ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why? Because they're emotional and love this football club and feel betrayed by the person they have worshipped for over twenty years.

I personally hope to God its false and will give benefit of doubt unless it's absolutely proved definite but I'm not surprised by people's reactions at all.

Even without this latest drama many people hate the Glazers and are furious at the ongoing situation and feel Fergie shouldn't support them publicly.

That pretty much sums up my reaction too.
 
So although the Glazers haven't kept to there word we are not in any worse of a situation but infact a better one?

Every cloud has a silver lining and all that.
 
Can someone explain what is going on in a few sentences? I'm out of the loop. Thanks!

askabob
 
Surely they're going to realise that it would be better to feck off sooner or later.
 
He didn't say that for feck's sake! Are you another that didn't read the article? The part where he said 'the majority of real fans would suggest they've been good'? Or do you see something different to the rest of us?

How's what you quoted different to what I said? I don't suggest they've been good so I'm not real fan?
 
Are you two cnuts fecking serious? If Fergie hasnt anything to do with us i hope the mods ban you two feckers.

I love when the political correct brigade comes riding and tells whats right or wrong. I'm have no idea what's you are on but I comment on if I think our manager will benefit personally from this IPO, and according the the prospect it looks like that.

I welcome you now back to reality and please jump of your little pony and join the earth.
 
Can someone explain what is going on in a few sentences? I'm out of the loop. Thanks!

askabob

Uniteds debt stands at 423 million.

Glazers were planning to list an IPO selling useless shares of the club to pay down debts. People thought it had been cancelled.

Today they announce they're selling 10% of the club for around 200-300 million dollars. Of this they plan to keep half and reduce debt by 75.

We are in a better position now then yesterday. We're just nowhere near in as good as a position as we were told we would be.
 
Can someone explain what is going on in a few sentences? I'm out of the loop. Thanks!

askabob

Glazers originally said the IPO would raise funds to pay down the debt. They made an amendment to the filings with the SEC that changed the plan to pay £75million off the debt (of £425million) and that proceeds of the IPO would not stay within Manchester United.. so they are pocketing everything raised above £75 million and giving shares worth millions to Gill and Fergie as well as other senior staff..
 
Uniteds debt stands at 423 million.

Glazers were planning to list an IPO selling useless shares of the club to pay down debts. People thought it had been cancelled.

Today they announce they're selling 10% of the club for around 200-300 million dollars. Of this they plan to keep half and reduce debt by 75.

We are in a better position now then yesterday. We're just nowhere near in as good as a position as we were told we would be.

Glazers originally said the IPO would raise funds to pay down the debt. They made an amendment to the filings with the SEC that changed the plan to pay £75million off the debt (of £425million) and that proceeds of the IPO would not stay within Manchester United.. so they are pocketing everything raised above £75 million and giving shares worth millions to Gill and Fergie as well as other senior staff..

Is this why some posters are angry with SAF?
 
I am knackered and want to go to bed soon but quick summary after scowering the new prospectus:

a) fecking cnuts. From selling 10% of the total offering size (if the banks elect to exercise the over allotment option) to a minimum 50%. That means that the maximum the club will make from this will be $166.67m, a minmum of $133.33m and an average (middle of the price range is a pretty good bet generally) $150m before expenses. The over-allotment (should they get enough demand for the shares) is also of existing shares.

I know this is a lot less than people expected but I guess it is better than nothing.

The other point to mention on this is that it is much cheaper for the owner to sell shares under the company's IPO. The co will pay all of the expenses of the issue other than the banking commission relating to the sale of the existing shares. Assuming a 4% commission (could be anywhere from around 2% to 6%) not including any performance related fees (if one is to be paid it will be around 0.75% - 1.25%) then total expenses will be around $20m (13% of the offering size) if one includes the $12m cost of listing as quoted in the prospectus. Hefty.

b) The voting rights attached to those shares are hilarious. In total there will be 1,279,685,700 'votes' available post admission. The new and existing shares being offered represent 1.30% of this figure. Imagine that. All shareholders that are not connected persons (employee, director, own more than 5% of the voting rights) (called the free float in the UK) have 1.3% of the voting rights! If they were listing on the LSE and wanted a premium listing or to be included on an indices like the FTSE250 etc. they would need the free float to be 25%. Ours is 1.3%. Mental....

The Glazers/directors will also be subject to a lock up for 180 days from admission (can't sell any shares until that date) without the banks permission.

c) The offer is fully underwritten - all the shares will be sold (even if it means the banks owning them) so the amount that utd raise (not including the selling shareholder) will definitely be between the figures quoted in a) assuming they haven't been too optimistic about the valuation (should be reasonably accurate after doing their pre-marketing).

d) It is actually very difficult to put a figure on the club's evaluation. Only the A shares will be admitted so no one has any idea what the B shares are worth. If we ignore the B shares voting rights for a minute, the B shares convert to A shares on a one to one basis so in theory we have a share capital of 163,685,700 ordinary shares (again not counting the voting rights influence over this figure). This values the club at somewhere between $2,618.97m and $3,273.71m (£1,668,877,844 & £2,086,095,711).

e) Shares being given to employees is very common, no real issues with that. They don;t vest immediately, only on hitting certain performance targets or previous targets that they hit. Much better to pay them in shares (it's free!) than having them on cash bonuses. Might be an interesting topic for discussion that. By employees we mean people like Gill/senior management etc. not the players but might be an interesting way to pay certain big bonuses. X shares for winning the champions league etc. Not sure the players would be happy but again, it's free so ..

Initial thoughts - Kind of expected something like this to happen along the way. On the same day as we have (according to Reuters which is generally as reliable as it gets) the world's/football's biggest shirt sponsorship deal you get this change. Always release bad news when you can dampen it down with good news on the same day.

It isn't great news i will give you that. Cheeky as feck might be a better way to word it actually. Staggering turn around from a potential maximum of 10% of the offering to a potential maximum of 60% of the offering. All the press reports said that the IPO wasn't going too well in pre-marketing. The total level of interest they received in total was $X. It makes no difference to investors whether they are buying new or existing shares (relative to their valuation of the club). But to then go ahead and divide $X by half is a kick in the teeth to be honest. They could have knocked up to $300m off the debt. Instead it will be about $150m. The costs are high as well. As we are paying all the fixed costs and the Glazers only pay the banking com that aplies to their shares sold, the relative cost of the issue is very high (c.13%). Had we been talking about $300m then the costs would have been nearer $27m (9%). If we want to raise another $150m in a year's time we will be paying roughly the same fixed costs all over again.

But, ignoring the voting rights, the Glazers now only own 89.82% of the equity in the club whereas before the IPO it was 100%. Their share (equity not voting) is only ever going to get diluted further as time goes on. Not ideal but it is a start...

EDIT: And we will be in a better position after the IPO than before it, just not in as good a position as the Glazers initially led us to believe. But I am sure no one expected anything less from the Glazers.

LondonRed's summary of this.
 
Glazers originally said the IPO would raise funds to pay down the debt. They made an amendment to the filings with the SEC that changed the plan to pay £75million off the debt (of £425million) and that proceeds of the IPO would not stay within Manchester United.. so they are pocketing everything raised above £75 million and giving shares worth millions to Gill and Fergie as well as other senior staff..

Nobody knows if Gill and SAF are beneficiaries of the float, if they are it would be fecking disgraceful.
 
Is this correct?

So essentially, 100% of the new shares are being used to pay off debt.

It's just the Glazers are now additionally selling some of their own shares for personal gain?

From what I understand, thats what it is.

I'm struggling to get fake mad.
The debt will be down to 350m. The club announced a crazy shirt sponsorship deal earlier.

But the owners who are running the club for profit and taking some money out. shocking.
 
Nobody knows if Gill and SAF are beneficiaries of the float, if they are it would be fecking disgraceful.

Of course they are, do you really think Fergie especially would really stand for millions of shares being given out around to various employees and not himself?

Same goes will Gill.
 
Nobody knows if Gill and SAF are beneficiaries of the float, if they are it would be fecking disgraceful.

Why?

It's the Glazers selling part of their ownership. Would you prefer they keep 100% ownership? Because unless you do then what will be materially worse about Uniteds situation compared to before this IPO?
 
Yes, but whether he actually profits from it remains to be seen.

Gill will, certainly. Hopefully Phelan too..maybe he'll buy himself a decent suit.

A decent suit? Let's just start with a pair of shorts that fit.
 
Ramshock's a charmer, isn't he?

Two posters raising perfectly legitimate points and he rolls in calling people cnuts and demanding bans.
 
That part of whether Fergie will profit from this flotation is also covered by LondonRed

e) Shares being given to employees is very common, no real issues with that. They don;t vest immediately, only on hitting certain performance targets or previous targets that they hit. Much better to pay them in shares (it's free!) than having them on cash bonuses. Might be an interesting topic for discussion that. By employees we mean people like Gill/senior management etc. not the players but might be an interesting way to pay certain big bonuses. X shares for winning the champions league etc. Not sure the players would be happy but again, it's free so ..
 
Yeah. Didnt the guy who painted the facebook offices get % of their shares instead of money. He's a multi millionaire now.
 
Excellent summary. Its not all bad news. Its just not as good news as we hoped.

People complaining about the likes of Fergie and Gill getting shares is silly.

because it could be perceived as a way of ensuring their support for the Glazer ownership, whether thats the best thing for the club or not.
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...e-facebook-s-millionaire-graffiti-artist.html


I'm still struggling to see how this is bad news..
Isnt all the money from the non voting shares going to repay the debt?
Glazers are getting some money by selling their bit too. So?

Please correct me if I'm missing something.

Because we were lied to?

Because the money we thought was being raised to pay down the debts is actually going to a couple of rich fecks who couldn't give a shit?

Because the club is still in over 300 million pounds worth of debt?
 
It's good news. at least some debt will go

Are you two cnuts fecking serious? If Fergie hasnt anything to do with us i hope the mods ban you two feckers.

Well it's better than them selling without repaying some of the loan!

This situation is a massive improvement on our current position.

It seems to me people want glazers to own 100% and we MORE debt Than them own less and we less debt. This ipo is good for Manchester United.

I'm still struggling to see how this is bad news..
Isnt all the money from the non voting shares going to repay the debt?
Glazers are getting some money by selling their bit too. So?

Please correct me if I'm missing something.
Christ on a bike.
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...e-facebook-s-millionaire-graffiti-artist.html


I'm still struggling to see how this is bad news..
Isnt all the money from the non voting shares going to repay the debt?
Glazers are getting some money by selling their bit too. So?

Please correct me if I'm missing something.

Well its a disappointment. The original prospectus said only 10% of the offering would be existing shares and the rest would be fresh shares which means that the club would get 90%. Now its down to 50% minus the fees and commissions.

The valuation is interesting. Its much higher than I expected but there's some big names associated with the offering so I assume they've done their homework and there's some serious demand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.