ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

tbf, a lot of the criticism was by people who could not get their heads around the idea of a sports club, an English sports club (you know, from Europe, which many Americans think is screwed), being listed on the US stock market.

Really though, it should be the finances that matter. If United can sign big deals with the likes of Chevrolet then maybe investors can see a business with a future.
 
Marching said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, let's see where the price is in a few weeks before drawing any conclusions. :)

There's no doubt that the fact that Glazer is hated by many United fans changes very little, but that was never the main theme. I don't think it's completely insignificant though, as many investors will look at the club and it's surroundings - is it a good sign that Glazer is hated by many dedicated United fans? Hardly. Having said that; there'll be plenty of buyers for the share if the price is right, but many investors think it was heavily overpriced initially (share price compared to EBITDA and those other key figures).
 
Wowi said:
Well, let's see where the price is in a few weeks before drawing any conclusions. :)

There's no doubt that the fact that Glazer is hated by many United fans changes very little, but that was never the theme. I don't think it's completely insignificant though, as many investors will look at the club and it's surroundings - is it a good sign that Glazer is hated by many dedicated United fans? Hardly. Having said that; there'll be plenty of buyers for the share if the price is right, but many investors think it was heavily overpriced initially (share price compared to EBITDA and those other key figures).
Click to expand...

I guess its all a bit irrelevant anyway as the Glazers have their cash.

Personally I think more & more people have seen through the pointless MUST protests and come to understand the Glazers are not in fact the devils representative on earth and can see they are in fact supporting the team and manager.
 
Marching said:
I guess its all a bit irrelevant anyway as the Glazers have their cash.

Personally I think more & more people have seen through the pointless MUST protests and come to understand the Glazers are not in fact the devils representative on earth and can see they are in fact supporting the team and manager.
Click to expand...

They're obviously happy they got their cash, but potential buyers will still refer to the stock price if the club is ever to be sold. If it's their intention to stay at the club for many years the stock price doesn't matter of course.

I won't really bother discussing the Glazers, as I don't think it's the right thread nor does it seem like we'll agree on it. What I will say though, is that it's worth keeping in mind that all expenses associated with the IPO has been paid using money from the club. The club will obviously save some money on interest, but it won't break even from the IPO before the end of 2014, according to Andersred.
 
Wowi said:
They're obviously happy they got their cash, but potential buyers will still refer to the stock price if the club is ever to be sold. If it's their intention to stay at the club for many years the stock price doesn't matter of course.

I won't really bother discussing the Glazers, as I don't think it's the right thread nor does it seem like we'll agree on it. What I will say though, is that it's worth keeping in mind that all expenses associated with the IPO has been paid using money from the club. The club will obviously save some money on interest, but it won't break even from the IPO before the end of 2014, according to Andersred.
Click to expand...

Andersred certainly has a lot of figures at his fingertips but he knows as much about what the bigger picture is and the details of Glazers financial plans as you and I do....nowt!
 
Wowi said:
They're obviously happy they got their cash, but potential buyers will still refer to the stock price if the club is ever to be sold. If it's their intention to stay at the club for many years the stock price doesn't matter of course.

I won't really bother discussing the Glazers, as I don't think it's the right thread nor does it seem like we'll agree on it. What I will say though, is that it's worth keeping in mind that all expenses associated with the IPO has been paid using money from the club. The club will obviously save some money on interest, but it won't break even from the IPO before the end of 2014, according to Andersred.
Click to expand...
Which is fine. A two year break even plan on an investment of that size is pretty good. The long term view is more interesting. Do they intend a share buy back at some point in the future? If the price drops sufficiently, it wouldn't be out of the question. We've got to accept that the club is a cash cow that they intend to milk as fully as possible.
 
Marching said:
Andersred certainly has a lot of figures at his fingertips but he knows as much about what the bigger picture is and the details of Glazers financial plans as you and I do....nowt!
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is.

UnitedRoadRed said:
Which is fine. A two year break even plan on an investment of that size is pretty good. The long term view is more interesting. Do they intend a share buy back at some point in the future? If the price drops sufficiently, it wouldn't be out of the question. We've got to accept that the club is a cash cow that they intend to milk as fully as possible.
Click to expand...

Of course any debt-reduction is very welcomed, but I think it speaks for itself that Glazers takes half the money raised from the IPO but still uses money from the club to cover the expenses. The last part is sadly very true.
 
Wowi said:
Not sure what your point is.
Click to expand...

Point is the MUST 'experts' constantly talk about what the Glazers financial plans are when, in reality, they know feck all....and I'll leave it there...it's got a bit boring now.
 
Marching said:
Point is the MUST 'experts' constantly talk about what the Glazers financial plans are when, in reality, they know feck all....and I'll leave it there...it's got a bit boring now.
Click to expand...

I still fail to see how that's relevant to what was said above, but well.
 
Wowi said:
I still fail to see how that's relevant to what was said above, but well.
Click to expand...

FFS....you mentioned the alleged expert andersred as though his words proved something....it didn't....I pointed that out. Simples.
 
Marching said:
FFS....you mentioned the alleged expert andersred as though his words proved something....it didn't....I pointed that out. Simples.
Click to expand...

Not really sure where you got the idea that I wanted to prove something by bringing up those figures, so I don't really see why you're going all "FFS" and "simples" when you're pretty much expecting me to read your mind to find out what you're talking about. If you're reading stuff into my posts, it's on you. You were talking about the Glazers being good for the club and "supporting" it and I simply put forward some evidence that they benefited more from the IPO than the club did. If you really do want to talk about proof, those figures does prove that so saying they didn't prove anything isn't true.

I never said anything about financial plans or the bigger picture - you're the one who started throwing those words around for no apparent reason.
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
Which is fine. A two year break even plan on an investment of that size is pretty good. The long term view is more interesting. Do they intend a share buy back at some point in the future? If the price drops sufficiently, it wouldn't be out of the question. We've got to accept that the club is a cash cow that they intend to milk as fully as possible.
Click to expand...

I think most 'experts' seem to think this IPO is just a precursor to a larger share sell off, or even a full sale of the club. This is seen as reducing some debt, but more importantly at setting a valuation of the club.

I believe the reason why they only sold 10% this time, is because they can only buy back a certain amount of the bonds before 2013. They may have hit that limit already. So we'll see what happens next year.
 
Wowi said:
Not really sure where you got the idea that I wanted to prove something by bringing up those figures, so I don't really see why you're going all "FFS" and "simples" when you're pretty much expecting me to read your mind to find out what you're talking about. If you're reading stuff into my posts, it's on you. You were talking about the Glazers being good for the club and "supporting" it and I simply put forward some evidence that they benefited more from the IPO than the club did. If you really do want to talk about proof, those figures does prove that so saying they didn't prove anything isn't true.

I never said anything about financial plans or the bigger picture - you're the one who started throwing those words around for no apparent reason.
Click to expand...


You have to be a WUM :lol: Forgive me for introducing the notion of financial plans to a topic on club finances.

My point of you knowing feck all about the Glazers financial plans for the club is even more evident the more you waffle on so I will leave you to MUST's financial wizard and his blog to glean the next snippet of what's going on. Good luck.
 
Wowi said:
Of course any debt-reduction is very welcomed, but I think it speaks for itself that Glazers takes half the money raised from the IPO but still uses money from the club to cover the expenses. The last part is sadly very true.
Click to expand...

Using the club's money to cover the club's expenses? Absolutely scandalous! :wenger:

They're hardly likely to use their own, given that this share issue was to get them money in. Would you?
 
Marching said:
You have to be a WUM :lol: Forgive me for introducing the notion of financial plans to a topic on club finances.
Click to expand...

You started out by saying
Andersred certainly has a lot of figures at his fingertips but he knows as much about what the bigger picture is and the details of Glazers financial plans as you and I do....nowt!
Click to expand...
That is of course true, and I've never said otherwise. I was simply wondering why you bought it up all of a sudden. If you just wanted me to say "Of course not", then there you go. None of us can do anything but look at the figures that are released, and of course they don't tell you what will happen in the future or what's going behind the scenes right now.

It looked like your argument was that people like Andersred know "nowt" about the future plans and because of that whatever he's saying about the clubs finances now doesn't matter. I didn't understand that argument, but fair enough if that wasn't your point.

I simply didn't get why you started talking about bigger picture all of a sudden, when the discussion wasn't about that. The article I posted from Andersred doesn't require a "bigger picture" to see that Glazers benefited greatly from this IPO and the club less. I certainly don't get why you simply expect me to follow your thoughts without clarifying what your point is when I asked.

UnitedRoadRed said:
Using the club's money to cover the club's expenses? Absolutely scandalous! :wenger:

They're hardly likely to use their own, given that this share issue was to get them money in. Would you?
Click to expand...

Where did I say it was "scandalous"? I just said that it speaks for itself. When they take half the money themselves from the IPO (which, as you might remember, was something the announced they'd do after the initial IPO plans) they could easily have paid at least half themselves to make sure the club would benefit from the IPO sooner. Of course I'm not shocked (or even a tiny bit surprised) that they didn't, but I don't believe they're "supporting the team" as much as Marching seems to do.

Of course I wouldn't use my own money if I was looking to milk the club, but as said that post was in reply to Marching saying they "support" the team and the manager and I simply pointed out (using a recent example) that I don't believe they're doing a lot of good things for the club.
 
rcoobc said:
I don't understand why anyone would invest in the Class A shares.
Click to expand...

The same reason that people buy Google Class A shares (the ones traded in the stock market) - they are hoping for price appreciation and the eventual payment of dividends. The Class A & B structure is very common in U.S. IPOs - I've never before heard anyone suggesting that the lesser voting rights of a Class A share was a problem, and the "no dividends for the foreseeable future" statement is standard boilerplate.
 
Wowi said:
They're obviously happy they got their cash, but potential buyers will still refer to the stock price if the club is ever to be sold. If it's their intention to stay at the club for many years the stock price doesn't matter of course.

I won't really bother discussing the Glazers, as I don't think it's the right thread nor does it seem like we'll agree on it. What I will say though, is that it's worth keeping in mind that all expenses associated with the IPO has been paid using money from the club. The club will obviously save some money on interest, but it won't break even from the IPO before the end of 2014, according to Andersredhttp://andersred.blogspot.dk/2012/08/the-mufc-ipo-why-club-wont-benefit-for.html.
Click to expand...

If you look at the comments on his blog you'll see that he admits that he "forgot" to allow for the tax deductibility of the $12.3m of expenses and the amortisation of the $6.4m of issue discount. Depending on where the losses are established there's a reduction in the effective costs of between $5.3m and $6.5m - it makes quite a big difference to his analysis. (Incidentally, I believe that this blog represents the first time that anders has recognised explicitly that the deductibility of interest payments reduces the effective burden of our interest obligations.)
 
ravelston said:
The same reason that people buy Google Class A shares (the ones traded in the stock market) - they are hoping for price appreciation and the eventual payment of dividends. The Class A & B structure is very common in U.S. IPOs - I've never before heard anyone suggesting that the lesser voting rights of a Class A share was a problem, and the "no dividends for the foreseeable future" statement is standard boilerplate.
Click to expand...

How common is the Class A&B thing in the US? Are we talking 50% of IPOs using it or more or less?

I believe that the two tier share system is a problem and is the major reasons that they didnt hit their price target.

golden_blunder said:
Considering Andersreds very wrong public assumption about Fergie, I wish people would stop using him for their examples
Click to expand...

He did also have to apologise when he got the whole PIK thing completely wrong (which was also around the time he disappeared from here!) - to be fair to him, his analysis is generally not too bad and he does admit when he gets it wrong, but often the damage is already done by then as many people only see the original comments and not the retraction.
 
Hal9000 said:
I think most 'experts' seem to think this IPO is just a precursor to a larger share sell off, or even a full sale of the club. This is seen as reducing some debt, but more importantly at setting a valuation of the club.

I believe the reason why they only sold 10% this time, is because they can only buy back a certain amount of the bonds before 2013. They may have hit that limit already. So we'll see what happens next year.
Click to expand...

Who's going to buy it though? If they've already battered the hell out of the commercial angle, increased ticket prices to breaking point and the TV deal's as good as it's going to get, where will the extra opportunity come from? You're looking at someone investing £2billion in something that would make them, what, £50m a year average?
 
Is it not fair to assume that should they have sold more shares the price would have been even lower?
 
Rood said:
How common is the Class A&B thing in the US? Are we talking 50% of IPOs using it or more or less?

I believe that the two tier share system is a problem and is the major reasons that they didnt hit their price target.



He did also have to apologise when he got the whole PIK thing completely wrong (which was also around the time he disappeared from here!) - to be fair to him, his analysis is generally not too bad and he does admit when he gets it wrong, but often the damage is already done by then as many people only see the original comments and not the retraction.
Click to expand...

The two tier system may have made them less attractive but surely they figured that into the asking price. Had they have been full voting rights shares they probably would have asked for even more from the initial price.

From what I've read, the business is simply not as good investment as other options for the asking price.
 
Rood said:
How common is the Class A&B thing in the US? Are we talking 50% of IPOs using it or more or less?

I believe that the two tier share system is a problem and is the major reasons that they didnt hit their price target.



He did also have to apologise when he got the whole PIK thing completely wrong (which was also around the time he disappeared from here!) - to be fair to him, his analysis is generally not too bad and he does admit when he gets it wrong, but often the damage is already done by then as many people only see the original comments and not the retraction.
Click to expand...

Of the quick sample I looked at when we first published our registration statement it was around 2/3rds. Typically, if you're looking at an "emerging growth" company where the founders still have a large proportional shareholding, you'll see the A & B structure. If the company is stable/mature (and particularly if it has a history of paying dividends) or if the founders have been diluted out by successive waves of venture funding, you're more likely to have a single class.
 
golden_blunder said:
Considering Andersreds very wrong public assumption about Fergie, I wish people would stop using him for their examples
Click to expand...

Not just SAF, but in his brief time here he was seen telling everyone who'd listen that United wouldn't have funds to buy players for the foreseeable future. Now, I'm no financial analyst, but nevertheless his agenda was apparent and what he was saying didn't seem to add up, so I took the figures he was giving us and did my own calculations, resulting in me calling bullshit on him as things really didn't look the way he was describing them at all. After much pressure, he eventually conceded that there were many options, that what he was describing was only the most extreme of worst case scenarios, but nevertheless they were scenarios he'd been personally guaranteeing we'd see come to fruition. Since that time two years ago United has spent some £120m on new players, and andersred has left redcafe.
 
KingMinger22 said:
The two tier system may have made them less attractive but surely they figured that into the asking price. Had they have been full voting rights shares they probably would have asked for even more from the initial price.

From what I've read, the business is simply not as good investment as other options for the asking price.
Click to expand...

Ye but the price is also a reflection of demand and my point is that the 2 tier structure will put some people off. It seems to be accepted in the US but it certainly isnt in other parts of the world and if you think about where demand for our shares would come from then they have probably alienated more potential buyers than they thought.

The business is strong with a proven track record and still potential to grow, but yes they were aiming for a high valuation with a lot of 'brand premium' built in.


ravelston said:
Of the quick sample I looked at when we first published our registration statement it was around 2/3rds. Typically, if you're looking at an "emerging growth" company where the founders still have a large proportional shareholding, you'll see the A & B structure. If the company is stable/mature (and particularly if it has a history of paying dividends) or if the founders have been diluted out by successive waves of venture funding, you're more likely to have a single class.
Click to expand...

and is there always the same kind of voting rights difference between the A & B - like 10 to 1? or does it vary?
 
golden_blunder said:
Considering Andersreds very wrong public assumption about Fergie, I wish people would stop using him for their examples
Click to expand...

Technically, he's by far the best analyst currently blogging on United. Unfortunately he lets his personal vendetta colour his analyses to the extent that they are often very misleading. If you can ignore his conclusions and focus on the underlying analysis, there's usually some very good stuff - you can at least use it as a starting point for your own analysis.
 
Wowi said:
You started out by saying

That is of course true, and I've never said otherwise. I was simply wondering why you bought it up all of a sudden. If you just wanted me to say "Of course not", then there you go. None of us can do anything but look at the figures that are released, and of course they don't tell you what will happen in the future or what's going behind the scenes right now.

It looked like your argument was that people like Andersred know "nowt" about the future plans and because of that whatever he's saying about the clubs finances now doesn't matter. I didn't understand that argument, but fair enough if that wasn't your point.

I simply didn't get why you started talking about bigger picture all of a sudden, when the discussion wasn't about that. The article I posted from Andersred doesn't require a "bigger picture" to see that Glazers benefited greatly from this IPO and the club less. I certainly don't get why you simply expect me to follow your thoughts without clarifying what your point is when I asked.
Click to expand...


To be honest, at the time I wasn't saying that whatever Andersred says about the clubs finances doesn't matter but now I've read what others have said on how many huge mistakes he's made in his analysis I have my doubts about just how much faith you should put in what he does say.


Wowi said:
Where did I say it was "scandalous"? I just said that it speaks for itself. When they take half the money themselves from the IPO (which, as you might remember, was something the announced they'd do after the initial IPO plans) they could easily have paid at least half themselves to make sure the club would benefit from the IPO sooner. Of course I'm not shocked (or even a tiny bit surprised) that they didn't, but I don't believe they're "supporting the team" as much as Marching seems to do.

Of course I wouldn't use my own money if I was looking to milk the club, but as said that post was in reply to Marching saying they "support" the team and the manager and I simply pointed out (using a recent example) that I don't believe they're doing a lot of good things for the club.
Click to expand...

Do you know what they did with their half of the money? It sounds as though you think they pissed it up against the wall but maybe they used it in other business ventures they have which in turn would mean MU have less of a call on the Glazer's money.

Have the Glazer's not doubled the value of the club? Have they not provided umpteen millions for new players? Are they not increasing the number of sponsorship partners who bring money into the club? Hasn't the team been successful under their ownership? Isn't the manager happy?

To be honest it beggars belief that you don't see them as supportive.
 
Marching said:
To be honest, at the time I wasn't saying that whatever Andersred says about the clubs finances doesn't matter but now I've read what others have said on how many huge mistakes he's made in his analysis I have my doubts about just how much faith you should put in what he does say.




Do you know what they did with their half of the money? It sounds as though you think they pissed it up against the wall but maybe they used it in other business ventures they have which in turn would mean MU have less of a call on the Glazer's money.

Have the Glazer's not doubled the value of the club? Have they not provided umpteen millions for new players? Are they not increasing the number of sponsorship partners who bring money into the club? Hasn't the team been successful under their ownership? Isn't the manager happy?

To be honest it beggars belief that you don't see them as supportive.
Click to expand...

But they've raised ticket prices almost as fast as the plc did. And we didn't win anything last season.
 
ravelston said:
But they've raised ticket prices almost as fast as the plc did. And we didn't win anything last season.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but boo hoo...you lost out on retaining the league by a matter of seconds to lose out on goal difference...hardly a disaster. And as for suffering price hikes (almost as bad as the plc gave you) you need to appreciate that other clubs are going through just the same and already pay more.

You follow Manchester United and for that priviledge you may a premium.....just like you do to get the best in anything.
 
Marching said:
To be honest, at the time I wasn't saying that whatever Andersred says about the clubs finances doesn't matter but now I've read what others have said on how many huge mistakes he's made in his analysis I have my doubts about just how much faith you should put in what he does say.

Do you know what they did with their half of the money? It sounds as though you think they pissed it up against the wall but maybe they used it in other business ventures they have which in turn would mean MU have less of a call on the Glazer's money.

Have the Glazer's not doubled the value of the club? Have they not provided umpteen millions for new players? Are they not increasing the number of sponsorship partners who bring money into the club? Hasn't the team been successful under their ownership? Isn't the manager happy?

To be honest it beggars belief that you don't see them as supportive.
Click to expand...

Who's the WUM now? :lol: They haven't provided anything - the club has. You're talking as if they pull millions out of their pockets every time United sign a new player, but we all know that money came from the club. Yeah, let's celebrate the Glazers because they let Fergie use some of the money the club earned because of his achievements.

Glazers have definitely done very well to increase the income from sponsors. No doubt about that. The team has certainly been successful as well, but I don't see why you want to credit the Glazers for that. The team had been successful before they came and it would be stupid to suggest we wouldn't be again without the Glazers. I personally don't think they contributed a lot to Ronaldo's development, the solid Rio+Vidic partnership etc., but you might think differently of course. Who knows what Fergie actually thinks about the Glazers? He's not stupid, you know. Talking poorly about them wouldn't help him a single bit, and he knows that. If ever there was any doubt you only need to look at FSW's last year at Liverpool.

I certainly don't know what they did with "their" half, but I don't think it's unreasonable if I expect not to see it anywhere near United again. Even if they use it to pay off debt elsewhere to ease the burden on United I fail to see how that shows that they're great owners. The fundamental difference seems to be that you refer to all the money as "Glazer's money" because they own the club. Because of that, every time they invest in the club it's their money (according to you) that's being invested. I (and I suspect almost every other United fan) sees it differently - I think that the money earned by the club should belong to the club, in which case the Glazers have provided feck all.

But yeah, excuse me for not seeing owners as "supportive" when they've cost the club over half a billion. Could they have been worse? Certainly, but that doesn't automatically make them good.
 
Marching said:
I'm sorry but boo hoo...you lost out on retaining the league by a matter of seconds to lose out on goal difference...hardly a disaster. And as for suffering price hikes (almost as bad as the plc gave you) you need to appreciate that other clubs are going through just the same and already pay more.

You follow Manchester United and for that priviledge you may a premium.....just like you do to get the best in anything.
Click to expand...

Sorry, forgot to set the "sarcasm" flag (or use white text).
 
Marching said:
Do you know what they did with their half of the money? It sounds as though you think they pissed it up against the wall but maybe they used it in other business ventures they have which in turn would mean MU have less of a call on the Glazer's money.

Have the Glazer's not doubled the value of the club? Have they not provided umpteen millions for new players? Are they not increasing the number of sponsorship partners who bring money into the club? Hasn't the team been successful under their ownership? Isn't the manager happy?

To be honest it beggars belief that you don't see them as supportive.
Click to expand...

One thing I do know is that the money hasn't been used for the club/team's benefit - "MU" have never needed a call on the Glazer's money, they have a call on the club's money, which is, kind of, the whole point.

Doubled the value of the club? If so, for their own benefit. Who's to say the PLC wouldn't?
Umpteen millions for new players my arse. Stoke and Villa had provided more until the last few weeks.
Again, spon sorship for their own ends, ultimately to prop up their other failing interests.
Don't be silly. The team has been successful because of the infrastructure that was there long before they arrived and have won trophies despite and not because of them. That point defies belief and it remains to be seen how successful we will remain now the bebfits of their ownership are finally coming home to roost. A recent 50m splurge is still chicken feed compared to what outgoings (players) and earnings have been brought into the club under them.
"the manager is happy" mate, you must live in lala land. What is Fergie supposed to say?
 
ravelston said:
Sorry, forgot to set the "sarcasm" flag (or use white text).
Click to expand...

:lol:


Wowi said:
Blah blah blah....
Click to expand...

So the club has provided everything? :wenger: Whose fecking club is it you plonker? Who pay's the bills? Who pays the wages? Who signs the deals? Who sorts the players contracts? Who pays the transfer fees?

And then you turn your attention to Ferguson and basically call him a liar....can't think of another way of putting it as, despite him saying the Glazers have done nothing other than support him, (which is reflected in the money spent on players), you say we don't know what he thinks. Why not just believe him? After what he's done for your club I'd think you owe him that much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.