United thread 2012/13 (inc merged IPO thread)

[SWP's back]

Still clears £75m of debt

Which makes absolutely no difference. You are being hard work. And don't make me work out the extra cost of the additional 8% tax or I'll find you and I'll kill you.

I regard £75m as significant. Don't really see how it can be dismissed. The 8% tax is payable on profits?

I believe so unless I have misread something. As I have stated before, corporation tax is PB's stronghold.

 

[sniff]

so have any details come out about this new sponsor yet...

ive pointed out the IPO is bad for the rag's but he kind of has a point... if true, although i doubt that he is. His points to me made sense with my limited info.

1) The Chevy deal hasn't changed, the early reports got the figure wrong, Reuters and The Times both say it's over £50m per annum. According to the LA Times the marketing guy was fired because he managed to forget to include the Chevrolet name in the contract so we only have to show the logo. Rather significant oversight...

2) The IPO hasn't changed as much as people seem to be screaming. The offer is for the same amount originally indicated in the prospectus, and is underwritten so we're guaranteed that amount. In addition the Glazers are selling some of their own shares as well (rather than just diluting the holding they already had) which is where their portion is coming from. It could have all gone to the club if it was all a new issue, but it's only 50% new shares so it's hardly surprising the Glazers are receiving cash for something they own... Yes it would be better all going to the club, but it's still an improved position with reduced debt and reduced Glazer share percentage.

3) No one actually knows anything about the stock options yet, but they're hardly shocking and better than paying people cash bonuses. They have to hold for an initial period and ties their return to the success of the club.

4) I'd love to know how "the debt is now a problem" when after this we'll be paying about £25m p.a. in interest, which we could pay twice over with the new sponsorship deal? Things are looking pretty strong actually...

That was the lengthy reply i was given... On the face of it he seem's right ?

 

[SWP's back]

He's got his interest payments wrong for one I think sniff.

 

[sniff]

He's got his interest payments wrong for one I think sniff.

I hope so cause he's a proper smug mummys boy plastic, we just argue through email at work.

 

[Braggster]

Still clears £75m of debt

Which makes absolutely no difference. You are being hard work. And don't make me work out the extra cost of the additional 8% tax or I'll find you and I'll kill you.

I regard £75m as significant. Don't really see how it can be dismissed. The 8% tax is payable on profits?

Agreed, £75m is clearly significant! Not sure how anyone can sensibly claim otherwise. Obviously though (and here I do agree with PB) it doesn't solve the problem, which it potentially could have done (or at least much more substantially alleviated it) had more money been raised or all of the money raised been used to reduce debt instead of finance the Glazers' nefarious activities.

Bit mystified as to this talk of a 35% tax rate though; the operating companies will still be UK resident. Is it a condition of listing on the NYSE that one is tax resident in the USA? I cannot believe that this is the case so am totally nonplussed as to how one arrives at the view that Caymanchester United are US resident for tax purposes. (Caveat: I have not read the listing docs)

 

[SWP's back]

He's got his interest payments wrong for one I think sniff.

I hope so cause he's a proper smug mummys boy plastic, we just argue through email at work.

Even at £25m pa the new deal isn't £50m so wouldn't pay it off.

Their expenses are up and turnover down, they are now cash poor and would make a loss but for a tax credit this year.

The proof in the pudding will be seeing how much they can afford to spend on new players every summer I guess. It's a slowburn this one, just as they laughed when we got money and all we could do was say "we'll see", the same will go here.

Just call him a ****.

 

[sniff]

He's got his interest payments wrong for one I think sniff.

I hope so cause he's a proper smug mummys boy plastic, we just argue through email at work.

Even at £25m pa the new deal isn't £50m so wouldn't pay it off.

Their expenses are up and turnover down, they are now cash poor and would make a loss but for a tax credit this year.

The proof in the pudding will be seeing how much they can afford to spend on new players every summer I guess. It's a slowburn this one, just as they laughed when we got money and all we could do was say "we'll see", the same will go here.

Just call him a ****.

i have been doing on an hourly basis today... i think he already knew that though.

its confusing because retuters in america are running with the $600m deal

<a class="postlink" href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/31/uk-gm-manu-idUKBRE86T13220120731" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/3 ... 3220120731</a>

 

[Football guy]

Season ticket e-mail from rags . ''he is 100% commited '' lollllllllll<br /><br />-- Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:18 pm --<br /><br />I think united new deal with chevrolet is worth £200m over seven years , not £50m per annum

 

[bluemoondays]

Could we be talking Rangers style meltdown in a few years?

Imagine them having to restart as Trafford United and Manchester United goes the way of Royal Engineers, Old Etonians, Glasgow Rangers etc :D

 

[1_barry_conlon]

All I can say is I hope Gordon Gekko and Bud Fox are involved in this shady deal....

Well Uncle Malc likes the mantra of 'greed is good' :)<br /><br />-- Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:25 pm --<br /><br />

Could we be talking Rangers style meltdown in a few years?

Imagine them having to restart as Trafford United and Manchester United goes the way of Royal Engineers, Old Etonians, Glasgow Rangers etc :D

Or newco...or oldco..or Malco...or costco/disco/serco/bisto/pesto (delete or add as applicable)