United thread 2012/13 (inc merged IPO thread)
- Thread starter carlos tevez is a blue
- Start date
- Status
Re: United thread 2012/13.
who knows with the Glazers...??
Reminds me a bit of Maxwell, when you're so hocked up with the banks the banks are in it with you.
I'm pretty sure if andersred is right and the family are disagreeing over it then the banks, or who they owe will be involved in maximising how they get the best return.
Banks get it wrong, we've seen that, all the mathematical models and complex derivatives etc all fall down when a certain sequence of events unfolds.
The brightest banker in the world cannot predict what effect not having the single most biggest influence over a media company that has ever existed in the prem will have on said media companies " value " it seems to me that the Glazers options to sell for a profit are inextricably linked to the opinion of the media company by every one of those 659 million fans.
Should those opinions be severely tested I would say that the commercial revenues would significantly suffer, this combined with holding on to drip every single ounce of worth out of it, because Bryan, Joel and Avram have fell out with darcy , marcy and jim about poppas fortune, their inheritance, on some stoopid soccer club who cant win anything anymore and make money because their hometown rivals win it all, yaaaall.
I enjoy PB's insight, gotta say i'm not as well read on the accounts etc but my gut tells me they're fucked now.....spilling all those words in that sec doc will have been like a stab in the heart to them, I hope the banks are all over them.....
Is it beyond the realms that the banks have called this IPO to see it fail and pick up all the shares as further security, if they want to get rid of PIK2 debt then they sell the bank their powerfull shares until the banks are happy.
Then the bank will agree a sale and let them know whether there's anything left.
They've always owed the banks, just at first a few we're involved, say its only one now who's calling the shots, probably on the personal theyve took on.
Its fine calling your business a media company but always be aware that the media dictates your value, cos thats the busines you're in.
Who knows whats being said in the american circles that might buy these shares, if they've set their prices right then the banks will mop up a good share for a good value if they fail to sell.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at family level in Malcs house.....
who knows with the Glazers...??
Reminds me a bit of Maxwell, when you're so hocked up with the banks the banks are in it with you.
I'm pretty sure if andersred is right and the family are disagreeing over it then the banks, or who they owe will be involved in maximising how they get the best return.
Banks get it wrong, we've seen that, all the mathematical models and complex derivatives etc all fall down when a certain sequence of events unfolds.
The brightest banker in the world cannot predict what effect not having the single most biggest influence over a media company that has ever existed in the prem will have on said media companies " value " it seems to me that the Glazers options to sell for a profit are inextricably linked to the opinion of the media company by every one of those 659 million fans.
Should those opinions be severely tested I would say that the commercial revenues would significantly suffer, this combined with holding on to drip every single ounce of worth out of it, because Bryan, Joel and Avram have fell out with darcy , marcy and jim about poppas fortune, their inheritance, on some stoopid soccer club who cant win anything anymore and make money because their hometown rivals win it all, yaaaall.
I enjoy PB's insight, gotta say i'm not as well read on the accounts etc but my gut tells me they're fucked now.....spilling all those words in that sec doc will have been like a stab in the heart to them, I hope the banks are all over them.....
Is it beyond the realms that the banks have called this IPO to see it fail and pick up all the shares as further security, if they want to get rid of PIK2 debt then they sell the bank their powerfull shares until the banks are happy.
Then the bank will agree a sale and let them know whether there's anything left.
They've always owed the banks, just at first a few we're involved, say its only one now who's calling the shots, probably on the personal theyve took on.
Its fine calling your business a media company but always be aware that the media dictates your value, cos thats the busines you're in.
Who knows whats being said in the american circles that might buy these shares, if they've set their prices right then the banks will mop up a good share for a good value if they fail to sell.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at family level in Malcs house.....
City Raider
Well-Known Member
United thread 2012/13.
anyone know the timeline for this?
anyone know the timeline for this?
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Re: United thread 2012/13.
I don't think they had a major backer as such in the 80's but one things for sure - most of the money they spent on players back then wasn't generated by the club and was borrowed which destroys the myth that some of them peddle about never spending beyond their means. They went hugely into debt to fund Ferguson's spending spree in the summer of 1989. One of those signings was Gary Pallister for a then British record fee of £2.3 million. United had just finished mid-table in the league so it begs the question that if that Red Cafe poster says City didn't earn the right to spend £25 million on a player, by the same twisted logic how the hell did a club that had just finished mid-table earn the right to smash the British transfer record, bearing in mind most of the fee paid wasn't even self-generated cash?
Clowns like that need to read up on the history of their club before spouting such bollocks. They bemoan sugar daddy owners but they were one of the first to have one when John Henry Davies bought their club in 1902 and whose cash changed them from a club that had never finished higher than bottom of the first division into one that won the FA Cup and league title, many of their best players having been acquired from City.
As for that other poster saying that it's unfair that City take players from immediate rivals because it weakens them and that United would never indulge in such disgraceful behaviour, what a crock of shit. I'm sure if the opportunity arose for Ferguson to plunder a key player from a direct rival he'd fucking well take it. For example, he's never hidden his admiration for Gerrard down the years and if he thought there was a chance of getting him he would've made a move and not given a flying fuck if it weakened Liverpool's position.
Anyway, I'm off to watch Aguero's title-winning goal and wallow in the self-pity of our "bought" title while at the same time admiring the fact that United have grown totally organically since 1878, have never had a sugar daddy owner, have always done things the right way, have never done anything remotely immoral, and always have the wider interests of the game at heart. After all, with a club as perfect as that it's no wonder neutral fans across the nation were so keen to see United pip us to the title back in May.........
Oh, hang on.
greasedupdeafguy said:
I don't think they had a major backer as such in the 80's but one things for sure - most of the money they spent on players back then wasn't generated by the club and was borrowed which destroys the myth that some of them peddle about never spending beyond their means. They went hugely into debt to fund Ferguson's spending spree in the summer of 1989. One of those signings was Gary Pallister for a then British record fee of £2.3 million. United had just finished mid-table in the league so it begs the question that if that Red Cafe poster says City didn't earn the right to spend £25 million on a player, by the same twisted logic how the hell did a club that had just finished mid-table earn the right to smash the British transfer record, bearing in mind most of the fee paid wasn't even self-generated cash?
Clowns like that need to read up on the history of their club before spouting such bollocks. They bemoan sugar daddy owners but they were one of the first to have one when John Henry Davies bought their club in 1902 and whose cash changed them from a club that had never finished higher than bottom of the first division into one that won the FA Cup and league title, many of their best players having been acquired from City.
As for that other poster saying that it's unfair that City take players from immediate rivals because it weakens them and that United would never indulge in such disgraceful behaviour, what a crock of shit. I'm sure if the opportunity arose for Ferguson to plunder a key player from a direct rival he'd fucking well take it. For example, he's never hidden his admiration for Gerrard down the years and if he thought there was a chance of getting him he would've made a move and not given a flying fuck if it weakened Liverpool's position.
Anyway, I'm off to watch Aguero's title-winning goal and wallow in the self-pity of our "bought" title while at the same time admiring the fact that United have grown totally organically since 1878, have never had a sugar daddy owner, have always done things the right way, have never done anything remotely immoral, and always have the wider interests of the game at heart. After all, with a club as perfect as that it's no wonder neutral fans across the nation were so keen to see United pip us to the title back in May.........
Oh, hang on.
Rammyblues
Well-Known Member
Re: United thread 2012/13.
Thing that makes me laugh about Sad Cafe posters who live solely in rag world, most are JCLs most don't even know where Trafford is, have never been and most have only known sucess and have no idea that football existed before 1992 when they were sacking and appointing managers like most other football clubs and finishing mid table with a piss poor team. If my memory is correct they happened to get lucky in that they they were in the top four when the changes to CL came about, they were in prem division when Sky money became available and were instrumental in backing plans to keep home gate receipts. They were also brilliant at Marketing and finance by becoming a PLC which meant that they had the power and money from the Stock Market to finance their team building, that investment and decision in the stock market has come back to haunt them as the Glazers. Love the Glazer hate United. :-)
Thing that makes me laugh about Sad Cafe posters who live solely in rag world, most are JCLs most don't even know where Trafford is, have never been and most have only known sucess and have no idea that football existed before 1992 when they were sacking and appointing managers like most other football clubs and finishing mid table with a piss poor team. If my memory is correct they happened to get lucky in that they they were in the top four when the changes to CL came about, they were in prem division when Sky money became available and were instrumental in backing plans to keep home gate receipts. They were also brilliant at Marketing and finance by becoming a PLC which meant that they had the power and money from the Stock Market to finance their team building, that investment and decision in the stock market has come back to haunt them as the Glazers. Love the Glazer hate United. :-)
poyntonblueboy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 695
Re: United thread 2012/13.
revolting ****.dazdon said:
A REVOLTING FRONT
ForzaMancini
Well-Known Member
Re: United thread 2012/13.
There main example for the bold point as well was that we signed Nasri from Arsenal...who turned down the rags so they also went in for him, just Nasri saw the 'light' and joined us. They really are bitter. On an unrelated note, some of the claims from fans are Evans & Smalling are better than Pique, Welbeck will be as good as Henry and Carrick is the best passer in the Premier League.
M18CTID said:
There main example for the bold point as well was that we signed Nasri from Arsenal...who turned down the rags so they also went in for him, just Nasri saw the 'light' and joined us. They really are bitter. On an unrelated note, some of the claims from fans are Evans & Smalling are better than Pique, Welbeck will be as good as Henry and Carrick is the best passer in the Premier League.
Re: United thread 2012/13.
No no no mister blurry vision ginger balls "sat-nav" (fuck i hate that name) is the best passer of all time in any sport in recorded history just ask Zidane he said it to an english journalist about 10 years ago which still holds true for the rest of time
ForzaMancini said:
No no no mister blurry vision ginger balls "sat-nav" (fuck i hate that name) is the best passer of all time in any sport in recorded history just ask Zidane he said it to an english journalist about 10 years ago which still holds true for the rest of time
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Re: United thread 2012/13.
Been a read onlyviewer of the forum for everal year but finally moved to take the plunge after listening to yet more deluded rag propaganda on TalkShite today ( I know I know my own fault for sullying my ears). On and on about Vidic injury , Scholes comeback, DeGea's poor start and how we bought the title it finally drove me mad ! They go on about the Red Dippers being all Istree but are happy to then claim they have a certain class born out of their own history. We splashed the cashconveniently forgetting that Veron, Rooney, Rio, Berbaflop et al were not recruited on free's nor or they products of the academy at the swamp.
Bottom line is these things are cyclical. The Dippers had their time and the Rags will have to learn that theirs is all but over too. I have been a City fan for 46 years and am man enough to accept that our time will come to a close one day ( knowing City it will probably be spectacular too ) but for now I am gonna sit back and enjoy the ride at the top table.
The real kicker is that some of them are finally realising they face a perfect storm come the end of next season. Old Baconface will jack it in and Scholes will be quietly put to sleep and Giggs can go off and terrorise the female in laws in his family. Wio's back will have finally gone and Mrs Vidic will get her way and get some shopping done in Milan. As for the Spud Faced Nipper? Just luvvin the fact he backed the wrong horse and can underperform whilst affecting their FFP credentials not ours.
Malc won't spend on a decent manager so they face the likes of Allardyce and a couple also ran players bumbling along on another $100m of other peoples money whilst the family cream the profits off the top. Old Trafford with 30k people in it is gonna look pissfunny - I only wish I was younger to enjoy more of it for longer.
Been a read onlyviewer of the forum for everal year but finally moved to take the plunge after listening to yet more deluded rag propaganda on TalkShite today ( I know I know my own fault for sullying my ears). On and on about Vidic injury , Scholes comeback, DeGea's poor start and how we bought the title it finally drove me mad ! They go on about the Red Dippers being all Istree but are happy to then claim they have a certain class born out of their own history. We splashed the cashconveniently forgetting that Veron, Rooney, Rio, Berbaflop et al were not recruited on free's nor or they products of the academy at the swamp.
Bottom line is these things are cyclical. The Dippers had their time and the Rags will have to learn that theirs is all but over too. I have been a City fan for 46 years and am man enough to accept that our time will come to a close one day ( knowing City it will probably be spectacular too ) but for now I am gonna sit back and enjoy the ride at the top table.
The real kicker is that some of them are finally realising they face a perfect storm come the end of next season. Old Baconface will jack it in and Scholes will be quietly put to sleep and Giggs can go off and terrorise the female in laws in his family. Wio's back will have finally gone and Mrs Vidic will get her way and get some shopping done in Milan. As for the Spud Faced Nipper? Just luvvin the fact he backed the wrong horse and can underperform whilst affecting their FFP credentials not ours.
Malc won't spend on a decent manager so they face the likes of Allardyce and a couple also ran players bumbling along on another $100m of other peoples money whilst the family cream the profits off the top. Old Trafford with 30k people in it is gonna look pissfunny - I only wish I was younger to enjoy more of it for longer.
Re: United thread 2012/13.
Is this new information because it is relevant to my interests.
-
Manchester United's U.S. IPO may be a tough sell
Sat, Jul 14 11:35 AM EDT
By Olivia Oran
(Reuters) - Manchester United may be one of the most supported sports teams in the world but that doesn't mean the soccer club is going to find many investors with an appetite for its planned initial public offering in the United States.
Fund managers who have looked at its preliminary prospectus have been either negative or lukewarm on the prospect of buying shares in the club, which is controlled by the Florida-based Glazer family.
They say Manchester United faces significant financial risks given its 423 million pounds of debt ($658 million), and the very structure of the business puts its customers, the fans, at odds with shareholders.
Some are concerned that the U.S. stock market hasn't had many sports team listings, let alone any European soccer clubs, so there isn't much to compare Manchester United against
"With a sports franchise, it's a constant tug of war between player salaries cost and the rest of the operation," said Wallace Weitz, president and portfolio manager at Weitz Funds in Omaha, Nebraska, which holds stakes in Liberty Media Corp, Walt Disney Corp and Comcast Corp.
Manchester United declined to comment and representatives for the Glazers could not be immediately reached.
Like many sports franchises, the team's success on the pitch is largely contingent on its ability to spend cash on players - through both transfer fees and high wages.
While there have been some signs in the past year that transfer spending by top English clubs is being reined in, the pressure on a leading club like Manchester United to spend heavily in an attempt to stay a top team remains. That spending can eat up profits rapidly and lead to volatile financial results.
At the same time, if a club like Manchester United cuts costs and doesn't go into the market for expensive new players, the value of its brand can be at risk. That may not happen to a top club overnight - with just one weak season - but over a few years the value of everything from TV rights to sales of club merchandise can be hit.
Manchester United had a weak season by its own standards in 2011-12, failing to win any silverware, though it missed out on the English title by a hair's breadth.
"The deal is a strong vanity play in terms of being part of a winning franchise but whether or not that mystique around the team translates to money for shareholders I doubt it," said Jeff Sica, president and chief investment officer of Sica Wealth Management in Morristown, New Jersey, which manages over $1 billion in assets. "The chances of shareholders making money on this is very little."
To be sure, many investors will not make a final decision until they know how many shares the company will sell and at what price. The timing of the IPO is also unclear.
COMPARISONS DIFFICULT
But doing a valuation analysis will not be easy even when the price is known because of the lack of comparable public companies in the U.S. The media, sports and entertainment group Madison Square Garden Co owns the New York Knicks basketball team and Rangers ice hockey team, media and entertainment company Liberty Media owns the Atlanta Braves baseball team and cable giant Comcast Corp owns the Philadelphia Flyers ice hockey team, but none are pure sports plays as they own many other assets.
"There's just not a lot of data out there," said Mark Donovan, a portfolio manager with Boston-based Robeco Investment Management which owns shares of Disney and Comcast. "Sports franchises have been the playgrounds of rich entrepreneurs who want a big expensive toy to play with but I don't really know if they pass the test for return on investment."
Teams that have listed in the U.S. in the past also haven't performed well for investors. The Boston Celtics, which were publicly traded for 16 years beginning in 1986, posted three straight years of losses before swinging to a profit in 2002. Shares were thinly traded and held primarily by individual investors, not institutions.
The Cleveland Indians went public in 1998 at $15 before seeing shares tank to $5.38 within four months.
Both teams have since been taken private.
And unlike these teams, Manchester United doesn't play in the United States - other than for occasional exhibition games in the summer months. It may have a sizable armchair fan base in the United States who watch English games on TV but that isn't comparable to the almost religious nature of the support in the U.K.
RED FLAGS
One particular problem is that some of the legendary English club's millions of fans around the world have shown a rabid dislike for the Glazers, who acquired the 134-year-old team in 2005 through a leveraged buyout. Whether through sizable demonstrations at games or comments on fan websites, they have slammed the Florida-based Glazers for loading the club up with large amounts of debt.
Another red flag is that medium-sized investment bank Jefferies Group Inc got picked to be lead underwriter on the offering only after Morgan Stanley bowed out due to concerns over the team's proposed valuation, according to sources familiar with the matter. Morgan Stanley had been set to participate in the underwriting earlier this year, when the Glazer family sought to list the team in Singapore, raising $1 billion. That plan was initially slated for 2011 but got pushed back due to market conditions.
The team also toyed with the idea of listing in Hong Kong, Reuters previously reported, but investors in the U.S. are largely seen as more accepting of the dual share structure that the Glazers wanted for the offering - a structure that allows them to retain almost complete control even after selling a large stake.
Jefferies and Morgan Stanley declined comment.
There are still a number of big banks helping to underwrite the deal, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Credit Suisse AG.
One concern among investors is that the team's cash balance - which it dips into to attract top players - stood at just 26 million pounds as of March 2012, down from 151 million pounds last June. The lack of plans for a dividend is another.
Its revenue rose 6 percent to 245.8 million pounds in the nine months ended in March, while its after-tax profit climbed to 38.2 million pounds from 13.3 million pounds in the year-earlier period.
However, despite the improved figures there are signs of strain. Its net finance costs in the latest nine-month period were 35 million pounds, swallowing up more than two thirds of its operating profit of 50.7 million pounds. Much of its net profit was due to a 22.5 million pounds tax credit, which is unlikely to be sustainable in the long run.
TV RIGHTS
The revenue from the sale of TV rights to its games, which comprised roughly a third of Manchester United's overall revenue in 2011, is based on contracts with the Premier League and Champions League, and are at least partially based on its players' success on the field.
Its match day revenue, meanwhile, is generated from the number of games Manchester United plays. This fluctuates based on how far the team progress in domestic cup competitions and in the knock-out stages of the Champions' League, the top competition for European clubs.
Even its most reliable revenue segment, commercial, which includes sponsorship, merchandise and apparel, could take a hit if the team has a poor season.
"Five years from now, Manchester United could fall on hard times and their attendance could drop and concessions could go down," said John Kim, a portfolio manager with Sentry Investments in Toronto, Canada which owns shares of Disney. "Generally speaking, there is a reason why most sports franchises are private."
The Glazers will keep an iron grip on the team through the dual-share structure which investors fear will give them little say in the club's affairs.
"A dual class structure is definitely a red flag," said Mohannad Aama, senior portfolio manager at Beam Capital Management in New York. "You don't know if the family really knows what they're doing or is someone doing this as a hobby."
Is this new information because it is relevant to my interests.
-
Manchester United's U.S. IPO may be a tough sell
Sat, Jul 14 11:35 AM EDT
By Olivia Oran
(Reuters) - Manchester United may be one of the most supported sports teams in the world but that doesn't mean the soccer club is going to find many investors with an appetite for its planned initial public offering in the United States.
Fund managers who have looked at its preliminary prospectus have been either negative or lukewarm on the prospect of buying shares in the club, which is controlled by the Florida-based Glazer family.
They say Manchester United faces significant financial risks given its 423 million pounds of debt ($658 million), and the very structure of the business puts its customers, the fans, at odds with shareholders.
Some are concerned that the U.S. stock market hasn't had many sports team listings, let alone any European soccer clubs, so there isn't much to compare Manchester United against
"With a sports franchise, it's a constant tug of war between player salaries cost and the rest of the operation," said Wallace Weitz, president and portfolio manager at Weitz Funds in Omaha, Nebraska, which holds stakes in Liberty Media Corp, Walt Disney Corp and Comcast Corp.
Manchester United declined to comment and representatives for the Glazers could not be immediately reached.
Like many sports franchises, the team's success on the pitch is largely contingent on its ability to spend cash on players - through both transfer fees and high wages.
While there have been some signs in the past year that transfer spending by top English clubs is being reined in, the pressure on a leading club like Manchester United to spend heavily in an attempt to stay a top team remains. That spending can eat up profits rapidly and lead to volatile financial results.
At the same time, if a club like Manchester United cuts costs and doesn't go into the market for expensive new players, the value of its brand can be at risk. That may not happen to a top club overnight - with just one weak season - but over a few years the value of everything from TV rights to sales of club merchandise can be hit.
Manchester United had a weak season by its own standards in 2011-12, failing to win any silverware, though it missed out on the English title by a hair's breadth.
"The deal is a strong vanity play in terms of being part of a winning franchise but whether or not that mystique around the team translates to money for shareholders I doubt it," said Jeff Sica, president and chief investment officer of Sica Wealth Management in Morristown, New Jersey, which manages over $1 billion in assets. "The chances of shareholders making money on this is very little."
To be sure, many investors will not make a final decision until they know how many shares the company will sell and at what price. The timing of the IPO is also unclear.
COMPARISONS DIFFICULT
But doing a valuation analysis will not be easy even when the price is known because of the lack of comparable public companies in the U.S. The media, sports and entertainment group Madison Square Garden Co owns the New York Knicks basketball team and Rangers ice hockey team, media and entertainment company Liberty Media owns the Atlanta Braves baseball team and cable giant Comcast Corp owns the Philadelphia Flyers ice hockey team, but none are pure sports plays as they own many other assets.
"There's just not a lot of data out there," said Mark Donovan, a portfolio manager with Boston-based Robeco Investment Management which owns shares of Disney and Comcast. "Sports franchises have been the playgrounds of rich entrepreneurs who want a big expensive toy to play with but I don't really know if they pass the test for return on investment."
Teams that have listed in the U.S. in the past also haven't performed well for investors. The Boston Celtics, which were publicly traded for 16 years beginning in 1986, posted three straight years of losses before swinging to a profit in 2002. Shares were thinly traded and held primarily by individual investors, not institutions.
The Cleveland Indians went public in 1998 at $15 before seeing shares tank to $5.38 within four months.
Both teams have since been taken private.
And unlike these teams, Manchester United doesn't play in the United States - other than for occasional exhibition games in the summer months. It may have a sizable armchair fan base in the United States who watch English games on TV but that isn't comparable to the almost religious nature of the support in the U.K.
RED FLAGS
One particular problem is that some of the legendary English club's millions of fans around the world have shown a rabid dislike for the Glazers, who acquired the 134-year-old team in 2005 through a leveraged buyout. Whether through sizable demonstrations at games or comments on fan websites, they have slammed the Florida-based Glazers for loading the club up with large amounts of debt.
Another red flag is that medium-sized investment bank Jefferies Group Inc got picked to be lead underwriter on the offering only after Morgan Stanley bowed out due to concerns over the team's proposed valuation, according to sources familiar with the matter. Morgan Stanley had been set to participate in the underwriting earlier this year, when the Glazer family sought to list the team in Singapore, raising $1 billion. That plan was initially slated for 2011 but got pushed back due to market conditions.
The team also toyed with the idea of listing in Hong Kong, Reuters previously reported, but investors in the U.S. are largely seen as more accepting of the dual share structure that the Glazers wanted for the offering - a structure that allows them to retain almost complete control even after selling a large stake.
Jefferies and Morgan Stanley declined comment.
There are still a number of big banks helping to underwrite the deal, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Credit Suisse AG.
One concern among investors is that the team's cash balance - which it dips into to attract top players - stood at just 26 million pounds as of March 2012, down from 151 million pounds last June. The lack of plans for a dividend is another.
Its revenue rose 6 percent to 245.8 million pounds in the nine months ended in March, while its after-tax profit climbed to 38.2 million pounds from 13.3 million pounds in the year-earlier period.
However, despite the improved figures there are signs of strain. Its net finance costs in the latest nine-month period were 35 million pounds, swallowing up more than two thirds of its operating profit of 50.7 million pounds. Much of its net profit was due to a 22.5 million pounds tax credit, which is unlikely to be sustainable in the long run.
TV RIGHTS
The revenue from the sale of TV rights to its games, which comprised roughly a third of Manchester United's overall revenue in 2011, is based on contracts with the Premier League and Champions League, and are at least partially based on its players' success on the field.
Its match day revenue, meanwhile, is generated from the number of games Manchester United plays. This fluctuates based on how far the team progress in domestic cup competitions and in the knock-out stages of the Champions' League, the top competition for European clubs.
Even its most reliable revenue segment, commercial, which includes sponsorship, merchandise and apparel, could take a hit if the team has a poor season.
"Five years from now, Manchester United could fall on hard times and their attendance could drop and concessions could go down," said John Kim, a portfolio manager with Sentry Investments in Toronto, Canada which owns shares of Disney. "Generally speaking, there is a reason why most sports franchises are private."
The Glazers will keep an iron grip on the team through the dual-share structure which investors fear will give them little say in the club's affairs.
"A dual class structure is definitely a red flag," said Mohannad Aama, senior portfolio manager at Beam Capital Management in New York. "You don't know if the family really knows what they're doing or is someone doing this as a hobby."
- Status