United thread 2012/13 (inc merged IPO thread)

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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...

That would be "mums' iPad" (assuming that they shared the same iPad) ;-)

I hold my hands up. Mea culpa.

 

[JM Mcr]

Mums iPad or Mum's iPad?

Ahem...

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

That would be "mums' iPad" (assuming that they shared the same iPad) ;-)

I hold my hands up. Mea culpa.

I'm so glad my mum's a technophobe!

 

[VOOMER]

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.

-- Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:11 pm --

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..

Hallelujah brother

 

[Mike D]

Had to laugh at this Sh*tpea the one season wonder being gutted about last season, like he really was the star of the shown last year . I'm just waiting for Bebe to wade in and start throwing his toys out.

 

[more lazy than useless]

Going back to that marketing deal it seems very weird to me based on the sums detailed.

Chevrolet have an insignificant marketing share in Europe, and how many yanks will ever watch Manchester United.

GM, admittedly with Vauxhall/Opel, are big but the deal doesn't seem to involve that brand at all.

So they've paid $300m to advertise their product where they have extremely low market share (maybe useful) and where most of their customer won't even understand the logo - I'd have had real difficulty placing the Chevrolet logo before this and I've lived in the USA. Alternatively, they've paid $300m to advertise in their core market of which <5% will be watching the games (and that's probably generous).

Just doesn't stack up to me at all for the amount of money involved.....

Football, and more specifically the Premier League, is about to explode in the USA imo. You could say the same about AIG and AON at the time those deals were agreed.

For a global brand, as a dick waving exercise, I imagine being on united's shirts is seen to be one of the hottest tickets. We are moving into an era where the world continues to shrink and for that reason I am not surprised about this tie up.

Surely the reason AON, AIG and now Chevy (and throw in Standard Chartered wtih Liverpool) sponsor shirts is the Asian audience, not the US or European one?

And on the question of the Glazers selling up in 2017 after paying off the debt, yes they would make a killing, but surely they would keep the club and and suck it dry year in, year out? Who would be stupid enough to sell the goose that lays golden eggs?

That assumes they haven't sunk the club by then!

 

[VOOMER]

Going back to that marketing deal it seems very weird to me based on the sums detailed.

Chevrolet have an insignificant marketing share in Europe, and how many yanks will ever watch Manchester United.

GM, admittedly with Vauxhall/Opel, are big but the deal doesn't seem to involve that brand at all.

So they've paid $300m to advertise their product where they have extremely low market share (maybe useful) and where most of their customer won't even understand the logo - I'd have had real difficulty placing the Chevrolet logo before this and I've lived in the USA. Alternatively, they've paid $300m to advertise in their core market of which <5% will be watching the games (and that's probably generous).

Just doesn't stack up to me at all for the amount of money involved.....

Football, and more specifically the Premier League, is about to explode in the USA imo. You could say the same about AIG and AON at the time those deals were agreed.

For a global brand, as a dick waving exercise, I imagine being on united's shirts is seen to be one of the hottest tickets. We are moving into an era where the world continues to shrink and for that reason I am not surprised about this tie up.

Surely the reason AON, AIG and now Chevy (and throw in Standard Chartered wtih Liverpool) sponsor shirts is the Asian audience, not the US or European one?

And on the question of the Glazers selling up in 2017 after paying off the debt, yes they would make a killing, but surely they would keep the club and and suck it dry year in, year out? Who would be stupid enough to sell the goose that lays golden eggs?

That assumes they haven't sunk the club by then!

Like a family of red headed leaches, pure Darwinian!

 

[Zubenelgenubi]

The Damned United.

I see the subject of Manchester Uniteds IPO / The Glazers share sale is topical again <a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19061040" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19061040</a> so thought it a good excuse to post an article I penned a few weeks back for your deliction....

Are Manchester United going the way of Glasgow Rangers ?

In the transfer market today it seems to me Ferguson is 'the Emperor with no clothes'. Manchester United 'the man with the invisible wallet'.

The Glazers and United seem short of cash. It was recently reported the club is £423 million in debt and they are hoping by means of an IPO (Initial Public Offering) on the New York Stock Exchange to raise $100 million / £64 million which it is said will be used to help reduce the clubs heavy level of debt and onerous interest payments...<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18699885" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18699885</a>

Wether the Glazers hopes are realised remains to be seen but looks doubtful.

United fans have been angered for a long time at the debt loaded on to 'their Club' for the benefit of the Glaziers, financiers and investors and earlier this year it was reported Manchester Uniteds debt totaled £413 million, up by £26m on last year whilst their income is down about 6%...<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/17/manchester-united-debt-glazers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... bt-glazers</a>

To date the Glazers have reportedly taken more than £500 million out of Manchester United, £76 million just this year, £50 million of that to cover interest charges alone. Since winning the Superbowl a decade ago, the Glazers American Football team the Tampa Bay Bucaneers have failed to even qualify for the play offs and reportedly incurring loss's partly offset some suggest by milking United. It's been a miserable time for the 'Bucs' but according to Wilkipedia in the first day of the NFL Free Agency period in March 2012 in an effort to change their fortunes this year the Buccaneers signed 3 players 'two out of the top 3 free agents available' committing 'a total of $140 million dollars considered the largest investment the Glazer family has put into the team in almost a decade'. I would guess the Glazers were confident then that United would win the Premier League and that would help pay, after all even some bookies were paying out.

Peter Schmeichel commented in April just before the Manchester Derby that the fact Manchester United 'with a relatively 2nd rate side by their standards' were still in contention with City to the end for the Premier League title was for him one of Sir Alex Fergusons biggest ever achievements at Old Trafford and I have to agree. For me Fergie whatever your opinion of him has done an amazing job papering over ever widening cracks ever since the Glazers loaded the club with yet another tranche of huge debt and last season was indeed extraordinary. Calling back Scholes was a sign of desperation but a master stroke. But time waits for no man and I suspect time, money and confidence that and aged United and an elderly Ferguson can continue to service their seemingly ever increasing debt is running out.

Ferguson has complained clubs like City are paying 'silly money'. I dont disagree, but of course it was Fergie himself who stepped it up to a 'silly' level more than 10 years ago with £30 million..for a 23 year old guy called Rio Ferdinand, a transfer record for a defender to this day.The truth is ever since its inception 20 years ago winning the Premiership has always been about silly money. For at least the 30 years prior to that silly money too was a key requisite, to winning the League title all be it arguably to a marginally lesser degree. As a boy I recall us all being amazed by Denis Law being transferred for unbelievably silly money £100,000 and ridiculously high wages and Trevor Francis 'a snip' at £1 million. All relative in...a 'silly money' sort of way.

By paying 'silly money' over the last 20 years, Ferguson and Manchester United very effectively priced almost every other Premier League Club out of the transfer market and the Premier League Title. Since its inception the Premiership has always needed 'silly money' to win it and consequently only 4 other clubs apart from United have ever won it. In 1995 Jack Walker, a local steel Baron with deep pockets brought Blackburn fans hopes and dreams come true. Arsenal won it 3 times in 1998, 2002, the last being with the 'Invincibles' back in 2004 but since then with the building of the Emirates Stadium, Wenger's early achievements have increasingly been compromised by financial prudence, the need to sell players and balance the books and lack of 'silly money' available to compete / the Fergie effect. Chelsea have won it three times in 2005, 2006, and 2010 thanks to the intervention of oligarch Roman Abramovich and this year Manchester City with the support of Sheikh Mansour. 'Buying the premiership' and buying success is nothing new...Fergie and Manchester United are the past masters of it.

Now the boot is on the other foot the likes of Alex Ferguson and 'established silly money' clubs like Manchester United really don't like it, because they know first hand that money talks and more often than not prevails. The Premiership title is won over 38 games so has very little to do with luck, unlike a cup run/knock out competition, even Ferguson admits that. Which is of course why Manchester United and other 'established' teams are doing their best through UEFA to invoke a closed shop on inward investment to protect their perceived 'rightful' position, the 'status quo'. They fear if they don't, that they and other 'credit card compatriots' will wither or worse still have no way of services their debts and face foreclosure and bankruptcy. But that has always been that way in football, other teams would then rise and they and their fans take their day in the sun before fading away themselves too, all going will to rise again one day. No club has the God given right to dine at the top table in perpetuity.

Success in football has always healthily moved on, but over the last 50 years, in my lifetime, that success has exponentially followed the money to where we are today. In terms of achievement, European Cup titles, Liverpool, Nottingham Forest should of course by rights have been the best supported and wealthiest of clubs in the land. But Manchester United benefited from a broad countrywide and worldwide sympathy and support stemming from the Munich Air Disaster and a fairy tale recovery to win the the Champions league in 1968. When dad's outside of Manchester who cared little and knew little about football were asked by there sons what team they supported they would scratch their heads and say err Man Utd and heres the story why. That misfortune and lives of those now legendary players lost ultimately brought Manchester United great fortune and provided the very foundation, the level of universal support...and money, for what we all see as Manchester United today. Until that fateful day Manchester United were just another middling club, unworthy of consideration as one of the greats. The lives lost on that freezing runway in Munich made Uniteds blood red shirts famous and them the richest team in the UK and one of the richest in Europe. Todays generation of United fans would do well to remember that. That United generally underachieved and squandered their financial strength, until Mr Ferguson arrived to exploit it to the full is a moot point.

So it should hardly have been any surprise every football fan other than Manchester United fans were cheering when Manchester City won the Premiership. 'Anyone but United' was the cry. Any residual sympathy for United has long since dissipated. Down the years every fan has seen United use their financial muscle / superior credit limit to dismantle the opposition and so secure their own pre-eminence. Many great clubs like Leeds Uniited have driven themselves into debt, ultimately bankruptcy and ignomy just trying to hold onto players and compete with team they call 'The Scum'. Clearly there would be very little sympathy amongst opposing fans where Manchester United to be hoisted from their own petard...Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Like many other clubs since the Edwards family decided to cash in their shareholding in Manchester United effectively became a pawn in the world of high finance, with successive owners progressively driving up income and taking more and more money out, 'gearing it', loading it with debt. Some Manchester United supporters with reason take the view 'their club' has and is effectively being financially raped and they may well be right. However, most have been succoured/seduced in the glory of continued success, mellow, as the level of debt has piled up, the clubs credit limit increased and almost all competition effectively priced out. Ferguson's is not strictly speaking responsible for that debt but the successive sales and consequential refinancing/mortgaging of the club have along the way helped to make him a very wealthy man. With successive owners he has kept his piece and his job and so with respect to debt he might well be seen by some as a kind of Judas. But the money, the financial muscle and influence afforded to him along the way combined with his acumen to use it (like it or not) has enabled him to bring Manchester United untold honours and success. So who can say he hasn't done his job and does'nt deserve his thirty shekels, after all, strictly speaking, it is not he who has loaded Manchester United with this enormous debt and not he who is directly responsible for it.

Happily at Manchester City, rather than being loaded with debt and moneys extracted by the owners, hard cash is actually being invested into the club. More importantly not just into MCFC, but into the new training complex in Sport City and not just for profit but for the benefit and regeneration of the whole community in East Manchester. That and MCFC's success promises to be Sheikh Mansours legacy and agw he'll reep further returns on his investment. Quite a contrast to United and of course a dream come true for City fans. Which as an aside rather begs the question...If someone wants to put real money into a club rather than load it with debt, field a fine team and make a real contribution to the local community, what is so wrong with that ? Would you choose for your club, the likes of the Glazers ...or people who put hard cash in like an Abramovich, or a Jack Walker or a Sheikh Mansour ? I cant comprehend UEFA's twisted logic in effectively wanting to shut people like the last 3 out, but of course it all comes down to money and shutting up shop / creating a closed shop...he who pays the piper calls the tune.

The listing of Manchester United on the London stock exchange from 1991 to 2005 was a roller coaster ride for investors but one that it might be argued provided them, for a while with an inflated value and a correspondingly high credit rating / borrowing ability that ultimately allowed the club to be loaded with the huge level of debt we see today and competition very effectively price out. Fine...as long as your winning and others simply don't have the financial muscle and/or credit worthiness/ or borrowing ability to keep up...which is not the case today. In reality I don't think the listing really benefitted the club on the pitch, rather a number of speculators off it. Now loaded to the gunnels with debt, facing serious competition and possibly their glory days behind them Manchester United as Damian Reece points out in the Telegraph, don't look a particularly attractive proposition to investors in today's market. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/damianreece/9375912/Manchester-Uniteds-glory-days-on-the-stock-market-are-behind-it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... nd-it.html</a>

More cynical observers might take the view the Glazers are looking for a way out and a means to reduce their exposure their debt, a bit like rats leaving a sinking ship, recognising that without further funding and significant investment United may well find life increasingly difficult in the Premier League so better they take what they can while they can. David Conn's latest article in the Guardian would seem to bear that out. It reports Manchester United are filing out of date accounts for the flotation suggesting the real reason why is to hide a significant loss of income and the club's worsening financial position. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/10/manchester-united-accounts-share-offer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... hare-offer</a> The Glazers will be concerned that except for a quite extraordinary season from Wayne Rooney 35 goals in 43 games, which is unlikely to be repeated, they wouldn't have have even been in sight of their 'noisey neighbours'. Worse still if Schmeichel's assessment is right, they will harbour doubt's as to how long an elderly Ferguson can continue to hold together his aged 'relatively 2nd rate United team' and fear the financial consequences of another trophy less season like or worse still than the last.

It cant have gone unnoticed Glasgow Rangers debt was 'only' £50 million when they went under. Some suggest that United's current position is unsustainable, that the 'Plastic Reds' really should pull their horns in, that somethings gotta give, somethings gotta change. But if United did that, they, like Liverpool, would face the prospect of an indeterminate slide into mediocrity, perhaps worse, a corresponding debilitating loss of income, value, and financial muscle to compete at the top level whilst their finances are straightened out. The United finance manager Mr Martin Gill insist's there is money available for United to compete, but I wonder is it enough ? and if so aren't Ferguson and Co. and their prospective new shareholders just headed right on down the bankruptcy route ?

I'm sure United and the Glazers would say no...at least not so long as they are seriously competing for the Premiership and are in the Champions League but I guess Glasgow Rangers thought that too.

But man for man Manchester United are not a patch on Manchester City these days, or I would suggest Chelsea or Spurs and there would seem little hope for them in Europe.

And there in lies the rub, income is key...'no one ever went bankrupt because they borrowed too much money...rather when they could'nt pay their bills'.

So when it comes to buying new players it seems to me Manchester United are indeed between a rock and a hard place, damned if they do and damned if they don't.

So I cant help wondering if Ferguson & Co's final legacy will be...

RIP Man Utd...long live Newco Man Utd in the Blue Square league !

...not that that it really matters to the fans and Fergie, he will always be remembered by them for a great ride and the Glazers and their ilk wont be missed.

Better still it could well be the chance for the 'Plastic Reds' to load up their very own credit cards up and buy back...The Damned United !

Ho di Hum.

...So there you have it. In my view better one invest in a Manchester City Season Ticket and enjoy watching one of the finest football team in Europe than waste your money on a one way ticket south.

'Every dog has its day' and 'I'm lovin it' !

 

[sniff]

Football, and more specifically the Premier League, is about to explode in the USA imo. You could say the same about AIG and AON at the time those deals were agreed.

For a global brand, as a dick waving exercise, I imagine being on united's shirts is seen to be one of the hottest tickets. We are moving into an era where the world continues to shrink and for that reason I am not surprised about this tie up.

Surely the reason AON, AIG and now Chevy (and throw in Standard Chartered wtih Liverpool) sponsor shirts is the Asian audience, not the US or European one?

And on the question of the Glazers selling up in 2017 after paying off the debt, yes they would make a killing, but surely they would keep the club and and suck it dry year in, year out? Who would be stupid enough to sell the goose that lays golden eggs?

That assumes they haven't sunk the club by then!

Like a family of red headed leaches, pure Darwinian!

All the conspiracy theories are great...

but the whole point of advertising is to increase sales and brand awareness...

the fact a company is going all out in a market they have little share of is 100% normal for a company trying to find new revenue streams..

added to the fact that the US is prob the only place in the world where the premier leauge isnt really followed.. so a massive deal with a global product isnt dodgy in it's self... the ammount and the fact it's taxpayers money could well be.

 

[Rammyblues]

For them still trying to get their heads round this share thing, quite a good insight for them who are struggling to keep up (including me). If this has been posted already ignore.

What is an IPO?

An Initial Public Offering (IPO) is when a private company becomes a public one by selling shares for the first time.

Why do Manchester United need one? Aren't they rolling in money?

Yes and no. United have announced a seven-year sponsorship deal with Chevrolet, described as being worth £200 million, and beginning in the 2014-15 season, which is the most lucrative in football. They already have a portfolio of sponsors and commercial partners. In the 2010-11 year, they received £31.3 million from their kit manufacturers Nike and have a minimum guaranteed annual income of £25.6 million from them. United's annual commercial income grew from £66 million to £103 million between 2009 and 2011. Broadcasting income rose by around 20% in that time, United's total income for the 2010-11 year was £331.4 million and their adjusted EBITDA - essentially their profit before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation are factored in - was £109.7 million. In their IPO prospectus, United say they have "an ability to monetize our brand."

However, United expect their income to decrease by as much as 5% to £315-320 million for the 2011-12 year, while expenses are likely to rise by 4-5%. Moreover, "our net finance costs", as United described them - essentially money spent repaying debts incurred by the Glazer family to finance their 2005 takeover of the club - is expected to be £49-50 million. Finance costs were £51.2 million in 2010-11, £108.5 million in 2009-10 and £117.4 million in 2008-09.

In addition, "as of June 30, 2012, we had approximately £70 million of cash and cash equivalents and approximately £437 million of borrowings outstanding," United reported. In other words, "one of the most popular and successful sports teams in the world," as United describe themselves, owe £437 million. So they need money. Why they need it now, however, has not been fully explained.

So how many shares are they selling and at what price?

United are selling 10% of shares in the club. They are selling 19,166,167 shares at a proposed maximum price of $20 each. If every share sells at its maximum price, that would bring in $383,333,340, or around £244 million, which would make United the most valuable sports club in the world. United say in their prospectus for the IPO that they expect the minimum price per share to be $16. If every share sold at that price, they would raise $306, 665, 872. However, they will incur expenses of $12 million in the IPO. So how much is United worth?

The Glazers bought United in 2005 for just under £800 million. In March, Forbes valued United at $2.24 billion. Depending on the share price after the IPO, however, the club could be valued at $3 billion, potentially even more. Forbes say this could add around $200 million to the worth of the Glazer family, currently around $2.7 billion.

When will this happen?

As early as next week. Friday, August 10 is when United shares could be on sale at the New York Stock Exchange.

Why New York?

The New York stock exchange permits a voting structure whereby some shares carry greater voting powers, of which more later. The London stock exchange does not.

This isn't the first time United have gone to the stock market, is it?

No. The club was on the stock exchange from 1990 until 2005 when the Glazers completed their buyout and took them off the market. Last year, United planned to list the club on the Singapore stock exchange to raise money before deciding against it during a time of stock market volatility.

But aren't stock markets still volatile, so isn't this still risky?

Yes, markets have a tendency to go up and down quickly and, given global economic turmoil, are likely to remain unstable for the foreseeable future. But United's IPO is a bond issue that been underwritten by Jeffries Co., Credit Suisse Securities, J.P. Morgan, BofA Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank Securities, so there is less risk attached than when other companies go public. Think of it as an executive insurance policy.

What about private investors? Is United a risky investment for them?

"Investing in our Class A ordinary shares involves a high degree of risk," United say in their IPO prospectus. There are several warnings to investors: of potential damage to the brand and that "our business is dependent upon our ability to attract and retain key personnel, including players." Key personnel obviously also include a manager in his 71st year, Sir Alex Ferguson, while United have lost crucial players - principally Cristiano Ronaldo - in the recent past and Wayne Rooney was unsettled in October 2010. United also say that: "We are dependent upon the performance and popularity of our first team." In particular, revenue from Europe is not guaranteed. In the 2010-11 year, 39.8% of their broadcasting revenue came from the Champions League. But they reached the final that year and last season, when they were eliminated in the group stages and dropped into the Europa League, will prove less lucrative. Fail to qualify for the Champions League at all and revenue would drop further. As United warn "European competitions cannot be relied upon as a source of income." Matchday revenue, which was £110.8 million for the 2010-11 season, is also expected to be lower for the 2011-12 campaign, when Old Trafford staged four fewer games.

However, the new Premier League television deal, worth £3 billion over three years for UK rights alone, will begin next year, so there is one guarantee of an increase in income. Citing a survey by Kantar Media, United say they have 659 million followers and that their games are watched by an average of 49 million people. They sell more than five million branded and licensed United products and their Facebook page has more than 26 million connections (in comparison, the New York Yankees' page has 5.9 million).

If United are on the stock market, will that make them more transparent?

Not really. United are registered in the Cayman Islands and are designated "an emerging growth company" under US federal securities law, which entails "reduced public company reporting requirements". Those reporting restrictions last five years.

Could fans who oppose the Glazers buy the shares and use them to get rid of the owners?

Not unless the Glazers sell a lot more shares, particularly ones with greater voting power. The Glazers are putting up 8,333,333 Class A shares. In addition, the underwriters have a 30-day option to buy a further 2,500,000 shares if there is a high demand. However, if they don't, there are still a further 39,685,700 Class A shares and 124,000,000 Class B shares in the hands of the Glazers - in other words, a vast majority of 90%. Plus Class A shares carry one vote per share and Class B shares 10 votes per share so, in terms of voting rights, the public investors will have 1.3% and the Red Football LLC - a holding company for the Glazers - 98.7%. In addition, United say "Our principal shareholder will have the ability to determine the outcome of all matters submitted to our shareholders for approval, including the election and removal of directors and any merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets." So the Glazers do not just have the final say, they determine what the conversation is about.

Could it actually be harder to get rid of the Glazers?

Yes. "Anti-takeover provisions in our organizational documents and Cayman Islands law 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," United state in the prospectus. This is a change in their constitution and, in addition, it allows the Glazers to issue more shares - which would dilute the holding of anyone else who buys them now.

So why buy shares?

Apart from those with an affiliation to United, the same reasons people buy shares in Apple, Facebook or any other company: because they believe it will appreciate in value and be a worthwhile investment in the short or long term.

But if United raise all this money, will their debt be reduced?

"We intend to use all of our net proceeds from this offering to reduce our indebtedness by... $116.8 million (£73.0 million)," United state.

That is what the fans want, isn't it? And what about the rest? Will Sir Alex Ferguson have a huge transfer kitty?

The fans want reduced debt, yes, partly because debt, and its repayments, is eating up United's profit (they have an adjusted EBITDA of £305.1 million for the last three financial years when full figures are available, but net finance costs of £277.1 million in the same time). But the Glazers had indicated they would use all the funds raised from a flotation to reduce the debt.

Now, however, the proceeds of the sales of 16,000,000 Class A shares have been reserved for an "equity incentive award plan". United said in the prospectus: "The principal purpose of the Equity Plan will be to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and non-employee directors through the granting of share-based and cash-based compensation awards."

How much is it worth? And does Ferguson gain?

Depending upon the share price, it could be worth up to $320m (£204m). No one is specified by either name or job title. However, it is a logical assumption that Ferguson and chief executive David Gill would be among the major beneficiaries.

What have United had to say about this?

"Under the regulations of the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission], we are not permitted to disclose the contents of the document," a club spokesman told the Guardian.

What has Ferguson had to say about it?

Nothing in the last few days, but last month he said: "They [the Glazers] have always been as sensible as they can be in terms of financing the club. They have to invest in the team to maintain the value of their asset. I think there are a whole lot of factions at United that think they own the club. They will always be contentious about whoever owns the club and that's the way it has always been.

"When the Glazers took over here there was dissatisfaction, so there have always been pockets of supporters who have their views. But I think the majority of real fans will look at it realistically and say it's not affecting the team. We've won four championships since they've been there and one European Cup."

Why does Ferguson argue the Glazers have been good for United?

In terms of silverware, their seven-year ownership has been one of the most successful spells in the club's history with four Premier League titles and three Champions League finals, one of them ending in victory. Ferguson argues that hands-off owners give him the freedom to do his job as he wishes.

"I am comfortable with the Glazers. They have been great," he said last month. "They have always backed me whenever I have asked them. I have never faced any opposition."

And why do some supporters argue they have been bad for the club?

Principally because around £550 million has gone out of a previously debt-free club in the past seven years to service debt, pay interest and bank and loan fees.

What is their attitude towards Ferguson?

"We now know why Sir Alex was quite so in favour of the Glazer family," said Andy Green, the United supporter and football finance expert who runs the andersred blog, referring to the share scheme. "I think he is risking tarnishing some of his legacy, which is a great shame because he is the greatest manager probably in English football history. But his association with all this skullduggery is sad."

And what is their view of the IPO?

"It is barely going to scratch the surface of the debt," Green said. "It won't help at all. It is a wasted opportunity. They should have floated a larger element of the club. They should have given one vote per share and they should have let the fans take part. When you work through all the numbers, it will reduce the debt from around £425 to £350 million. It will save around £5 million a year in interest. That is barely enough to buy a new trainee for the academy."

Duncan Drasdo, chief executive of the Manchester United Supporters Trust, said: "There is now no doubt that this IPO is bad for Manchester United supporters, Manchester United Football Club and any investors gullible enough to pay the inflated price they've attached to inferior shares which have just 1/10 of the voting rights of the Glazers shares and no dividends. Their bare-faced cheek is almost unbelievable."

What do industry experts say?

"The valuation looks very overextended," said Josef Schuster of Chicago investment firm Ipox Schuster. Green also argued that the Glazers have overvalued the club. "It's an extraordinary valuation and I think they may well struggle," he told Sky News. "Most savvy investors will be wary of this offer."

 

[stony]

Ant truth in the rumour that Walkers are sponsoring the new kit.