United thread 2012/13 (inc merged IPO thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Chevrolet deal is massive for United. It changed everything. If anyone other than the Glazers had been in charge it would have secured their financial affairs for many years and allowed them to compete for every decent player in the market.

Inspite of the protestations from the Utd supporter groups, the Chevrolet deal will enable Utd to remain competitive short term and has enabled the owners to smoothly paper over the cracks. In effect, short term, the Chevy deal has rescued the club.

The Glazers, now seeing that there is money to 'spare' have immediately seconded $150 for themselves. I would hazard a guess that the underwriters are now chomping at the bit to buy up shares in light of the Chevy deal. The sacking (forced resignation) of Ewanick was directly related to the Chevy deal and comes in the context of the company losing $16.4 billion in Europe since 1999.

The ousting could be as simple as the dawning fact that Utd are not the top team in the UK any more, let alone Europe. The other theory is that the 'fees' element of the deal was not sanctioned or that there was a rogue upfront payment clause.

More speculation from the Detroit Bureau has been added to this article originally published on June 30th. http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2012/07/what-sank-gm-marketing-czar-ewanick/
 
bacuzzi said:
The sacking (forced resignation) of Ewanick was directly related to the Chevy deal and comes in the context of the company losing $16.4 billion in Europe since 1999.

I'm not surprised they lost that much if such a large sponsorship deal isn't being rigorously checked and signed off at CEO level. You'd imagine the CEO would have a few awkward questions to answer about the United deal.
 
No seriously. Who can spot the not so obvious reference to the owners of Manchester City Football Club in the article?

Manchester United: The Glazer Family’s Bad Play
Aug 6, 2012 1:30 PM EDT
The Glazer family took a storied soccer team private, and changed the corporate agenda. Team fan Michael Moritz on why he thinks they’ve ruined the business as an IPO looms.
Print
Email
Comments (1)
Long before some silvery-tongued devil rebranded corporate raiders as private equity players, they were called asset-strippers. The dubious tactics of what were once also known as leveraged buyouts (LBOs) are usually hidden from view. But the pending IPO of the Manchester United soccer club lays bare the consequences. Manchester United’s seamy tale is a small, but colorful example of what happens when a healthy business falls into the clutches of people who seize control of it by using enormous amounts of debt. The story of the depredation of Manchester United, one of the world’s best known soccer teams, closely parallels the manner in which a long list of other businesses including Federated Department Stores, Readers Digest, The Chicago Tribune, Masonite, Mervyns, Simmons Bedding, Station Casinos, and Six Flags were taken over by LBO firms, stuffed to the gills with debt and subsequently ruined.

First, a little history. In 2005, when the Glazer family of Miami, landed in the North of England, Manchester United was a publicly traded company, which was thriving both on and off the field. The club had healthy profits and was generating a good amount of cash—one of the surest measures of a well-managed business. Best of all Manchester United had enough cash on hand to eliminate almost all its borrowings. In other words, the management was in control of the destiny of the business.
All this changed after the Glazers, veteran corporate raiders who also owned the NFL’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers, took the business private and loaded it with debt. The corporate agenda suddenly changed, as it does with all leveraged buyouts. Instead of operating the business for the benefit of all its constituents—customers, employees, management and shareholders—two new groups had to be satisfied: the new controlling shareholders (in this case the Glazers) and the banks.
While the Glazers are the down-market, bucket-shop version of leveraged buyout practitioners, they followed the conventional playbook. They used very little cash to grab Manchester United. So while the Glazers like to portray themselves as “owners” of Manchester United, they are no such thing. Real owners buy and operate businesses with cash. People like the Glazers are little more than placement agents for lenders. Manchester United’s real owners—the entities that have title to the assets of the business—are now the banks.
All this is made depressingly clear in the documents accompanying the proposed IPO. While Manchester United, thanks to the shrewdness of its longtime Manager Sir Alex Ferguson, has continued its winning ways on the field, the underlying business has been ruined because of the mountain of debt shoveled onto the company. The debt load is so vast that every asset of the club—including its training ground—has been mortgaged. (The Glazers have generally declined to comment on criticism of their stewardship of Man U, talking instead about their continuing investment in the team. They have now entered the “quiet period” before the IPO and are not allowed to discuss the subject publicly).

During the last four years, the club has paid $792 million in interest and other finance costs, the documents show—which is more than has been spent on the purchase of players during the past 20 years. Imagine instead if that money—in the fashion of well-run publicly held businesses—had either been spent on investments in the future health of the company or distributed to all stakeholders. Instead of groaning to make payments to the banks and the Glazers, this vast sum could have been spent on further improvements to the stadium, development of enhanced broadcasting, web and digital technologies, a better global scouting and training system for promising young soccer players, the purchase of other stars, acquisitions of complementary businesses or partially set aside for the inevitable rainy day.
Today Manchester United is imprisoned by debt. The club has a further $1 billion that comes due in the next 220 weeks. This straightjacket will limit Manchester United’s ability to compete with the changing dynamics of the English Premier League. Their cross-town rivals, Manchester City, pipped them for the championship last season thanks to the firepower and limitless amount of cash of their owners, members of Abu Dhabi’s ruling family.


But things get even worse. The Glazers—like all the worst LBO characters—have been artful about taking money out of the business. They have paid themselves consulting fees, according to the documents, and taken out personal loans totaling at least $40 million. Now, with the prospective IPO, they plan to appropriate even more. Of the money the club is trying to raise by selling shares to unsuspecting American fans, $150 million, (or half the entire offering) will go the Glazers—either to satisfy personal needs for cash or, as is widely suspected, to mollify family members who are unhappy or uneasy about their exposure to Manchester United. Lumped together, this means that over $1B will have been sucked out of Manchester United and gone to the banks or the Glazers.
So what should fans of the club do? They should hope that the IPO will fail and that the Club is eventually forced into a bankruptcy reorganization, which would wipe out the Glazers and force the banks to loosen the terms of the mountain of debt. Most of all the fans should yearn for the appearance of new owners who possess an ethical compass, care about the long-term health of the business and have heaps of cash. People with those sorts of sensibilities—stewards of the future and guardians of the company—may actually deserve the label, ‘private equity’.

I posted this on another forum. I'm sure PB will correct me.

Let's put this in front of the firing squad for the last time.

As of June 30, 2012, we had approximately £70 million of cash and cash equivalents and approximately £437 million of borrowings outstanding.

So that's an outstanding debt of £367mill, minus £70mill in cash and cash equivalents.(if that cash and cash equivalents was to further pay down the debt?)

Risks Affecting Us
We are subject to numerous risks, including risks that may prevent us from achieving our business objectives or may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flow andprospects. Please read the section entitled ‘‘Risk Factors’’ beginning on page 16 for a discussion of some of the factors you should carefully consider before deciding to invest in our Class A ordinary shares. In particular, we have and will continue to be subject to the challenges of operating in our industry. These challenges and risks include, among other things, competition for key players and other personnel, increases in operating costs, such as player salaries and transfer costs, and our ability to manage our growth efficiently. For example, net of profit on disposal of players’ registrations, we realized a loss from continuing operations in two out of the last three fiscal years (largely the result of finance costs that have since been significantly reduced through our deleveraging in fiscal year 2010). After giving effect to the use of proceeds from this offering, we would have had total indebtedness of £345.4 million as of March 31, 2012.
In addition, although we preliminarily estimate that our profit from continuing operations for our fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 was approximately £21 million to £23 million, such amount includes a tax credit estimated to be approximately £27 million to £29 million. Net of that tax credit, we expect that we would have realized a loss from continuing operations for our fiscal year ended June 30, 2012. See

So without £70mill cash and cash equivalents in the bank(hypothetically used to pay down the debt), and without the one off tax credit estimated to be approximately £27 million to £29 million, United would have realized a loss from continuing operations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, along with a total indebtedness of £345.4 million(£367mill?) or there or thereabouts?

In a nutshell.

No cash, an operating loss, and a debt of £345mill.

http://www.retailroadshow.com/sys/docView.asp?i=1449
 
the way i see it is that without the tax credit they would of in the worst case lost £8 million..

but with this new deal, kit sponsor and new TV deal, they stand to pull in an estimated extra £80 million a year..

the only way this is bad for them is because of the trend of not paying the debt, but with those figures they have no reason to. Im also unsure of some wording of the IPO document as it suggested that they are not allowed to buy back all of the bonds they wanted because they had a minimum term that hasnt yet been reached..
 
sniff said:
the way i see it is that without the tax credit they would of in the worst case lost £8 million..

but with this new deal, kit sponsor and new TV deal, they stand to pull in an estimated extra £80 million a year..

the only way this is bad for them is because of the trend of not paying the debt, but with those figures they have no reason to. Im also unsure of some wording of the IPO document as it suggested that they are not allowed to buy back all of the bonds they wanted because they had a minimum term that hasnt yet been reached..

So Joel Ewanick, via GM, has kept the Glazer's hanging on in there for a while yet, and in doing so sacrificed his job.(allegedly)

No wonder the IPO was delayed and moved to the NYSE.

OH look, GM are now sponsoring us to the tune of....?, over the next X amount of years. Give our IPO a second thought.
 
This is probably pure guess work but I am keeping an eye on Fletcher making a dramatic come back at the rags. He is currently training with the Scotland national side. Sorry if this has been covered.
 
jrb said:
sniff said:
the way i see it is that without the tax credit they would of in the worst case lost £8 million..

but with this new deal, kit sponsor and new TV deal, they stand to pull in an estimated extra £80 million a year..

the only way this is bad for them is because of the trend of not paying the debt, but with those figures they have no reason to. Im also unsure of some wording of the IPO document as it suggested that they are not allowed to buy back all of the bonds they wanted because they had a minimum term that hasnt yet been reached..

So Joel Ewanick, via GM, has kept the Glazer's hanging on in there for a while yet, and in doing so sacrificed his job.(allegedly)

No wonder the IPO was delayed and moved to the NYSE.

OH look, GM are now sponsoring us to the tune of....?, over the next X amount of years. Give our IPO a second thought.

I could be wrong, im not finance expert by a long way. But if the figures are correct then you cant say its bad... The only downside for them would be that the debt isnt being paid off. But with that sort of income they wont be in much trouble, the interest payments will be made and still be high, but the club will have cash in the bank whilst leaving enough for the Glaziers to take a cut.

The IPO just looks like a bridging loan to me, this will give then the funds to keep going until next year when the TV deal Kicks in, then that will carry them until the new shirt and kit deals come into effect.
 
SWP's back said:
How do you get to an extra £80m per year sniff?

Like i said in an earlier post, it's a rough estimate..

Im going off the extra £25m from the GM deal, i know its not bang on that, but with the activation fee its close enough.

the new shirt deal with nike is expected to be the same, so again roughly another £25m

then you add on the Sky deal thats adding about £30m a year to every one..

Like i said its rough, but i reckon the actual figure wont be far off.
 
In a nutshell.

Manchester United have told potential investors they believe new financial fair play rules will play into their hands.

In a 36-minute video aimed at attracting new shareholders, club bosses also revealed they were expecting to spend £40m on players this summer.

The Reds’ owners are looking to raising £190m by selling off around 10 per cent of United.

Fans – who believed the cash would go to wiping out some of the club’s £423m debt – reacted furiously when it emerged the Glazer family themselves would pocket around half.

The share flotation, on the New York Stock Exchange, is expected this week. The video has been put together to attract investors.

The club’s executive vice chairman, Edward Woodward, kicks off the film by saying the Reds ‘create compelling content’. He claims one in 10 of the world’s population are fans.

Michael Bolingbroke, United’s chief operating officer, then takes over and states that Uefa’s Financial Fair Play rules, which are aimed at ensuring football clubs break even by 2017, ‘will very effectively play to our strengths’.

Rivals Manchester City, who were propelled to Premier League glory with huge investment from their billionaire Arab owners, are not mentioned.

But Mr Bolingbroke says the regulations ‘will act as a deterrent to new wealthy owners acquiring clubs’
. Potential investors are also told to expect annual net spends on the transfer market of £20m-£25m.

However, Mr Bolingbroke says spending this summer could be £40m.

Mr Bollingbroke confirms that about £78m of funds raised will go towards the debt. He adds that the club has every indication it will be able to meet its interest payments without dipping into a £75m credit facility.

Duncan Drasdo, chief executive of anti-Glazer fans group the Manchester United Supporters Trust, has organised a campaign aimed at convincing the banks underwriting the proposal to withdraw their support. He described some of the claims in the video as ‘fantasy’.

Mr Drasdo said: “They are claiming that an independent survey found they had 659 million followers across the world. It wasn’t independent, they paid for it. The figures need challenging – they are fantasy.”

Mr Drasdo has called on fans to boycott products made by United sponsors. He said more than 460,000 emails have been sent to the banks involved asking them to pull out.

Last week, in a strongly-worded statement that first appeared on the M.E.N. website, Sir Alex Ferguson denied he stood to profit from the proposed flotation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.