ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
gooDevil said:
So how many of the shares have we gotten rid of so far?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure all the shares that were going to be sold (10% of the club in terms of equity) were sold to the underwriters when the IPO began; we've got all the money as soon as we started trading. At the moment, it doesn't matter to us even if the shares started going down a few $USD because we've already gotten the money; the underwriters are the one's who'd take the hit.

Of course, if the IPO does well, I think Jeffries have an option to buy another couple million of shares (2.5 million?), probably at a fixed-ish price, and that could see us (Or the Glazers? I don't know) pocket another 30-40 million quid.

Either way, Man Utd.'s got it's share, and it's probably already been used to pay off 70¬ million quid worth of debt.
 
Can you give me an ETA on the tide going out, as well? Narrow it down to a 12 hour window, if you could.
2ai9f.jpg
 
So is this still being propped up by underwriters? Or do people think that th eIPO might have been priced right?
 
I wonder how much the RVP deal had to do with the IPO. It'll be interesting to see if this affects the share price.
 
arjwiz said:
I wonder how much the RVP deal had to do with the IPO. It'll be interesting to see if this affects the share price.
Click to expand...

Financially it may be seen as a negative, not a positive.
 
charleysurf said:
Financially it may be seen as a negative, not a positive.
Click to expand...

Why would it be a negative? It shows potential improved performances, both commercially (merchandise sales) and on field, all leading to an increased amount of goodwill.
 
arjwiz said:
Why would it be a negative? It shows potential improved performances, both commercially (merchandise sales) and on field, all leading to an increased amount of goodwill.
Click to expand...

You're spending big money on something that may or may not work out. Stock price seems to have gone down since the announcement?
 
charleysurf said:
You're spending big money on something that may or may not work out. Stock price seems to have gone down since the announcement?
Click to expand...

Interesting. There is usually a drop after a company makes a major announcements of a new project, followed by a quick recovery and subsequent increase.
 
Chunk of money gone along with a 200k week contract for someone who is a risk when it comes to injury (I'm looking at it from an investor's point of view). Just serves as further proof that the Glazers let Fergie do whatever he wants, as he's said numerous times
 
To be honest, I doubt you can deduct anything from the changes in the Man Utd share price. The price was expected to drop no later than a week after the launch anyway, and this is just what we're seeing - it has nothing to do with investors losing faith in the club as far as I'm concerned (doubt many proper investors went for it in the first place anyway). The only thing the negative change shows is that the underwriters are loosening the grip of the share, so it'll probably keep dropping now.
 
A record low. Wow!

Let's see. It was launched at $14, and it's dropped to $13.65 - that's - wait for it - a whole .35/14 = 2.5% drop!!!!

Privco must have some really clever people on the payroll. 6 years ago the Glazers bought the club for almost £800m. Since then, revenues have more than doubled, and profits have almost trebled, yet, according to the brain trusters at PrivCo, the company is now worth £504m - £300m less than they paid for it. :lol::lol: I wonder if I could get a job as a financial analyst for PrivCo - the competition wouldn't be severe.

The big question is: why on earth does the Telegraph quote such obvious nonsense.

ps I understand that the PrivCo valuation is probably inclusive of debt, but it's still absurd.
 
Will Absolute said:
A record low. Wow!

Let's see. It was launched at $14, and it's dropped to $13.65 - that's - wait for it - a whole .35/14 = 2.5% drop!!!!

Privco must have some really clever people on the payroll. 6 years ago the Glazers bought the club for almost £800m. Since then, revenues have more than doubled, and profits have almost trebled, yet, according to the brain trusters at PrivCo, the company is now worth £504m - £300m less than they paid for it. :lol::lol: I wonder if I could get a job as a financial analyst for PrivCo - the competition wouldn't be severe.

The big question is: why on earth does the Telegraph quote such obvious nonsense.

ps I understand that the PrivCo valuation is probably inclusive of debt, but it's still absurd.
Click to expand...

PrivCo are in the business of selling newsletters. Sam Hamadeh (the CEO) has a history of making outrageous statements to get the product noticed (and increase sales). Their results on United are entirely driven by the comparables they chose - the appropriate ones gave a $2.3 billion valuation, but there's no news in that so they redid the analysis using the biggest dogs they could find.
 
Stretch said:
What a sensationalist headline that is.
Click to expand...

Lazy journalism not converting the dollar values into sterling either- I would expect even one my juniors to get that right.

Anyhoo, this is a note from Hargreaves Lansdown- not exactly bullish, but nothing new as such.

Investment update on Manchester United and Facebook shares
By Richard Hunter | Fri 17 August 2012

Manchester United's decision to float in the US last week came with much fanfare but rather less investor appetite.

Manchester United - view available information

10% of the company was floated, raising around £150 million, making it the most valuable football club in the world (£1.5 billion).

A fair proportion of the amount raised will be used to pay down some of Manchester United's debt (currently estimated to be around £420 million) following the 2005 acquisition of the club by the Glazer family for £800 million - much of that deal itself being debt financed. Some concerns have already been voiced, particularly from supporters, that not enough of the £150 million raised is being used to reduce the club's debt pile.

The lowering of the flotation price from a previous estimate of $16-$20 was disappointing but not unexpected. On the first day of trading the new figure was priced to perfection, with the shares trading at $14.02-$14.03 (float price $14).

However, as was the case when the Manchester United shares were previously listed on the London Stock Exchange, and as is arguably the case for all sports franchises, football clubs are notoriously difficult investments, whereby the shares are ultimately tied to the fortunes of the club on the pitch. In addition, some investors were unhappy with the dual voting structure ensconced within the float with the Glazers retaining tight control whilst, for the foreseeable future, there seems to be little or no prospect of a dividend.

Manchester United - view available information

Manchester United will point to the fact that it has three major sources of income - TV income (from Sky and now BT), merchandising income (capitalising on an estimated 700 million fans globally) and match day income, in the form of ticket sales, programmes and so on.

In addition, interest in the sport is taking off in the US and the Olympics victory for the American women is likely to fuel interest further. Competing with the national sporting interests of American football, basketball and baseball will take some time but Manchester United's owners are clearly hoping to cash in on the growing popularity of 'soccer' in the US.

For investors, there is a cautionary note. Whilst the shares are currently holding around the float price, there is the possibility of 'stabilisation', whereby lead brokers prop up the price in the immediate aftermarket. Therefore, there could be some downward pressure to the price when this is removed. One analyst in the US has already dubbed the Manchester United float the 'son of Facebook' and investors should tread very carefully if thinking of investing.
 
So has Soros bought 8% in total- ie nearly all of the 10% free float or just 8% of that- ie a tiny stake?
 
I don't understand why anyone would invest in the Class A shares.
 
That's probably why he's a billionaire and the rest of us aren't ;)

So do we believe MUST who said it was a crap idea to buy shares in MU or Soros who suggests it is?
 
Marching said:
That's probably why he's a billionaire and the rest of us aren't ;)

So do we believe MUST who said it was a crap idea to buy shares in MU or Soros who suggests it is?
Click to expand...

Andersed implies its just because he is shorting the stock.
 
Raoul said:
Met Uncle George just last month. Great guy. Hope he buys us outright, as he's got far more money with the Glazers and is prepared to spend it.
Click to expand...

Do you think he's going long on the stock or that he's going to short it? No chance of him buying, of course, the initial investment is too small but his actions may encourage others. I'm sure a lot of people are watching now to see if Soros will hold onto "Man Utd" or not.

Soros wasn't the biggest Man Utd buyer
 
Would it hurt to have someone who looks more like Nick Powell/Kagawa rather than someone who makes Rooney look like a stud, investing heavily in us?


Heck, I'll easily settle for someone who looks like Abramovich.
Our owners always look like bellends!

But, if he (Soros) wipes our debt and allows our club to reinvest ALL profits, with perhaps a small cash injection, I won't begrudge him his legion of 20 year old models.
 
Vibhas said:
But, if he (Soros) wipes our debt and allows our club to reinvest ALL profits, with perhaps a small cash injection, I won't begrudge him his legion of 20 year old models.
Click to expand...

Not a hope in hell. He'd take just as much if not more out of the club to line his own pockets.
 
Vibhas said:
Would it hurt to have someone who looks more like Nick Powell/Kagawa rather than someone who makes Rooney look like a stud, investing heavily in us?


Heck, I'll easily settle for someone who looks like Abramovich.
Our owners always look like bellends!

But, if he (Soros) wipes our debt and allows our club to reinvest ALL profits, with perhaps a small cash injection, I won't begrudge him his legion of 20 year old models.
Click to expand...

I thought he was the wheeler dealer speculator type - not the kind of man who'd buy a business to grow it.
 
Will Absolute said:
I thought he was the wheeler dealer speculator type - not the kind of man who'd buy a business to grow it.
Click to expand...

To be honest, he stepped back from fund management a few months back so maybe he wants a new hobby.
 
Marching said:
That's probably why he's a billionaire and the rest of us aren't ;)

So do we believe MUST who said it was a crap idea to buy shares in MU or Soros who suggests it is?
Click to expand...

Wasn't really just MUST saying that. A lot of investors/market analysts/whatnot (who have no feelings at all for United) said that it was a terrible investment. It's still early days, but it's already dropped almost 6% from the initial price.
 
Wowi said:
Wasn't really just MUST saying that. A lot of investors/market analysts/whatnot (who have no feelings at all for United) said that it was a terrible investment. It's still early days, but it's already dropped almost 6% from the initial price.
Click to expand...

Yet the shares were snapped up and investors keep piling into the MU brand.

The fact is the Glazers are hated by an insignificant minority of people come what may...I'm sure they'll be able to live with it and the club will go from strength to strength.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.