United thread 2012/13 (inc merged IPO thread)

[Rammyblues]

They could morgage the ground (If that hasn't already been done)
They could sell the naming rights for the ground hinted at that might happen.
They could sell some of their players world class home grown academy players such as (sorry as I started to type this bit started giggling).

From the IPO they were hoping to get around 300m dollars, whats that about 200m. Ground must be worth a few million for the bricks and mortar alone, the istory of the place would be worth millions more (starts to laugh uncontrollably) and maybe a contraceptive firm would just love to have the naming rights, just think of the advertising showing the 76000 faithful with a headline we have all these pricks covered.

Off course none of the above will happen they will sell to MUST and everything in the garden will be rosy. :-)

 

[Marvin]

Or the share issue will go through as planned and the Glazers will carry on muddling through

Already evident that if it does go through it will be on the smallish side

 

[bluemoondays]

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — For sale: world-famous company that’s highly leveraged with anti-takeover provisions and no dividend or stock buyback plans in sight.

To which potential buyers in Hong Kong, Singapore and now, reportedly, the U.S., have replied: No, thanks.

At least that’s according to a published report in the Financial Times Wednesday, which said the Manchester United initial public offering is on hold.


Reuters
Manchester United fans from Thailand look inside a souvenir shop in Bangkok August 18, 2011.

In interests of full disclosure, this author is a fan of a soccer club that counts Manchester United as a bitter rival. But that’s not really the point — the club is clearly one of the dominant teams in the English Premier League, despite cross-town rival Manchester City winning the league title this year, and its success on the pitch, as the Brits say, looks to continue for some time.

The issues surround the team’s recent owners, the Glazer family, and the debt they’ve loaded onto the franchise: 423 million pounds against 259 million pounds of equity. The prospectus says they want the cash to pay off debt carrying interest rates north of 8%. And remember, this isn’t some new start-up — this is a company that’s been around for more than a century.

Plus, as an “emerging growth company” per the new JOBS Act rules — quite an achievement in labeling for one founded in 1878 — it won’t have to attest to the effectiveness of its internal controls for up to five years.

Of course the investment case carries some valid points. In the U.K., BT Group aggressively bid for television rights, in the process completely shutting out Disney’s DIS +2.90% ESPN and making inroads to BSkyB’s BSY +3.14% local broadcasting dominance of the sport. (BSkyB is partly owned by News Corp, which also owns MarketWatch, the publisher of this report.)

There’s also the Premier League’s and Manchester United’s growing ability to tap into demand to watch soccer in Asia, as its own broadcast channel reaches 54 countries. Plus, the club’s mobile and “new media” revenue is surging, as is sponsorship and licensing revenue.

But even so, operating margins were basically flat in the nine months ending March 31, at 21%. Expenses also are growing, and the club hasn’t of late been able to repeat the feat of developing home-grown talent like David Beckham and Paul Scholes — which is important to its finances, because it forces the club to buy players from other clubs at a premium. The club also is competing against rivals like Chelsea and Manchester City whose oil-rich owners show little regard for turning a profit.

Yes, it’s true that there’s growing market uncertainty, not making it the best of times for any initial public offering. And yet the reason for the market uncertainty, largely the European debt situation, also directly threatens the revenue and profit potential of Manchester United. Only Wednesday, the U.K. government’s statistician reported the economy in the second quarter shrank 0.7%.

The fans may sing “We love United, we do,” but investors most certainly do not.

Haha

 

[EricBrooksGhost]

What makes me laugh is the volatility excuse. Why would anyone invest in this ipo when you have no control, no dividend and the company is being bleed dry. Its not clear what the p/e ratio is for this offer so heaven knows what investors make of it.

Bet the Glazers are grateful that those institutions are purely going to rely on their years of experience in global investment banking rather than seeking more expert financial advice from bluemoon before deciding whether or not to proceed ;-)

Seems i have to quote you again. Yes you did dismiss bluemoon yet the points i made were about control, value of the company , lack of dividend all of which a important to investors so bluemoon postings have validity to. Yes i am sorry i said B i meant A as in those shares with effectively no control; which was one of my points. Now back to non public domain information that can be used to assess the value of shares, i would suggest that is insider information but you seem sure the banks have this information .... Your words.

 

[JM Mcr]

Re: Utd and their Failed IPO

I wonder why there'd be a lot of negative speculation, on a City forum?
(Rubs chin inquisitively)

He just hasn't sussed it has he.
The preposterous notion that he thinks all Blues on here are claiming to know the ins and outs of the deal is arrogant in itself. United's IPO is in danger of going kaput, so we're laughing at them and the suggested notion this will hamper them in the future. We've got enough enlightened Blues to let us know that this IPO was a fairly big deal for Glazer and United and the connotations of it's failure isn't something they can easily brush under the carpet and say "oh well". I'm not 100% on what the IPO failure means to Glazer or United, but i know enough to know that it was pretty important that it met a successful conclusion
Though apparently, our Raggy friend seems to believe unless we have 100% access and knowledge to the intricacies of the IPO we should refrain from debating it..]

Not the first time you've put words in my mouth. Of course I don't think all blues here claim to know the ins n outs of the deal and I have never said I do. I am also more than aware that there are a number of extremely clued up posters here who can interpret much of what's happening and I enjoy reading their posts as much as the next man.

As I have previously stated I have made no criticism of "negative speculation on a city forum", I was referring to general speculation in the nations media and saying I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

And where have I tried to deter anyone from debating the issue? All I'm doing is trying to enter into that same debate tho it seems to some people that's a reason to go on the offensive.

Once again, it is not my intention to antagonise, I merely try to put across my point of view - the simple fact that it contradicts most other people's surely shouldn't stop me from doing so?

 

[stony]

maybe a contraceptive firm would just love to have the naming rights, just think of the advertising showing the 76000 faithful with a headline we have all these pricks covered.

haha, the roof sponsored by Durex, protecting pricks is our business.

 

[JM Mcr]

Ericbrooksghost,

You seem to have made your mind up on the viability of any IPO based on the extremely limited information that is currently in the public domain (the Glazers have yet to even confirm their valuation of the club or proposed price and numbers of shares to be issued, hence my reserving judgement until details are known) but I would imagine the underwriting bankers may be privy to more information than that.

The information in bold is what I was suggesting the underwriters would know as without knowing the valuation how would they know how to proceed. Is that insider trading? I'm no expert but didn't think so.

As for dismissing anything as bluemoon ramblings, I made a tongue in cheek comment that the Glazers should be glad their bankers don't obtain financial advice from bluemoon. I even went to the trouble of adding the silly little ;-) to try n indicate it was a lighthearted comment. That's the problem with t'internet, everything can be taken literally...

 

[The Future's Blue]

Such a shame. I'd hate what's happening at United to happen to us.

 

[bluelol]

They could morgage the ground (If that hasn't already been done)
They could sell the naming rights for the ground hinted at that might happen.
They could sell some of their players world class home grown academy players such as (sorry as I started to type this bit started giggling).

From the IPO they were hoping to get around 300m dollars, whats that about 200m. Ground must be worth a few million for the bricks and mortar alone, the istory of the place would be worth millions more (starts to laugh uncontrollably) and maybe a contraceptive firm would just love to have the naming rights, just think of the advertising showing the 76000 faithful with a headline we have all these pricks covered.

Off course none of the above will happen they will sell to MUST and everything in the garden will be rosy. :-)

Not sure about the bricks but the scaffolding could become useful for a washing line!!

 

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

One things for sure about all this, and I'm no financial expert, but I love the Glazers and hate United....long may they continue to reign supreme at the swamp!!