They should have been? Doesnt make sense to trade open market shares when you can buy new ones?
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
They should have been? Doesnt make sense to trade open market shares when you can buy new ones?
Not really. But given that trading has been slightly above $14 all day, it's likely that most were.
1.8bn pounds sterling enterprise value not US dollars.
And why on earth would a very expensive ''marquee'' signing, which would naturally put some downward pressure on the club's profitability and outline very clearly to investors how much it costs to acquire established top end players, help to improve the share price?
So if we sold Rooney/Nani for 70mil the share price would go up despite the fact that our chances of winning trophies would fall?
Its a balancing act. If we dont buy we fall behind in the long run. Anyway people buying shares have factored this in. They know we have to spend.
Thankfully the Glazers listened to advice to open lower. That massively stabilised things, their original numbers were fanciful.
We have to admit, to double United value in just 7 years is a marvelous achievement.
Whether or not we can achieve this as a PLC we'll never know, but so far, it's credit to them.
Whether or not we can achieve this as a PLC we'll never know, but so far, it's credit to them.
I'm well aware it's a balancing act thanks, as are the Glazers. Given that the club has proven it can be very successful without signing extremely expensive players like Van Persie then why would investors look favourably upon that change in strategy?
Makes me feel sick when people write this shit. Doubling our value means feck all to fans - doesn't mean ticket prices will go down, doesn't mean we will attract or sign players. Just means somewhere down the line a rich American family will get richer at our expense.
Meanwhile Manchester United (FC not PLC) will continue to win trophies because of SAF irrespective of our value ..... and in spite of the Glazers
The club has signed its share of very expensive players in the past.
Thats very narrow minded view.
Performance, trophies, players are all reflected in the value. There is a reason why united are valued at 1.5bn while Millwall probably won't even get 200M
There's a price we all have to pay for success, United will never be the united of old , face it. Do you think without all the greedy business / marketing side United will stand where it is today? do you think United can afford Rooney and Co.'s wage if not for the marketing side?
United growth is glazer's payback for us, it's not ideal, but it's better than nothing.
Imagine 10 years down the line when the debt is paid off, we'll be far ahead of the Scouse/chelsea/city/psg (assuming they comply with FFP), and that is a very massive advantage.
I don't think City / Chelsea are emphasizing on the marketing / growth plan as good as ours, and it'll show in the long run.
Their success is tied to their respective daddies, while ours is solid and self sustaining.
EDIT: Name me a successful business that's reducing price? Does Barca / Madrid reduce their ticket price? Do they have a price increase annually? Do we have a reduced price ticket as PLC or Edwards?
Value in economic doesn't always mean trophies.
Simply put, the value will be divided by 2 large part : Tangible / Intangible
Tangible : Players, stadium, facilities, cash, etc
Intangible : Brand, Image, Exposure, and anything else
Shareholder's investment strategy is different than our perception of value. United can go trophyless for 5 years and the value still can go up, if they emphasizes on other aspect (the intangible asset).
Just because United goes trophyless for 5 years, doesn't mean their supporters stop following them, stop coming to matches, and the foreign sales droping. You can be a historical giants of the pass (ala Liverpool) and still enjoy the benefit of value / image they've built years ago.
It will fluctuate over time, but it's lagging behind a few good years compared to our success on the pitch.
The way some of you go on about the impressive business acumen of a bunch of fecking pricks makes it sound like it brings you personal pleasure.
I'd not be surprised if this is some of the shite you brag about to your friends.
Disgusting.
I'd not be surprised if this is some of the shite you brag about to your friends.
Disgusting.
Take a look around us : who do you think can be considered ideal owner?
FSG : they don't invest anything much to the club from their pocket other than buying it. A hefty transfer kitty (after Torres' sale) Do we see substantial improvement on the Scouse?
Sugar Daddies : Those money injected are not free, they're a part of the debt (albeit more lenient since the debtors are the owner), it's not published, but like every business institution, those injections of funds are always accounted for. And when they decided to feck off, it won't just written off with correction pen. Imagine what will happen if Roman getting jailed and his assets' frozen, what will become of Chelsea? Russian owned?
PLC : We have been thru that in the past, which part of the PLC is better / worse? 1. Steady increase in price ticket - check
2. Big player signing - check (we still have them btw, we did spent 30M on several player), the difference being is that now there are a lot more competitor for wages
3. Decision making - Still made by the shareholder, infact this tedious process of board meeting is viewed as hindrance for SAF.
4. Dividens being paid annually - simply put money taken out of United into the third party hand, just under a different name.
Barca / Madrid : Often viewed as ideal ownership, but are they really ideal? With election drama every 5 years and the shits that goes along with it. Can you imagine for once if ownership / direction changes every 5 years?
FSG : they don't invest anything much to the club from their pocket other than buying it. A hefty transfer kitty (after Torres' sale) Do we see substantial improvement on the Scouse?
Sugar Daddies : Those money injected are not free, they're a part of the debt (albeit more lenient since the debtors are the owner), it's not published, but like every business institution, those injections of funds are always accounted for. And when they decided to feck off, it won't just written off with correction pen. Imagine what will happen if Roman getting jailed and his assets' frozen, what will become of Chelsea? Russian owned?
PLC : We have been thru that in the past, which part of the PLC is better / worse? 1. Steady increase in price ticket - check
2. Big player signing - check (we still have them btw, we did spent 30M on several player), the difference being is that now there are a lot more competitor for wages
3. Decision making - Still made by the shareholder, infact this tedious process of board meeting is viewed as hindrance for SAF.
4. Dividens being paid annually - simply put money taken out of United into the third party hand, just under a different name.
Barca / Madrid : Often viewed as ideal ownership, but are they really ideal? With election drama every 5 years and the shits that goes along with it. Can you imagine for once if ownership / direction changes every 5 years?
People are getting a bit carried away
It's called looking at the positives
As cliche as it may sounds, I can't buyout United today, infact I can do shits regarding Glazer, other than trying to look at it in the positive way, and it is positive so far.
The only thing that's bad is that a bald yank make a money out of us. Would you care so much if it's bought by a British Gentleman?
And it has been the pre-Glazer expensive signings that have been key to our recent successes
The only impressive deals that the Glazer's have struck are DHL and Chevvy. The rest are very standard for a top club and inline with what our peers are achieving. We're actually some way off Bayern, Real etc on commercial revenues though.
Glazer's are sound businessmen but they are not doing anything extraordinary. The club would have continued to grow similarly regardless of their involvement.
Glazer's are sound businessmen but they are not doing anything extraordinary. The club would have continued to grow similarly regardless of their involvement.
Standard Gill-ism. Has he mentioned "warchest" yet.
I do like the term warchest though. And it winds up some of the posters here as well, so it's a double like.
Well all shares sold, 230mln worths of them. Mission completed. Lets hope they put all the money back in the club...
Not this crap again...
That's purely because the rights to the club's retail and merchandising business were sold to Nike by the PLC back in 2000.
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=Man Utd.N
Mmm...the lowest form of wit...good one.
Actually the last I looked football was a sport, not a business. As it happens a business structure exists inside the framework of the sport. The most important business is the game itself, without that there is nothing. Sorry am I being overly pedantic?
To set the record straight I've been fully awake the whole time...and I sure don't like what I see.
broke below the 14 handle after-hours
Worth less than Arsenal then?
its impossible to tell what the actual value of United is from the value of these shares.
Whatever the market value of these ridiculous second-class shares is, you can add a hell of a lot more on it to get the price it would take to gain control of the club.
no. the shares would have to fall to around 9 dollars i believe if we are to be worth less than your lot judging by your current market cap
though it isn't apples to apples as these shares are not reflective of the full worth of the club
People posting Gill quotes about transfers.
Do you ever learn?
Do you ever learn?
Well the four leagues and the CL United have won since the Glazers took over where in a big part down to the fact that Fergie had spend big before they came in. The likes of Rio,Rooney,Ronaldo where all bought in before they arrived. Tevez was bought in on loan because they Glazers never wanted to pay up for him-lucky in the end to be fair.
Also United havent spend more than they have received in transfers fees since 2009.
Also Fergie isnt going to be here for ever and doing such an amazing job. When he goes I just can see us competing without a big transfer fund.
Anyway with all the 16.6mil shares sold is their a chance the Glazers will issue more?
Down in after hours trading. On the first day as well.
From which the club receives half of all profits over the annual licensing fee paid by Nike. I'm sure Barcelona and Juventus have similar agreements, its not exactly a bad deal for both parties.
Quite a generalisation from yourself really.
Cheeky reporter trying to get some Van Persie info at the end there
Don't the yanks refer to after hours as amateur hour? Basically it's generally recognised as when smaller time trading takes place.
Says a lot really. So much for valuing the club at over £2billion....fecking ridiculous.
I may have missed some of this, and I'm not fully up on the stock market. These '16.6 million' shares issued, is that an arbitrarily set figure set by the Glazers, whereby they can say that 16.6 million equates to x% of Manchester United? And what was/is the price of each share?
Manchester United plc (Cayman) - the company that was floated - has 124,000,000 B shares (all owned by the Glazers) and 39,685,700 A shares. The A and B shares have equal claims on the assets of the corporation but different voting rights. !6,666,667 of the A shares were sold in the public offering. So the shares in public hands represent approximately 10% of the total share capital (16.7m / 164m). The 16.7m shares were sold at $14.
Oh whoopie doo! Half of all profits over the annual licensing fee paid by Nike (that was less than £5m in the last financial year)! Imagine the revenue we'd be generating if we brought the retail and merchandising business in house and just sold the rights to make our kit to Nike or a different kit manufacturer. Barcelona don't have a similar agreement by the way.
Do you realise that Liverpool for example are receiving £25m from Warrior Sports just for making their kit? They have complete control over their merchandising rights which is reported to generate something like an additional £40m-£50m in revenue.
Clearly the agreement we have with Nike severely impacts on the headline commercial revenue that the club is able to report compared to other clubs who retain complete control over their merchandising rights.
We'll have the highest commercial revenue of any sports club in the world by 2015/16, the first year after the fecking stupidly long PLC agreed Nike deal ends. You can quote me on that.
I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I just thought I say that I find it quite strange that the Glazers somehow managed to convince the previous board that a leveraged buyout was a healthy purchase structure for a football club, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Also, buying shares into United on the current terms is pretty much an idiots game: you're not getting any returns because of the ridiculous debt placed on the club by the buyout; you don't get voting rights or anything else.
It's all quite worrying from the point of view of a fan really.
It's all quite worrying from the point of view of a fan really.
- Status