ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why is the stock 9% down today?! I know all stocks are down, but 9% with no news?
 
Seems like every Bertie on twitter has become a financial analyst over night. Some of the stuff being spouted by so called journalist is comical as well, who's Annie Eaves?
 
it is a pretty big one day fall with no obvious reason for it really.

perhaps this is a delayed response to Fergie leaving or some profit taking after a recent good run.
I understand that Soros may have offloaded some of his holding recently.
 
Member 5225 said:
cos we're about to splash a ton of cash on Garay!
Click to expand...

Apart from a few select players (Ronaldo, bale etc) that have a huge impact on the club as a business as opposed to a team, I struggle to see how the signing of any player (indeed the rumour of signing a player) can affect the share price to that extent.

Considering how low the free float is, that is a big drop (less than fergie retiring). Plus the chances of us investors knowing about transfer rumours in the uk is pretty low. Much more Important things to be modelling.

Methinks there is something else going on, soros selling his stake, if true, would have a much bigger impact than the signing of a £17m player, whoever that player is.
 
Signing Garay or not is not going to have an adverse effect of 9%. Not all investors are United fans, waiting in anticipation for a world class midfielder.

Has to be something bigger for such a steep fall. There was already a drop of 4.5%, which settled around 1.8%, on the day Sir Alex retired, so this is not a late reaction to his retirement.
 
Cant be rumours about signing Garay surely? It has to be the wall street wankers playing around is my guess.
 
Shinjisan said:
Signing Garay or not is not going to have an adverse effect of 9%. Not all investors are United fans, waiting in anticipation for a world class midfielder.

Has to be something bigger for such a steep fall. There was already a drop of 4.5%, which settled around 1.8%, on the day Sir Alex retired, so this is not a late reaction to his retirement.
Click to expand...


"Whats that Jerry, Gundogans on the way to O.T?, BUY BUY BUY"
 
Anyone who would link the share price to a vague transfer rumour needs shooting. Repeatedly.
 
steeeb said:
In any case, what's caused the drop?
Click to expand...


Dunno but the share price is still up 8.29% from its float price. Markets have been selling off generally- Japan down 6% yesterday.

You good argue the share price had gotten somewhat inflated, I wouldn't be too worried. The fact that United was able to refinance a load of debt at a cheaper rate in late May suggests the creditworthiness of the club remains intact.
 
charleysurf said:
Anyone who would link the share price to a vague transfer rumour needs shooting. Repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Yep - Even done deals are unlikely to have much impact on the share price, nevermind rumours!


steeeb said:
In any case, what's caused the drop?
Click to expand...

Probably a combo of several factors: profit taking (the price zoomed from a low of 12 up to 19 in quite a short space of time), Fergie leaving, general market sentiment, lack of buying interest during the close season etc.
 
Interesting stuff from a recent webcast:


Manchester United PLC at Jefferies Global Consumer Conference (Replay)
18 June 2013 at 3:00 p.m. ET
spacer.gif


spacer.gif

spacer.gif

About Manchester United

We are one of the most popular and successful sports teams in the world, playing one of the most popular spectator sports on Earth. Through our 135-year heritage we have won 60 trophies, enabling us to develop what we believe is one of the world's leading brands and a global community of 659 million followers. Our large, passionate community provides Manchester United with a worldwide platform to generate significant revenue from multiple sources, including sponsorship, merchandising, product licensing, new media & mobile, broadcasting and matchday. We attract leading companies such as Nike, Aon and DHL that want access and exposure to our community of followers and association with our brand.

Our global community of followers engages with us in a variety of ways:
  • During the 2011/12 season, our games generated a cumulative audience reach of over 3 billion viewers worldwide, according to the Futures Data. On a per game basis, our 54 games attracted an average live cumulative audience reach of 48 million per game, based on the Futures Data.
  • Over 5 million items of Manchester United branded licensed products were sold in the last year, including over 2 million Manchester United jerseys. Manchester United branded products are sold through over 200 licensees in over 130 countries.
  • Our products are sold through more than 10,000 doors worldwide.
  • Our brand and content have enabled us to partner with mobile telecom providers in 44 countries and television providers in 56 countries.
  • Our website, www.manutd.com, is published in 7 languages and over the last 12 months attracted an average of more than 62 million page views per month.
  • We have a very popular brand page on Facebook with over 31.8 million connections. In comparison, the New York Yankees have approximately 6.3 million Facebook connections and the Dallas Cowboys have approximately 5.3 million Facebook connections.
  • Premier League games at our home stadium, Old Trafford, have been sold out since the 1997/98 season. In the 2011/12 season, our 25 home games were attended by c.2 million people.
  • We undertake exhibition games and promotional tours on a global basis, enabling our followers to see our team play. Over the last 5 years, we have played 34 games in Canada, China, England, Germany, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden and the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Not another commercial partner, but it was announced today that MUTV will be expanding into three new countries- most importantly, expanding its reach in Asia.
http://www.benzinga.com/analyst-rat...nited-expands-tv-deal-to-boost-revenue-await#
Click to expand...
Good find Ben. It will be interesting to see what size the new Shirt Sponsorship/Merchandise deal is worth. The old one was about $23 million per year from Nike.

Arsenal and Chelsea have done recent deals for about $30 million/year so I'm expecting the new one to hit $35-$40 million.
 
RedCanuck said:
Good find Ben. It will be interesting to see what size the new Shirt Sponsorship/Merchandise deal is worth. The old one was about $23 million per year from Nike.

Arsenal and Chelsea have done recent deals for about $30 million/year so I'm expecting the new one to hit $35-$40 million.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if it hits $50 million/year to be honest. Nike's exclusive negotiating period to extend their deal ends July 31 so we should be hearing something very soon.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
I wouldn't be surprised if it hits $50 million/year to be honest. Nike's exclusive negotiating period to extend their deal ends July 31 so we should be hearing something very soon.
Click to expand...

I expect it to be more.
 
01 JULY 2013

Manchester United have announced a three-year regional partnership with leading Thai telecommunications company True Corporation Plc.

In addition to the True Group becoming United's official mobile partner and MUTV broadcaster for Thailand, it has also become an associate match sponsor for the opening tour game against Singha All Stars in Bangkok on July 13 - David Moyes' first as manager.

"With more than 70 million viewers tuning into a United game in the first seven months of last season, the partnership is predicted to be popular amongst fans," United said in their statement.
 
Taken from The Swiss Ramble (12/13 doesn't get announced until later this year):

PL+Commercial.jpg
 
How are City so close to us with Commercial Revenue?
 
Sir A1ex said:
Jaysus, if that's what's counted as City's genuine commercial revenue, then Sheikh Mansour must be pissing himself laughin at how easy it is to dodge FFP.:(
Click to expand...


To be honest I had a discussion with someone well over a year ago who was supporting FFP that I genuinely can't see how it could be enforced. This is a great article on City/FFP:

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/manchester-citys-incredible-deal-know.html

I particularly agree with these comments in the article:

"An assumed shirt sponsorship value of £20 million would place City right at the top of English deals, generating the same annual revenue as Liverpool and Manchester United. Those clubs might argue that City’s historical performance should not allow them to be at the same level, but the counter-argument would be that nobody complained about Liverpool increasing their sponsorship deal by £12.5 million a season when they replaced Carlsberg with Standard Chartered last season"

"If the net is cast a little wider, Bayern Munich’s sponsorship deal with Deutsche Telekom is worth around £23 million, though performance bonuses could take that above £25 million. That might seem reasonable for a club with Bayern’s tremendous record, but the value of deals at other German clubs is more debatable, particularly Schalke’s money-spinning deal with Gazprom.

"Equally, the announcement of Barcelona’s first ever shirt sponsorship deal with the Qatar Foundation, a non-profit organisation, did not attract the same levels of opprobrium as City’s. This has been widely reported as €150 million over five years, but is actually worth up to €170m, as it also includes €5 million trophy bonuses and €15 million for “the concept of commercial rights”. So, it is likely to be worth €34 million a year (or just under £30 million at the current exchange rate)."

In my opinion City are entitled to earn exactly the same as us, Bayern or Barcelona and this almost has to be "fair value", as it is a value already being achieved in the market. City will no doubt increase it by another 30-40% next season to be much closer to Bayern.
 
finneh said:
In my opinion City are entitled to earn exactly the same as us, Bayern or Barcelona and this almost has to be "fair value", as it is a value already being achieved in the market.
Click to expand...

It's not though, is it? If City are getting the same as us, then either we are massively failing to maximise our revenue - exceptionally unlikely under the Glazers - or City are being given hand-outs.

The value of sponsorship is not derived directly from what position a team finished in the league, it is about how widely exposed the club's "brand" is to how many people, and how closely they identify with that brand. And City remain minnows in that respect. Success on the pitch certainly helps to build this, but it's a gradual process involving many other factors.

In most cases the question of "value" doesn't arise. Liverpool's deal is fine, as it was genuinely achieved in the market - the people running the club want to make money not throw it away. It's only sugar-daddy clubs where any judgment has to be made.
 
Sir A1ex said:
It's not though, is it? If City are getting the same as us, then either we are massively failing to maximise our revenue - exceptionally unlikely under the Glazers - or City are being given hand-outs.

The value of sponsorship is not derived directly from what position a team finished in the league, it is about how widely exposed the club's "brand" is to how many people, and how closely they identify with that brand. And City remain minnows in that respect. Success on the pitch certainly helps to build this, but it's a gradual process involving many other factors.

In most cases the question of "value" doesn't arise. Liverpool's deal is fine, as it was genuinely achieved in the market - the people running the club want to make money not throw it away. It's only sugar-daddy clubs where any judgment has to be made.
Click to expand...


My point was only that it would be impossible to throw City's deal out merely because of its value. The fact is some companies may want to be associated with an "up and coming" brand such as City's and these companies may pay top dollar for the privilage - which is exactly what Etihad/City would argue. Both are companies that were unheard of several years ago and both want to be one of the most recognised successful brands in the world quickly - so it could be argued that City's brand aligns perfectly with that of Etihad (BS or not).

They could throw it out because it isn't "at arm's length", but I'm sure City's lawyer's will tear this argument to shreds.

Basically knowing that something isn't "achieved in the market" and proving it are two entirely different things and this is a hurdle I doubt the FFP will overcome (thankfully).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.