ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's the point though, it can't really fall flat on it's face this time round because they've got assurance that the shares will get fully sold. If there's minimal interest from outside investors though, then it will make it harder for them to pull a similar stunt in the future I would guess as I doubt the underwriters actually want the shares. So I suppose in some ways whatever shares MUST can get is better then none. If in the future the Glazers need to raise more finance and have to increase the power of the shares sold then MUST can capitalise on those as well.

EDIT: ah you posted it just before me 711
 
Simon Adebesi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I'm sure I've heard that line before...
 
marjen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Huh? Apart from shares, you mean?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Hmmm... I'm sure I've heard that line before...
Click to expand...

What are you suggesting though Pogue? That MUST has a dastardly plan to NOT buy Manchester United? That it is making excuses for why it wont buy this, in order to execute its real plan of having a few million quid of fan money sitting there in a fund, while they amuse themselves thinking of pointless, fashion related forms of protest?

Why would they not buy the shares of they thought the shares were good value?
 
Sir A1ex said:
The key thing is, they would have the option to. Servicing the debt is compulsory, creaming off dividends is not.

I've no doubt that if it got to a point where we need to to invest substantially to remain competitive and keep making money - ie it financiall made sense to the Glazers, they would want to do it. As we all agree, they are purely interested in the bottom line, after all.
However, the debt ties our hands - it means things could go wrong for us and the Glazers if such a situation arises.
Click to expand...

But you must admit it makes no difference? If we started to fall behind in the next few years, the Glazer's would take immediate action to protect their investment, whether this meant digging into an overdraft, borrowing another £100m or selling another 10% of their equity, they would do it.

The fact remains whatever the situation is, the Glazer's will always look at a cost-benefit analysis. Is it worth adding £15m per season to the wage bill and spending another £55m this Summer to give us a 10-15% better chance at winning the league and 5% better chance at the CL? For a fan, invariably yes. From a strictly financial point of view the extra proceeds for winning said trophies (minus bonuses) probably wouldn't justify the outlay.

Regardless of debt, the Glazer's will invest the minimum possible to keep the club near our current position. Different to City, Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool, Bayern, Inter, AC, Juventus, Spurs, even most mid-table clubs who are investing everything (and sometimes unfortunately and naively more) than they have to improve the club.

We are hugely fortunate that only Madrid and Barcelona are anywhere near us in terms of profitability, which means we can stay in the world's top 5 despite being at a huge disadvantage.
 
Anyway, how much money are there in this Phoenix fund? How much of the shares could conceivably be bought through that money?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Huh? Apart from shares, you mean?
Click to expand...

Shares with no voting rights, whose function is only to line the Glazers pockets. Surely you can see that waiting until such a time that MUST can buy shares with actual significance is better? And until such a time that most or all of the proceedings goes towards clear the clubs debt?
 
finneh said:
But you must admit it makes no difference? If we started to fall behind in the next few years, the Glazer's would take immediate action to protect their investment, whether this meant digging into an overdraft, borrowing another £100m or selling another 10% of their equity, they would do it.
Click to expand...

Quite right, other than the fact that every club / owner has their financial limits. If that weren't the case, no club, business or individual would ever hit the wall due to cashflow, they would just keep borrowing more.
In our case that limit may be well beyond most other football clubs, but it is still there, and the debt means we are constantly closer to it than we would be if debt free.

But yes, your general point is valid. The entire nature of the Galzers and their LBO places a higher emphasis on milking every last penny out of the club than pretty much any other ownership model. Ultimately this is the crux of my problem with them.
 
marjen said:
Anyway, how much money are there in this Phoenix fund? How much of the shares could conceivably be bought through that money?
Click to expand...

Id be interested to know the answer to that question. It cant be much. I mean it was a tiny proportion of a much smaller valuation even when there was some urgency to the situation, when Glazer was seizing control. Like 1 or 2% if I remember rightly? I might be wrong on that.

Now there is less urgency, as in many people have resigned themselves and consider the war lost, and so many have presumably redeemed. Plus the valuation is way higher now (£2bn? $2bn? One or the other.) So less money to buy a slice of a bigger pie. We are talking peanuts here.

Its a sad state of affairs. Though as you can see I am only guessing about all of it. So sad, but not suicidally sad.
 
marjen said:
Anyway, how much money are there in this Phoenix fund? How much of the shares could conceivably be bought through that money?
Click to expand...

This brings up the other issue of whether there was ever any stated intent to buy any shares that come available in any circumstances.

It's long been acknowledged that the size of the PF is frankly pitiful compared to the value of the club. A million or so quid at best, in the order of 0.1% of the value of the club.

Which leads back to the whole Red Knights scenario. What the PF would ideally be used for would be to go in alongside a much wealthier, relatively benevolent investor, or group of investors, ensuring that fans had a genuine, permanent stake in the club.

Now as far as I'm aware there are no new Red Knights on the horizon right now, but it the potential for anything like this in the future has to be a consideration when looking at whether to invest in an IPO.
 
mariachi-19 said:
So he's effectively become a must mouthpiece. nice...
Click to expand...

AndersRed and MUST in alligned views on the Glazers? But this is massive news, who do we tell?

mariachi-19 said:
Perhaps if he took the smug look off his face like he's some billy big time, people might be more inclined to trust him.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that. Sod the facts, he's got a silly look on his face. Burn him!
 
Sir A1ex said:
This brings up the other issue of whether there was ever any stated intent to buy any shares that come available in any circumstances.

It's long been acknowledged that the size of the PF is frankly pitiful compared to the value of the club. A million or so quid at best, in the order of 0.1% of the value of the club.

Which leads back to the whole Red Knights scenario. What the PF would ideally be used for would be to go in alongside a much wealthier, relatively benevolent investor, or group of investors, ensuring that fans had a genuine, permanent stake in the club.

Now as far as I'm aware there are no new Red Knights on the horizon right now, but it the potential for anything like this in the future has to be a consideration when looking at whether to invest in an IPO.
Click to expand...

Is the interest being gained on the money being added directly to the fund?

Because interest on million quid is not too shabby.
 
swooshboy said:
Is the interest being gained on the money being added directly to the fund?

Because interest on million quid is not too shabby.
Click to expand...

Interest on money is less than real inflation, regardless of what the official inflation figures say. Money in a bank account is steadily losing value over time.

But yes, I am sure everything is recycled back into the fund.
 
Would have thought they would have published the exact figures of how much is in the fund (if they have done so, could someone please send a link?).
 
Smug look on his face?

FFS. Andersred is obviously a good fan who has the future of the club at heart. "Smug look on his face" Incredible.
 
Simon Adebesi said:
Interest on money is less than real inflation, regardless of what the official inflation figures say. Money in a bank account is steadily losing value over time.

But yes, I am sure everything is recycled back into the fund.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the interest isn't too shabby by today's standards - better then having it in some shitty current account anyway.
And it all just gets added to the individual's Phoenix Fund account, so it's down to the individual whetehr it is "reinvested", but generally yes it remains in there.

But this remains a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things.
 
I really think that LondonRed guy should be (re)promoted to the mains.

Any mods want to shed any light on why he was demoted?

It's so difficult to get expert opinions on this without huge bias. Andersred and GCHQ (sometimes) are worth listening to, but are too far down both ends of the spectrum in terms of bias (especially GCHQ).

LondonRed always comes across as fairly neutral but has the expertise that most of us lack.

Get him back up here.
 
kraftwerker said:
i really think that londonred guy should be (re)promoted to the mains.

Any mods want to shed any light on why he was demoted?

It's so difficult to get expert opinions on this without huge bias. Andersred and gchq (sometimes) are worth listening to, but are too far down both ends of the spectrum in terms of bias (especially gchq).

Londonred always comes across as fairly neutral but has the expertise that most of us lack.

Get him back up here.
Click to expand...

this
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Was he really demoted? I don't think I've ever seen a post from him.
Click to expand...

He was promoted a couple of months back after giving some excellent analysis in the newbs which was copy and pasted here.

It seems it was only temporary though, as someone had to copy and paste his post from the newbs in light of the news yesterday.

I think he deserves to be here permanently due to his expertise. If he was applying for a mains working permit he'd get outstanding talent dispensation.
 
Red-Indian said:
It was wierd. His post count kept decreasing the more he posted. And then he disappeared.

We should have him back if possible. He and redjazz were the most knowledgable posters on the subject.
Click to expand...

The caf's very own Benjamin Button.

I've seen him get a warning for getting stroppy in the newbs but can't say I remember him ever being promoted. Could be wrong though. I don't really get all that involved in that sort of thing.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
The caf's very own Benjamin Button.

I've seen him get a warning for getting stroppy in the newbs but can't say I remember him ever being promoted. Could be wrong though. I don't really get all that involved in that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

I remember a post where he and moses fell out big style after he was promoted. Never bodes well...
 
Jaz said:
I remember a post where he and moses well out big style after he was promoted. Never bodes well...
Click to expand...

Yeah, he had an argument with moses where he said that he didn't know how a forum works or something like that.

Here it is:

LondonRed said:
My god you are a bitter man. You do realise how an opinion works right? Making shit up and passing it off as knowledge??? What part of my explanation was made up? IN MY OPINION he won't be playing on the wing if we get him.

I fear that it is you that hasn't learnt how a forum works. A place where like-minded people go to share and discuss opinions?? Sound familiar? May I suggest that the biggest pollutant for any forum would be one which prevents the achievement of the above. Kudos.
Click to expand...
 
Pogue Mahone said:
The caf's very own Benjamin Button.

I've seen him get a warning for getting stroppy in the newbs but can't say I remember him ever being promoted. Could be wrong though. I don't really get all that involved in that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Here was his last post in this thread (just to prove he was here).

LondonRed said:
Yup.

Work
Man Utd
Alan Partridge

In that order.

EDIT: Might make a good banner that actually.
Click to expand...
 
pocco said:
Could anyone give a quick rundown of what's happened here in the last 24 hours, with regards to the IPO and Fergie somehow gaining from it?
Click to expand...

The Glazers are turning part of their ownership of the club into shares and apparently if Fergie gets any of them then he's basically pissing into Matt Busbys grave.
 
The Glazer has tarnished their reputation further as they expect cash settlement in connection with sale of shares
 
Sir A1ex said:
Quite right, other than the fact that every club / owner has their financial limits. If that weren't the case, no club, business or individual would ever hit the wall due to cashflow, they would just keep borrowing more.
In our case that limit may be well beyond most other football clubs, but it is still there, and the debt means we are constantly closer to it than we would be if debt free.

But yes, your general point is valid. The entire nature of the Galzers and their LBO places a higher emphasis on milking every last penny out of the club than pretty much any other ownership model. Ultimately this is the crux of my problem with them.
Click to expand...

When the PIK's were looming in the background and the debt stood at £500+m, whilst our turnover was still around the £250m mark I was generally worried that the debt wouldn't be able to be lowered as we could barely service it along with a modest player expenditure. Since then the Football world has seen an unprecedented increase in media/Commercial revenues which has (in my opinion) been fortunate for us and the Glazer's.

This said I think the debt is now serviceable, exceptionally depressing and in my opinion morally reprehensible, but serviceable nonetheless. This means that current debt or debt free I think the situation re: investment in the club would be the same (for the near future), ie. as minimal as possible to sustain our position.

It's my problem with them as well.
 
finneh said:
This means that current debt or debt free I think the situation re: investment in the club would be the same (for the near future), ie. as minimal as possible to sustain our position.
Click to expand...

That means that Fergie is lying when he says the Glazers have always responded positively to his requests for transfer funds. If they're restricting our spending to below what Fergie would wish, that can't be the case.

I find it difficult to believe that Fergie would lie in support of the Glazers. He might be non-committal or refuse to comment, but to cheerfully lie to the fans on a matter of such importance, to take responsibility on himself for the owners failure to back him financially in the transfer market, to tarnish his own legacy for their sake, doesn't make any sense. I think it more plausible that he's telling the truth, and the Glazers have given him money when he's asked for it.
 
Will Absolute said:
That means that Fergie is lying when he says the Glazers have always responded positively to his requests for transfer funds. If they're restricting our spending to below what Fergie would wish, that can't be the case.

I find it difficult to believe that Fergie would lie in support of the Glazers. He might be non-committal or refuse to comment, but to cheerfully lie to the fans on a matter of such importance, to take responsibility on himself for the owners failure to back him financially in the transfer market, to tarnish his own legacy for their sake, doesn't make any sense. I think it more plausible that he's telling the truth, and the Glazers have given him money when he's asked for it.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between Fergie directly lying to the fans and the whole story not being told. If Fergie said "I want to bring Benzema, Sanchez, Hazard, RVP, Villa, Lucas, Sneijder, Nasri etc to the club". Presumably the Glazer's begin negotiations (or someone does on their behalf) before deciding the transfer isn't fiscally responsible. They go back to Fergie and say the wage he was after and the fee they/the agent wanted was unreasonable and unsustainable.

I believe this has happened several times and Fergie's reaction is to move on and look at his next target.

The fact is Fergie has stated that he wanted to spend more during the PLC era (when we spent far, far more) to be more competitive, but he wasn't allowed to and moved on. It would be bizarre for him to suddenly not want to spend more than the modest amount he currently is.
 
finneh said:
There's a big difference between Fergie directly lying to the fans and the whole story not being told. If Fergie said "I want to bring Benzema, Sanchez, Hazard, RVP, Villa, Lucas, Sneijder, Nasri etc to the club". Presumably the Glazer's begin negotiations (or someone does on their behalf) before deciding the transfer isn't fiscally responsible. They go back to Fergie and say the wage he was after and the fee they/the agent wanted was unreasonable and unsustainable.

I believe this has happened several times and Fergie's reaction is to move on and look at his next target.

The fact is Fergie has stated that he wanted to spend more during the PLC era (when we spent far, far more) to be more competitive, but he wasn't allowed to and moved on. It would be bizarre for him to suddenly not want to spend more than the modest amount he currently is.
Click to expand...
Nail on head. I recently saw a quote from Fergie on the Treble: "A plain impossibility had we not shaken off commercial caution and bought Stam, Yorke and Blomqvist."

Leaving aside transfers, he's clearly been lying through his teeth describing the Glazers as "great owners". I'd hate to see what constitutes poor owners if they've been great.
 
Feeky_Magee said:
Nail on head. I recently saw a quote from Fergie on the Treble: "A plain impossibility had we not shaken off commercial caution and bought Stam, Yorke and Blomqvist."

Leaving aside transfers, he's clearly been lying through his teeth describing the Glazers as "great owners". I'd hate to see what constitutes poor owners if they've been great.
Click to expand...

I agree that he's probably been lying when saying they're great owners, but I think he does it for the good of the club more than anything else. While the Glazers would hardly be helped by Fergie turning against them, it wouldn't get rid of them like some say. Fergie knows that at this stage right now there is no benefit of going into a public war with the Glazers. It only makes the club look like they are in a weak position.
 
Feeky_Magee said:
Nail on head. I recently saw a quote from Fergie on the Treble: "A plain impossibility had we not shaken off commercial caution and bought Stam, Yorke and Blomqvist."

Leaving aside transfers, he's clearly been lying through his teeth describing the Glazers as "great owners". I'd hate to see what constitutes poor owners if they've been great.
Click to expand...

I'm sure to Fergie personally thinks they are good owners. I'm sure he is being remunerated far more handsomely, is left to his devices far more (ie no 20 questions on failed transfers or seasons etc) and in terms of transfers he probably thinks he lost out before and is losing out now, so no real difference.

He probably also justifies it by saying that if City/Chelsea weren't around the market would be far cheaper. I'm sure if my pay packet went up by a 0 I'd be able to justify several things such as poorer work conditions and longer hours to myself and others quite easily.
 
Setting aside the hyperbole, the Glazer ownership has been pretty bad for United financially.

Ravelston did an excellent calculation a few pages back where he took the interest and financial costs that we've borne less the tax and dividend payments we've saved as a result of the takeover and arrived at a net cost of about 150Mn GBP. Even if you give them a little credit for growing the commercial revenue faster than the PLC would've done (I wouldn't give them too much. The PLC was already doing a pretty decent job), you'd still have to say it's cost us about a 100 Mill.

All we've gained in return is a little more freedom for Fergie and perhaps some quicker decision making.

Too much to pay.

Personally though, I think its time to move past this. IPO or no, the debt is very manageable and any finance professional will tell you that. Fergie seems to enjoy working with them and our success hasn't really been compromised. This level of vitriol is now unwarranted and ultimately pointless.

Sorry about the pontificating tone of the post but it didn't really start out that way. I was going to put in a short comment but it just kept going.
 
finneh said:
I'm sure to Fergie personally thinks they are good owners. I'm sure he is being remunerated far more handsomely, is left to his devices far more (ie no 20 questions on failed transfers or seasons etc) and in terms of transfers he probably thinks he lost out before and is losing out now, so no real difference.

He probably also justifies it by saying that if City/Chelsea weren't around the market would be far cheaper. I'm sure if my pay packet went up by a 0 I'd be able to justify several things such as poorer work conditions and longer hours to myself and others quite easily.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why people think SAF is that money minded. He is old and rich already - some more cash isn't going to do him an good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.