United Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue Mist said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if they increased their leverage to before they bought Ronaldo; no transfer fee, right? Certainly they used Utd’s cash to cover their coupon from the LBO since they bought the club; that’s how LBOs work.
 
Blue Mist said:
And the brothers will get something like 137 million dollars with not a penny going to the club. What a brilliant way to make money.
If it was any other club I would be fuming but the rags created this scenario when they bought success by floating on the stock exchange, oh and then along came a race horse.
Click to expand...
Why would the club get any money if the Glazers are selling their own shares? Or have I got that spectacularly wrong?
 
Robinho's Subbuteo said:
Why would the club get any money if the Glazers are selling their own shares? Or have I got that spectacularly wrong?
Click to expand...
My point was if any club is run like the rags, saddled with huge debt whilst the owners creamed off money, then I would be up in arms. Burnley is a smaller version of the rags and it is wrong on any and every level.
The glazers used rag debt to get Sancho and ronnie which inflated the share price and they cashed in.

But this is the rags and I am laughing my head off. Finally something that isn't good for football is good for football.
 
People are saying the paperboy will soon be looking for a new round and someone like Conte will be in charge. Why would he go there ? Look at last summer, Olly knew he needed to sort out midfield, so they signed sancho.
He also knew they needed to sort out the defence so they signed ronnie.

Conte, or anyone decent would want control. A manager at the Swamp doesn't have that.
 
Blue Mist said:
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.
Click to expand...
And they cashed in before the Saudi Newcastle deal was revealed which is negative for the Rags….. not least because the Glazers are still said to be looking to sell up totally and there had been rumours of Saudi interest. This has been a bad week for United….oh dear.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
And they cashed in before the Saudi Newcastle deal was revealed which is negative for the Rags….. not least because the Glazers are still said to be looking to sell up totally and there had been rumours of Saudi interest. This has been a bad week for United….oh dear.
Click to expand...
I hadn't thought about the Saudi angle, I might have to go and sit in a darkened room.......

Or pour another cup of coffee and carry on laughing.
 
Blue Mist said:
People are saying the paperboy will soon be looking for a new round and someone like Conte will be in charge. Why would he go there ? Look at last summer, Olly knew he needed to sort out midfield, so they signed sancho.
He also knew they needed to sort out the defence so they signed ronnie.

Conte, or anyone decent would want control. A manager at the Swamp doesn't have that.
Click to expand...

Solksjaer is going nowhere as long as top four is in sight. Short term it is but with Newcastle looking like they have money to spend in the future the rags could be scrapping it out with them for that last remaining champs league spot.

United is a money making scheme to the Glazers, sporting success is secondary. Ronaldo was a good bit of business for them as they could get the bounce off the share price going up and offloading some. The lemmings that are their fans want the day trip out to see Ronaldo play and buy all the tat in their club shop, I wonder how long they will keep turning up when the results start going to pot?

The Glazers are loving it at the moment, they have bought the silence of their fan base and they made a shit ton of money doing so. No need to get itchy trigger fingers with firing off the manager.
 
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...
I pretty much grasp that, but if it comes to selling up,. The Glazers have full control with their B shares, so if they sell them to one individual/institution then that buying party would have full control
Arsenal shares are divided up 23% here , 12% there which means by buying one person's shares wouldn't give control of the club
 
Last edited:
ysmsa said:
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!
Click to expand...

hahaha

i just don't know you get that sort of money for none voting shares ? you have shares or not (wolf of wall street)
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
And they cashed in before the Saudi Newcastle deal was revealed which is negative for the Rags….. not least because the Glazers are still said to be looking to sell up totally and there had been rumours of Saudi interest. This has been a bad week for United….oh dear.
Click to expand...
Who would buy the rags?
A club with history but no future!
 
ysmsa said:
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!
Click to expand...
Those colours are green and YELLOW not gold. Someone connected with that fucking club started another 'United Myth' that it is gold as gold is considered as being valuable or competition winners. The correct colour is yellow and is linked with cowardice.
And that suits the Rags just fine.
It's interesting that Norwich with the identical colours for over s century have never once claimed they play in gold. I've always found Norwich to be a decent club without any delusions of grandeur.
As for the rags ..........
 
Bonzo Nododo said:
Those colours are green and YELLOW not gold. Someone connected with that fucking club started another 'United Myth' that it is gold as gold is considered as being valuable or competition winners. The correct colour is yellow and is linked with cowardice.
And that suits the Rags just fine.
It's interesting that Norwich with the identical colours for over s century have never once claimed they play in gold. I've always found Norwich to be a decent club without any delusions of grandeur.
As for the rags ..........
Click to expand...
Wolves official colour was "Old Gold." Still is?
 
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...
Forgive my own limitations on this - what is the A and B share thing and how are they dreamt up?

(How does a B share command less of a voting right than an A etc?)...........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top