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.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Re: United thread 2011/12
I reckon the club is also propping up the Glazers personally. They took £10m in loans which they "repaid" via dividends and £7m in "consultancy fees" (although they say they've stopped these).
There are various reasons why the would do this in the USA. Firstly the Class A/B share structure is more common there. Second, there was no interest anywhere else, certainly not for B shares at the price they were asking. I don't understand why the investment banks involved, in these days of hugely lower risk appetites, would agree to underwrite this. It might be that this is a hopeful punt and they are confident the offer will never get off the ground. One bank has already walked away from it. The other might be that they have given some sort of undertaing that they will sell as soon as the club is debt-free.
I think they are. As I said earlier they must be shitting themselves over what happens when Baconface calls it a day. He's made the whole far greater than the sum of its parts and you can't see that squad doing as well as they did last season under anyone else. If they drop out of the top four, like Liverpool, they lose at least a quarter of their income, maybe more. That will leave them struggling to pay the bond interest let alone buy anyone.VOOMER said:Prestwich_Blue said:It's nothing like a Ponzi scheme as the risks are, as you have correctly pointed out, quite apparent. No one is promising investors anything but they have given them the information they need to make a decision.VOOMER said:PB, correct if I'm wrong, or wildly of the mark. This is well dodgy. Its almost like a ponzi scheme. All it would take is a dodgy assessment at some point of the value of the club and all the poor suckers, (well maybe no the first set of people who buy the shares), will be left with no voting rights, no dividend and a share that is worth nowhere near what they paid for it? So who in their right mind would even look at this? Wouldn't it make more sense to buy a lower lever premiership club , or promising championship club, as there may present a better chance of return in the future?
Why anyone would do this, given the history of quoted football clubs, is a very good question. But that's a risk any shareholder takes.
They have whore'd this around and I appreciate that they are testing the water, to some extent, but is the reason that they went everywhere else first, because they wanted to avoid exposure in the USA to any legal repercussions?Are they simply running out of cash reserves and getting desperate?
I reckon the club is also propping up the Glazers personally. They took £10m in loans which they "repaid" via dividends and £7m in "consultancy fees" (although they say they've stopped these).
There are various reasons why the would do this in the USA. Firstly the Class A/B share structure is more common there. Second, there was no interest anywhere else, certainly not for B shares at the price they were asking. I don't understand why the investment banks involved, in these days of hugely lower risk appetites, would agree to underwrite this. It might be that this is a hopeful punt and they are confident the offer will never get off the ground. One bank has already walked away from it. The other might be that they have given some sort of undertaing that they will sell as soon as the club is debt-free.
Kippaxgirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 309
- Location
- Chattanooga, Tennessee, U.S.A.
- Team supported
- University of Alabama (American football)
United selling shares on US Stock Exchange.
In order to get out of debt, the Rags, via the Grazer family, are going to sell shares in an attempt to get $100 million to reduce their debt and buy new players. I guess they are just desperate to keep up with the noisy neighbors.
In order to get out of debt, the Rags, via the Grazer family, are going to sell shares in an attempt to get $100 million to reduce their debt and buy new players. I guess they are just desperate to keep up with the noisy neighbors.
decmancity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 12,601
Re: United selling shares on US Stock Exchange.
\_/
That is my cup of care. As you can see it is empty.
\_/
That is my cup of care. As you can see it is empty.
Re: United thread 2011/12
I suspect the main reason for the US listing is the relaxed rules concerning accounting and ownership they have brought in to stimulate growth due to the recession.
The Glazers only need to provide 2 sets of accounts from the last 5 years and the management structure is not investigated as stringently as it formerly was.
I suspect the main reason for the US listing is the relaxed rules concerning accounting and ownership they have brought in to stimulate growth due to the recession.
The Glazers only need to provide 2 sets of accounts from the last 5 years and the management structure is not investigated as stringently as it formerly was.
The Rags are in the financial shite shock horror
Pasted these 2 articles out of this mornings Guardian.
We all knew they where in the shit but a slight whiff of skiddy undies coming from the swamp as we continue our rise.
Love that last paragraph though!!
Mods please move if this is in the wrong forum
The US-based Glazer family who own Manchester United have signalled their intention to move the club's registration to the tax haven of the Cayman Islands and float its shares on the New York Stock Exchange.
The principal intention, set out in a US Stock Exchange registration statement, is to sell enough shares to new investors to pay off an as yet unspecified portion of United's £423m debts, which the Glazers loaded on to the club when they bought it in 2005. To date the Glazers' takeover has cost United more than £500m in interest, bank charges and fees, after they borrowed £525m to buy the club, then made it responsible for servicing their debts.
The registration statement makes it clear that the Glazers have reorganised the ownership of United, via the Cayman Islands, so they can realise cash from investors while retaining control of the club. The United shares will be split into two classes, A and B; the A shares will be offered for sale to investors on the New York Stock Exchange while the Glazer family will retain ownership of the B shares, which carry 10 times the voting rights of the A shares.
Manchester United Ltd, reorganised to be a Cayman Islands company, will, the document says, remain owned by the "linear descendants" – the five sons and one daughter – of Malcolm Glazer.
Not only will investors have diluted voting rights but there is no intention even to pay them a regular dividend, so the investment would be to realise some future gain via the Cayman Islands if they sell the shares.
The registration statement does not set out yet how many A shares will be sold on the market, nor the price which will be set, and therefore the total by which the family is seeking to reduce United's huge debt.
In part a sales pitch aimed at enticing investors to buy the shares in United, the document talks up the club's popularity and commercial reach, claiming it has 659m "followers" worldwide. Coming after a season in which United were pipped to the Premier League championship by Sheikh Mansour's lavish-spending Manchester rivals City, and were knocked out of the European Champions League in the group stage, the document boasts of a massive global TV audience and that "over 5 million items of Manchester United branded licensed products were sold in the last year".
The "strategy" for United is also set out, specifying how the family intends to "increase our revenue and profitability, by expanding our high-growth businesses that leverage our brand, global community and marketing infrastructure".
The Glazers state they intend to develop areas including "global and regional sponsors, retail, merchandising and product licensing, exploit new media and mobile opportunities, enhance the reach and distribution of our broadcasting rights [via United's MUTV channel] and diversify revenue and improve margins".
The document states confidently: "We believe that we are one of the world's most recognizable global brands with a community of 659m followers"; and it predicts that football's popularity and profitability around the world will continue to grow.
As required by Stock Exchange regulations, the document also sets out risk factors which investors should take into account before buying shares. These feature generalised warnings about maintaining football's popularity and crowds at Old Trafford holding up despite the recession. There is, however, a formal warning that United's debts, wholly imposed by the Glazers' original takeover, "could adversely affect our financial health and competitive position".
The document explains that the debt, still at £423m, despite the £500m United has paid out since 2005, could affect the club's ability to compete for players and soak up cash. That is the impact of the massive Glazer debts which their representatives and United's chief executive, David Gill, have always denied. This flotation of Manchester United, re-registered in the Cayman Islands and sold via New York, is intended finally to reduce that indebtedness, by finding outside investors willing to buy shares, while the Glazers remain in control.
Manchester United supporters should be concerned at the news that the club is to be floated on the US stock exchange. Yet at this juncture, at least, they should not panic when reading what appears in the more incendiary sections of the document filed by United's owners, the Glazers, to the US Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday.
It is the word "indebtedness" – which appears 43 times in the papers – that will cause most concern worry the many of the millions of United supporters (and any true fans of English football) throughout the world who have made the 19 times champions the most popular club on the globe.
The term is apparently used at its most chilling at the bottom of page 25. Here, the document states: "Our indebtedness could adversely affect our financial health and competitive position."
This is the Glazers publicly conceding – after seven years of denials from them, Sir Alex Ferguson, the manager, and the chief executive, David Gill – that the £423m debt loaded on the club by the US-based family when buying it in 2005 "increases the risk" of their ability to operate it as competitive business.
This section goes on to state: "As of March 31, 2012, we had total indebtedness of £423.3m. Our indebtedness increases the risk that we may be unable to generate cash sufficient to pay amounts due in respect of our indebtedness. It could also have effects on our business."Of the six ways this could happen three are of particular concern. The debt could "affect our ability to compete for players and coaching staff; limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the football industry; [and] increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions".
It is worth noting, though, that the Glazers are legally bound to outline to the US Stock Exchange the "doomsday scenario": the direst – and in some cases, almost impossible – factors that might affect United, which when valued at around $2.24bn by Forbes in April confirmed the club as the world's richest for the eighth successive year.
In total there at 21 pages that come under the heading of "Risk Factors" and alongside the incendiary paragraph about "indebtedness" another scenario listed that could affect United is titled: "Business interruptions due to natural disasters and other events could adversely affect us and Old Trafford."
It goes on to state: "Our operations can be subject to natural disasters and other events beyond our control, such as earthquakes, fires, power failures, telecommunication losses, terrorist attacks and acts of war. Such events, whether natural or manmade, could cause severe destruction or interruption to our operations, and as a result, our business could suffer serious harm. Our first team regularly tours the world for promotional matches, visiting various countries with a history of terrorism and civil unrest, and as a result, we and our players could be potential targets of terrorism when visiting such countries."
All the above may happen but the threat of an earthquake, for example, is far more unlikely than that of terrorism – and even how that could terminally affect United is as difficult to see as the further risk described as: "There could be a decline in our popularity or the popularity of football." There is more likelihood of England ending as a sovereign state than football ever falling away – never mind dying – in popularity in this country.
What is clear, though, is that Ferguson, despite his famed prickliness toward journalists, is about to be faced with a summer of awkward questions regarding just how weak this leaves United in the key arena of the transfer market. And why he and the club have spent so long denying that the debt leveraged against United by the Glazers on buying it was seriously hobbling the club's financial operations.
For Manchester City and their supporters, after the club claimed a first championship since 1968 with the final kick of the season, and which is owned by the seemingly financially immune, Sheikh Mansour, their summer of celebration just got even better.
Pasted these 2 articles out of this mornings Guardian.
We all knew they where in the shit but a slight whiff of skiddy undies coming from the swamp as we continue our rise.
Love that last paragraph though!!
Mods please move if this is in the wrong forum
The US-based Glazer family who own Manchester United have signalled their intention to move the club's registration to the tax haven of the Cayman Islands and float its shares on the New York Stock Exchange.
The principal intention, set out in a US Stock Exchange registration statement, is to sell enough shares to new investors to pay off an as yet unspecified portion of United's £423m debts, which the Glazers loaded on to the club when they bought it in 2005. To date the Glazers' takeover has cost United more than £500m in interest, bank charges and fees, after they borrowed £525m to buy the club, then made it responsible for servicing their debts.
The registration statement makes it clear that the Glazers have reorganised the ownership of United, via the Cayman Islands, so they can realise cash from investors while retaining control of the club. The United shares will be split into two classes, A and B; the A shares will be offered for sale to investors on the New York Stock Exchange while the Glazer family will retain ownership of the B shares, which carry 10 times the voting rights of the A shares.
Manchester United Ltd, reorganised to be a Cayman Islands company, will, the document says, remain owned by the "linear descendants" – the five sons and one daughter – of Malcolm Glazer.
Not only will investors have diluted voting rights but there is no intention even to pay them a regular dividend, so the investment would be to realise some future gain via the Cayman Islands if they sell the shares.
The registration statement does not set out yet how many A shares will be sold on the market, nor the price which will be set, and therefore the total by which the family is seeking to reduce United's huge debt.
In part a sales pitch aimed at enticing investors to buy the shares in United, the document talks up the club's popularity and commercial reach, claiming it has 659m "followers" worldwide. Coming after a season in which United were pipped to the Premier League championship by Sheikh Mansour's lavish-spending Manchester rivals City, and were knocked out of the European Champions League in the group stage, the document boasts of a massive global TV audience and that "over 5 million items of Manchester United branded licensed products were sold in the last year".
The "strategy" for United is also set out, specifying how the family intends to "increase our revenue and profitability, by expanding our high-growth businesses that leverage our brand, global community and marketing infrastructure".
The Glazers state they intend to develop areas including "global and regional sponsors, retail, merchandising and product licensing, exploit new media and mobile opportunities, enhance the reach and distribution of our broadcasting rights [via United's MUTV channel] and diversify revenue and improve margins".
The document states confidently: "We believe that we are one of the world's most recognizable global brands with a community of 659m followers"; and it predicts that football's popularity and profitability around the world will continue to grow.
As required by Stock Exchange regulations, the document also sets out risk factors which investors should take into account before buying shares. These feature generalised warnings about maintaining football's popularity and crowds at Old Trafford holding up despite the recession. There is, however, a formal warning that United's debts, wholly imposed by the Glazers' original takeover, "could adversely affect our financial health and competitive position".
The document explains that the debt, still at £423m, despite the £500m United has paid out since 2005, could affect the club's ability to compete for players and soak up cash. That is the impact of the massive Glazer debts which their representatives and United's chief executive, David Gill, have always denied. This flotation of Manchester United, re-registered in the Cayman Islands and sold via New York, is intended finally to reduce that indebtedness, by finding outside investors willing to buy shares, while the Glazers remain in control.
Manchester United supporters should be concerned at the news that the club is to be floated on the US stock exchange. Yet at this juncture, at least, they should not panic when reading what appears in the more incendiary sections of the document filed by United's owners, the Glazers, to the US Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday.
It is the word "indebtedness" – which appears 43 times in the papers – that will cause most concern worry the many of the millions of United supporters (and any true fans of English football) throughout the world who have made the 19 times champions the most popular club on the globe.
The term is apparently used at its most chilling at the bottom of page 25. Here, the document states: "Our indebtedness could adversely affect our financial health and competitive position."
This is the Glazers publicly conceding – after seven years of denials from them, Sir Alex Ferguson, the manager, and the chief executive, David Gill – that the £423m debt loaded on the club by the US-based family when buying it in 2005 "increases the risk" of their ability to operate it as competitive business.
This section goes on to state: "As of March 31, 2012, we had total indebtedness of £423.3m. Our indebtedness increases the risk that we may be unable to generate cash sufficient to pay amounts due in respect of our indebtedness. It could also have effects on our business."Of the six ways this could happen three are of particular concern. The debt could "affect our ability to compete for players and coaching staff; limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the football industry; [and] increase our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions".
It is worth noting, though, that the Glazers are legally bound to outline to the US Stock Exchange the "doomsday scenario": the direst – and in some cases, almost impossible – factors that might affect United, which when valued at around $2.24bn by Forbes in April confirmed the club as the world's richest for the eighth successive year.
In total there at 21 pages that come under the heading of "Risk Factors" and alongside the incendiary paragraph about "indebtedness" another scenario listed that could affect United is titled: "Business interruptions due to natural disasters and other events could adversely affect us and Old Trafford."
It goes on to state: "Our operations can be subject to natural disasters and other events beyond our control, such as earthquakes, fires, power failures, telecommunication losses, terrorist attacks and acts of war. Such events, whether natural or manmade, could cause severe destruction or interruption to our operations, and as a result, our business could suffer serious harm. Our first team regularly tours the world for promotional matches, visiting various countries with a history of terrorism and civil unrest, and as a result, we and our players could be potential targets of terrorism when visiting such countries."
All the above may happen but the threat of an earthquake, for example, is far more unlikely than that of terrorism – and even how that could terminally affect United is as difficult to see as the further risk described as: "There could be a decline in our popularity or the popularity of football." There is more likelihood of England ending as a sovereign state than football ever falling away – never mind dying – in popularity in this country.
What is clear, though, is that Ferguson, despite his famed prickliness toward journalists, is about to be faced with a summer of awkward questions regarding just how weak this leaves United in the key arena of the transfer market. And why he and the club have spent so long denying that the debt leveraged against United by the Glazers on buying it was seriously hobbling the club's financial operations.
For Manchester City and their supporters, after the club claimed a first championship since 1968 with the final kick of the season, and which is owned by the seemingly financially immune, Sheikh Mansour, their summer of celebration just got even better.
Re: United thread 2011/12
It is the class B shares that are worth 10 times the voting rights, so it will be class A shares on offer. Regarding the underwriting - several consortiums have tried to buy the club outright so the demand is there. A bank could hold the number of shares needed to tip the balance for a takeover in the long term. The Glazers have stated they will never hold less than a 67% control in the club but who knows if they get deeper into the mire financially and need to sell.
The crippling interest payments can be the only reason for this IPO, so in effect they are buying time and hoping fortunes turn around on the pitch. Smacks of desperation to me.
Prestwich_Blue said:I think they are. As I said earlier they must be shitting themselves over what happens when Baconface calls it a day. He's made the whole far greater than the sum of its parts and you can't see that squad doing as well as they did last season under anyone else. If they drop out of the top four, like Liverpool, they lose at least a quarter of their income, maybe more. That will leave them struggling to pay the bond interest let alone buy anyone.VOOMER said:Prestwich_Blue said:It's nothing like a Ponzi scheme as the risks are, as you have correctly pointed out, quite apparent. No one is promising investors anything but they have given them the information they need to make a decision.
Why anyone would do this, given the history of quoted football clubs, is a very good question. But that's a risk any shareholder takes.
They have whore'd this around and I appreciate that they are testing the water, to some extent, but is the reason that they went everywhere else first, because they wanted to avoid exposure in the USA to any legal repercussions?Are they simply running out of cash reserves and getting desperate?
I reckon the club is also propping up the Glazers personally. They took £10m in loans which they "repaid" via dividends and £7m in "consultancy fees" (although they say they've stopped these).
There are various reasons why the would do this in the USA. Firstly the Class A/B share structure is more common there. Second, there was no interest anywhere else, certainly not for B shares at the price they were asking. I don't understand why the investment banks involved, in these days of hugely lower risk appetites, would agree to underwrite this. It might be that this is a hopeful punt and they are confident the offer will never get off the ground. One bank has already walked away from it. The other might be that they have given some sort of undertaing that they will sell as soon as the club is debt-free.
It is the class B shares that are worth 10 times the voting rights, so it will be class A shares on offer. Regarding the underwriting - several consortiums have tried to buy the club outright so the demand is there. A bank could hold the number of shares needed to tip the balance for a takeover in the long term. The Glazers have stated they will never hold less than a 67% control in the club but who knows if they get deeper into the mire financially and need to sell.
The crippling interest payments can be the only reason for this IPO, so in effect they are buying time and hoping fortunes turn around on the pitch. Smacks of desperation to me.
Re: United thread 2011/12
The share issue will be underwritten so even if it flops the Glazers will still get their cash. If the underwriters have to buy the shares up that will depress the share price going forward as they will be looking to sell at the first opportunity. I think utd would be likely to raise a small sum initially so that the deal is over-subscribed, and then go back again in the future
I don't see why City fans are happy about this development. It means Utd can make significant inroads into their debts. It's been on the cards for a long time, and listing was talked about in South East Asia<br /><br />-- Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:42 pm --<br /><br />
Who buys a share for the voting rights? Most company AGMs are dominated by institutional investors so the individual voting rights attached to ordinary shares are pretty much irrelevant to retail investors. As for dividends, many shares don't pay a dividend. Man Utd was one of the few football shares which paid a dividend.VOOMER said:Prestwich_Blue said:Because they stand to gain if the shares increase in value. It's quite a common model in the USA apparently, which is why that's the only place they could do this. But football and football clubs are a notoriously risky business although a debt free MUFC would probably be an attractive proposition.mad zab said:PB why would anyone buy shares, without some sort of guaranteed return and no influence on club policy?
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
PB, correct if I'm wrong, or wildly of the mark. This is well dodgy. Its almost like a ponzi scheme. All it would take is a dodgy assessment at some point of the value of the club and all the poor suckers, (well maybe no the first set of people who buy the shares), will be left with no voting rights, no dividend and a share that is worth nowhere near what they paid for it? So who in their right mind would even look at this? Wouldn't it make more sense to buy a lower lever premiership club , or promising championship club, as there may present a better chance of return in the future?
The share issue will be underwritten so even if it flops the Glazers will still get their cash. If the underwriters have to buy the shares up that will depress the share price going forward as they will be looking to sell at the first opportunity. I think utd would be likely to raise a small sum initially so that the deal is over-subscribed, and then go back again in the future
I don't see why City fans are happy about this development. It means Utd can make significant inroads into their debts. It's been on the cards for a long time, and listing was talked about in South East Asia<br /><br />-- Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:42 pm --<br /><br />
It's not a desperate move, it's a logical move. They maintain control and raise money to pay off debt and reduce interest payments going forward. Don't know why they didn't do it earlier whilst they were still Championsbacuzzi said:Prestwich_Blue said:I think they are. As I said earlier they must be shitting themselves over what happens when Baconface calls it a day. He's made the whole far greater than the sum of its parts and you can't see that squad doing as well as they did last season under anyone else. If they drop out of the top four, like Liverpool, they lose at least a quarter of their income, maybe more. That will leave them struggling to pay the bond interest let alone buy anyone.VOOMER said:They have whore'd this around and I appreciate that they are testing the water, to some extent, but is the reason that they went everywhere else first, because they wanted to avoid exposure in the USA to any legal repercussions?Are they simply running out of cash reserves and getting desperate?
I reckon the club is also propping up the Glazers personally. They took £10m in loans which they "repaid" via dividends and £7m in "consultancy fees" (although they say they've stopped these).
There are various reasons why the would do this in the USA. Firstly the Class A/B share structure is more common there. Second, there was no interest anywhere else, certainly not for B shares at the price they were asking. I don't understand why the investment banks involved, in these days of hugely lower risk appetites, would agree to underwrite this. It might be that this is a hopeful punt and they are confident the offer will never get off the ground. One bank has already walked away from it. The other might be that they have given some sort of undertaing that they will sell as soon as the club is debt-free.
It is the class B shares that are worth 10 times the voting rights, so it will be class A shares on offer. Regarding the underwriting - several consortiums have tried to buy the club outright so the demand is there. A bank could hold the number of shares needed to tip the balance for a takeover in the long term. The Glazers have stated they will never hold less than a 67% control in the club but who knows if they get deeper into the mire financially and need to sell.
The crippling interest payments can be the only reason for this IPO, so in effect they are buying time and hoping fortunes turn around on the pitch. Smacks of desperation to me.
portisheadblue
Well-Known Member
United thread 2011/12
I wonder what happens to the top level ownership of the rags which is based in Delaware for reasons of corporate secrecy?
Also this process started as raising a billion dollars then 500 million now it's a measly 100 million!!!! Thats about 15 cents for everyone of their followers !!!!!
I wonder what happens to the top level ownership of the rags which is based in Delaware for reasons of corporate secrecy?
Also this process started as raising a billion dollars then 500 million now it's a measly 100 million!!!! Thats about 15 cents for everyone of their followers !!!!!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.