ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
To be fair(and I hate defending those cnuts) they haven't lied at all. That thing they mentioned about wiping the debt off with whole money raised from IPO was in a draft of the prospectus. They've made some changes to it now.
Lied to as the original listing had United getting all the money to pay down debt.
fecks sake, it's right here in this thread.
Well its not really great news for us. Infact in terms of United's operation the IPO is a bit of nonevent. Apart from the 7 odd million spent in offering the IPO.
Essentially we are reducing the debt but this will only reduce our interest payments by 5 million a year. So we are still going to be paying 30+ in interest.
Its great for the Glazers as they are getting 120 odd million in their bank accounts.
Really, the hope was our debt would've been wiped out. The actuality is that we are reducing our interest payments by 5 million but the Glazers are getting some nice pocket money.
We were lied to?
The share prospectus was addressed to us was it?
They are selling part of their ownership. If the prospectus was inaccurate then it's the potential buyers of shares who will decide to pass on them.
I'd like an explanation of why the Glazers selling part of their ownership is a BAD thing.
It was a draft of the prospectus and not the original prospectus. This is the final prospectus.
Lets not get hysterical. It was only a draft and very clearly stated to be so. There were a lot of placeholders and no commitments.
Nobody lied to you, Twigg. The Glazers don't know you exist.
All the information about the Glazers intentions comes from documents which the owners were legally obliged to put in the public domain. None of them was addressed to fans.
The truth is that the Glazers have gone about their business in locked rooms, with the fans stood outside with their ears pressed to the doors.
FFS.
The debt is absolutely draining the club. About half a billion has flooded out of the club just to service the fecking thing, never mind pay it down. The initial plan, as per the draft, was clearly to use all proceeds of the IPO to pay down the debt. For whatever reason, they've done a complete u-turn on this and decided to siphon off half, meaning less than half will go now to paying down the debt, and a grand total of £4m will be saved on interest per year. £4m! It's costing us twice that just to launch the fecking thing. On top of that the terms offered are a joke - 1.3% voting rights! Anyone with any sense will run a mile from this offer. This is quite clearly woeful news for Manchester United compared to the (flawed) original plan.
Agreed with nearly all of this but surely you would think Glazers has done some market research to gauge whether their will be enough interest for this IPO or not.
Question : if this IPO goes ahead then how exactly is the club in a worse position than before it?
Because that's the only way to look at this.
IPO prospectus: 'the level of debt and interest is negatively affecting our ability to compete, we will use the proceeds of the IPO to bring debt levels down to more manageable levels.'
Amendment:'by manageable we mean we will reduce the annual interest costs by roughly half what the IPO cost to organise.'
Amendment:'by manageable we mean we will reduce the annual interest costs by roughly half what the IPO cost to organise.'
It's not all bad news guys, Ramshock may actually get banned.
But the debt does come down from 423 Million Pounds to 350 Million Pounds?
The biggest fear is what if we clear all our debts and Glazerbastards still continue to take 50 Million an year
Revenues, expenses, assets, debt, equity and value. Everything must be viewed in context,with the facts and preferably on an objective basis and with expertise.
We should remember that Forbes not long ago ranked us as the best club in the world in terms of "increase in value/ value". This reflects how attractive we are the market based on both production and operation. Assessment of our financial situation is necessarily a key component here.
I can not see anything other than that Glazer actually seem to succeed in running a professional football club as a successful and gainful business- and for now without negative consequences with regard to core business.
I look forward to next season with no concerns for the future, other than the fear of further progress for clubs with sugar dads.
We should remember that Forbes not long ago ranked us as the best club in the world in terms of "increase in value/ value". This reflects how attractive we are the market based on both production and operation. Assessment of our financial situation is necessarily a key component here.
I can not see anything other than that Glazer actually seem to succeed in running a professional football club as a successful and gainful business- and for now without negative consequences with regard to core business.
I look forward to next season with no concerns for the future, other than the fear of further progress for clubs with sugar dads.
At this rate, their is feck all chance of that.
Why do you care about that?
Because of the absolutely next sentence.
It's clearly very positive news. The debt is being reduced and we've just signed a fantastic new sponsorship deal.
Because all the people buying it have been singing in the Stretford End since the early 70s and have nothing but the clubs best interest at heart.
Or.... They are also speculative investors looking to make a quick quid. In truth, people with few shares would be looking for their shares to be as profitable as possible which would mean voting rights mean them looking after their own interests in a more aggressive way than the Glazers who have the long term to think about.
Placeholders for values are one thing, but they basically altered the entire purpose of the IPO. Rather than being an IPO to clear significant amounts of debt, it became an IPO that would clear a little debt and line the Glazers' pockets. It went from being something that was entirely for the benefit of the club to something that was a majority benefit to the Glazers. It's like advertising that you're hosting an event to raise money for the poor for a month before announcing the day before that you're actually going to take most of the money you raise.
£75m knocks the debt down to £340-350m-ish. Whoopty-feckin-do. When we could have had £200m to pay on the debt, £75m is a bad return.
There's a reason they changed the prospectus today after the Chevy deal was announced. With the astronomical numbers floating around but no real clue on their accuracy, it's likely they hoped to minimize the attention it got. Given that they had everything done for the IPO before, then it was supposedly called off. Now it's on again and soon. It reduces the chance for attention to be paid to the new prospectus before the offering.
I don't see how it's "okay" for them to take out huge sums from the club without giving anything up. They've bought the club almost entirely with debt and put the club up as collateral. No risk for themselves. I could respect them if they put up their own money and took some risk in buying the club. I'd even understand them taking money out, but when they used a leveraged buyout, they assumed no risk. The only risk was assumed by the institution itself that means more than Malcolm Glazer and his children combined.
How do you feel about the Glazers taking money out of the club after previously saying that all money raised would be spent on clearing debt? That's a good thing too, I assume?
I think some are over reacting. We all knew they were Cnuts (business men) so stuff like this is no major surprise. There will still be a bit of an improvement as far as the debt is concerned. Everyone needs to wait and see what happens.
5 years from now, where do we see the club? I still see it being even bigger than it is right now.
It's going forward, just not in a very nice or popular fashion.
I understand why some are annoyed at this news, but I also am certainly not surprised some are annoyed at how Fergie is being spoken about.
Many of you were not even born when he began managing this club.
5 years from now, where do we see the club? I still see it being even bigger than it is right now.
It's going forward, just not in a very nice or popular fashion.
I understand why some are annoyed at this news, but I also am certainly not surprised some are annoyed at how Fergie is being spoken about.
Many of you were not even born when he began managing this club.
It honestly doesn't bother me. The figure that they're taking for themselves is hardly a game-changing amount. ''Chicken shit'' as Andersred would say.
I know. We already spend £40m-50m a year to pay for the privilege of their ownership. Why not give them a little more, eh?
How the flaming feck is that the only way to look at this? If you were part of a syndicate who won the lottery, and the rest of the syndicate said they'd bought out your stake for a tenner just before the draw, would you say "well the only way to look at this is I'm in a better position now, tenner up, wahey!". No, you'd say you'd been fecked over. The IPO has been in the offing a long time, the plan all along has been to use all of it to pay off a substantial part of the debt, and now it's been changed to less than half that, whilst giving the Glazers a massive pay-off, possibly to pay off the PIKs which we were told had nothing to do with us.
Because with such stingy rewards, I can see this being a flop. Which would leave us even more fecked than if it went swimmingly. Why would investors buy shares which a) have effectively no voting rights, b) promise no dividends for the foreseeable future and c) completely over-value the company and are therefore too expensive?
You are a turd of a man.
They are so kind with this IPO that now we only have to spend 35-45 a year. Massive reduction in interest cost.
How do you know this?
100% of new shares are being used to pay debt, a la the original prospectus.
It's just that now, in addition, an equal amount(?) of the Glazers' existing shares are being sold for their own gain.
Do we know that even if the original plans went ahead, we'd be paying off more than £75m debt?
Serious questions here as I'm trying to grasp it myself.
Why aren't MUST using some of their money to buy out some of these shares? It'd be a "start" surely?
Drasdo has called for a full flotation with a MUST led drive for fan ownership. I'm sure he has wet dreams about sitting at David Gills desk. I refuse to believe that he doesn't think there would be a lucrative position avalible to him if he achieved MUSTs goals. All my speculative opinion of course, just in case he fancies using Supporters Trust money for his lawyers again.
Drasdo has called for a full flotation with a MUST led drive for fan ownership. I'm sure he has wet dreams about sitting at David Gills desk. I refuse to believe that he doesn't think there would be a lucrative position avalible to him if he achieved MUSTs goals. All my speculative opinion of course, just in case he fancies using Supporters Trust money for his lawyers again.
You need to wait and see before predicting what may or may not happen. I'm guessing they are smart enough to ensure they and the club come out of it just fine.
But anyways talk is cheap, what do supporters intend to do this time to voice their disapproval?
Let's get the facts right please. The current annual interest payments on the bonds are c. £35m. The funds released from the IPO to repay a further £75m of bonds will reduce that interest bill to under £30m. It represents about 8% of the club's revenue. ''Chicken shit'' in other words.
Share sale just demonstrates further how the club remains weighed down with heavy debts. The money from the sale should have gone to pay off the clubs debts and improve the team.
The amended prospectus now says that half of the money raised will be the Glazers'. I screwed up the figure switching between currencies, but it should have been £150m instead of 200. The rumblings have always been that it would be an offering of 10% of the club's shares. Now, only half of that 10% is going to the club. The alteration from "all" to "half" of the money being raised is fairly big, imo.
In answer to (a) and (b), the reason investors would buy the shares is because they are investors. They invest in the shares in the hope the share value goes up and they sell at a profit. Millions of shares are bought and sold under the same conditions e.g. Apple shares were/are like this I believe. Doesn't mean the people who bought them at the right time didn't make a killing.
Now given the strides the club makes in terms of commercial revenue and the spiralling lucrativeness of football, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that share price could increase in the future. That will be a call for the investors to make, but the portents are good with the recent sponsorship deal and likely a massive Nike deal in a couple of years. Of course we need to keep things successful on the football side and that's where genuine concerns about transfer kittys and wage competitiveness come in.
Regards (c) how do you know the shares are too expensive? Why is the company overvalued? Is there anything that leads you to believe that?
LondonRed, who seems to have some expertise seems to think differently:
That doesn't count sweetheart deals on loans. Or the interest we pay them when they spend said loan on buying bonds.
What on earth are you talking about?
It was only a few days ago that people were saying the IPO was going to collapse and none of the debt would be paid off. The club will be c. £90m better off after the IPO. That is clearly good news.
Who told you this Twigg? Andersred, after looking at the DRAFT IPO prospectus? Perhaps he should have told you that it was only the draft document.
If anyone lied to you then it was Andersred!
It's actually c. £6.5m less interest and the annual interest bill will be down to c. £28.5m. It's interesting to see that after all these years Andersred is now finally taking the corporation tax implications into account. I wonder why that is?
- Status