% of the shares are owned by (just) 3375 US Shareholders"
(3) The share price - in truth, is of little significance in calculating the value of ManU PLC. The Company has a huge 3rd party debt burden ( unlike City ) and needs to spend a billion on a modern stadium. The value of the club is dependent on what someONE will pay for it. The Glaizers have considered "floating" ManU on the HongKong and the London stock market and ditched the idea. It will be interesting to see where the above mentioned 9.5M shares end up.
(4) Apparently Sheikh Mansour was put off buying Arsenal because their ownership was to complex... so what about ManUre... are they really that attractive a proposition.
Anyway, all too boring, but I hope a few better informed observers can add their thoughts.
Finally, referring to the Rag's last full accounts : they now have 1,100,000,000 supporters / followers ( based on 54000 responses !! )
Click to expand...
So I’d need to spend time understanding all this a bit better than I do, but I can tell you the “par value” of a security does not represent the actual base investment in that security. It is an accounting/finance concept that ensures there is “worth” to a security beyond the market price; i.e. effectively a corporate “promise” that a security will not be sold below that price to anyone. It’s effectively an irrelevant bookkeeping entry.

I need to look at the shareholder list but “Baron” is Baron Capital — Ron Baron’s firm, a long-term focused investment fund group who often takes big bets on growth or value stories and has a strong historical track record as well as IMO hands down the nicest offices in Manhattan. You periodically see Ron on CNBC in the US. Has historically been a huge Tesla bull among other names, including MANU. Lindsell Train is a London-based hedge fund whom I don’t know. Ariel is also large holder; another value-oriented shop; they show up 3rd on my sheet.

This deal is what we call a “bought deal” in the trade where a price is negotiated with a buyer or buyers vs. a marketed offering or “secondary”. Bought deals have become more common — they’re faster and easier to complete, more certain on pricing because they happen quickly (in a day) but to take big slugs of stock all at once, buyers need some kind of discount. The deal is done; the Glazers have their money; someone (or someones) now owns those shares at a cost base of $17.50, the discount of 10% or so needed to convince the buyers to purchase the deal overnight which is why the shares fell to around that level, plus a bit more, since the “signal” is that the largest owners are reducing their stake which is sometimes a negative (certainly compared to adding to an existing stake).

Hopefully this adds a little context and, as always, LOL at MANU.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
So I’d need to spend time understanding all this a bit better than I do, but I can tell you the “par value” of a security does not represent the actual base investment in that security. It is an accounting/finance concept that ensures there is “worth” to a security beyond the market price; i.e. effectively a corporate “promise” that a security will not be sold below that price to anyone. It’s effectively an irrelevant bookkeeping entry.

I need to look at the shareholder list but “Baron” is Baron Capital — Ron Baron’s firm, a long-term focused investment fund group who often takes big bets on growth or value stories and has a strong historical track record as well as IMO hands down the nicest offices in Manhattan. You periodically see Ron on CNBC in the US. Has historically been a huge Tesla bull among other names, including MANU. Lindsell Train is a London-based hedge fund whom I don’t know. Ariel is also large holder; another value-oriented shop; they show up 3rd on my sheet.

This deal is what we call a “bought deal” in the trade where a price is negotiated with a buyer or buyers vs. a marketed offering or “secondary”. Bought deals have become more common — they’re faster and easier to complete, more certain on pricing because they happen quickly (in a day) but to take big slugs of stock all at once, buyers need some kind of discount. The deal is done; the Glazers have their money; someone (or someones) now owns those shares at a cost base of $17.50, the discount of 10% or so needed to convince the buyers to purchase the deal overnight which is why the shares fell to around that level, plus a bit more, since the “signal” is that the largest owners are reducing their stake which is sometimes a negative (certainly compared to adding to an existing stake).

Hopefully this adds a little context and, as always, LOL at MANU.
Click to expand...
Interesting read if somewhat complex.

A simple look at it is if Glazer’s sell there shares why would United expect to receive any of the money.

I know if sold my Lloyds I wouldn’t give it to them.

It’s a sale of an asset not an extra investment.
 
big gaz said:
Is this good or bad ?
I'll wait till Prestwich Blue posts, with him I believe and he got me through those court days :-)
Click to expand...
If you wanted to be totally cynical, you could say they used the Ronaldo deal to pump the stock up, then after the pump, sold the shares and got the price they had before the Ronaldo deal. Without announcing Ronaldo, they might have gotten $15/share instead of $17.50. But they’ve reduced their financial stake, though lost almost no control as the A shares they sold contain 1/10th the voting rights of the Bs they own (the Bs are convertible to As). So it means the Glazers cashed out a bit, but still retain control, and continue to make all the same decisions about football they have — over the last ten years, mostly wrong ones.
 
ancoats said:
they are the none voting shares hahahahhahaha worthless
Click to expand...
These are printed on Green and Gold paper where as the proper ones are on Red paper.

Bit like monopoly money, the pink ones are good, green are shite!

That fuckin Club!
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
If you wanted to be totally cynical, you could say they used the Ronaldo deal to pump the stock up, then after the pump, sold the shares and got the price they had before the Ronaldo deal. Without announcing Ronaldo, they might have gotten $15/share instead of $17.50. But they’ve reduced their financial stake, though lost almost no control as the A shares they sold contain 1/10th the voting rights of the Bs they own (the Bs are convertible to As). So it means the Glazers cashed out a bit, but still retain control, and continue to make all the same decisions about football they have — over the last ten years, mostly wrong ones.
Click to expand...
All true but you missed one very important part out. They used yoonitids money to buy PR7 not their own. So the rag debt becomes bigger but they become richer, ha ha fucking ha. Oh my aching sides.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
If you wanted to be totally cynical, you could say they used the Ronaldo deal to pump the stock up, then after the pump, sold the shares and got the price they had before the Ronaldo deal. Without announcing Ronaldo, they might have gotten $15/share instead of $17.50. But they’ve reduced their financial stake, though lost almost no control as the A shares they sold contain 1/10th the voting rights of the Bs they own (the Bs are convertible to As). So it means the Glazers cashed out a bit, but still retain control, and continue to make all the same decisions about football they have — over the last ten years, mostly wrong ones.
Click to expand...
I want to be really cynical :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top