United thread 2012/13 (inc merged IPO thread)

[Rammyblues]

Gingham Warriors

 

[ManCityFC]

It's all pretty irrelevant this. The second they slip out of top 4 they're headed the same way as Leeds. They just seem to be keeping their head above water, and this activity proves that. The Glazers couldn't give two hoots either, because its a win, win for them. Either way they're going to get very, very, very rich(er).

From where I'm standing they still have the plastics keeping the cash flow fluid, but lets see what happens this season if they don't get off to a good start, or that over-worked and under-rewarded manager drops dead at the side of the pitch (heaven forbid, seriously, wouldn't wish for that, but it seems the Glazers are happy to work the poor fucker to death, and if the worse did happen, a lot of people will be asking why he wasn't forced to retire). The plastics soon regard unsuccessful clubs as yesterdays chip paper, as you can see by the number of Nuevo City Fans that have crawled out of the woodwork. When/if that happens, serious cracks will appear in the business plan.

They are advertising like crazy on Talk Sport to flog MUTV subscriptions at the moment. The end of season break will see they're revenue severely hit, hence the timing of this flotation in my opinion.

To be honest, I love you Glazers. I hope they stay owners forever, cause they are continually holding them back. They're not progressing at all. Look at last season. No major trophy, a dismal Champions League run. They're slowly but surely going backwards and even the most loyal rag fan knows it. But on the plus side, they're paying more and more to watch worse and worse football. That can only last so long before the plastics get completely bored and melt away....and like I say, then the serious cracks will appear.

On another note, its amazing how these plastic rags defend them. Ha Ha.

 

[Bilboblue]

Gingham Warriors

Rammy.... please expand, seen this a few times now and have no idea what it means!

 

[manimanc]

i hope the glazers get bought out by some rich arab and they spend millions on players and have a star studded team THEN we play them and still wipe the floor with them,that would be even sweeter than beating the MUGS/RAGS/GLAZERITES of today!!

 

[Rammyblues]

Rammy.... please expand, seen this a few times now and have no idea what it means!

It is all to do with there new shirt and the weave pattern (t cloth style), and apparantly someone says it winds the rags up something rotten on facebook (not that I go on there). :-)

 

[Bilboblue]

Rammy.... please expand, seen this a few times now and have no idea what it means!

It is all to do with there new shirt and the weave pattern (t cloth style), and apparantly someone says it winds the rags up something rotten on facebook (not that I go on there). :-)

Cheers mate......

 

[blue cigar]

come on boys,rally round our neighbours in their hour of need. i for one have sent an old comb i found in a drawer to the MUST campaign to help with funding or something. im going to organise a sponsored shit for the first day of the season to also raise funds for the mighty red knights who now have almost £82 sat in their mighty red warchest.
help keep the biggest ever football club in existence, i dont know how i would cope without them to laugh at.

 

[jrb]

Glazernomics.

Enough said.

 

[Marvin]

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)

This is from Reuters...
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/12/uk-manchesterunited-ipo-caymans-idUKBRE86B1HP20120712

Companies often incorporate in the Cayman Islands for tax reasons. But in the case of Manchester United, the football team seeking an initial public offering on the New York Stock Exchange, the advantage accrues to its controlling family, the Glazers, at the expense of new public investors.

As part of its IPO, the legendary sports franchise will use a new Cayman Islands company to sell shares, even though the club's operations are in Britain.

The company and its owners declined to explain why they would incorporate in the Caymans. A spokesman cited Securities and Exchange Commission restrictions on communications by companies preparing for an IPO.

But experts said the structure offers important perks to the family of U.S. businessman Malcolm Glazer, who acquired the sports franchise in 2005 for around $1.47 billion (952.8 million pounds).

Chief among them: the two classes of shares allowed under Caymans law. This structure allows the family to retain control by holding shares with 10 times the voting rights of average investors, even as they raise money from the public to pay down the club's $655 million debt and reduce its onerous interest payments.

"The current owners are lowering the possibility of larger investors buying up all the liquid shares in the market and affecting its management," Sverrir Sverrisson, an equity analyst at Saxo Bank in Copenhagen, Denmark, said in an email. "This is not beneficial for the potential shareholders."

British exchanges where rival teams have listed in the past don't permit dual share structures. Hong Kong, where the company had considered listing after financial turmoil in 2011 tanked plans to list in Singapore, also doesn't allow them.

As an "exempted" company under Caymans law, one that does not do substantial business there, Manchester United won't need to hold annual shareholder meetings or disclose shareholder registers. Cayman laws make hostile takeovers or removal of board directors difficult as well.

These governance benefits, not tax savings, could be the main driver of the Caymans location. "It is regulatory arbitrage rather than some tax advantage," said Duke University professor Campbell Harvey, an expert in international business.

But there are tax ramifications for investors and the company.

Counter to the Caymans' usual tax benefits, Manchester United expects its tax rate to rise after this deal, according to its SEC filing.

Until now, the club has paid only British taxes, but by going public as a company based in the Cayman Islands, the Glazers are triggering a section of U.S. tax law that requires overseas companies with majority U.S. ownership to pay U.S. corporate taxes.

The provision dates from 2004 when it was enacted in reaction to a wave of U.S. companies such as Tyco and Stanley Works, which planned offshore moves to save on taxes. Tax experts say this is the first time they have seen a company opt into this tax treatment in this way.

It will cost the company more in tax, but the Glazers, who currently fully own Manchester United through a Nevada partnership controlled by family trusts, could well see some personal tax benefits, these experts say.

The Caymans structure could act as a way for the Glazers to legally avoid a potential capital gains tax of 15 percent on the pre-IPO value of the company. That tax could have kicked in if they had listed in Britain instead.

Jason Factor, a tax partner at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in New York, said that through the Cayman move "the family avoids any tax that might otherwise be triggered for them by a transfer of their U.S.-owned assets to a foreign company."

The Glazers could also be seeking to minimize estate and gift taxes by holding pre-IPO assets in their family trusts, said Daniel Shaviro, a tax professor at New York University School of Law.

 

[Marvin]

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

Feb 2017 is a key date as this is when the bonds that were issued to re-finance the club's debt mature. But the IPO strengthens Utd's position even if it leaves 3/4 of the debt intact.

This is the 3rd time that the Glazers tried to float the club, and when it was first talked about they were talking about raising a half a Billion plus and eliminating the entire debt, but if it goes through it will be just £75mill that will be used to pay off a chunk of their debt leaving the majority intact. But debt repayment is always good

The green and yellows wont be happy because it strengthens the Glazers hold on the club.

It's a goodish result for us as it's not a solution for Man Utd. The ideal scenario for me would have been that the share issue failed entirely. Still possible that that could happen