ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
This could sound completely ridiculous but if they sold them for an initial $14 a share and they plummeted to say $10 a share. Could they not just buy them back at that rate, have raised some money and kept full control of the club?

Is there things in place to stop this happening or would it just damage their reputation as businessmen and devalue their other businesses?
 
arjwiz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Their methodoloy and calculations are acceptable, but their choice of comps (companies for comparison) is massively flawed and therefore the conclusion is also flawed.

Although $14 is on the high side, even the likes of andersred and MUST would put a far higher value than $5/share on the club.

Pexbo said:
This could sound completely ridiculous but if they sold them for an initial $14 a share and they plummeted to say $10 a share. Could they not just buy them back at that rate, have raised some money and kept full control of the club?

Is there things in place to stop this happening or would it just damage their reputation as businessmen and devalue their other businesses?
Click to expand...

There is nothing to stop it and neither would it damage it their rep if they did that, in fact quite the opposite.
It is quite normal business practice for company management and owners to buy shares when the price is falling.
 
Rood said:
Their methodoloy and calculations are acceptable, but their choice of comps (companies for comparison) is massively flawed and therefore the conclusion is also flawed.

Although $14 is on the high side, even the likes of andersred and MUST would put a far higher value than $5/share on the club.



There is nothing to stop it and neither would it damage it their rep if they did that, in fact quite the opposite.
It is quite normal business practice for company management and owners to buy shares when the price is falling.
Click to expand...

Exactly like I thought. The only club you could possibly compare on that list is Dortmund, and even they don't have the commercial reach like United has nor the revenue streams.
 
Pexbo said:
This could sound completely ridiculous but if they sold them for an initial $14 a share and they plummeted to say $10 a share. Could they not just buy them back at that rate, have raised some money and kept full control of the club?

Is there things in place to stop this happening or would it just damage their reputation as businessmen and devalue their other businesses?
Click to expand...

Yep, this happens all the time!
 
Sultan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Only if you're on the other side of the argument. What the anti-Glazer faction say on here is mostly ignorant, prejudiced nonsense.

GCHQ certainly pushes the envelope in the other direction, but most of what he says is knowledgeable, rational and defensible.

He does love the Glazers though. :)
 
UnofficialDevil said:
CNN keeps on quoting 231m raised from 10% of our shares which would mean the clubs value is now 2.3 billion doesnt it?

Unless CNN is talking bollocks
Click to expand...

If you wish to calculate the club's inherent value i.e. it's value debt-free, you must add the clubs remaining debt - after the IPO - to that figure.

In other words, investors are paying $231M for 10% of a business which, after the IPO has gone through, will still have £350M debt on it's books. So the club's true value is 10 x $231M + £350M/.63 = $2310M + $555M = $2865M = 2865 x .63 = £1.8B.

.63 is the dollar exchange rate.
 
VoetbalWizard said:
2.3 us
Click to expand...

Will Absolute said:
If you wish to calculate the club's inherent value i.e. it's value debt-free, you must add the clubs remaining debt - after the IPO - to that figure.

In other words, investors are paying $231M for 10% of a business which, after the IPO has gone through, will still have £350M debt on it's books. So the club's true value is 10 x $231M + £350M/.63 = $2310M + $555M = $2865M = 2865 x .63 = £1.8B.

.63 is the dollar exchange rate.
Click to expand...

Dollars.. my bad, ta for that.
 
UnofficialDevil said:
CNN keeps on quoting 231m raised from 10% of our shares which would mean the clubs value is now 2.3 billion doesnt it?

Unless CNN is talking bollocks
Click to expand...

I think it's 230m $ because I read the other day it's around 190m € which is like 150m GBP.

Considering they wanted to raise something around 300 GBP it didn't go all that well.

Not to mention that there is no chance they can put future shares out on anywhere near the level they did with those 10%.

Price will probably fall under the 10 $ mark which means if they wanted to raise money in the future lower the debt they would have to put out much more shares then before to get on a good level.

So raising the money needed to pay of the debt will probably cost the a good portion of the club.

If that is a good thing to happen to the club or not remains to be seen.
 
Didn't we sell all the stock so these prices are just people trading them now.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
What are the markets doing in general? Been a lot of bad news this last week. Maybe there's been some good news today which is lifting share prices across the board?
Click to expand...

Down in general at the moment.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
What are the markets doing in general? Been a lot of bad news this last week. Maybe there's been some good news today which is lifting share prices across the board?
Click to expand...

The Dow is down 0.5%.

Christ, I hate this share price malarkey. It's like the state of the club is no longer captured by the league table, but a stock ticker.
 
What the feck is happening?
Nearly one dollar increase in one hour.
 
charleysurf said:
The Dow is down 0.5%.

Christ, I hate this share price malarkey. It's like the state of the club is no longer captured by the league table, but a stock ticker.
Click to expand...

It's all completely irrelevant. I don't know why people are concerned with this stuff. Particularly when most of them don't have a clue what it means. :)
 
Will Absolute said:
It's all completely irrelevant. I don't know why people are concerned with this stuff. Particularly when most of them don't have a clue what it means. :)
Click to expand...

Like I've said before, when the share prices goes up it will be irelevant. When it goes down it will be trumpeted by Andersred and his acolytes as being the "endgame" for the club and the Glazers.
 
Pexbo said:
This could sound completely ridiculous but if they sold them for an initial $14 a share and they plummeted to say $10 a share. Could they not just buy them back at that rate, have raised some money and kept full control of the club?

Is there things in place to stop this happening or would it just damage their reputation as businessmen and devalue their other businesses?
Click to expand...

I know it's legal and normal and business is business and all that, but it seems wrong. You're hoping your company fails to a point where you can buy shares back cheaply to make a quick buck. Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
 
Liam147 said:
I know it's legal and normal and business is business and all that, but it seems wrong. You're hoping your company fails to a point where you can buy shares back cheaply to make a quick buck. Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
Click to expand...

Well it does mean that you have the confidence in the company that it's shares are worth more than the market is valuing them at.
 
Liam147 said:
I know it's legal and normal and business is business and all that, but it seems wrong. You're hoping your company fails to a point where you can buy shares back cheaply to make a quick buck. Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
Click to expand...

Aye, thats the reason I thought there would be something up with it.

Say Zuckerburg with Facebook before he floated it.

Sells 20% (no voting rights) of Facebook shares for £500m at £20 a share.

A couple months down the line, he decides that he wont advertise with a selection of huge corporations. Facebook shares drop to £10 a share and he scoops them all back up profiting £250m at the same time.


Then a month or two down the line he decides to advertise those corporations again....


Surely there must be some way to prevent something like this?
 
Pexbo said:
Aye, thats the reason I thought there would be something up with it.

Say Zuckerburg with Facebook before he floated it.

Sells 20% (no voting rights) of Facebook shares for £500m at £20 a share.

A couple months down the line, he decides that he wont advertise with a selection of huge corporations. Facebook shares drop to £10 a share and he scoops them all back up profiting £250m at the same time.


Then a month or two down the line he decides to advertise those corporations again....


Surely there must be some way to prevent something like this?
Click to expand...

It's basically incumbent upon the board of directors of a publicly traded entity to prevent that sort of thing. Presumably they'll represent enough shareholder value that they won't want to see their holdings mucked about with like that.

On a side note, the stock today has done exactly what I expected it to do Friday.
 
I know everyone is excited because we are now publicly listed but there is really no need for the daily share price watching, it will take a few weeks for the price to settle and then it is long term trends that are important not short term fluctuations.
 
Pexbo said:
Aye, thats the reason I thought there would be something up with it.

Say Zuckerburg with Facebook before he floated it.

Sells 20% (no voting rights) of Facebook shares for £500m at £20 a share.

A couple months down the line, he decides that he wont advertise with a selection of huge corporations. Facebook shares drop to £10 a share and he scoops them all back up profiting £250m at the same time.


Then a month or two down the line he decides to advertise those corporations again....


Surely there must be some way to prevent something like this?
Click to expand...

It's called fraud - depends how badly you want to stay out of jail.
 
Excal said:
It's basically incumbent upon the board of directors of a publicly traded entity to prevent that sort of thing. Presumably they'll represent enough shareholder value that they won't want to see their holdings mucked about with like that.

On a side note, the stock today has done exactly what I expected it to do Friday.
Click to expand...

ravelston said:
It's called fraud - depends how badly you want to stay out of jail.
Click to expand...

It's a grey area over in the US, something the Glazers themselves apparently exploited. They bought a load of shares in Harley Davidson, put rumours about that they were going to launch a takeover but sold the shares on the back of an inflated price.
 
I think its neither here nor there for United as a club. We're not likely to issue any more shares in the medium term.

The Glazers though would prefer it to stay reasonably high. Once the lock-in period is done, they're probably hoping to slowly divest some more shares. They'll hardly lose any control since the shares instantly lose 90% fo their voting rights once they're sold outside the family.

Maybe it is better then for the shares to hold their value. Hopefully when they need cash, they'll get it that way rather than look for dividends etc. from United.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.