United thread 2012/13 (inc merged IPO thread)

[Prestwich_Blue]

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

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.

Interesting point SWP. Do you know if we are likely to find out how many of the shares were bought by genuine investors, & how many the underwriters had to take up? If so, any idea when this information will become publicly available? Cheers.

I don't think there's any regulatory requirement to publish the information so I don't think we will ever know unfortunately.

 

[JM Mcr]

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

Total non story. I'm pretty sure that executives at GM are just as capable of reading the filing documentation as journalists at businessinsider are.

 

[Marvin]

If the underwriters end up taking on stock that's their risk. That's why they get a commission and get to set the price. Can't see Utd having any liability towards underwriters left with Man Utd stock on their books.

 

[Braggster]

If the underwriters end up taking on stock that's their risk. That's why they get a commission and get to set the price. Can't see Utd having any liability towards underwriters left with Man Utd stock on their books.

Quite right. SWP'S back is talking nonsense. Underwriters don't have any kind of ongoing control-they're in the same boat as ordinary passive minority shareholders in public companies

 

[Hart of the Matter]

The irony for me is that I think FFPR played a big part in the devaluing of the shares. Any potential for investment in the club from outside the game has effectively been stopped ( what other industry would do this?) so the ability to invest in hope of future success is servilely restricted. This may well be an unintended consequence of FFPR but it may well clobber those clubs floated on the stock market.

 

[SWP's back]

Mr swp as much as you are a sex god pb is the shit on this off to Azincourt in the morning, fire some arrows for you

I think you'll find the IPO bit is slowly moving out of his comfort zone and towards mine. Not that me and PB have disagreed on anything.<br /><br />-- Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:09 am --<br /><br />

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

Total non story. I'm pretty sure that executives at GM are just as capable of reading the filing documentation as journalists at businessinsider are.

I would certainly garee with you but for a few things:

First this quote:

Paul Edwards, GM's executive director of global marketing strategy, explained that United's 600 million-plus fanbase was a key factor. He said:

When Manchester United played against Manchester City, "that audience around the world scaled to 600 million people

Second your own boards lies:

United’s commercial director, Richard Arnold, cited the 659 million number in his announcement of the GM sponsorship:

We have been partners with Chevrolet for only six weeks, but already they have produced some fantastic ideas that will benefit both the partnership and our 659 million followers around the world.

And don't forget the guy that signed it off was then sacked.

It is most certainly not a non-story, it is just an embarrassing one for Utd and GM. Under the surveys terms, most posters on bluemoon would be classed as "fans". Total bollocks.

 

[SWP's back]

If the underwriters end up taking on stock that's their risk. That's why they get a commission and get to set the price. Can't see Utd having any liability towards underwriters left with Man Utd stock on their books.

Quite right. SWP'S back is talking nonsense. Underwriters don't have any kind of ongoing control-they're in the same boat as ordinary passive minority shareholders in public companies

Total crap. Each IPO is written on, and underwritten on individual terms. Much the same way that any loan may have different guarantees.

 

[Braggster]

If the underwriters end up taking on stock that's their risk. That's why they get a commission and get to set the price. Can't see Utd having any liability towards underwriters left with Man Utd stock on their books.

Quite right. SWP'S back is talking nonsense. Underwriters don't have any kind of ongoing control-they're in the same boat as ordinary passive minority shareholders in public companies

Total crap. Each IPO is written on, and underwritten on individual terms. Much the same way that any loan may have different guarantees.

It's you who is talking crap I am afraid. Once the IPO is away the underwriters have the same rights as any other shareholder and are certainly not in position to dictate how the company conducts its business. Not sure where you got the idea that it's like a loan because it really isn't.

 

[carlos tevez is a blue]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.redcafe.net/f7/do-you-remember-when-city-fans-hated-foreign-day-trippers-357748/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.redcafe.net/f7/do-you-rememb ... rs-357748/</a>