United thread 2012/13 (inc merged IPO thread)

[mike channon´s windmill]

There is some potential for this to cause a stink politically in the US but is that what we really want? Something exposing the Glazers could end up forcing them out and frankly they are doing such a fookin good job that I would be loathe to see that come to pass

 

[VOOMER]

Don't know if anybodies seen this one yet. Sarbanes and Oxley's view of what the Glaziers are trying to do.



(Reuters) - English soccer club Manchester United's MANU.N planned Wall Street share offering was cited by architects of the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate accountability law as they criticized recent U.S. legislation that watered down their decade-old reforms.

"There is some potential for scandal," former U.S. Sen. Paul Sarbanes said on Monday, referring to this year's Jobs Act.

The legislation was billed by sponsors as a way to stimulate jobs by making it easier for smaller corporations to raise money, but some regulators and consumer advocates have protested that it opens the door to financial fraud.

Manchester United announced plans this month to sell shares on the U.S. market, and said it qualified as an "emerging-growth company" under terms of the Jobs Act.

Such companies, which fall below financial thresholds such $1 billion a year in revenues, have to provide less audited financial data and less disclosure than larger firms.

Those thresholds are too high, Sarbanes told a George Washington University conference commemorating the 10th anniversary of the legislation he co-sponsored with then-U.S. Rep. Michael Oxley. Bankers estimate the new rule would actually cover as much as 90 percent of companies looking to go public.

Said Oxley, "I read an article the other day where Manchester United football team is considering an IPO here in the United States. They are a startup company that has only been around 120 years."

"They're going to start an IPO here, but all the jobs are going to be in the UK. That doesn't strike me as job creating," he said.

"They're an emerging growth company," Sarbanes added.

"They've been emerging for 120 years," Oxley said, drawing laughter from the crowd.

Manchester United's initial public offering will raise as much as $333 million, valuing the club at $3.3 billion at the top of the range of the offering, which is between $16-20 a share. Revenue for the year that just ended is expected to be 315 pounds to 320 million pounds ($495 million to $503 million).

The club was acquired by Florida-based businessman Malcolm Glazer and his family in 2005. The Glazers, who have not been available for comment in recent weeks, have been criticized for burdening the company with debt through a leveraged buyout.

Manchester United said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it intended to take advantage of some Jobs Act exemptions. "We cannot predict if investors will find our ... shares less attractive because we will rely on these exemptions," it said.

The club could not be immediately reached for comment on Tuesday.

The problem for the rags and the Glaziers, is that there's political mileage in this and in true Hollywood style, there's a nasty vindictive English villain, the color red being the finishing touch to the whole macabre tale.

 

[Anonymous]

I think Sarbanes' comments may begin a lobby toward changing legislation, but that will take so much time that this will have all been done/dusted. Glazers will have their millions, the fans will cry into their green and gold scarves/ cuntona duvets/Nick Humby jigsaws and the team will hopefully lumber into mediocrity and beyond.

And can we show these Americans a modicum of respect please? Their family name is GLAZER, no Glazier/Glaser or any other such bastardization. You don't want them getting uppity and fucking off now do you?

 

[JM Mcr]

Glazers cement Manchester United control by moving to block takeovers • Glazers alter constitution to deter hostile bids • Manchester United flotation contains new provisions

Simon Goodley guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 31 July 2012 20.16 BST

The terms of the Glazers' New York flotation risk sparking a fresh round of protests from Manchester United fans. Photograph: Andrew Yates/AFP/Getty Images

The Glazer family has moved to block any future hostile takeover of Manchester United by quietly altering the club's constitution, in a move that will further enrage the club's fans.

The changes – almost certainly designed to protect the Glazers' control of the club if the family cashes in further shares – is revealed in regulatory documents published as part of the club's planned flotation in New York. The float stands to net the Glazers around $150m (£96m), despite previous assurances that proceeds would go towards paying down the club's debt.

The US filing warns potential investors: "Anti-takeover provisions in our organizational documents and Cayman Islands law [where Manchester United are incorporated] may discourage or prevent a change of control, even if an acquisition would be beneficial to our shareholders, which could depress the price of our shares and prevent attempts by our shareholders to replace or remove our current management."

The filing goes on to say that the club's "amended and restated memorandum and articles of association" now permit the Glazers to issue new shares "from time to time, with such rights and preferences as they consider appropriate. Our board of directors could also authorize the issuance of preference shares with terms and conditions and under circumstances that could have an effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction".

The Glazers are only selling around 10% of the club through the stock market listing, so they would be able to block any takeover bid launched immediately after the float. However, financial experts said that the new anti-takeover clauses would protect their position if they needed to raise cash in the future by selling down their holding.

The flotation documents also show that the Glazers have retained the option to sell an additional 2.5m of their shares, which would bolster their proceeds from the offering by $45m.

Michael Moritz, a Cardiff-born Silicon Valley investor who is also a Manchester United fan and critic of the Glazers, said: "The anti-takeover provisions further protect the Glazers. It is the financial equivalent of armed robbers leaving the scene of a crime and throwing nails on the road to stop pursuers.A pound of potatoes will be a better investment than the purchase of shares in Manchester United's stock offering. The only people who will be better off with this offering are the Glazers".

Neither Manchester United nor Jefferies, the club's main adviser on the listing, returned phone calls or emails.

Monday evening's statement – which described United as an "emerging growth company" despite revenues slumping by up to 5% in the last financial year – shows that the club will be valued at around $3bn if the listing goes off successfully. Assuming United can find enough buyers, the shares will begin trading next month.

However, it is still far from clear that the club will be able to sell enough shares at what the Glazers consider an acceptable price, and concerns over the valuation have previously forced the club to abandon plans to list its shares in Hong Kong and then in Singapore. The investment bank Morgan Stanley is also believed to have stepped away from the flotation because of fears that the Glazer family had pinned too high a valuation on the club.

Much of the investor concern comes down to the club's massive debt, which stood at £437m at the end of June, and how the balance sheet is potentially weighing the club down.

Andy Green, a football finance writer behind the andersred blog, calculates that £520m has been taken out of United since the Glazers took the club over in 2005, with most of that figure being accounted for via interest and fees related to the club's borrowings. Meanwhile, of the £520m, £38m has been paid directly to the Glazers via £28m in consultancy fees to their companies and a £10m dividend.

Apart from raising money for the Glazers, a successful float of Manchester United will achieve two further aims. Firstly, it will raise around $150m to pay down debts. Second it will give the club a financial valuation, which the Glazers will eventually need if they are to cash in their investment by selling the club at some future point.

How much United are worth is crucial to the balance of the family's finances. Wealth-X, a consultancy that specialises in high net worth individuals, estimates Malcolm Glazer's fortune at $2.7bn, $1.3bn of which is tied to United. His stake in the Tampa Bay Buccaneers is worth another $980m and First Allied, his ailing shopping malls business, another $8.5m.<br /><br />-- Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:11 pm --<br /><br />From the above guardian article it.looks like the Glazer's are in it for the long haul n don't want anybody doing "a Glazer" to them in the future..

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think Sarbanes' comments may begin a lobby toward changing legislation, but that will take so much time that this will have all been done/dusted. Glazers will have their millions, the fans will cry into their green and gold scarves/ cuntona duvets/Nick Humby jigsaws and the team will hopefully lumber into mediocrity and beyond.

And can we show these Americans a modicum of respect please? Their family name is GLAZER, no Glazier/Glaser or any other such bastardization. You don't want them getting uppity and fucking off now do you?

Does spelling their name correctly extend to bastardizing [sic] all other words into American English ;-)

 

[Anonymous]

£520m taken out of the club?! Wow!! That's our transfer budget from last season!! ;-)

I think Sarbanes' comments may begin a lobby toward changing legislation, but that will take so much time that this will have all been done/dusted. Glazers will have their millions, the fans will cry into their green and gold scarves/ cuntona duvets/Nick Humby jigsaws and the team will hopefully lumber into mediocrity and beyond.

And can we show these Americans a modicum of respect please? Their family name is GLAZER, no Glazier/Glaser or any other such bastardization. You don't want them getting uppity and fucking off now do you?

Does spelling their name correctly extend to bastardizing [sic] all other words into American English ;-)

Damn you autocorrect!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

£520m taken out of the club?! Wow!! That's our transfer budget from last season!! ;-)

I think Sarbanes' comments may begin a lobby toward changing legislation, but that will take so much time that this will have all been done/dusted. Glazers will have their millions, the fans will cry into their green and gold scarves/ cuntona duvets/Nick Humby jigsaws and the team will hopefully lumber into mediocrity and beyond.

And can we show these Americans a modicum of respect please? Their family name is GLAZER, no Glazier/Glaser or any other such bastardization. You don't want them getting uppity and fucking off now do you?

Does spelling their name correctly extend to bastardizing [sic] all other words into American English ;-)

Damn you autocorrect!

I know, it can be a woman sometimes. Whenever I use my mums iPad to post on here it always spells "its" as "it's" which is as annoying as fuck, which as a fellow pedant I'm sure you'll appreciate ;-)

 

[The Flash]

£520m taken out of the club?! Wow!! That's our transfer budget from last season!! ;-)

Does spelling their name correctly extend to bastardizing [sic] all other words into American English ;-)

Damn you autocorrect!

I know, it can be a woman sometimes. Whenever I use my mums iPad to post on here it always spells "its" as "it's" which is as annoying as fuck, which as a fellow pedant I'm sure you'll appreciate ;-)

Mums iPad or Mum's iPad?

Ahem...

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

£520m taken out of the club?! Wow!! That's our transfer budget from last season!! ;-)



Damn you autocorrect!

I know, it can be a woman sometimes. Whenever I use my mums iPad to post on here it always spells "its" as "it's" which is as annoying as fuck, which as a fellow pedant I'm sure you'll appreciate ;-)

Mums iPad or Mum's iPad?

Ahem...

ha ha . It's a fair cop. If you dish it out, you've got to be able to take it :-)

I do always consciously spell mum or dad in lower case, but the lack of apostrophe was unforgivable.

 

[JM Mcr]

£520m taken out of the club?! Wow!! That's our transfer budget from last season!! ;-)



Damn you autocorrect!

I know, it can be a woman sometimes. Whenever I use my mums iPad to post on here it always spells "its" as "it's" which is as annoying as fuck, which as a fellow pedant I'm sure you'll appreciate ;-)

Mums iPad or Mum's iPad?

Ahem...

Maybe he has two mums and each has an IPad that they lend him now and then...