ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is my plan for the supporters to own the club.

Using MUST as the carrying vehicle. They issue a bond/share, where each share is worth £5,000

They would need to issue only 200,000 shares/bond. This would mean MUST will then be able to raise £1 billion, to pay off the Glazer, and get th club out of debt.

A supporter can buy as many shares he wants to. So if for e.g someone wants to pledge £1m in united, they would get 200 shares.

We have a fan base of around 300 million worldwide, and therefore raising 200,000 shares will not be that difficult.

This would mean that United will finally belong to the supporters, just like Barcelona is!

I perosnally know alot of people will put £5k into United and be a private shareholder!

Going forward the supporters will never have to invest any more money, as United as generally a cash rich business, and we have seen that when we were a plc.

So what do you think guys?
 
As most people know, in the NFL they have a salary cap. If a team spends more than their limit, they get fined. There is also a minimum amount they are aloud to spend on players wages - this rule is brought in to keep the league competitive. I beleive its called the Salary Floor.

The Glazers were very nearly fined for not spending the minimum about on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers wages. I believe they would have been the first team ever not to reach the minimum level.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers were Superbowl winners in 2002. Back then, they were one of the biggest spenders in the league. Since 2004, which coincided with the Glazers heavy investment and eventual purchase of United, they have been spending less and less on the side to the point where they are now the lowest spenders in the league.
 
Mombi said:
Here is my plan for the supporters to own the club.

Using MUST as the carrying vehicle. They issue a bond/share, where each share is worth £5,000

They would need to issue only 200,000 shares/bond. This would mean MUST will then be able to raise £1 billion, to pay off the Glazer, and get th club out of debt.

A supporter can buy as many shares he wants to. So if for e.g someone wants to pledge £1m in united, they would get 200 shares.

We have a fan base of around 300 million worldwide, and therefore raising 200,000 shares will not be that difficult.

This would mean that United will finally belong to the supporters, just like Barcelona is!

I perosnally know alot of people will put £5k into United and be a private shareholder!

Going forward the supporters will never have to invest any more money, as United as generally a cash rich business, and we have seen that when we were a plc.

So what do you think guys?
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good idea, I'd bung in 5 grand, but then again I know next to nothing about financial matters.
 
That's the way forward


But it is very challenging


MUST would need an international road show like the bond thing!
 
Also, would MUST even need to raise that much?


Couldn't it take on a few hundred mil in debt too?
 
Challenging it is!!

But i agree with what MUST are doing at the moment, and contacting some super rich United supporters to invest.

But I strongly belive that the ordinary United supporter should also be able to own United, and this £5k investment into United is the right way to do it.

UNITED should belong to all supporters!!!!
 
Mombi said:
Here is my plan for the supporters to own the club.

Using MUST as the carrying vehicle. They issue a bond/share, where each share is worth £5,000

They would need to issue only 200,000 shares/bond. This would mean MUST will then be able to raise £1 billion, to pay off the Glazer, and get th club out of debt.

A supporter can buy as many shares he wants to. So if for e.g someone wants to pledge £1m in united, they would get 200 shares.

We have a fan base of around 300 million worldwide, and therefore raising 200,000 shares will not be that difficult.

This would mean that United will finally belong to the supporters, just like Barcelona is!

I perosnally know alot of people will put £5k into United and be a private shareholder!

Going forward the supporters will never have to invest any more money, as United as generally a cash rich business, and we have seen that when we were a plc.

So what do you think guys?
Click to expand...

To be quite blunt and hope I don't offend you but you idea seems a bit far fetched, while your idea sounds great in theory practically getting 200k people to put £5k in each is pushing it. When the Glazers launched their takeover, the hysteria was much worse than it is now how many were buying shares but still made no difference. How many would be willing to put £5k in as well considering the tough climate we are all living in.

Fair play if you could pull it off, if anything I'd be happy but realistically not very likely at all.
 
Mombi said:
Here is my plan for the supporters to own the club.

Using MUST as the carrying vehicle. They issue a bond/share, where each share is worth £5,000

They would need to issue only 200,000 shares/bond. This would mean MUST will then be able to raise £1 billion, to pay off the Glazer, and get th club out of debt.

A supporter can buy as many shares he wants to. So if for e.g someone wants to pledge £1m in united, they would get 200 shares.

We have a fan base of around 300 million worldwide, and therefore raising 200,000 shares will not be that difficult.

This would mean that United will finally belong to the supporters, just like Barcelona is!

I perosnally know alot of people will put £5k into United and be a private shareholder!

Going forward the supporters will never have to invest any more money, as United as generally a cash rich business, and we have seen that when we were a plc.

So what do you think guys?
Click to expand...

It would be great, but i cant see it happening.

We may have a huge world wide fane base, but the vast majority wouldn’t put £5k in. Many would say they would, but when it came to paying up, they wouldn’t.

Im only guessing here, but most people dont have £5k to invest - especially in an investment that probably wont give you great returns.

Many people struggle to get together the money for their season tickets, never mind £5k.

Then you have people who feel they shouldnt be putting in money to bail Glazer out.

Many people say "the fans should own the club, like they do at Barca". Great, but the fans at Barca have always owned the club - they never had to buy it from someone - and certainly not for £1bil.

I think fans can be involved in a buyout, but any fan based fund that is put together will have to be backed up by investment from elsewhere.
 
JazzG said:
To be quite blunt and hope I don't offend you but you idea seems a bit far fetched, while your idea sounds great in theory practically getting 200k people to put £5k in each is pushing it. When the Glazers launched their takeover, the hysteria was much worse than it is now how many were buying shares but still made no difference. How many would be willing to put £5k in as well considering the tough climate we are all living in.

Fair play if you could pull it off, if anything I'd be happy but realistically not very likely at all.
Click to expand...


You are right that times are hard, but I dont expect to find 200k people. I reckon it will be more like 120k, as some people (the super rich supporters) will buy a bigger stake, taking up 500 shares each or even more.

Going back to when we were a plc, and buying the shares didnt make a difference, it was purely for that fact that once you reach a certain percentage of ownership, which i think its 30%, then an official taekover happens, where you have to buy out the rest of the shares. This meant the supporters didnt have control of that.


This is a tough ask, and something that should have been done a long time ago, before we went plc. But i honestly dont think its too late.
I dont see any other way of getting rid of the Glazers.


I dont trust my club with the Glazers, nor do i trust any feckng chinese investor. I am not willing to sit here and twiddle my thumbs thinking we are fecked as club, and do nothing about it.
 
Mombi said:
You are right that times are hard, but I dont expect to find 200k people. I reckon it will be more like 120k, as some people (the super rich supporters) will buy a bigger stake, taking up 500 shares each or even more.

Going back to when we were a plc, and buying the shares didnt make a difference, it was purely for that fact that once you reach a certain percentage of ownership, which i think its 30%, then an official taekover happens, where you have to buy out the rest of the shares. This meant the supporters didnt have control of that.


This is a tough ask, and something that should have been done a long time ago, before we went plc. But i honestly dont think its too late.
I dont see any other way of getting rid of the Glazers.


I dont trust my club with the Glazers, nor do i trust any feckng chinese investor. I am not willing to sit here and twiddle my thumbs thinking we are fecked as club, and do nothing about it.
Click to expand...
there would be the possibility to limited that in the statutes, for example no one is allowed to have more than 10% of the shares.

However, I doubt you will find 200'000 "fans" to buy a share at 5000 each. Shame it didnt happen before
 
Escobar said:
there would be the possibility to limited that in the statutes, for example no one is allowed to have more than 10% of the shares.

However, I doubt you will find 200'000 "fans" to buy a share at 5000 each. Shame it didnt happen before
Click to expand...

As long as the supporters owned 51% it wouldnt matter who owned the rest or how much they owned.
 
You could notionally take the club as is for £250M. Raise £500M by selling 49% stake. Pay down the PIKS, pay back the £250M initial stake and have a fan majority-owned club with a £500M bond to service.
 
peterstorey said:
Tell them there will be no season ticket sales until they do.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the season ticket sales is not their main revenue. So this would not hit them that much. Avg season ticket is £700 x 60,000 = £42m. United turnover is around £300m.

Yeah they would loose some revenue, but i doubt all 60,000 not renewing season tickets next year.

Thats why I believe not renewing my season ticket does effect them as it does me, as I cant bear the fact of not watching united.
 
Mombi said:
Unfortunately, the season ticket sales is not their main revenue. So this would not hit them that much. Avg season ticket is £700 x 60,000 = £42m. United turnover is around £300m.

Yeah they would loose some revenue, but i doubt all 60,000 not renewing season tickets next year.

Thats why I believe not renewing my season ticket does effect them as it does me, as I cant bear the fact of not watching united.
Click to expand...
Sponsors will threaten to pull out if a vast number of people do not renew season tickets.
 
Crerand Legend said:
As long as the supporters owned 51% it wouldnt matter who owned the rest or how much they owned.
Click to expand...

The thing is, how would the supporters group together, esp. if they are all over the world? So, you would have again ppl with other interests that have too much power due to their big amount of shares. IF you want it properly run and without "investors", you need a restriction like that
 
Escobar said:
there would be the possibility to limited that in the statutes, for example no one is allowed to have more than 10% of the shares.

However, I doubt you will find 200'000 "fans" to buy a share at 5000 each. Shame it didnt happen before
Click to expand...

What would a 'share' entitle me to? Just knowing that I owned some of the club or something else? Would I get dividends, free tickets or would it just be emotional satisfaction that I knew I owned some of the club that I loved?
 
One game with an empty Old Trafford (ideally a pre-season friendly) and they'd be begging you to buy them out. The fans have the power to break Glazer in two.
 
sammsky1 said:
What would a 'share' entitle me to? Just knowing that I owned some of the club or something else? Would I get dividends, free tickets or would it just be emotional satisfaction that I knew I owned some of the club that I loved?
Click to expand...

Well, that depends. Usually, a share entitles you to a dividend and you are a "partial owner" of the club. However, you could again state in the statutes that e.g. no dividends are paid out but that money goes back into the club (that would probabyl have to decicded at the annual general meeting. You would however not be entitled for some other rights such as tickets etc.

But I guess the emotional satisfaction would be very high! I would buy such shares and not wanting a dividend, knowing that it will be for the benefit of the club. Further, the shareholders would vote the members of the board etc
 
sammsky1 said:
What would a 'share' entitle me to? Just knowing that I owned some of the club or something else? Would I get dividends, free tickets or would it just be emotional satisfaction that I knew I owned some of the club that I loved?
Click to expand...


Its works just like any business does.

You share entitles you to the following;
- Voting rights (On a number of issues - just like a business, ie appointing a chairman etc)
- Dividends (depending on whether the club pays out, or re-invests in new players)
- And the satisfaction that you are part of the club!
 
peterstorey said:
One game with an empty Old Trafford (ideally a pre-season friendly) and they'd be begging you to buy them out. The fans have the power to break Glazer in two.
Click to expand...

In theory, thats right. However, do you really think that all the "fans" would do that? I doubt it, since the ppl watching games at OT are not all "fans". To find so many ppl sticking together is almost impossible i am afraid.

I love the idea that the fans could buy them out, however, I doubt that will ever happen for so many reasons
 
Escobar said:
The thing is, how would the supporters group together, esp. if they are all over the world? So, you would have again ppl with other interests that have too much power due to their big amount of shares. IF you want it properly run and without "investors", you need a restriction like that
Click to expand...

The supporters shares would have to be channelled through one organisation such as MUST, and we have to trust them to handle our shares and represent us and our 51% hence one voice. Would take a hell of alot of organising
 
Crerand Legend said:
The supporters shares would have to be channelled through one organisation such as MUST, and we have to trust them to handle our shares and represent us and our 51% hence one voice. Would take a hell of alot of organising
Click to expand...

Well, such a grouping would be necessary. However, such a group with so many members is hardly going to satisfy every single fan or express exactly their opinion. I dont like when a group has too much power. thats why i prefer the 1-share, one vote idea. Every person is only allowed to buy one share.
 
Escobar said:
I love the idea that the fans could buy them out, however, I doubt that will ever happen for so many reasons
Click to expand...

Give me your reasons?

it will take a lot of orginsation, but thats the sacrifice we have to do. I am sure MUST can use its influence and power to get this moving. Thats the only problem. Its organising all this!

We have a global presence, with apparently a fan base of 300m, how can we not do this?

The whole talk of fans owning United again, whats the point if we sit here and say it wont happen! I might as well pack it in, and say United are going to get bankrupt - cause they way we are going, we are heading there.
 
Escobar said:
Well, such a grouping would be necessary. However, such a group with so many members is hardly going to satisfy every single fan or express exactly their opinion. I dont like when a group has too much power. thats why i prefer the 1-share, one vote idea. Every person is only allowed to buy one share.
Click to expand...

The one share one vote system is how the Glazers got control in the first place was it not. We need at least a loose allliance to give us a significant voice and be well represented on the Board of Directors and make it impossible for hawks like the Glazers ever to buy the club again
 
Escobar said:
In theory, thats right. However, do you really think that all the "fans" would do that? I doubt it, since the ppl watching games at OT are not all "fans". To find so many ppl sticking together is almost impossible i am afraid.

I love the idea that the fans could buy them out, however, I doubt that will ever happen for so many reasons
Click to expand...
No I don't think it can be done though the mechanics outlined above are theoretically feasible. You won't be able to get the £250M together, there's not enough solidarity to force the Glazers to the table with a boycott and so on. The supporters had the chance to buy a big chunk of Arsenal in the mid-80s for about £250,000. If we knew then...
 
peterstorey said:
One game with an empty Old Trafford (ideally a pre-season friendly) and they'd be begging you to buy them out. The fans have the power to break Glazer in two.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. It would be a breathtaking and would cause mayhem. And I think its achievable if the Green and Gold campaign can carry on building momentum.

Only problem is identifying the right game. I dont think it can be a pre season friendly, it needs to be a very high profile game like vs another top 4 team or a even better a CL game. That would get Uefa involved too and all sorts of conversations would take place. I say go for the CL 1/4 finals if we get past Milan.
 
Mombi said:
Here is my plan for the supporters to own the club.

Using MUST as the carrying vehicle. They issue a bond/share, where each share is worth £5,000

They would need to issue only 200,000 shares/bond. This would mean MUST will then be able to raise £1 billion, to pay off the Glazer, and get th club out of debt.

A supporter can buy as many shares he wants to. So if for e.g someone wants to pledge £1m in united, they would get 200 shares.

We have a fan base of around 300 million worldwide, and therefore raising 200,000 shares will not be that difficult.

This would mean that United will finally belong to the supporters, just like Barcelona is!

I perosnally know alot of people will put £5k into United and be a private shareholder!

Going forward the supporters will never have to invest any more money, as United as generally a cash rich business, and we have seen that when we were a plc.

So what do you think guys?
Click to expand...
It's a nice idea but not really feasible. Asking people to put up £5k with little or no returns.

I'm a fan of fan ownership but it's not something I would particpate in until £5k becomes water off a duck's back to me.

Mombi said:
Unfortunately, the season ticket sales is not their main revenue. So this would not hit them that much. Avg season ticket is £700 x 60,000 = £42m. United turnover is around £300m.
Click to expand...

Matchday activies as a whole account for 50% of our revenue.

peterstorey said:
One game with an empty Old Trafford (ideally a pre-season friendly) and they'd be begging you to buy them out. The fans have the power to break Glazer in two.
Click to expand...
Is a good idea but impossible to pull off.
 
Escobar said:
Well, that depends. Usually, a share entitles you to a dividend and you are a "partial owner" of the club. However, you could again state in the statutes that e.g. no dividends are paid out but that money goes back into the club (that would probabyl have to decicded at the annual general meeting. You would however not be entitled for some other rights such as tickets etc.

But I guess the emotional satisfaction would be very high! I would buy such shares and not wanting a dividend, knowing that it will be for the benefit of the club. Further, the shareholders would vote the members of the board etc
Click to expand...

Mombi said:
Its works just like any business does.

You share entitles you to the following;
- Voting rights (On a number of issues - just like a business, ie appointing a chairman etc)
- Dividends (depending on whether the club pays out, or re-invests in new players)
- And the satisfaction that you are part of the club!
Click to expand...


My problem with that is that is what we were pre Glazers as a PLC ... and so prone to another 'leveraged buy out' by the next private equity wanker who comes along. Likewise, as SAF has pointed out, a PLC makes the mangers job much more difficult ... decisions take alot longer to get through and you also have to publish your strategy in advance so letting opposing clubs know about future plans.

Its a better situation than having the Glazer wankers owning us but not much better. There must be another ownership model that gives the manger enough freedom to do his job properly as well as giving fans a feeling of ownership. Any idea how that would work? What about like a 'partnership' like law firms are set up, in this case, it would be alot of 'partners'!
 
Still can't see the fans raising the necessary finance to buy out the Glazers.....might be of interest that Newcastle United Supporters Trust have pledges of £50 million from 4500 supporters in their fight to oust Ashley.
 
dev1l said:
Manchester United opens window on murky world of leveraged buy-outs
Michael Moritz, venture capitalist at Sequoia Capital, explains what Manchester United's finances tell us about leveraged buyouts.


By Michael Moritz
Published: 1:55PM GMT 27 Jan 2010
Michael Moritz says before the Glazers took over, Manchester United was a thriving, healthy business.
Michael Moritz says before the Glazers took over, Manchester United was a thriving, healthy business. Photo: GETTY IMAGES

For a glimpse of the murky world of leveraged buy-outs (LBOs), look no further than the team atop the Premier League. What's happening to Manchester United football club is similar to the same fate that has beset many US and European companies that have been taken over by LBO firms.

Last week Manchester United officials were able to secure a badly needed refinancing of the £500m of debt assumed after the club was taken private.


Five years ago, before the Glazer family of Florida completed their assault on Manchester United, the football club was a thriving, healthy business. The club had plenty of cash, was free of debt and had the firepower to invest in the future.

The Club's football management - headed by Sir Alex Ferguson - had spent two decades carefully creating a franchise, much as chief executives and entrepreneurs diligently build companies.

All that work was put in jeopardy after the Glazers approached Manchester United.

In 2005, after enduring waves of mounting pressure, Manchester United's board of directors - while loudly warning shareholders of the probable consequences - sold the club for £790m. But, instead of paying with cash, or with a small and manageable amount of debt, the Glazers slammed a massive mortgage on Manchester United and leveraged it to the hilt.

Substitute the Glazer family with the names of LBO firms and Manchester United with the names of numerous corporations and you can see what could happen.

In the US we've watched the LBO firms, calling themselves "private equity", burden companies. They take over businesses that in some cases employed tens of thousands of people, formed the heart of many communities and had been steady and reliable taxpayers.

These are companies such as Readers Digest (bankrupt), Simmons Mattress (bankrupt), Mervyn Stores (bankrupt).

Virtually no industry has been able to escape the pursuit of the LBO firms. Supermarket chains, theme parks, gambling casinos and building suppliers have all fallen victim to the LBO treatment.

Here's how the Glazers treated Manchester United.

They replaced the board of directors with family members. They buried the club beneath several increasingly expensive layers of debt, which in the last three years have cost Manchester United £130m in interest payments - more than five times what the club received after selling David Beckham to Real Madrid.

They took money out as onetime payments, loaned money to themselves at favorable rates and charged the club management fees. And now they are about to sell Manchester United's training ground and lease it back to the club.

If Sir Alex Ferguson wants to buy new players, it seems the club will have to assume even more debt.

Across the US the buyout firms have perfected the business plan.

A buyout firm spots a company with a healthy business. Boards of directors are tossed aside; assets are pledged; employees are fired; pre-before tax becomes earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation; all the energy turns from building a healthy long-term business to servicing the creditors.

Who benefits from all this? In the case of Manchester United it is certainly not the fans - the customers; the players - the employees; or the management -Sir Alex Ferguson and his staff, whose opportunity to share in the increase in equity value they built was flattened when the club was taken private.

The beneficiaries have been the Glazer family and the bankers, lawyers and accountants. (Just the banking fees for last week's bond offering equates to more than half of what Manchester United paid for Wayne Rooney).

When will all these people who act like sub-prime landlords have the decency to abide by a few simple principles? Don't buy what you cannot afford.

If you buy something, use your own cash. Reward the people who have built the business. Put earnings in the bank or invest in the future. And, one final thing, never confuse borrowers with owners.
Manchester United opens window on murky world of leveraged buy-outs - Telegraph
Click to expand...

Someone to buy out the Glazers?- be careful what you wish for....
The quoted story above mentions the Simmons Company that was bought and sold 7 times by buy-out firms and each time getting deeper and deeper in debt, it went from a well run relatively debt free company to now having over a billion dollars in debt but each time the new buyer managed to screw even more in fees and dividends for themselves- SEVEN TIMES!
Here is the story, read it and weep-

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html

Glazers are just the first of many and it will be all downhill from them. There is only one way to get them out, stop spending your money.


Start a boycott of the sponsors. Hopefully you can get a cult movement going like the 'dolphin free' tuna which scared the hell out of the canned tuna industry -ring em up and complain, they hate that.
 
Marching said:
Still can't see the fans raising the necessary finance to buy out the Glazers.....might be of interest that Newcastle United Supporters Trust have pledges of £50 million from 4500 supporters in their fight to oust Ashley.
Click to expand...
Well we would need a consortium of wealthy individuals.

The main worry for me is the power side of things.

Fana may well own a piece of the club but as long as someone is holding onto say 25-50% of the shares then they have complete control of the club.

What happens to the likes of Gill, Watkins, etc.

For all Gill's flaws so seems to be doing a good job bringing the money considering the constraints the Glazer's have placed on him.
 
Mombi said:
Here is my plan for the supporters to own the club.

Using MUST as the carrying vehicle. They issue a bond/share, where each share is worth £5,000

They would need to issue only 200,000 shares/bond. This would mean MUST will then be able to raise £1 billion, to pay off the Glazer, and get th club out of debt.

A supporter can buy as many shares he wants to. So if for e.g someone wants to pledge £1m in united, they would get 200 shares.

We have a fan base of around 300 million worldwide, and therefore raising 200,000 shares will not be that difficult.

This would mean that United will finally belong to the supporters, just like Barcelona is!

I perosnally know alot of people will put £5k into United and be a private shareholder!

Going forward the supporters will never have to invest any more money, as United as generally a cash rich business, and we have seen that when we were a plc.

So what do you think guys?
Click to expand...

Personally, I like that idea. I mean, I live in Montenegro where the average payment is about 400euros per month, and I know at least 10 people that love the club (in a country of 600 000), and who would now be ready to put their 5k in United, me included... I spoked also with couple of guys today, who are ready even to ask for a credit in the bank, and invest that money in United, cause they don't have that money, but would be able to return the credit in couple of years.
And that's the case of very poor and small country, where the Italian clubs are much more popular, and our fan base is small.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.