Great article in The Guardian today about the shifting tides in Manchester and the hypocrisy of the red nosed dictator. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/...ague-previews-manchester-united?newsfeed=true
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
United thread 2012/13 (inc merged IPO thread)
- Thread starter carlos tevez is a blue
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
bacuzzi said:Great article in The Guardian today about the shifting tides in Manchester and the hypocrisy of the red nosed dictator. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/...ague-previews-manchester-united?newsfeed=true
Just shows how two people read the same thing, but come up with a different view!
To me, that article started by having a sly dig at us "city only scoring because QPR where distracted by being safe", then going on to explain how strong United would be with one or two new players. It then explains that United were just unlucky not to win it, because of their injuries. How City are weak in defence because we rely on Kompany, yet there was no mention of Tevez going awol, or Yaya' absense in the ACON etc.....or the fact that we were technically a new team who were still gelling.
Even if we don't sign anybody new this window, we are still stronger. If tevez keeps stops listening to the voices in his head (kia), and balo grows up just a bit, it wouldn't actually matter what United do/buy. Before we had great players, we now have a great team...
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
On the basis of $14 per share, the club and the Glazers will come out with about £75m each. That will only cover about a third of the Glazers' personal debt from paying off the PIK notes so they've still got a fair bit of that hanging over them.
The club's £75m will pay off some of the bonds but only after the expenses of the IPO have been met. These could be about £20m so they could be left with a mere £50-55m (about an eighth of their total debt) to go towards debt reduction. That's better than nothing but it still leaves them an interest bill of over £30m a year.
The most interesting bit willl be watching the share price after flotation. If it bombs then the Glazers are going to be in a pickle as it means the club is worth nowhere near what they think. As an example, if it goes under the $10 suggested as being fair market value, then it's probably only worth £1bn, which is not that much more than they paid for it.
The club's £75m will pay off some of the bonds but only after the expenses of the IPO have been met. These could be about £20m so they could be left with a mere £50-55m (about an eighth of their total debt) to go towards debt reduction. That's better than nothing but it still leaves them an interest bill of over £30m a year.
The most interesting bit willl be watching the share price after flotation. If it bombs then the Glazers are going to be in a pickle as it means the club is worth nowhere near what they think. As an example, if it goes under the $10 suggested as being fair market value, then it's probably only worth £1bn, which is not that much more than they paid for it.
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
Some very interesting stuff in that article, but I agree the 'distracted' line is absolute bullshit, and a bit snide. When you see Ned and the QPR defence diving into tackles to try to stop Balotelli and Aguero there is no sign of them being distracted whatsoever.fulabeer said:bacuzzi said:Great article in The Guardian today about the shifting tides in Manchester and the hypocrisy of the red nosed dictator. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/...ague-previews-manchester-united?newsfeed=true
Just shows how two people read the same thing, but come up with a different view!
To me, that article started by having a sly dig at us "city only scoring because QPR where distracted by being safe", then going on to explain how strong United would be with one or two new players!!!
Taylor seems to do this a lot — often writes decent stuff about us, but then seems to throw in a nugget of outrageously subjective nonsense. It's as if he is trying too hard to prove how neutral he is.
I would absolutely love to read the articles he mentions which were filed by the journalists at 85 minutes, mind you — both from the Etihad and the Stadium of Light.
TGR
Well-Known Member
Its just great to watch it....
It can only end in tears. I have waited all of my life for this. So I am just going to sit back and 'enjoy it and drink it in!' ;-)
It can only end in tears. I have waited all of my life for this. So I am just going to sit back and 'enjoy it and drink it in!' ;-)
ABU inc GDR
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 214
Utd share price cut as IPO fails to deliver
Been having some fun with the united fans on media sites near you regarding the Glazers slashing the value of the shares ahead of the IPO listing later today. The comments from fellow blues has that great this morning the MEN removed yesterdays post and re ran ithe post having removed the majority of the blues comments.
To give you a quick heads up the Glazers yesterday reduced the share price due to a lack of interest from $18 - 20 to $14 ahead of the IPO listing which will start later today. The Glazers had originally valued the club at $3.3bn, this is now $2.2bn and when the IPO happens the true value of the share is known the club could be valued as low as $1.8bn, the same value as Real Madrid.
The Glazers have been dead dodgy in the marketing of yoonited and it's scared the business market. Glazers wanted to market the club as a brand a bit like Disney or Malboro which would have valued the club at the wildly optimistic levels they had claimed, the market has said no your a football club simple as that.
These claims about 659 million support was all part of the claim of a world wide brand, what they didn't say was that the survey was carried out by yoonited and included fans whose first choice club was a local football team, plus some maasaging of the figures too!
The upshot is, there probably not the biggest club in the world and we wont have to see any united theme parks, restaurants or aftershave on the high street. LOL
Been having some fun with the united fans on media sites near you regarding the Glazers slashing the value of the shares ahead of the IPO listing later today. The comments from fellow blues has that great this morning the MEN removed yesterdays post and re ran ithe post having removed the majority of the blues comments.
To give you a quick heads up the Glazers yesterday reduced the share price due to a lack of interest from $18 - 20 to $14 ahead of the IPO listing which will start later today. The Glazers had originally valued the club at $3.3bn, this is now $2.2bn and when the IPO happens the true value of the share is known the club could be valued as low as $1.8bn, the same value as Real Madrid.
The Glazers have been dead dodgy in the marketing of yoonited and it's scared the business market. Glazers wanted to market the club as a brand a bit like Disney or Malboro which would have valued the club at the wildly optimistic levels they had claimed, the market has said no your a football club simple as that.
These claims about 659 million support was all part of the claim of a world wide brand, what they didn't say was that the survey was carried out by yoonited and included fans whose first choice club was a local football team, plus some maasaging of the figures too!
The upshot is, there probably not the biggest club in the world and we wont have to see any united theme parks, restaurants or aftershave on the high street. LOL
Latics Fan SJK
Well-Known Member
1. Have they ever attempted to value United at $3.3bn? I know they did value them at $2bn which was optimistic anyway, but i don't remember them being so optimistic to the tune of $3.3bn.
2. Real Madrid aren't valued at €1.8bn - I'm sure I read it's something like €1.5bn meaning they are the 2nd biggest club in the world.
3. Those claiming they have 659m fans worldwide is absolute codswallop. Have they fuck.
4. They are still the biggest club in the world. However, I can't see that status lasting much longer the way things are goin unless something very positive happens.
2. Real Madrid aren't valued at €1.8bn - I'm sure I read it's something like €1.5bn meaning they are the 2nd biggest club in the world.
3. Those claiming they have 659m fans worldwide is absolute codswallop. Have they fuck.
4. They are still the biggest club in the world. However, I can't see that status lasting much longer the way things are goin unless something very positive happens.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,730
sjk2008 said:1. Have they ever attempted to value United at $3.3bn? I know they did value them at $2bn which was optimistic anyway, but i don't remember them being so optimistic to the tune of $3.3bn.
2. Real Madrid aren't valued at €1.8bn - I'm sure I read it's something like €1.5bn meaning they are the 2nd biggest club in the world.
3. Those claiming they have 659m fans worldwide is absolute codswallop. Have they fuck.
4. They are still the biggest club in the world. However, I can't see that status lasting much longer the way things are goin unless something very positive happens.
1) Yes <a class="postlink" href="http://www.stockmarketdigital.com/ipos/manchester-united-sets-ipo-terms" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.stockmarketdigital.com/ipos/ ... -ipo-terms</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://football.uk.reuters.com/football/news/2012/08/10/21A303C0-E27A-11E1-B413-71ED7F33923B.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://football.uk.reuters.com/football ... 33923B.php</a>
2) Forbes values Madrid at $1.88 Billion
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.canada.com/sports/soccer/ranked+most+valuable+sports+franchise/6944661/story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.canada.com/sports/soccer/ran ... story.html</a>
3) Very true
4) Deloitte has Real Madrid top of the turnover list (2 places above Utd) with a turnover over 100m Euro's higher
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/industries/sportsbusinessgroup/sports/football/deloitte-football-money-league/d7b295aa0c415310VgnVCM1000001a56f00aRCRD.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/i ... 0aRCRD.htm</a>
Ja Salford Blue
Well-Known Member
One for Prestwich Blue:
apologies for my ignorance on this as I know diddly squat on finance!
at any point during this share issue can the Glaziers turn round and say, forget what we said about reducing the debt, we are now keeping all the proceeds for ourselves?
I'm thinking, that now that the share price has fell they will not be getting as much as they first thought will they? so can they say sod it we are keeping the lot?
apologies for my ignorance on this as I know diddly squat on finance!
at any point during this share issue can the Glaziers turn round and say, forget what we said about reducing the debt, we are now keeping all the proceeds for ourselves?
I'm thinking, that now that the share price has fell they will not be getting as much as they first thought will they? so can they say sod it we are keeping the lot?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
They could do that I guess but they would cook their goose completely if they did. The shares would presumably dive and there would probably be lawsuits flying around.Ja Salford Blue said:One for Prestwich Blue:
apologies for my ignorance on this as I know diddly squat on finance!
at any point during this share issue can the Glaziers turn round and say, forget what we said about reducing the debt, we are now keeping all the proceeds for ourselves?
I'm thinking, that now that the share price has fell they will not be getting as much as they first thought will they? so can they say sod it we are keeping the lot?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.