ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

[DFreshKing]

For a share that has only 10% voting rights and no dividend initially if we get $500m-$1bn I would be over the moon.

I am no expert in this field but would be surprised if there was such a take up of a watered down commodity with the only upside being increased price at least near term.

Especially when we are already valued much higher than any comparable US sports 'Franchise' - eh I hate that word.

Could London Red clarify the dividend issue? When you say no dividend what is this based on and when is the dividend likely to come into force? -

oh and welcome to the madhouse!

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

So essentially GCHQ's paymasters are taking us into the dreaded plc structure that GCHQ said was crap compared to the Glazer ownership. Glad we've sorted that out.

 

[thegregster]

For a share that has only 10% voting rights and no dividend initially if we get $500m-$1bn I would be over the moon.

I am no expert in this field but would be surprised if there was such a take up of a watered down commodity with the only upside being increased price at least near term.

Especially when we are already valued much higher than any comparable US sports 'Franchise' - eh I hate that word.

Could London Red clarify the dividend issue? When you say no dividend what is this based on and when is the dividend likely to come into force? -

oh and welcome to the madhouse!

Nobody would pay that for so little.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

Question for the financial bods

Our main problem with competing at the top end of recent transfer markets is a wage issue. For example, we could have competed with City for Silva and Toure in terms of fees but not wages.

As far as I understand our current wage policy is that the wage bill is not to exceed 50% of turnover. If the debt is cleared then am I correct in thinking that turnover and as such wage policy is not affected?

 

[LondonRed]

For that amount they would surely be looking at a 30-40% stake?

Hello all!

Forbes valued us at US$2.24bn in April. If we assume this figure is correct and has not changed drastically since then, 30%-40% of our value looks about right with one major caveat.

This all hinges on value and how well the banks do in selling us as a business. If they can get the valuation the Glazer's want then I can see well over US$500m being raised. The balance in this instance is between wanting to raise as much capital as possible to pay down as much of the debt as they can, and not issuing too many shares that they lose total control of the company.

In the UK they would therefore be willing to sell enough A shares such that their retained A shares and B shares (10x each A share) equate to 75% of the voting rights (at most) so they can vote down any special resolutions (anthing important - changes in ownership/removal of a director/large acquisitions/issues of new shares). In the US the figure required is only 66.7% so in theory they could sell more A shares.

They will certainly give themselves some leeway in this so that they can sell more shares should the price increase over the next few years but if the valuation is right, they will take advantage of it.

 

[LondonRed]

Could London Red clarify the dividend issue? When you say no dividend what is this based on and when is the dividend likely to come into force? -

Taken from the prelim, 2 important points on dividends:

1) "We do not currently intend to pay cash dividends on our Class A ordinary shares in the foreseeable future."

Directors can be sued for negligent mistatement within the final form prospectus hence the ambiguous wording of 'for the foreseeable future'. Generally this means no dividends will be paid in the imminent future (12 months) but that the door is open for them to be paid at some point in the future.

A deal I worked on recently where the client was a lot less newsworthy had this dividend policy:

"Whilst the Board does not currently expect to declare a dividend in the financial year following Admission and potentially for subsequent periods thereafter, it does intend that the Company shall pay dividends to Shareholders in the future when it is able and it is appropriate to do so."

Both mean the same thing. The latter indicates but doesn't guarantee that dividends will be paid in the future (finances permitting) but they could have used the wording from the Utd prospectus and do exactly the same thing - no dividends for a few years then start paying them. The club were however obviously aware of a fans/media backlash had they used the more emotive wording in the second example.

Be under no illusions though, there will be dividends once the debt has gone.

2) "Any dividends we declare on our ordinary shares will be in respect of both our Class A ordinary shares and Class B ordinary shares, and will be distributed such that a holder of one of our Class B ordinary shares will receive the same amount of the dividends that are received by a holder of one of our Class A ordinary shares."

Although the B shares have significantly higher voting privileges, it is nice to see that the Glazers didn't use a share that had additional dividend rights. They could have used a cumulative share (pays a fixed % every year) but again not very attractive to investors.

 

[DFreshKing]

Taken from the prelim, 2 important points on dividends:

1) "We do not currently intend to pay cash dividends on our Class A ordinary shares in the foreseeable future."

Directors can be sued for negligent mistatement within the final form prospectus hence the ambiguous wording of 'for the foreseeable future'. Generally this means no dividends will be paid in the imminent future (12 months) but that the door is open for them to be paid at some point in the future.

A deal I worked on recently where the client was a lot less newsworthy had this dividend policy:

"Whilst the Board does not currently expect to declare a dividend in the financial year following Admission and potentially for subsequent periods thereafter, it does intend that the Company shall pay dividends to Shareholders in the future when it is able and it is appropriate to do so."

Both mean the same thing. The latter indicates but doesn't guarantee that dividends will be paid in the future (finances permitting) but they could have used the wording from the Utd prospectus and do exactly the same thing - no dividends for a few years then start paying them. The club were however obviously aware of a fans/media backlash had they used the more emotive wording in the second example.

Be under no illusions though, there will be dividends once the debt has gone.

2) "Any dividends we declare on our ordinary shares will be in respect of both our Class A ordinary shares and Class B ordinary shares, and will be distributed such that a holder of one of our Class B ordinary shares will receive the same amount of the dividends that are received by a holder of one of our Class A ordinary shares."

Although the B shares have significantly higher voting privileges, it is nice to see that the Glazers didn't use a share that had additional dividend rights. They could have used a cumulative share (pays a fixed % every year) but again not very attractive to investors.

Thanks for the clarity.

Good post.

Now to see what demand there is.

 

[VP]

Cayman Islands?

Even an institution like Manchester United isn't spared from the cancer of financial capitalism, depressing times.

 

[JustAFan]

Taken from the prelim, 2 important points on dividends:

1) "We do not currently intend to pay cash dividends on our Class A ordinary shares in the foreseeable future."

Directors can be sued for negligent mistatement within the final form prospectus hence the ambiguous wording of 'for the foreseeable future'. Generally this means no dividends will be paid in the imminent future (12 months) but that the door is open for them to be paid at some point in the future.

A deal I worked on recently where the client was a lot less newsworthy had this dividend policy:

"Whilst the Board does not currently expect to declare a dividend in the financial year following Admission and potentially for subsequent periods thereafter, it does intend that the Company shall pay dividends to Shareholders in the future when it is able and it is appropriate to do so."

Both mean the same thing. The latter indicates but doesn't guarantee that dividends will be paid in the future (finances permitting) but they could have used the wording from the Utd prospectus and do exactly the same thing - no dividends for a few years then start paying them. The club were however obviously aware of a fans/media backlash had they used the more emotive wording in the second example.

Be under no illusions though, there will be dividends once the debt has gone.

2) "Any dividends we declare on our ordinary shares will be in respect of both our Class A ordinary shares and Class B ordinary shares, and will be distributed such that a holder of one of our Class B ordinary shares will receive the same amount of the dividends that are received by a holder of one of our Class A ordinary shares."

Although the B shares have significantly higher voting privileges, it is nice to see that the Glazers didn't use a share that had additional dividend rights. They could have used a cumulative share (pays a fixed % every year) but again not very attractive to investors.

This makes more sense.

Now one thing to remember regarding the wording of the potential issues with the debt. In this sort of offering that will be done on the stock market there are legal requirements that potential risks be discussed.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

Taken from the prelim, 2 important points on dividends:

1) "We do not currently intend to pay cash dividends on our Class A ordinary shares in the foreseeable future."

Directors can be sued for negligent mistatement within the final form prospectus hence the ambiguous wording of 'for the foreseeable future'. Generally this means no dividends will be paid in the imminent future (12 months) but that the door is open for them to be paid at some point in the future.

A deal I worked on recently where the client was a lot less newsworthy had this dividend policy:

"Whilst the Board does not currently expect to declare a dividend in the financial year following Admission and potentially for subsequent periods thereafter, it does intend that the Company shall pay dividends to Shareholders in the future when it is able and it is appropriate to do so."

Both mean the same thing. The latter indicates but doesn't guarantee that dividends will be paid in the future (finances permitting) but they could have used the wording from the Utd prospectus and do exactly the same thing - no dividends for a few years then start paying them. The club were however obviously aware of a fans/media backlash had they used the more emotive wording in the second example.

Be under no illusions though, there will be dividends once the debt has gone.

2) "Any dividends we declare on our ordinary shares will be in respect of both our Class A ordinary shares and Class B ordinary shares, and will be distributed such that a holder of one of our Class B ordinary shares will receive the same amount of the dividends that are received by a holder of one of our Class A ordinary shares."

Although the B shares have significantly higher voting privileges, it is nice to see that the Glazers didn't use a share that had additional dividend rights. They could have used a cumulative share (pays a fixed % every year) but again not very attractive to investors.

We are not expecting to see the debt cleared with this partial float? Also what percentage of profit do dividends usually amount to and is this not going to end up being as much as the debt interest payments anyway?

 

[Gambit]

We are not expecting to see the debt cleared with this partial float? Also what percentage of profit do dividends usually amount to and is this not going to end up being as much as the debt interest payments anyway?

The amount of shares we're selling currently no, this is more a toe in the water job, we're seeing what the markets like and if it's interested we'll release more shares. The debt could be gone very soon, we then will be back to paying dividends out of our profits but they will be a lot less than what we're paying out in loan repayments interest.

 

[RedCanuck]

Question for the financial bods
Our main problem with competing at the top end of recent transfer markets is a wage issue. For example, we could have competed with City for Silva and Toure in terms of fees but not wages.

As far as I understand our current wage policy is that the wage bill is not to exceed 50% of turnover. If the debt is cleared then am I correct in thinking that turnover and as such wage policy is not affected?

I'm not a financial bod but that's how I understand it. Wages will still be held at 45-50% of turnover, as it was under the previous PLC. Where the profits will go is yet to be seen.

 

[LondonRed]

The amount of shares we're selling currently no, this is more a toe in the water job, we're seeing what the markets like and if it's interested we'll release more shares. The debt could be gone very soon, we then will be back to paying dividends out of our profits but they will be a lot less than what we're paying out in loan repayments interest.

Exactly. It COULD all be gone - but that is assuming the Glazer's dreams come true and we get valued at US$2bn+.

Dividends will be far less than the interest repayments but so long as we are listed, they will remain a permanent fixture (profits permitting).

No one has mentioned the benefits we get from being listed either. Whilst not as preferable as being owned by a guy from manchester, who supports the club and made billions from his career, it is certainly preferable to the highly leveraged model we have currently.

General admin costs will increase as a listed company sure, but they certainly won't be more than £10m which is what we paid the Glazers last year in 'consultancy fees' (which have been removed permanently for this float). It will then, rather unusually, actually reduce our operating costs.

It also opens up a huge market of potential investment. The NYSE is the largest (by a country mile) exchange in the world - if we needed to raise capital in the future for any investment purposes e.g. expansion of the stadium, acquisition of more surrounding land, construction of a 'fan zone' even the acquisition of a player (!) then we could simply issue shares to raise the cash. This eliminates any ongoing banking costs we may incur in borrowing money (we will of course still have overdrafts etc.)

Our profile in the US will go up as well. We don't derive huge revenue from the US consumer market but we make a large bulk of our sponsorship revenue from there - DHL, Nike, Aon (AIG as well) Chevrolet etc. Listing in the US will only strengthen our brand and that should lead to further commercial growth.

Perhaps most importantly of all is the requirement to have AGMs. Whilst I have no doubt that this will be in the USA and not in the UK, the Glazers will be forced to stand in front of the shareholders and apply for re-election every year (just 2 of them on the board I think). Of course they will have over 66.7% of the voting rights but if you own just 1 share, you have as much right to ask questions of the board as the guy who owns 99% at this meeting. Accountability and transparency unlike the last 6 years can only be a good thing.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

Red

If our wage structure is calculated at a % of turnover then how will this partial float enable us to compete at the top end of the player wages market?

 

[Salvation]

The club neednt necessarily pay dividends. Have they mentioned they would in the offer statement?

Think the timing of this is woeful cos there's barely any investor confidence in Wall St. currrently nor does the currrent climate seems favourable to the sentimental investor. But since it is important with respect to tbe club's valuation I'm sure the Glazers will be prudent and have some good promoters.

Incidentally, has there ever been a sports franchise that has done well since going public?

 

[LondonRed]

In theory this won't change the wage structure at all. There were some indications that the 50% self imposed wage cap might be relaxed going forwards though (talk of the potential for wages to increase to compete with mega rich clubs in the prelim).

There are of course lots of ways around this. The (potential) Arsenal model being a good example. You pay large signing on fees to keep wages down to an appropriate level. If he stays RVP will be banking a fat cheque and be on wages of c.£130k. Still well below what City would give him (£200k+). Whilst effectively paying the player the same amount it allows you to keep squad wage expectations to more realistic levels.

Look at City. they have unwanted players on extortionate wages. If you are Gareth Barry (don't rate him at all but still) and you see Edin Dzeko earning £120K and you are on £80k I would be livid. I don't think i am worth £120k but I certainly don't think he is worth more to the team than I am, hence a continuous gradual increase.

I believe salesmen call it 'anchor and adjust'. It just takes one guy - Yaya Toure/Tevez in this case, to be paid a lot more than everyone else, and then everyone benchmarks their salary against his (the club made strong indications Rooney was a one off).

Without the debt we reduce our interest repayments by c. £43m per annum (sorry not got the figures to hand, I think this is right). Add in the additional £20m per annum revenue from the domestic tv rights in a year and what will be a huge increase in our overseas rights (c. £20m+ again), and we could see revenue increase by £40m with costs falling by a similar amount. This doesn't even factor in the continuing growth in our commercial dept.

Plenty of room for manoeuvre there.

No idea how much is going to be taken out every year in dividends though!

 

[Levo]

The most significant line in Manchester United's extremely lengthy filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission is the club's admission that heavy indebtedness poses a risk to future financial success.

This is what critics of the club's American owners, the Glazer family, have been saying ever since they borrowed £525m to complete their £790m takeover in 2005.

Since then over £500m has flowed out of United to service interest and debts charges. And yet the debts still stand at £423m, according to figures up to the end of March.

So the Glazers' public admission that they need to reduce their debts is a significant moment. The timing is all the more intriguing as it comes after a season which saw their neighbours and rivals Manchester City take the Premier League trophy from them on a thrilling final day.


Manchester United owner Malcolm Glazer has put his sons Joel Glazer (left), Avram Glazer (centre) and Bryan Glazer (right), in charge of day-to-day running at the club: Photo: Getty

Backed by the vast wealth of Sheikh Mansour, City are threatening to leave United behind unless they can free up significant sums of money to compete in the transfer market.

The initial public offering (IPO) on the New York Stock Exchange is certain to be worth more than the £64m pounds ($100m) quoted as a registration fee in the document filed last night. This is the minimum requirement to cover the listing.

The exact price and number of shares to be offered to the public will become clear in the coming weeks but the Glazers will undoubtedly be seeking to pay off most, if not all, of their debts in a float which could value the club at more than £1bn.

So is this the beginning of the end for the Glazers at Old Trafford?

Far from it. The Glazer family intend to retain control by issuing two classes of shares - A and B.

The A shares will be offered to the market in New York as part of the IPO while the B shares will be held by the Glazers. The difference is the B shares will have 10 times the voting powers of the A shares which are sold to the public.

There is also a line in the document which makes it clear that in future the club will continue to be owned by Malcolm Glazer and his "linear descendants" - namely his five sons and one daughter.

Of course every business is ultimately for sale but the Glazers do seem committed to their long-term ownership model. For all the criticism of their debt structure they have massively increased United's commercial revenues and - last season aside - have generally brought success on the pitch.

What is really interesting is how all this has come full circle. Remember the Glazers took the club off the London Stock Exchange following their takeover, allowing them to be more secretive about how the club was being financed and run.

A lot of that changed with the £500m bond issue of 2010, which required the club's owners to be far more open.

But a New York listing may require them to disclose even more information to shareholders and the public - even though registering the new company in the Cayman Islands might make it easier to maintain the families' prized privacy.

The listing in New York, coming after failed attempts to float in Hong Kong and Singapore, also confirms United's global, rather than domestic, ambitions.

The question now is whether the Glazers can raise the equity they need to rebalance the club and free up funds for big money signings.

Given the continued volatility in the global economy that is hardly a given. Facebook's IPO may lead some investors to be cautious about valuations.

But United's brand remains powerful and the Premier League's new £3bn UK television rights deal demonstrates the competition's seemingly unstoppable ability to generate money.

United are the driving force behind that, even if the claims of 659 million fans around the world seem far-fetched.

It's that continued popularity that the Glazers are banking on.

Article off the BBC Football site.

 

[gaffs]

Anyone still pro Glazer?

 

[charleysurf]

Anyone still pro Glazer?

The thing is, there were those on here arguing for a complete boycott of the club, with anyone disagreeing being labelled "pro Glazer" even if they would have actually preferred the Glazers had not come in.

 

[Talking Vulture]

I'm sure GCHQ will still be sucking their cocks. Wonderful owners

 

[sammsky1]

Not lie, keep quiet?

A simple "We do have a high debt burden, but we're managing fine at this moment in time, and working very hard to alleviate the situation" would work well, I would think...

not a fan of his?!

 

[7even]

Anyone still pro Glazer?

Such a strange question. Well I'm not anti Glazer. There are better ownerships but as owners in this format they have proved several times to know their stuff. I will go as far saying that they are good owners. They don't interfere with our manager. They invest in the future. They don't change things for the sake of it.

I rather have Glazers as owners in this format then ending up like City, Chelsea or Liverpool. There you have it.

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

Without the debt we reduce our interest repayments by c. £43m per annum (sorry not got the figures to hand, I think this is right). Add in the additional £20m per annum revenue from the domestic tv rights in a year and what will be a huge increase in our overseas rights (c. £20m+ again), and we could see revenue increase by £40m with costs falling by a similar amount. This doesn't even factor in the continuing growth in our commercial dept.

Plenty of room for manoeuvre there.

No idea how much is going to be taken out every year in dividends though!

The increase in television revenues will be the roughly the same for all our Premier league rivals, that will only give us extra leverage in competing with the two Spanish giants for players.

How is a dividend worked out, is it at the discretion of the board or are there nominal percentile figures against certain profit levels?

 

[Sunny Jim]

The increase in television revenues will be the roughly the same for all our Premier league rivals, that will only give us extra leverage in competing with the two Spanish giants for players.

How is a dividend worked out, is it at the discretion of the board or are there nominal percentile figures against certain profit levels?

Sooner or later the increase of tv monies will be consumed by larger fees and wages.

Btw

The Glazer takeover has cost Manchester United, real cash, over £500m in interest bankers' fees and charges, in 7 years http://t.co/1b3d5Mhy -- David Conn (@david_conn) .

How is that good GCHQ?

 

[thegregster]

Sooner or later the increase of tv monies will be consumed by larger fees and wages.

Btw

How is that good GCHQ?

I would dispute that figure. Its well over 400mil. We have spent more on servicing debt than city have on players.

A "financial expert" claims it could lead to a sale.

Manchester United's proposed flotation on the New York Stock Exchange could be a precursor to the club's eventual sale, according to a financial expert.

United have applied to be listed in the US in the hope of raising US dollars 100 million (£64million) from selling shares in the club. But while the Glazer family have structured the plan to ensure they retain priority voting rights over any new investors it could ultimately open the door to the Americans relinquishing control.

"Most clubs are available at a price if the truth be told," Karish Andrews, senior associate in the Sports Group at Lewis Silkin LLP, told Press Association Sport.

"There is only possibly Manchester City and Chelsea where there is no amount of money when the owners would be inclined to sell."

Andrews believes the decision to list on the New York Stock Exchange is finally an admission by Malcolm Glazer that he saddled the club with too much debt.

Proceeds from the sale will go to pay off an unspecified portion of United's £423million debts which were loaded on to the club when the Glazers bought it in 2005. Interest payments and associated costs on those loans have amounted to more than £500million in interest.

"It is an admission by the Glazers," said Andrews of the decision to float the club after a similar plan in Singapore last year was halted because of the volatile global economy.

"They have always not taken responsibility for admitting their takeover saddled the club with debt and massive interest payments. From what I have seen in the risk factors they have admitted that has been the case."

Andrews said supporters, who have been opposed to the way the club's debts have risen since the takeover, should welcome the latest move.

"I think Manchester United fans will appreciate that the Glazers have come clean and admitted that has been an issue for the club," he said. "I think they should see it as a positive step. They (the club) have said the sole purpose of raising the money is to pay off the debt simply because of high interest payments."

 

[nimic]

Ok, so I've read the last few posts... and I still have no idea if this is a good thing or not, for Manchester United.

 

[charleysurf]

Ok, so I've read the last few posts... and I still have no idea if this is a good thing or not, for Manchester United.

Nobody has any idea. How the IPO goes will determine that.

 

[Hans Moleman]

It's a good thing if the value of the club stands up to the $2.4b valuation from Forbes(?) earlier this year.

 

[charleysurf]

It's a good thing if the value of the club stands up to the $2.4b valuation from Forbes(?) earlier this year.

I can't see the club being valued at that when it comes to people actually putting their money down, not some magazine writer plucking numbers out of the air.

 

[thebelfastboy]

Ok, so I've read the last few posts... and I still have no idea if this is a good thing or not, for Manchester United.

Surely this can only be a good thing for the club? The money raised through the sale of these shares can only be used to pay off the existing debt and cannot be used for other purposes.

what effect would shareholders/dividend payments have on the existing terms and conditions of the bond etc???

 

[Gambit]

Has a date been given yet?

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

David Conn has written a damning article in The Guardian on the IPO. Basically saying how depressing it is that

'English football's greatest name is being re-routed to the New York Stock Exchange via the Cayman Islands, to pay debts a US family was allowed to load on, to buy one of our great clubs in the first place.'

I think that most United fans have come to terms with modern inception of Manchester United and the Premier League as a whole and we will just be happy to see the back of the debt.

 

[Will Absolute]

The anti-Glazerites here and in the media are amazing. They descend on every piece of news from the club like a flock of vultures, hungry for every bit of bloody nourishment to feed their prejudices.

 

[stubie]

The anti-Glazerites here and in the media are amazing. They descend on every bit of news from the club like a flock of vultures, hungry for every bit of bloody nourishment to feed their prejudices.

The clubs debt is big news to some

 

[charleysurf]

David Conn has written a damning article in The Guardian on the IPO. Basically saying how depressing it is that

'English football's greatest name is being re-routed to the New York Stock Exchange via the Cayman Islands, to pay debts a US family was allowed to load on, to buy one of our great clubs in the first place.'

I think that most United fans have come to terms with modern inception of Manchester United and the Premier League as a whole and we will just be happy to see the back of the debt.

He may have some valid points, but i can't take anything Conn says about United seriously. He's a shill for City

 

[FlawlessThaw]

The clubs debt is big news to some

Aye when you think it took almost £1bn for City to win the Premierleague while at the same time we lost half of that sum to pay off part of the debt of some American family foisted upon us. Definitely going to be a talking point from time to time.

 

[Stack]

Seriously???

The debt the club has because of how the Glazers have set this up as a way to get others to pay the debt is a massive problem, you have to be completely blind to not see the problem.

Nothing amazing about the concern of fans or the media reporting something so big.

Half a Billion pounds spent on interest, bankers fees and charges to service the debt. Say it out loud, thats a staggering amount since they took over. Imagine the players we could have had with that money or the cheaper ticket prices fans could have enjoyed with that money.

Half a Billion pounds spent on interest, bankers fees and charges to service the debt.

The anti-Glazerites here and in the media are amazing. They descend on every piece of news from the club like a flock of vultures, hungry for every bit of bloody nourishment to feed their prejudices.

 

[Amir]

Here's a question:

Back around 2005, during the battle against Glazer taking over, fans were able to buy shares of the club through an organized supporters group, which I did. When the takeover did take place, that money was transferred into what was called the Phoenix Fund and then to what is called Withdrawable Share Capital.

I left the money there, assuming it could be used for the good of the club some day, and haven't paid much attention during the past few years. I think I checked it once in all those years. Now obviously I haven't a clue if it's a proper situation for the fans to use it, and from MUST's response it doesn't appear as though they are sure of the situation right now either. Anyway, is there a website in which I could validate the existance of the account?

 

[Jimy_Hills_Chin]

He may have some valid points, but i can't take anything Conn says about United seriously. He's a shill for City

He does have valid points but we have heard them all before and raging against them is an exercise in pissing in the wind.

The main crux of his article is our situation being indicative of the dying soul of football which is fair comment but it is also something that we have been aware of for many year now and we have chosen to retain our interest in the game regardless.

Here's a question:

Back around 2005, during the battle against Glazer taking over, fans were able to buy shares of the club through an organized supporters group, which I did. When the takeover did take place, that money was transferred into what was called the Phoenix Fund and then to what is called Withdrawable Share Capital.

I left the money there, assuming it could be used for the good of the club some day, and haven't paid much attention during the past few years. I think I checked it once in all those years. Now obviously I haven't a clue if it's a proper situation for the fans to use it, and from MUST's response it doesn't appear as though they are sure of the situation right now either. Anyway, is there a website in which I could validate the existance of the account?

It will be interesting to hear MUST's position on this IPO because buying these 1/10th shares will simply be an exercise in sucking Malcom's cock from their point of view.

 

[LondonRed]

I wish people would let the cayman islands thing go. Has 0 bearing on anything to do with the club. Not like clubs contribute any significant tax revenue anyway. Negligable amounts compared to the players.

It was awful allowing a club to be bought with so much debt. Man utd or Macclesfield it really doesnt matter. But you can't fault the glazers for their business acumen.

I am always amazed at the public's revulsion at such things. If anyone works for a big firm or the company they work for is owned by a big plc, they will all have some debt. Most private companies will. Barring the cash goliaths apple and google, you would be hard pushed to find a single £500m+ company that doesn't have any. It always strikes me as odd that the public find their football club with debt more shocking than their employers, their livelihood, being burdened with debt.

I am certainly not a fan of the glazers, far from it, but if you ignore your sentimental ties to man utd it really isn't that shocking. The world operates on credit. Car loans, mortgages, credit cards, student loans. almost every m&a deal will involve some debt finance.

Safe to say that utd have lost out significantly in terms of taking money out of the club that could have been reinvested. But let's not kid ourselves. Our revenue would be no where near what it is without the glazers influence.

Again not saying it is a good thing at all, just saying you have to admire their head for business. Doubling the value of the underlying asset in 5 years is no mean feat.