United thread 2012/13 (inc merged IPO thread)

[Marvin]

Re: It's Going up, It's Going Down, It's erm.... Flatlining

Best guess is a couple of weeks mate but we don't know why the agreement is. The Glazers may have put agreements in place where the cede control or partial control until the liability is reduced but we all have no idea tbh.

What liability?

I don't know why people are following the share price now. They have their £150 m and share price wont change what cash utd receive. Those investors who have bought shares committed to buy at $14

Well for a start, now they have shares on sale you can calculate exactly what their club is worth, which determines whether the Glazers are ever likely to sell and how much they will receive if they consider another IPO offering. It may also affect their ability to borrow money and therefore their ability to pay off their debt...

Yes in the months to come but the day to day movement is largely irrelevant and its irrelevant as far as the IPO is concerned. That's done

 

[DimButBlue]

Maybe only a testimonial but Scholes really fucked up for the first Aberdeen goal. Hopefully see many more of those this year.

 

[Marvin]

Maybe only a testimonial but Scholes really fucked up for the first Aberdeen goal. Hopefully see many more of those this year.

Yes I saw that. I hope he plays Premiership football next season along with Giggs. Can't see it though. Maybe a few subs appearances and games in the Cups

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Seems GM have fucked up along with anyone else quoting 600m fans

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/hey-gm-manchester-united-admits-it-doesnt-have-659-million-fans-2012-8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.businessinsider.com/hey-gm-m ... ans-2012-8</a>

Lulz

Seems they fucked up more than once:

http://www.businessinsider.com/repo...ited-sponsorship-without-knowing-price-2012-7

Joel Ewanick was ousted as global marketing chief of General Motors after the company agreed to become the lead sponsor of Manchester United, a deal worth perhaps $300 million, without knowing its full price, according to Bloomberg.

If Bloomberg's report is true, it would be one of the biggest marketing contractual screwups of all time. Reuters reported something similar. Bloomberg added:

GM leaders had to ask for Ewanick’s resignation after they perceived that he failed to make clear some details of the contract to the senior management team, the people said. As a result, the leaders didn’t know the true cost of the United deal, worth about $300 million to be on the jerseys, one of the people said. GM plans to honor the arrangement, which was altered from what Ewanick originally crafted, the people said.

The deal is worth £25 million ($39 million) per year for seven years, or more than $273 million. It's more than 25% greater than what insurer Aon paid, when it took United's shirtfront for the previous four years.

It implies the deal was "negotiated downwards" once the facts were known. So was the statement they released to the NYSE about the deal a lie or a piece of unfortunate timing?

if GM now try to renegotiate the deal , united may ask for a big compensation ? Or the deal might not even be renegotiable?

It's a complicated area and I'm not a lawyer. Generally speaking, to the best of my knowledge & memory, an agent, employee or director representing a company is deemed to have authority to agree a contract unless it's clear to any sensible person that they don't. If not, as long as the other party acted in good faith then generally it would be a valid contract. However, if the third party (i.e. United) were or should have been aware that the agent was acting outside his authority then it's not valid.

I should add I know this as I was an innocent third party to a contract negotiated by an agent with a company that was outside the director's authority. I lost some money (about £3k) because the contract was repudiated and looked at taking legal action. I would probably have won but was offered an alternative contract, which I accepted so it wasn't worth it.

So if Ewanick said to the United board something like "I really shouldn't go that high as it's outside my authority limit but I'm sure I can work something out" then GM are quite entitled to repudiate the contract as United were aware that Ewanick didn't have the authority to do that deal.

This is obviously pure speculation but it could be that something like the above actually happened. GM could then say to Gill, "Hey you knew that figure wasn't within his authority and by rights we should cancel the deal but if you accept the £25m a year he was authorised to offer then we'll honour it to save us all the embarrassment."

 

[Rammyblues]

Lawyers will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of alleged breach of contract between GM and Rags. Didn't the US Gov bail out GM with hundreds of millions of dollars a year or two back?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Lawyers will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of alleged breach of contract between GM and Rags. Didn't the US Gov bail out GM with hundreds of millions of dollars a year or two back?

The last thing both parties would have wanted would be legal action as it's quite conceivable it would have delayed the IPO.

 

[SWP's back]

Re: It's Going up, It's Going Down, It's erm.... Flatlining

What liability?

I don't know why people are following the share price now. They have their £150 m and share price wont change what cash utd receive. Those investors who have bought shares committed to buy at $14

Well for a start, now they have shares on sale you can calculate exactly what their club is worth, which determines whether the Glazers are ever likely to sell and how much they will receive if they consider another IPO offering. It may also affect their ability to borrow money and therefore their ability to pay off their debt...

Yes in the months to come but the day to day movement is largely irrelevant and its irrelevant as far as the IPO is concerned. That's done

Oh ffs. Not if the underwriters own most of the shares or even a large minority.

The underwriters will have wanted assurances that their liability is minimised in the event it went tits up and they were left with the majority of shares. If would ineffect be another loan. They may well have a say in spending policy (so they club/Glazers) have to buy back or pay huge amounts to the underwriters until the underwriters liability (£150m plus potentially) is repaid.

 

[Marvin]

Means that they wont be able to generate the money ( they where expecting) to fund and service the debt which will quickly spiral out of control and Could possibly lead them to cash and bail out or do something extremely drastic. but atm its not looking good atm for them as a invest able product (lasting damage )

After issuing the shares at $14, the day to day share price has no effect on their business, but if it falls a lot it would mean that the Glazers would find it very difficult to repeat this exercise.

No it depends on how many of those shares the underwriters have. If they own half them and they bomb then it makes a big difference. The underwriters will have all sorts of agreements in place for them to underwrite the ipo in the first place.

Yes I know they do, but that's their loss not Utd's. And how do you know that they even had to take up the unsold shares? There are no SEC filings

 

[Rammyblues]

1) Offer
2) Acceptance
3) Consideration
4) Willingness to enter legal negotiation

Last one something like that off top of me head, ponders where I put that old contract law book.

 

[Rammyblues]

Re: It's Going up, It's Going Down, It's erm.... Flatlining

I am saying nowt. :-)

But I am learning more and more even though SWPs blood pressure is rising.
:-)