That's not what the IPO prospectus said. More spin from the anti-Glazer fanatics.
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
That's not what the IPO prospectus said. More spin from the anti-Glazer fanatics.
Crafty bastards are getting it out there in August before we're short of players in September and down in sixth place!
no, it said that it "could" under risk factors. The evidence that it has comes from our negligible net spend on established players under the Glazers. We are competing on the field due to players who were bought before the Glazers/ brought up through the academy. We had to bring Scholesy out of retirement because the Glazers wouldn't fund a midfield signing. I'm glad he's back, but its a fact of life under the Glazers that 37/38 year olds are vital for our competitiveness.
The IPO prospectus did say that the proceeds would be used to pay down the debt.
From the recent The Sunday Times July 29 article by Michael Moritz - top Silicon Valley investor — and a Manchester United fan. We have more than $1 billion of debt due within the next 220 weeks that we have no means of repaying. All the assets of the club have been mortgaged against these debts, including our training ground and even our interest in a small freight warehouse.
Is this true? GCHQ I'm looking at you here. If that is true, how can you possibly say they're good owners? That post suggests we're not a million miles from stripping our assets and ending up like Liverpool, or worse, Leeds.
Is this true? GCHQ I'm looking at you here. If that is true, how can you possibly say they're good owners? That post suggests we're not a million miles from stripping our assets and ending up like Liverpool, or worse, Leeds.
What are you on? Please read the thread a little it better and come back with a better question. Our depth will be close £350 +- 10m after the IPO is finished
Which is exactly why I asked. It didn't sound true, and seemed to conflict with most of what I've heard. The $1b certainly sounded off, but what about the rest of it? The 220 weeks (four years) to pay it off?
He means that would be 350m debt plus the HIDDEN debt that they didn't tell us about.
The bonds mature in 2017 + interest till then. So that converted into $ and inflated for dramatic effect.
Slept over it. Still dont see what the fuss is about.
Its better than nothing. Glazers decided to reduce their stake and pocket some money too. Who cares.
Bottom line is that after yesterday, the club are on its way to reduce its debt to under 350m and will have a large chunk of money (activation fee ?) to use.
Some of you still havent accepted that the club is privately owned and is being run for profit. Them making some money out of the club while we are still in debt might not go down too well, but the debt is manageable and they are going to take their share. Nothing we can do.
Slept over it. Still dont see what the fuss is about.
Its better than nothing. Glazers decided to reduce their stake and pocket some money too. Who cares.
Bottom line is that after yesterday, the club are on its way to reduce its debt to under 350m and will have a large chunk of money (activation fee ?) to use.
Some of you still havent accepted that the club is privately owned and is being run for profit. Them making some money out of the club while we are still in debt might not go down too well, but the debt is manageable and they are going to take their share. Nothing we can do.
Can somebody post the link to the final prospectus?
Yeah, I thought he was in the Mains...? Remember it because he had a very low post count so it stuck in my mind. Good post too.
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?
Whatever the amount. You still choose to ignore the 300 or so million wasted in various financial costs by the Glazers. Even if the 28.5 figure is accurate, its still 28.5 million per year wasted by the club.
All this, just so the club can pay for them owning us.
If you take those blinders off, you might be able to see that huge grey thing on the side. Its the elephant in the room.
Glazers have undoubtedly done some good things and are very shrewd businessmen. I think most will accept that they've done some good things. However in context the bad far outweighs the good.
Good call.
The Glazers have mishandled the issue from a pr standpoint though. If their intention was a fifty-fifty split they should have indicated that from the start. Also, it was a mistake to raise expectations that the debt was going to be cleared, and then fail to fulfill them.
Or he's included the method of paying how they paid of the PIKs into the $1bn. We still don't know and will probably never know how they paid off those. How ever we can be certain it wasn't out there own pockets.
Ravel, am I missing something here?
The use of proceeds says
This is after saying we'll raise something like 140 mn USD.
What is this about them raising 300 mn and pocketing half?
Its seems that only half of the money generated by the shares will be used to pay the debts. The rest will go in the Glazers pockets. Thats for Manchester United's good I guess.
It seems? So is that on hearsay or does it explicitly say that somewhere?
http://www.teamtalk.com/manchester-united/7951791/United-amend-share-plans
The Glazer family have issued a notice of intent to sell just over 10 per cent of Manchester United on the New York Stock Exchange.
An announcement was made on Monday evening and confirms an intention to raise around 300million US dollars.
However, there does appear to have been a significant shift in how the proceeds will be used.
Previously, it was suggested that the entire sum would be used to pay off United's massive debt, that currently stands at over £400million.
However, the prospectus that has been released to accompany Monday's announcement indicates only half the money will be used in that way, with the rest going directly to the family.
If that proves to be the case it will provoke fury among the United support, who have already seen vast amounts of cash disappear in various charges following the Glazer family takeover in 2005.
The news comes on the day United confirmed a massive new shirt sponsorship deal with US car giant Chevrolet, which takes effect from 2014.
However, critics will also point to the fact the club are yet to post end-of-year accounts which show the exact amount bowing out of the Champions League group stage cost them.
"Manchester United today commenced its initial public offering of 16,666,667 Class A Ordinary Shares," said a statement issued from New York by Sard Verbinnen & Co, the public relations firm enlisted by United for the IPO.
"Manchester United is offering 8,333,334 Class A Ordinary Shares and the selling shareholder is offering 8,333,333 Class A Ordinary Shares.
"The underwriters have an option to purchase up to an additional 2,500,000 Class A Ordinary Shares from the selling shareholder.
"The Class A Ordinary Shares will be listed on the New York Stock Exchange and will trade under the symbol "Man Utd.""
Aaah, okay. So essentially, they're selling their stake after dilution to raise personal cash.
Thanks for that dev.
It's all well and good saying this will raise $300 million. The market will dictate the share price which in the current climate and what these shares represent will IMHO be nothing like the expected revenues detailed above.
NB notice that senior management at the club are also getting a nice percentage.
NB notice that senior management at the club are also getting a nice percentage.
Already underwritten. All shares are going to be sold.
Yes you're right, I hadn't seen that. In that case you've got to say somebody at the club has done a bloody good job securing this deal.
What's actually happening to the funds raised is another question but $300 million for a minority 10% share holding is good business.
Are they having personal financial troubles, the debt of the club is our problem probably, but I wondered why they have changed their minds about where the IPO money is going. Or is it just greed. I wouldn't trust this lot with my son's piggy bank.
I didn't really read or look into the first draft prospectus, so I don't personally have the experience of this being a u-turn.
At the end of the day I guess we will be less in debt than we were before. In addition the Glazers will sell some of their shares and pocket an earning. Glazers getting rid of stock is a small step towards a good thing for me, and if SAF were to receive some of those shares it does not really trouble me that much. Neither do I tend to think that SAF is acting like their puppet. I honestly think that he believes them to be good owners, because they give him what he always wanted - power.
For me the important part is that our club is getting less and less indebted. However, when debt free some time in the future, I do not think the difference will be that big from today. I do not think we will suddenly be market leaders when it comes to transfer prices or salaries. Instead, most of what we today pay in interest and other financial costs will probably be taken out in dividends of some sort.
At the end of the day I guess we will be less in debt than we were before. In addition the Glazers will sell some of their shares and pocket an earning. Glazers getting rid of stock is a small step towards a good thing for me, and if SAF were to receive some of those shares it does not really trouble me that much. Neither do I tend to think that SAF is acting like their puppet. I honestly think that he believes them to be good owners, because they give him what he always wanted - power.
For me the important part is that our club is getting less and less indebted. However, when debt free some time in the future, I do not think the difference will be that big from today. I do not think we will suddenly be market leaders when it comes to transfer prices or salaries. Instead, most of what we today pay in interest and other financial costs will probably be taken out in dividends of some sort.
The question for me is rather what we end up paying in the end, meaning how much money floats out of the club due to interest or dividends payed to shareholders.
If it ends up being roughly the same I don't see how we actually gained anything from that deal and remember only half of the money generated through the shares is actually there to pay of the debt so it's a pretty good chance that we will end up losing the same amount of money with this deal as we did with the bank loan.
If it ends up being roughly the same I don't see how we actually gained anything from that deal and remember only half of the money generated through the shares is actually there to pay of the debt so it's a pretty good chance that we will end up losing the same amount of money with this deal as we did with the bank loan.
I agree that being less in debt is great, but if we are not re-investing on the field then surely one is cancelling the other out. This club needs to be winning now. It will be interesting to see the profit figures after our disaster in europe last season.
No it's not. Reducing debt is the same as investing on the field, either way, we gain more revenue (which can fund on field spending).
The profit figures are in the prospectus. Media revenue is down due to CL exit.
so people were expecting the Glazers to sell their stake and put all the money raised back into the club/ pay the club's debt? That doesn't make sense at all, for someone who is running this as a business investment.
That would be like expecting them to sell the club and then give the money earned back to the club.
That would be like expecting them to sell the club and then give the money earned back to the club.
At the present dollar/pound exchange rate, $300M for a 10% stake in United values the club at roughly 10 x 300 x .63 = £1.89B. A lot higher than the owner's critics, and the media, generally estimate. It seems the market agrees with the Glazers.
It continually surprises though, how posters in this thread can get in a tizzy over something like this.
Bottom Line:
At present the Glazers own 100% of United and the debt stands at £425M.
After the IPO takes effect, the Glazers will own about 90.4% of the club, and the debt will have dropped to ca. £350M.
Granted that hopes the debt would be totally cleared have been disappointed, but how can people be enraged that the Glazers have sold some of their shares in the club, and the debt has fallen about 20% in the process?
It continually surprises though, how posters in this thread can get in a tizzy over something like this.
Bottom Line:
At present the Glazers own 100% of United and the debt stands at £425M.
After the IPO takes effect, the Glazers will own about 90.4% of the club, and the debt will have dropped to ca. £350M.
Granted that hopes the debt would be totally cleared have been disappointed, but how can people be enraged that the Glazers have sold some of their shares in the club, and the debt has fallen about 20% in the process?
Values the club at GBP 1.89 Bn + GBP 0.35 Bn = GBP 2.24 Bn
I agree with this. After all people seem to forget that the club is privately owned. If I owned a business, I would want to make money out of it to. As for Fergie possibly being financial rewarded in all this (although getting shares is not hard cash at all when its linked to targets), if there is one man I don't begrudge even ludicrous sums of monetary rewards, then it is him. He is the sole reason why anyone is making money out of this club anyway, so he deserves everything he gets. For people to get pissed off with him, regardless of his apparent support for the Glazers (and he's hardly going to publicly slag them off is he?), is rather a parochial way of thinking. He also has to think about the players and their psychology - if he starts slagging off the hierarchy, then that hardly promotes a unity throughout the club and could create a very unsettling atmosphere. He has always stated that the heart of everything that happens at this club is what happens on the field. He has never let anyone down on that.
It does? Have they already sold the shares?
http://redrants.com/the-red-issue-forum-letter-to-sir-alex-ferguson/
Do we really doubt SAF's integrity, or is this just a bad joke?
We are a sustainable club - We are the world's most valuable club - We have one of the world's best teams - We are one of the worlds biggest brands.
Some of us seem to be spoiled and disrespectful as well.
We love to tease City and Chelsea for their sugar dads- and their lack of sustainability. It seems however that we would wish to be in their place.
Do we really doubt SAF's integrity, or is this just a bad joke?
We are a sustainable club - We are the world's most valuable club - We have one of the world's best teams - We are one of the worlds biggest brands.
Some of us seem to be spoiled and disrespectful as well.
We love to tease City and Chelsea for their sugar dads- and their lack of sustainability. It seems however that we would wish to be in their place.
Dissapointing that not all the money flows into the club - I'd have preferred if the Glazer would not have sold any of their own shares and all the money would have been used to pay down the debt. But still, better then nothing I guess.
What I find appalling is the fact that they acquired a "franchise" without actually paying for it and now are cashing in
What I find appalling is the fact that they acquired a "franchise" without actually paying for it and now are cashing in
Given the fact that we wouldn't be any where near as valuable or as big if not for Sir Alex, I think he's entitled to a payout?!
Well, I'm presuming the underwriters are not idiots.
- Status