ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pogue Mahone said:
Which reminds me. I presume every last penny of that fund will be used to purchase these shares?

If not, why not?

Are we going to end up kicking ourselves that fans didn't buy a stake in the club when they had the chance? Again.

That's without even getting into the ethics of taking a load of cash off fans for a specific purpose then not using that cash for the purpose intended when the opportunity arises...
Click to expand...

Why Pogue?

They offer no control or voting into the way the club is run. They are wildly over ambitious in their pricing and offer no short term dividend.

It's like taking a ferrari, ripping out the engine, bunging a hair dryer motor under the bonnet and trying to sell is for 10 grand more than the original.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Which reminds me. I presume every last penny of that fund will be used to purchase these shares?

If not, why not?

Are we going to end up kicking ourselves that fans didn't buy a stake in the club when they had the chance? Again.

That's without even getting into the ethics of taking a load of cash off fans for a specific purpose then not using that cash for the purpose intended when the opportunity arises...
Click to expand...

It's always easy to find excuses for doing nothing, as mrs 711 would tell you, however the intention of the fund was clear enough.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Which reminds me. I presume every last penny of that fund will be used to purchase these shares?

If not, why not?

Are we going to end up kicking ourselves that fans didn't buy a stake in the club when they had the chance? Again.

That's without even getting into the ethics of taking a load of cash off fans for a specific purpose then not using that cash for the purpose intended when the opportunity arises...
Click to expand...

I've never understood why some people on here seem more interested in trying denegrate MUST than they are in the what's going on at the club.

If MUST isn't for you, then fair enough, but as somebody said earlier on, their intentions are in the right place, and I don't get alol the constant sniping at them.
It's like if the Liverpool or City fans on this forum spent all their time in these Glazer threads. They don't, because if United are being mis-managed in any way, that's not their problem.

As it goes, on the specific questions:

They haven't "taken" anybody's money, any more than your bank has "taken" the money in your savings account. People are free to withdraw their money any time.
So whether MUST do or do not invest in the IPO, every member will have the choice over what they do with their money.

As far as I've seen, MUST initially welcomed the IPO and were planning to recommend investment in it. But the latest email I got suggests that they share may other's concerns over the fact that the money is now going straight into the Glazers pockets, so I'm not sure what the latest stance is.

If your argument is that MUST have tio invest in any IPO, no matter what the terms and the price, in order to remain true to their word, then that is clearly very flawed.
 
Jaz said:
That's worse, this guy uses his own knowledge and statistics to mislead people. As an economist (not an accountant) I do know if I'm being misled, and andersred is doing that to many many United fans. He changes his goalposts (about debt) depending on the results, for example, now that United's cash-on-hand is actually at one of it's lowest points post-Ronaldo, he's switched from gross debt to net debt (i.e. going for the higher figure) as his basecase for his arguments. This is a guy abuses peoples emotional connection to United to stir up a frenzy about injustice whilst increasing his own profile been on the radio and sky news). Ultimately, he know no better than we do.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That's without even getting into the ethics of taking a load of cash off fans for a specific purpose then not using that cash for the purpose intended when the opportunity arises...
Click to expand...

I dont think there is an ethical case to answer there to be honest. Anyone who has left money in the PF now knows the score. If they dont like it they can easily get it out or make their feelings known. I imagine most people who have stuck around this long want to fight the good fight.
 
Simon Adebesi said:
I dont think there is an ethical case to answer there to be honest. Anyone who has left money in the PF now knows the score. If they dont like it they can easily get it out or make their feelings known. I imagine most people who have stuck around this long want to fight the good fight.
Click to expand...

I'd go fecking bananas if they spent the money I still have in there on these 'shares'.
 
711 said:
It's always easy to find excuses for doing nothing, as mrs 711 would tell you, however the intention of the fund was clear enough.
Click to expand...

I've money in there myself. Perhaps naively, I assumed that it's sole purpose was to be used to provide the fans with a stake in the club if and when the chance arose. Is this not the exact sort of opportunity they were waiting for?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I've money in there myself. Perhaps naively, I assumed that it's sole purpose was to be used to provide the fans with a stake in the club if and when the chance arose. Is this not the exact sort of opportunity they were waiting for?
Click to expand...

How about if the Glazers offered one single share, with no voting rights, for £1m.

Would MUST be obliged to buy that?

If so, the Glazers really are onto a license to print money!
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Which reminds me. I presume every last penny of that fund will be used to purchase these shares?

If not, why not?

Are we going to end up kicking ourselves that fans didn't buy a stake in the club when they had the chance? Again.

That's without even getting into the ethics of taking a load of cash off fans for a specific purpose then not using that cash for the purpose intended when the opportunity arises...
Click to expand...

I thought the idea of the fund was to help the fans have a controlling say in what goes on at the club. Purchasing these shares would aid that in no way at all. It'd just be a brainless waste of money.

It'd be even less useful than handing the money straight to the banks and saying "take it off the club's debt please"
 
Simon Adebesi said:
He is suggesting the fund exists to buy the club, here is an opportunity to buy some of the club, therefore it has a moral obligation to do just that, regardless of price and other details.
Click to expand...

Which makes zero sense. These shares do not allow us to have any say in the running of the club. There are essentially, for the purposes we want to get involved, worthless.

Am I missing something? If I am my apologies Pogue.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I've money in there myself. Perhaps naively, I assumed that it's sole purpose was to be used to provide the fans with a stake in the club if and when the chance arose. Is this not the exact sort of opportunity they were waiting for?
Click to expand...

If a fund launched to buy up bananas, you would expect it to do just that. But would it be expected to if they were being charged £5 per banana? Or if the bananas being sold were rotting?

Its a crude analogy but you know how much I love these slightly pointless and confusing analogies.

The point is, just because the fund exists to do something, it doesnt mean it must do it on any terms. It has a responsibility to do what is the longer term interests of its shareholders.

Are you playing Devil's Advocate again Pogue? Sometimes I wish you would advocate something a little less devilish.
 
londonredmaniac said:
I can accept that. But then ask yourself why you'd want to own a stake in MUFC as a supporter?
Click to expand...

I don't even understand how buying these shares makes sense as an investor. If you buy shares it's usually to invest in the product, not hand money over to the person who owns it while rival products blow it out of the water.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If more fans had brought shares when it was first floated the glazers wouldn't be here now. We've been beating ourselves up over that for years. Surely we can't do it all over again?
Click to expand...

I agree with your first statement, and well we should beat ourselves about it.

But this is very different pogue. These shares offer no controlling interest. They are for long term dividend gain (if you're lucky) only.

There is no, absolutely no voting or decision making priveledges attached to them.

Unless your interest is to make some cash, they are worthless.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If more fans had brought shares when it was first floated the glazers wouldn't be here now. We've been beating ourselves up over that for years. Surely we can't do it all over again?
Click to expand...

I am just going to end up repeating what Noodle has already said, better than me. But the point is control. What is the point of ownership without control?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Wouldn't they at least be a step on the way towards the fans having a meaningful stake in the company? Voting rights or no voting rights, it's all equity, surely?
Click to expand...

I dont think so. I think a more tactical game is being played. Sometimes in chess you can take a piece, but you dont, because you end up in a worse position. Investing in this feels like taking a pawn in exchange for a bishop. Better to wait, if this fails then maybe they will be forced to come back to market again with a better offer.
 
Pogue is advocating exchanging one bit of paper that has some value (cash) for another bit of paper that has questionable value (United shares).

It's not sensible at all Pogue.
 
Simon Adebesi said:
I dont think so. I think a more tactical game is being played. Sometimes in chess you can take a piece, but you dont, because you end up in a worse position. Investing in this feels like taking a pawn in exchange for a bishop. Better to wait, if this fails then maybe they will be forced to come back to market again with a better offer.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it's been underwritten hasn't it? So they've effectively sold the shares regardless haven't they? Or at least that's what I thought it meant.
 
Ash_G said:
Yeah but it's been underwritten hasn't it? So they've effectively sold the shares regardless haven't they? Or at least that's what I thought it meant.
Click to expand...

If it has been underwritten then yes. Still, the banks will be in a better position to exert their influence than anyone else. So let them end up with it all on their books, they wont be happy and thatll make life harder for Glazer.
 
Simon Adebesi said:
If it has been underwritten then yes. Still, the banks will be in a better position to exert their influence than anyone else. So let them end up with it all on their books, they wont be happy and thatll make life harder for Glazer.
Click to expand...

Yes because the banks did a brilliant job with Liverpool. :rolleyes: :nervous:

(though admittedly an entirely different context)
 
I don't think it's the banks who underwrite the shares (thought that was done by insurance brokers?) and I would be surprised if it were the same banks who we owe money too, they don't need to invest anything in us. So they've already got the influence they need.
 
You might be right. Often IPOs are underwritten by the bookrunners of the deal. I dont know what the details are here though as I havent read the prospectus. Either way I dont see any reason why MUST or anyone else should invest if it is not in their own direct interest to do so. The valuation is high, the influence gained is minimal, it is not a good deal and if it falls flat on its face the Glazers will be under more pressure, one way or the other.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Which reminds me. I presume every last penny of that fund will be used to purchase these shares?

If not, why not?

Are we going to end up kicking ourselves that fans didn't buy a stake in the club when they had the chance? Again.

That's without even getting into the ethics of taking a load of cash off fans for a specific purpose then not using that cash for the purpose intended when the opportunity arises...
Click to expand...

But this IPO won't work, and the Glazers won't be able to float this 11 % on the market. So what happens next? They'll have to come back with a revised and more thought out proposition, and then perhaps is the time to strike.

If the shares came with 1 vote per share, and weren't as ridicilously overpriced, and if all of the proceedings went towards paying down the clubs debt, then I'd be all for it. But buying shares through the Phoenix fund now would be basically handing over money to the Glazers, and not getting anything back from it.

Surely you can see the madness in investing the fans money towards lining the Glazers pocket, and only that, save a symbolic share of the club?

Also, them not being able to pull this through will be another blow to their ownership, while if they manage to get away with this fraud, they'd only strengthen their position and make ridicilous money while bleeding the club. The reason this IPO is even suggested is the servicing of the debt is crippling them; not crippling their ability to invest in the club and team, but crippling their ability to gain money from the club.

They're showing their true faces once more, and if you think pissing away money so they can have some pocket money is wise, then God help you Pogue.
 
Ash_G said:
Yeah but it's been underwritten hasn't it? So they've effectively sold the shares regardless haven't they? Or at least that's what I thought it meant.
Click to expand...

This one's been underwritten, but if the banks are left with the shares they won't be so quick to underwrite the next one - which might mean voting rights would have to be included. Just a straw to clutch at I know, but better to keep the cash for a meaningful purchase, in case that opportunity does arise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.