ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
thegregster said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not the Glazers fault that a number of Fergie's most expensive signings during their ownership, Berbatov (£30m, Anderson (£20m), Hargreaves (£20m) for example, have represented dreadful value for money and have barely contributed to the success of the team.

But yeah Fergie always does an amazing job and the money wasted on Anderson and Hargreaves couldn't possibly be a rather significant reason for the current state of the club's options in the centre of midfield. He's spent over £40m gross on players on average every year since the Glazers bought the club and the club's wage bill has increased by more than any other club with the exception of City over the last seven years.

Clearly sufficient resources have been made available to him and that's been reflected in the success of the team.
 
Andrew~ said:
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.
Click to expand...

You'll get a more than decent medium term return once the share price rises on the back of improved profitability.

The only really unanswered question is what's going to happen to the free cashflow that will become available with EBITDA increasing and interest payments falling.
 
GCHQ said:
You'll get a more than decent medium term return once the share price rises on the back of improved profitability.

The only really unanswered question is what's going to happen to the free cashflow that will become available with EBITDA increasing and interest payments falling.
Click to expand...

I'd actually say the anticipation of future earnings is what justifies the stock at the price it's currently at. In any case, I'm not getting near buying the stock, because the big risk factor for me is what happens to the club post-Fergie.
 
GCHQ said:
It's not the Glazers fault that a number of Fergie's most expensive signings during their ownership, Berbatov (£30m, Anderson (£20m), Hargreaves (£20m) for example, have represented dreadful value for money and have barely contributed to the success of the team.

But yeah Fergie always does an amazing job and the money wasted on Anderson and Hargreaves couldn't possibly be a rather significant reason for the current state of the club's options in the centre of midfield. He's spent over £40m gross on players on average every year since the Glazers bought the club and the club's wage bill has increased by more than any other club with the exception of City over the last seven years.

Clearly sufficient resources have been made available to him and that's been reflected in the success of the team.
Click to expand...

I know, he's clueless hey Malky? He'll never achieve anything in the game. Get rid.
 
GCHQ said:
It's not the Glazers fault that a number of Fergie's most expensive signings during their ownership, Berbatov (£30m, Anderson (£20m), Hargreaves (£20m) for example, have represented dreadful value for money and have barely contributed to the success of the team.

But yeah Fergie always does an amazing job and the money wasted on Anderson and Hargreaves couldn't possibly be a rather significant reason for the current state of the club's options in the centre of midfield. He's spent over £40m gross on players on average every year since the Glazers bought the club and the club's wage bill has increased by more than any other club with the exception of City over the last seven years.

Clearly sufficient resources have been made available to him and that's been reflected in the success of the team.
Click to expand...

Munchkin > Fergie. And I love the way you've added a few million on to those purchases.
 
GCHQ said:
It's not the Glazers fault that a number of Fergie's most expensive signings during their ownership, Berbatov (£30m, Anderson (£20m), Hargreaves (£20m) for example, have represented dreadful value for money and have barely contributed to the success of the team.

But yeah Fergie always does an amazing job and the money wasted on Anderson and Hargreaves couldn't possibly be a rather significant reason for the current state of the club's options in the centre of midfield. He's spent over £40m gross on players on average every year since the Glazers bought the club and the club's wage bill has increased by more than any other club with the exception of City over the last seven years.

Clearly sufficient resources have been made available to him and that's been reflected in the success of the team.
Click to expand...



You can spin whatever why you want but its clear to see that net transfer spend since they became owners is around 10mil a season.

Do you think posters on here are too stupid to check these things? Seriously?

The glazers have taken around 500million out of the club in interest payments. Its not only about transfers. Even if United got 250mil out of that they could use it develop the academy,hire more youth coaches,build more facilities at carrington etc.
 
thegregster said:
You can spin whatever why you want but its clear to see that net transfer spend since they became owners is around 10mil a season.

Do you think posters on here are too stupid to check these things? Seriously?

The glazers have taken around 500million out of the club in interest payments. Its not only about transfers. Even if United got 250mil out of that they could use it develop the academy,hire more youth coaches,build more facilities at carrington etc.
Click to expand...

The net spend figure is heavily impacted by the sale of Ronaldo though. If you excluded the money we received for him it'd be over £20m a year probably, and we didn't exactly go on a spending spree after his departure - if anything we spent the most prior to it back in 2007.
 
thegregster said:
You can spin whatever why you want but its clear to see that net transfer spend since they became owners is around 10mil a season.

Do you think posters on here are too stupid to check these things? Seriously?

The glazers have taken around 500million out of the club in interest payments. Its not only about transfers. Even if United got 250mil out of that they could use it develop the academy,hire more youth coaches,build more facilities at carrington etc.
Click to expand...

250 towards the academy would be amazing. you could develop a fecking university of football, have dormitories housing 400-500 of the best lads sourced from all over the planet, giving them a footballing and classroom education and developing absolutely world class talent.
 
senorgregster said:
Sorry if addressed already. Does anyone know the laws on releasing information (e.g. Transfer fees, key personnel wages) for partially publicly-traded companies?
Click to expand...

Someone I'm sure will know better than I, but registering the company in the Caymans avoids a few things, like having to hold an Annual General Meeting, and I believe the club qualifies for a piece of newly passed US legislation which also impacts on such requirements.

Basically I wouldn't expect significantly more communication from the owners on what they are doing.
 
Can we make sure we really dumb down our posts on trading for those of us who (unfortunately) know nothing about it please..
 
NoLogo said:
Well that was a massive fail all around.

What happened?

I thought the Glazers were such amazing business gods that could turn shit into gold and without them we would be nowhere.
Click to expand...

:lol:

There have been worse IPO's. Considering that this was subscribed already it's hardly a failure.
 
GCHQ said:
It's not the Glazers fault that a number of Fergie's most expensive signings during their ownership, Berbatov (£30m, Anderson (£20m), Hargreaves (£20m) for example, have represented dreadful value for money and have barely contributed to the success of the team.

But yeah Fergie always does an amazing job and the money wasted on Anderson and Hargreaves couldn't possibly be a rather significant reason for the current state of the club's options in the centre of midfield. He's spent over £40m gross on players on average every year since the Glazers bought the club and the club's wage bill has increased by more than any other club with the exception of City over the last seven years.

Clearly sufficient resources have been made available to him and that's been reflected in the success of the team.
Click to expand...

A fair question would be why can the club sign massive sponsorship deals but are so rubbish at negoiating transfers. Ferguson has clearly stated over the last couple of years a number of players he wanted to sign and we have failed on every one that has required us to go the extra mile. IF the Glazers are so great at business you would imagine they'd be able to secure (ie release the funds) the players Ferguson wants. Instead they take the money out.
 
NoLogo said:
Well I don't know but getting only half of what you estimated first pretty much sounds like a failure but hey you will probably find a spin on how it's not so bad.
Click to expand...

I think it's successful from the point that it was subscribed, and we are the most valuable sports brand in the world. It's not a good time to launch an IPO, but considering the mass-bullshit from MUST and predicted failure. This was a reasonable launch.

So please contain your exuberance, because there is absolutely nothing to be gloating about Glazer Fan or Glazer hater.
 
GCHQ said:
It's not the Glazers fault that a number of Fergie's most expensive signings during their ownership, Berbatov (£30m, Anderson (£20m), Hargreaves (£20m) for example, have represented dreadful value for money and have barely contributed to the success of the team.

But yeah Fergie always does an amazing job and the money wasted on Anderson and Hargreaves couldn't possibly be a rather significant reason for the current state of the club's options in the centre of midfield. He's spent over £40m gross on players on average every year since the Glazers bought the club and the club's wage bill has increased by more than any other club with the exception of City over the last seven years.

Clearly sufficient resources have been made available to him and that's been reflected in the success of the team.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for Sir Alex your bosses would have been history. He has practically made the club what it is today. It was on it's knees financially when he took over.
 
Sultan said:
If it wasn't for Sir Alex your bosses would have been history. He has practically made the club what it is today. It was on it's knees financially when he took over.
Click to expand...

Do you or anyone else have any proof of that Sultan? I know that people accuse GCHQ of showing things in a light to suit his so called agenda but there are people who have a much more obvious agenda and they've been welcome on this place. GCHQ's posts are usually based on fact, if you don't agree with his interpretations of a few things then, fine but there have been many others with overt agendas on this place and having someone to argue the otherside is always healthy.

When the club had an opportunity to raise money through this IPO to pay down some debt, some people went out of their way to sabotage it, harming the club, so it suited their agenda.
 
CantonaVeron said:
A fair question would be why can the club sign massive sponsorship deals but are so rubbish at negoiating transfers. Ferguson has clearly stated over the last couple of years a number of players he wanted to sign and we have failed on every one that has required us to go the extra mile. IF the Glazers are so great at business you would imagine they'd be able to secure (ie release the funds) the players Ferguson wants. Instead they take the money out.
Click to expand...
That isn't fair. We've lost out to Real/Barca.. and you have to say they have bigger pull that us. Them and those oil rich clubs. You really have to draw a line somewhere, and for me I think what they did is fair. Just because we have a lot of money, doesn't mean we can spend it all.
 
Devil_forever said:
Do you or anyone else have any proof of that Sultan?
Click to expand...

Prior to Sir Alex coming to United they were very much in financial turmoil. It's a well documented fact. I guess you'd be too young to remember Michael Knighton who was offered United for 20 Million by Edwards in 1989, but even at that price the banks declined to back him. Since that time Sir Alex has practically elevated the club to it's present valuation due mostly to on-field success.
 
Devil_forever said:
I know that people accuse GCHQ of showing things in a light to suit his so called agenda but there are people who have a much more obvious agenda and they've been welcome on this place.
Click to expand...

What agenda would any poster have on here besides wanting United to succeed on the pitch? The only person interested in financials above on pitch success on this forum is GCHQ, and he gets paid for his trolling on here.
 
Sultan said:
What agenda would any poster have on here besides wanting United to succeed on the pitch? The only person interested in financials above on pitch success on this forum is GCHQ, and he gets paid for his trolling on here.
Click to expand...

By whom if I may ask?
I think he is just a city or Liverpool fan.
 
thegregster said:
By whom if I may ask?
I think he is just a city or Liverpool fan.
Click to expand...

He's an accountant.

Let's just say he is agenda driven, which is not a problem in itself. His constant trolling and WUM's are an issue and annoying.
 
thegregster said:
True. But if they want to sell another 10% to raise more money?
Click to expand...

senorgregster said:
good point.

so has anyone bought a share?
Click to expand...

My dad asked me if I wanted to drop 500 bucks on shares. I'm torn because I don't want to fund the glazers anymore than necessary but to take a percent of the club away from them is tempting....

And you two , please separate your posts from each other as it confusing who's speaking to who!
 
Comsmit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes you are....the game is a sport but when it's at the level of MUFC it is quite clearly a business and whileyoumightnot like that fact its something we have to accept.

The Glazers want to make money out of it and if done correctly that will benefit you as a fan too....who do you think is paying for the Wayne Roooneys and the next MU superstars?

IVe watched football for over 45 years and its not the same game but to pretend clubs can be run and even owned by fans like some clowns do is fantasy.....it's a business!
 
Manchester United shares are worth less than a quarter of the amount the Glazers had hoped to raise, according a leading business company.

PrivCo, an independent financial analyst, said that United's stock price could plummet further - and gave shares a value that would mean the club is worth less now than when the Glazers bought it in 2005.

They floated 10% of shares in the club on the New York Stock Exchange on Friday, looking for a maximum price of $20 a share.

The club's current share price is $14 but millions of shares have been bought by the seven banks underwriting the IPO, and PrivCo calculated their true value is just $4.97 each - giving United a value of around $800 million, rather than the $3.3 billion that they wanted.

The Glazers paid just under £800 million to complete their takeover in 2005.

"Manchester United's valuation using several accurate valuation methodologies is a mere $4.97/share, only about one third of its $14/share offering price (which is also the price at which it closed its first trading day, but only because IPO underwriters placed large open-market bids at $14/share to prevent the stock from closing below the IPO price)," PrivCo said.

The company compared United with other publicly-listed football clubs, including Juventus, Roma and Borussia Dortmund, and recent takeovers of other sports clubs or franchises, including Liverpool, LA Dodgers and Boston Celtics, before predicting United will emulate Facebook, whose share price also plunged quickly.

"The objective, independent valuation indicates that Man Utd stock could plunge by nearly two-thirds of its IPO price before it reaches fair value," the company explained. "Furthermore, PrivCo data shows the implications of other recent IPOs where IPO underwriters were forced to make 'stabilising bids' on the first day's trading correlated with rapid plunge in stock prices as soon as the ephemeral artificial floor propping up price in initial days is removed, and how this augurs poorly for Manchester United's public shareholders."
 
They have explained their methodology here
http://www.privco.com/manchester-un...ithin-a-year-to-hit-reach-financial-valuation

Seems a fair calculation to me.
 
I'm no financial analyst but I don't think there calculation will hold. Assuming Man United is on the same level in terms of generating income to the other companies listed is not accurate to say the least. The closest competitor in their list is Dortmund and they show how Dortmund outperforms the Dow by 7%. I suspect United will do better than Dortmund. None of the teams listed have the commercial reach United has and that has to count for something. The valuation will drop no doubt but not to the levels they're predicting. Or maybe I'm just talking shite since I'm no finance boffin.
 
Marching said:
Good luck making that happen at OT and the Emirates.
Click to expand...

that is a reflection more of the shit state and culture of anglo finance/english football/ownership culture than it is a black mark on german and socio owned barca and madrid.

I never understood how people are so against supporter ownership/control.

Football clubs are not businesses, they are cultural institutions like universities or institutions like government. Your identity is as much a utd (or another club supporter) as it is your citizenship.

The same people against supporter owned clubs should move to dictatorships or china as they obviously do not like representative government.
 
if you analyse the trade flow, it is underwriter vs hft bots. With extremely tight trading range and so much liquidity in that particular market, the hft lads and firms were/can pick up pennies on the trade and then dump with the protection that underwriters will buy to hold the 14 support.

If you wanted to short on friday, you needed to source a massive block of shares, but I will be interested to see what the long/short ratio of the shares will be this week and moving forward the next month or so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.