Rags Debt - Daily Mail & Panorama [Merged]

[Bluemoon115]

How did it get exploited?

It was open to ruthless leverage takeovers, but everybody will say, tough.

But it wasn't exploited. It was unfortunate (from your point of view anyway), but it's the way that the stock market has always worked, and the risks were known when the PLC was formed. There was no foul play, no hoodwinking and no unjust actions taking place during the takeover. Shares were sold do due personal fallouts and grudges, but that is and always has been a very common occurance.

End of the day it was a very risky decision that always had an inevitable outcome.

 

[Bluemoonbaldboy]

How did it get exploited?

It was open to ruthless leverage takeovers, but everybody will say, tough.

thats the whole beauty of this situation some of the big businesses that held Utd shares were no doubt run by fans they saw the ££££'s the Glazers offered took the money and were very happy...Even the "average fan" who owned a few shares had a say to a degree the fans allowed this to happen they could have rejected the offer but most were more than happy with the cash

 

[Blue Coop]

Limited Liability is screwing them over.

 

[Bluemoon115]

It was open to ruthless leverage takeovers, but everybody will say, tough.

thats the whole beauty of this situation some of the big businesses that held Utd shares were no doubt run by fans they saw the ££££'s the Glazers offered took the money and were very happy...Even the "average fan" who owned a few shares had a say to a degree the fans allowed this to happen they could have rejected the offer but most were more than happy with the cash

Actually they had very little. Most of the shares were owned by big businessmen, and once a certain % of shareholders had accepted (remember, each share counts as one vote), the rest had no choice but to sell.

It's a ruthless game, putting a company on the market, but one which was met with very little resistance at the time.

 

[S04]

We might conclude that Utd and Lpool got their owners because they looked at the numbers, and the numbers where tempting.

At City the numbers was as always a disaster so we attracted owners not really looking for financial gain..

 

[Bluemoonbaldboy]

thats the whole beauty of this situation some of the big businesses that held Utd shares were no doubt run by fans they saw the ££££'s the Glazers offered took the money and were very happy...Even the "average fan" who owned a few shares had a say to a degree the fans allowed this to happen they could have rejected the offer but most were more than happy with the cash

Actually they had very little. Most of the shares were owned by big businessmen, and once a certain % of shareholders had accepted (remember, each share counts as one vote), the rest had no choice but to sell.

It's a ruthless game, putting a company on the market, but one which was met with very little resistance at the time.

John Magnier owned near enough 29% he was a fan....He was at one stage meant to buy the club if memory serves as I said fans filled their pockets

EDIT sorry memory issues he and JP McManus owned that stake between them

 

[shootmeifipost10k]

We might conclude that Utd and Lpool got their owners because they looked at the numbers, and the numbers where tempting.

At City the numbers was as always a disaster so we attracted owners not really looking for financial gain..

Correct and because united produce so much money they are vunerable since floating for the same thing to happen again unless they get similar owners to us.

Liverpool are slightly different they are long term after at least 10 years the same as untied a profitable buisness plan,but short term a crap investment because of the price and the need for new stadium players,which means new investors looking at the numbers are put off because they don't add up.Unless a new owner comes along who's going to sit it out bascially they are fucked while gillette and mainly Hicks hold out for top money. Liverpool are about 300-400 million over priced.Next year thiS will grow to 350-450 they need new owners and quick.

 

[Bluemoonbaldboy]

The most blindingly obvious thing is had the Premier League joint agreement over TV rights been broken the Glazers would have made a killing on PPV sales thats really why they came in for me, And those debts would have vanished inside a few years meaning the fans pay for the buyout of their team.

As any business making an operating profit of approx £60 million yet the parent companies debt increasing shows that the business model at the swamp is very very flawed.

 

[S04]

the Glazers would have made a killing on PPV sales thats really why they came in for me

Out of context but made me laugh anyway..;)

 

[without a dream]

Actually they had very little. Most of the shares were owned by big businessmen, and once a certain % of shareholders had accepted (remember, each share counts as one vote), the rest had no choice but to sell.

It's a ruthless game, putting a company on the market, but one which was met with very little resistance at the time.

John Magnier owned near enough 29% he was a fan....He was at one stage meant to buy the club if memory serves as I said fans filled their pockets

EDIT sorry memory issues he and JP McManus owned that stake between them

Didn't they fall out with the red-nosed one over a horse and sold to spite him?