Them not earning a penny from it is a stretch. If the money goes to fix the stadium and as a result they get a bit fatter dividends (which will be paid out to the fan-shareholders too), how is that not earning a penny?
Update to the MUFC Fans share scheme…
- Thread starter UnitedSofa
- Start date
How it gets spent has to be approved by the fan advisory forum. Putting that aside - It’s not their own debt. It’s the club debt that they inflicted on the club. That’s the unfortunate reality. If they sell 25% of the club and use it to pay off the debt and the fans now own that 25% of the club that’s a huge fecking win. Ultimately they can sell 25% to some other bellend billionaire and pocket it themselves.
If you can't get over 25% you literally have no control over any key decisions the club makes. This money they are raising almost certainly would have needed to be spent by them at some point but they just thought "Nah. We've got fans like Mickeza over 'ere who will just finance this themselves. No need for us do it ourselves". It sounds on the face of it like an absolute pisstake. But feel free to plow your own money into the club whilst seeing your cnut owners reap the rewards and only offering you control over what you've collectively invested. You'll own a tiny fraction of the club and have feck all say over it.
This really is a total eejit of a post. The goal is for Manchester United fans to own Manchester United. Does this start a process to give the glazers more or less control? Does this start a process to give fans more or less control? Does the money raised get invested in the club? Answers on a postcard.
Do the Glazers have control over how much share capital they dilute? Would they ever in a million years sell enough shares that they ceded their control over their company to fan groups and outside investors? Answers on a postcard.
They still own less. Is it better for them to own less or more? Is it better for fans to own less or more? It’s absolute contrarian bullshit to spin this into a negative. Glazers own less, fans own more with equal voting rights, money doesn’t go to glazers. Sweet fecking Jesus. It’s the start of a long process. It’s an in. The first in for nearly 18 fecking years. And here’s the Chelsea fan expert shitting on it.
You are exactly the type of fan they love
.I think @Mickeza is essentially saying that whilst it’s not ideal it’s better than the current set up.
Surely you accept that?!
Hard one to say really. Essentially your owners are getting the fans to plow money into the club, money that they otherwise would or should have spent themselves. At the end of the day if you've got terrible owners that have full control of your club you're screwed anyway. On the face of it it looks like an admission that they care so little that the only way they'll pay for certain essentials is if others to do so. There's an argument that you're just prolonging their stay here by making it easier for them to just invest as little as possible themselves and get away with it.
Last edited:
Yes mate. Andy Green is definitely the sort of fan they love. You know - the one who constantly went on the media rounds during the green and gold protests slating them. He’s a total glazer shill. You are such an expert on what’s best for Manchester United - all hail P-Ro.You are exactly the type of fan they love
I thought that we would get a chance to work towards eventual partial fan ownership/a seat on the board. As @P-Ro has alluded to, this is most likely a shakedown disguised as an olive branch. We are paying for upgrades and mistakes they should have put their own money or dividends into fixing long before now.
On the other hand it’s a foot in the door. It gives the fans a voice and some kind of seat at the table and there will probably be some incentive to buy a larger stake in the club going forward. Once the glazers have almost totally milked us and have hit the ceiling of club value vs debt I have no doubt they’ll sell us off. Hopefully the fans stand firm and keep their shares and we can have some kind of say, no matter how small, in how the club is run in the future.
On the other hand it’s a foot in the door. It gives the fans a voice and some kind of seat at the table and there will probably be some incentive to buy a larger stake in the club going forward. Once the glazers have almost totally milked us and have hit the ceiling of club value vs debt I have no doubt they’ll sell us off. Hopefully the fans stand firm and keep their shares and we can have some kind of say, no matter how small, in how the club is run in the future.
Small gains are important and positive. Pity this couldn’t have happened sooner though so we could try to get the money invested in the transfer window this summer.
Granted the recruitment and bureaucracy from Joel Glazer would arguably still be there.
Granted the recruitment and bureaucracy from Joel Glazer would arguably still be there.
Who can buy these shares?
They’ll be listed on the market I assume?
Depends on the stock market's rules. Generally if the collective share of an investor body is less than 3%, then they have to do what the majority says, including forcibly giving up their shares in any acquisition process. This is done to prevent any bad-faith actions by investors.
Shrewd thinking by Glazers ... slowly issue fresh shares to an institutional investor through private placement (MUST won't be treated as 'public'). Issue small amounts of shares at regular intervals to take advantage of any increase in stock prices. Firstly it will not be done at a discount to current prices, so MUST won't be getting a good deal. Now 2 things can happen:
- After some initial success in re-deploying a small amount of cash on infra/players, United (not Glazers) issue more shares at a higher price than before. As the amount of money to be re-deployed increases, infighting will start at MUST in terms of what needs to be prioritized. We've seen how divided fans can be. Possibly even lawsuits by members against each other. MUST loses credibility and fan ownership remains negligibly small. Glazers win.
- No infighting takes place at MUST. Everything is great. Glazers wealth increases as the stock price increases. As time goes by, MUST will realize that fans don't have enough capital to take a meaningful stake i.e. above 24.99% (about £450m at today's low prices). Will MUST raise capital from private investors? Will these private investors have disproportionate voting rights? All of these investors will demand a return i.e. these private investors will gladly accept a new shady owner to obtain returns. If somehow United fans have invested £500m on infra/players for a 24.99% stake, do the now even more wealthy Glazers really need to issue new shares? And the best thing for the Glazers is that at 5% shareholding, MUST has to legally inform the stock market on whether they are considering a takeover i.e. become majority shareholders. They can't lie about this as they can be sued into disclosing emails/record/etc. about 'fan ownership'. What happens when a potential acquisition (in this case fan ownership) is announced? The stock price increases as outside institutional investors want to smash and grab - by a $10 stock for $15 in the hope that the new owner will buy the company for $18. In this example a 20% gain for holding a stock for maybe 3 months. This will push the price out of supporters hands even more while giving Glazers a higher net worth. Glazers win.
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not a lawyer, just a former investment banker. These are my personal opinions/scenarios.
Last edited:
You don't seem to get what I'm saying. The money are approved by the fan board and go to something important. That's dandy. But instead of the club just making that payment and not paying out dividends, the expense is covered by these funds.
The club pays out dividends every year. That’s the reality of the situation. That isn’t going to stop just because we want it to. So I have no clue what your point is or how it’s linked to the glazers selling equal voting shares to fans and the money being raised going to the club. I also don’t get the argument that it’s just a way to raise money so the glazers don’t have to invest in the club - they don’t invest in the club, they never have and they never will. Period. This scheme decreases their share, increase fan’s share and the money raised goes into the club rather than directly into their pockets - something we should all agree is a good thing. So I don’t get the moaning. It’s clearly better than the situation as it is today and starts a process that hopefully continues.
First of all, not all dividends are equal. They decide how big of a dividend to pay out.
Second, this is like any charity or funding drive that is aimed at completing something that is originally the government's job to do. It is not adding more money for the club, it is just replacing money, freeing them for other things (like dividends).