ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
7even said:
If this is true they will receive a backlash of epic proportions from the investors They are no fools. The reason the prospect looked good was if they wiped out the depths, otherwise not.

I really really want to see if this is correct. Sounds totally crazy.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Given no dividends and no voting rights, the only reason an investor would choose to buy United stock would be based on future share price increases.

The fact that the Glazer's themselves are crippling our ability to compete on the field (which is the only way we're going to increase future revenues faster than costs given City/Chelsea/ FFP toothlessness) this plan basically reads like the Glazers asking chumps to give them $200m. And that's a lot of chumps.
 
Twigginater said:
I don't know. I think that there is some benefits to being in debt from what I've read in this thread.

Its all assumption though. Im just imagining the money from Chevrolet up front is going to United. It probably isn't.
Click to expand...

But wiping off the debts and selling the club for a massive profit makes sense.
 
I don't understand.

Why would anyone invest in a business if they know their money wont be invested in the business? Surely there just isn't any point.
 
I don't really understand this. Surely it makes more sense for them to clear as much debt as they can. Then instead off paying money out on interest etc they can just take a share of the profit each year. surely it wouldn't take them that long to make up how much they will pocket from this, not to mention the goodwill from the fans if we're debt free and our increased ability to challenge for top players.
 
How does reducing the debt by £73m equate to just £4.2m saved in interest?

And what did people really expect?
The initial reports were for $100m. Thats £73m.
Thats significant enough.
 
prateik said:
How does reducing the debt by £73m equate to just £4.2m saved in interest?

And what did people really expect?
The initial reports were for $100m. Thats £73m.
Thats significant enough.
Click to expand...

I presume we are just paying off the interest, rather than the actual total debt.....or something.
 
What's the maximum that we can still pay off the bonds early before activating penalty clauses?
 
prateik said:
How does reducing the debt by £73m equate to just £4.2m saved in interest?

And what did people really expect?
The initial reports were for $100m. Thats £73m.
Thats significant enough.
Click to expand...

After tax well save that much from buying 75 million worth of bonds.

And the initial reports were not for 100 million. That was a placeholder figure.

We expected the money to go towards paying off debts because that's what they said would happen! They fecking lied!
 
Aporkalypse said:
The whole revised proposal is online at the SEC...

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549107/000104746912007537/a2210287zf-1a.htm
Click to expand...

Help me it's hundreds of pages! Where do you find this new news?

I just find it so weird. Why on fecking earth would they do such a stupid thing? I find no benefit at all to do so. They reduce the value of the company, and by doing so the shares will be worth less. They will also receive so much internal criticism and huge question marks from the investors and the supporters.

It make's absolutely no sense at all. Totally crazy and honestly this will be their first mistake since the take over. This is like the Laika fiasco all over again. Millions invested in science and then feck up on the last hurdle.
 
Sir Matt said:
What choice does he have? His parroting their bullshit is better for the club than their firing him for speaking out.
Click to expand...

I feel almost silly for having to first state that I don't condone the SAF bashing, but if he were to speak out, and from the start, or at least not pad them on the back publicly, and they were to do something as daft as to fire him, there'd be a proper backlash. The value of their cash cow would shrink as fans would revolt. But it's all academic really, he supports them and that's that.
 
7even said:
Help me it's hundreds of pages! Where do you find this new news?

I just find it so weird. Why on fecking earth would they do such a stupid thing? I find no benefit at all to do so. They reduce the value of the company, and by doing so the shares will be worth less. They will also receive so much internal criticism and huge question marks from the investors and the supporters.

It make's absolutely no sense at all. Totally crazy and honestly this will be their first mistake since the take over. This is like the Laika fiasco all over again. Millions invested in science and then feck up on the last hurdle.
Click to expand...

page 9 seems to be a good summary of what they're doing.
 
7even said:
Help me it's hundreds of pages! Where do you find this new news?

I just find it so weird. Why on fecking earth would they do such a stupid thing? I find no benefit at all to do so. They reduce the value of the company, and by doing so the shares will be worth less. They will also receive so much internal criticism and huge question marks from the investors and the supporters.

It make's absolutely no sense at all. Totally crazy and honestly this will be their first mistake since the take over. This is like the Laika fiasco all over again. Millions invested in science and then feck up on the last hurdle.
Click to expand...

Here:

This is the initial public offering of Manchester United plc. We are selling 8,333,334 Class A ordinary shares and the selling shareholder named in this prospectus is selling 8,333,333 Class A ordinary shares. We will not receive any proceeds from the sale of the Class A ordinary shares by the selling shareholder.
Click to expand...
 
7even said:
Help me it's hundreds of pages! Where do you find this new news?

I just find it so weird. Why on fecking earth would they do such a stupid thing? I find no benefit at all to do so. They reduce the value of the company, and by doing so the shares will be worth less. They will also receive so much internal criticism and huge question marks from the investors and the supporters.

It make's absolutely no sense at all. Totally crazy and honestly this will be their first mistake since the take over. This is like the Laika fiasco all over again. Millions invested in science and then feck up on the last hurdle.
Click to expand...

This is the relevant bit:

In this offering, we are selling 8,333,334 Class A ordinary shares and the selling shareholder named in this prospectus is selling 8,333,333 Class A ordinary shares. In connection with the sale by us, we estimate that our net proceeds from the sale of our Class A ordinary shares in this offering will be approximately $141.0 million, assuming an initial public offering price of $18.00 per share, which is the midpoint of the range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, and after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions. Expenses of this offering will be paid by us with existing cash on hand.

We intend to use all of our net proceeds from this offering to reduce our indebtedness by exercising our option to redeem and retire $116.8 million (£73.0 million) in aggregate principal amount of our 83/8% US dollar senior secured notes due 2017 at a redemption price equal to 108.375% of the principal amount of such notes and £8.3 million in aggregate principal amount of our 83/4% pound sterling senior secured notes due 2017 at a redemption price equal to 108.750% of the principal amount of such notes, plus, in each case, accrued and unpaid interest to the date of such redemption. In addition, upon consummation of this offering, our senior secured notes previously purchased by us in open market transactions will be contributed to MU Finance plc and retired.

A $1.00 increase in the assumed initial public offering price of $18.00 per share, which is the midpoint of the range set forth on the cover page of this prospectus, would increase our expected net proceeds from this offering by $7.8 million, and correspondingly would increase the amount of our pound sterling senior secured notes that we will redeem and retire in connection with this offering by £4.5 million. A $1.00 decrease in the assumed initial public offering price would reduce our expected net proceeds by $7.8 million, and correspondingly reduce the amount of our pound sterling senior secured notes redeemed and retired in connection with this offering by approximately £4.5 million (if the initial public offering price is $17.00 per share). A $2.00 decrease in the assumed initial public offering price would reduce our expected net proceeds by $15.6 million, and correspondingly reduce the amount of our pound sterling senior secured notes and US dollar senior secured notes redeemed and retired in connection with this offering by approximately £8.3 million and $1.0 million, respectively (if the initial public offering price is $16.00 per share). A $3.00 decrease in the assumed initial public offering price would reduce our expected net proceeds by $23.4 million, and correspondingly reduce the amount of our pound sterling senior secured notes and our US dollar senior secured notes redeemed and retired in connection with this offering by approximately £8.3 million and $8.2 million respectively (if the initial public offering price is $15.00 per share).

We will not receive any proceeds from the sale of any Class A ordinary shares by the selling shareholder.
Click to expand...
 
Sir Matt said:
What choice does he have? His parroting their bullshit is better for the club than their firing him for speaking out.
Click to expand...

Do one. Here's an analogy for you. If something a Duke stunk up that Coach K felt strongly about, he could pretty much say whatever the feck he wanted without fear of his job.

Fergus was in a similar position of power.
 
Surely even GCHQ can't explain this. What a fecking farce.
 
VoetbalWizard said:
any truth to gill and fergie getting money from the IPO? roughly 16 million for 'senior leadership'?
Click to expand...

"selected employees, consultants and non-employee directors" - I'd amazed amazed if they aren't both part of that.
 
Damien1990 said:
This is the relevant bit:
Click to expand...

We intend to use all of our net proceeds from this offering to reduce our indebtedness by exercising our option to redeem and retire $116.8 million (£73.0 million) in aggregate principal amount of our 83/8% US dollar senior secured notes due 2017 at a redemption price equal to 108.375% of the principal amount of such notes and £8.3 million in aggregate principal amount of our 83/4% pound sterling senior secured notes due 2017 at a redemption price equal to 108.750% of the principal amount of such notes, plus, in each case, accrued and unpaid interest to the date of such redemption. In addition, upon consummation of this offering, our senior secured notes previously purchased by us in open market transactions will be contributed to MU Finance plc and retired.
Click to expand...

But nothing have changed?????.... this is the original.
 
VoetbalWizard said:
Do one. Here's an analogy for you. If something a Duke stunk up that Coach K felt strongly about, he could pretty much say whatever the feck he wanted without fear of his job.

Fergus was in a similar position of power.
Click to expand...

That's not a good analogy. There are a ton of people at universities who wield power: BoT, donors, etc. All of them stand in the way of firing coaches, especially great coaches. Look how long it took Butch Davis, a decent football coach, to get fired at UNC. Or the case of Joe Paterno. One person can't fire Coach K.

There are no outside influences on the Glazers. They could push him out the door and continue running the club into the ground. Clearly they don't give a feck about the supporters aside from counting them and using them as marketing tools. Supporters would go ballistic, but what would the Glazers care? None of their money is in it. They just get to take it out.
 
On page 6 it says "We expect our net player capital expenditure to be for our fiscal year 2012 to be approximately 50 million (sterling)"...
 
So they've changed the prospectus, they're getting closer to cleairng the debt and once the debt is gone more of our money will go to them personally. feck me these guys have done us a kipper.
 
VoetbalWizard said:
any truth to gill and fergie getting money from the IPO? roughly 16 million for 'senior leadership'?
Click to expand...

If that is true and I'm not convinced it is, then quite frankly they stink as much as the Glazer family. They would be selling out in the biggest way possible.

Rank profiteering from an icon they profess to care about.
 
Comsmit said:
If that is true and I'm not convinced it is, then quite frankly they stink as much as the Glazer family. They would be selling out in the biggest way possible.

Rank profiteering from an icon they profess to care about.
Click to expand...

It is true mate.

Gill will definitely be part of the "senior management". Not so sure about Fergie as he'd be considered more as a football staff. But I wouldn't be surprised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.