The mancityfans.net football forum

In preparation for their floatation on the New York Stock Exchange, the scum will be registered as a company in the tax haven of the Caymen Islands.

How the fuck are they allowed to get away with this??

Just let any red moron try to tell me that City are ruining the game now!!

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news ... n-New-York

Caymen United.

I will be interested to hear monsieur platini's take on this. I can just hear the twat now:

"When a great old club like manchester united are forced into measures of this type, it rams home how vital it is that we stop Manchester City".

Duplicate post sorry

Why are they being "forced" into measures like this? The flotation in Singapore would have necessitated something similar.

In terms of the options available to them, a partial flotation makes sense, although debt will simply be swapped for equity, as there will be shareholders requiring dividen payments now rather than banks wanting their interest and repayments. It just means they will never have to pay back £100m of the funds used in the leveraged takeover. Going back public simply means that the Glazers bought 100% of a club for £800m, and are now selling say 7% of a club worth £1.5bn to raise £100m. This leaves them with a net asset worth 1.1bn and only around 25% debt

300m profit in 7 years using someone else's money is not bad going, gotta take your hat off to them for following the first rule of business, always use someone elses money.

I would bet my life they will be looking to sell before baconface gets much older or city get much more dominant, as the global brand would steuggle to generate the current levels of income without a trophy for a few years.

Whoosh.

Im_Spartacus wrote:Why are they being "forced" into measures like this? The flotation in Singapore would have necessitated something similar.

In terms of the options available to them, a partial flotation makes sense, although debt will simply be swapped for equity, as there will be shareholders requiring dividen payments now rather than banks wanting their interest and repayments. It just means they will never have to pay back £100m of the funds used in the leveraged takeover. Going back public simply means that the Glazers bought 100% of a club for £800m, and are now selling say 7% of a club worth £1.5bn to raise £100m. This leaves them with a net asset worth 1.1bn and only around 25% debt

300m profit in 7 years using someone else's money is not bad going, gotta take your hat off to them for following the first rule of business, always use someone elses money.

I would bet my life they will be looking to sell before baconface gets much older or city get much more dominant, as the global brand would steuggle to generate the current levels of income without a trophy for a few years.

What sort of figure would we be looking at in divi payments per annum Spart?

Surely these shares must be purely aimed at fans or future owners ?

Why would anyone buy any otherwise ?

Be interesting to see if any large blocks are bought by wealthy individuals or China. Surely if you had plans to try & aquire the rags in the future, you would buy as many of these as possible ?

david yearsley wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:Why are they being "forced" into measures like this? The flotation in Singapore would have necessitated something similar.

In terms of the options available to them, a partial flotation makes sense, although debt will simply be swapped for equity, as there will be shareholders requiring dividen payments now rather than banks wanting their interest and repayments. It just means they will never have to pay back £100m of the funds used in the leveraged takeover. Going back public simply means that the Glazers bought 100% of a club for £800m, and are now selling say 7% of a club worth £1.5bn to raise £100m. This leaves them with a net asset worth 1.1bn and only around 25% debt

300m profit in 7 years using someone else's money is not bad going, gotta take your hat off to them for following the first rule of business, always use someone elses money.

I would bet my life they will be looking to sell before baconface gets much older or city get much more dominant, as the global brand would steuggle to generate the current levels of income without a trophy for a few years.

What sort of figure would we be looking at in divi payments per annum Spart?

It depends on what sort of stock it is being marketed as. If it is expected to be a growth stock, the divis can be kept very low, maybe 1-2%. If the shares are marketed as an income stock , then anywhere upwards of 3%. Either way, the dividends on £100m of shares will be less than they currently pay in interest.

United in the past were a good (albeit risky) growth stock upto the point the glazers took them over, but given that growth of a business is based on increasing the revenue base and controlling costs, there are additional risk factors with a football club that are very seasonal, such as success on the pitch. Success on the pitch requires massive investment in the modern game, which the owners of the remainig 93% of the business (the glazers) appear reluctant to do. There is also, as I alluded to a huge future problem with regards an ageing manager, who, if he went suddenly (or for that matter whenever he goes), is going to cause significant turmoil because of the fact that he is fundamental to the clubs success.

Pre Glazer, the share price was around £2.50, paying a total annual dividend of about 2.5p, so 1% - obviously in todays terms that would equate to £1m based on the £100m proposed flotation.

There was a clear lack of appetite for the proposed flotation in Singapore, and whilst United have said they have shelved that because the market is volatile, the fact is, a football club's share, with the exception of United has always been volatile - but with the potential issue of Ferguson's demise (which wasnt necessarily an acute concern in the 90s), I personally wouldn't touch it with a shitty stick, as it is just too big a risk. For one person to be so utterly dominant, and for a business to be so completely dependant upon one person is not a good thing when looking to buy shares.

The £100m (the Singapore flotation was supposed to be £3/400m) might though be a clue, that they are not going to necessarily seek institutional investors, as they could probably sell that much to fans who would just buy out of sentiment, which is why I think this is a good plan from the Glazers

Ted Hughes wrote:Surely these shares must be purely aimed at fans or future owners ?

Why would anyone buy any otherwise ?

Be interesting to see if any large blocks are bought by wealthy individuals or China. Surely if you had plans to try & aquire the rags in the future, you would buy as many of these as possible ?

The problem is that if someone tried to buy the full 10%, they would be fairly useless to a prospective new owner from a takeover perspective, as the full whack would only represent something like 0.7% of the voting shares.

Pretty savvy coonts these Glazers moving stocks,selling bits here,bits there yadda yadda.

Keeping the wolf from the door and meanwhile keeping their hands in the pot

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Surely these shares must be purely aimed at fans or future owners ?

Why would anyone buy any otherwise ?

Be interesting to see if any large blocks are bought by wealthy individuals or China. Surely if you had plans to try & aquire the rags in the future, you would buy as many of these as possible ?

The problem is that if someone tried to buy the full 10%, they would be fairly useless to a prospective new owner from a takeover perspective, as the full whack would only represent something like 0.7% of the voting shares.

I was meaning more from the point of view that if you were filthy rich & had designs on buying Utd in the future, you would surely hoover up this 10% rather than letting some other character buy them ? It's a fifth of the total you need to control the club.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Surely these shares must be purely aimed at fans or future owners ?

Why would anyone buy any otherwise ?

Be interesting to see if any large blocks are bought by wealthy individuals or China. Surely if you had plans to try & aquire the rags in the future, you would buy as many of these as possible ?

The problem is that if someone tried to buy the full 10%, they would be fairly useless to a prospective new owner from a takeover perspective, as the full whack would only represent something like 0.7% of the voting shares.

I was meaning more from the point of view that if you were filthy rich & had designs on buying Utd in the future, you would surely hoover up this 10% rather than letting some other character buy them ? It's a fifth of the total you need to control the club.

The 10% would only become useful if the majority of the company was listed and other shares could be bought via a hostile takeover as Usmanov was trying to do at Arsenal, because as it stands acquiring a controlling interest is impossible whilst the other 90% remains in the Glazers private control - only they can dictate when and to whom they sell.

Ultimately, this arrangement will be very convenient for a new buyer wishing to take control of the Glazers stake in the club, because it would not be necessary to buy this £100m portion in order to take control, they would just buy a controlling interest from the Glazers and leave this £100m because the voting rights aren't worth shit, dividends will be nominal, and it is £100m they don't have to find themselves.

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Surely these shares must be purely aimed at fans or future owners ?

Why would anyone buy any otherwise ?

Be interesting to see if any large blocks are bought by wealthy individuals or China. Surely if you had plans to try & aquire the rags in the future, you would buy as many of these as possible ?

The problem is that if someone tried to buy the full 10%, they would be fairly useless to a prospective new owner from a takeover perspective, as the full whack would only represent something like 0.7% of the voting shares.

I was meaning more from the point of view that if you were filthy rich & had designs on buying Utd in the future, you would surely hoover up this 10% rather than letting some other character buy them ? It's a fifth of the total you need to control the club.

The 10% would only become useful if the majority of the company was listed and other shares could be bought via a hostile takeover as Usmanov was trying to do at Arsenal, because as it stands acquiring a controlling interest is impossible whilst the other 90% remains in the Glazers private control - only they can dictate when and to whom they sell.

Ultimately, this arrangement will be very convenient for a new buyer wishing to take control of the Glazers stake in the club, because it would not be necessary to buy this £100m portion in order to take control, they would just buy a controlling interest from the Glazers and leave this £100m because the voting rights aren't worth shit, dividends will be nominal, and it is £100m they don't have to find themselves.

Judging by what the document reportedly says, won't the Glazers be in a position of either selling up more shares or asset stripping if the rags fail to win stuff ?

A pound for a penny, can't see why anybody would want to buy them. Also, what is the true value of Manchester United rather than what the Glazer's are forecasting? Are they stating that the clubs value is in the region of £1.5 billion?

I can't see people wanting to invest myself, but eh, what do I know.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Surely these shares must be purely aimed at fans or future owners ?

Why would anyone buy any otherwise ?

Be interesting to see if any large blocks are bought by wealthy individuals or China. Surely if you had plans to try & aquire the rags in the future, you would buy as many of these as possible ?

The problem is that if someone tried to buy the full 10%, they would be fairly useless to a prospective new owner from a takeover perspective, as the full whack would only represent something like 0.7% of the voting shares.

I was meaning more from the point of view that if you were filthy rich & had designs on buying Utd in the future, you would surely hoover up this 10% rather than letting some other character buy them ? It's a fifth of the total you need to control the club.

The 10% would only become useful if the majority of the company was listed and other shares could be bought via a hostile takeover as Usmanov was trying to do at Arsenal, because as it stands acquiring a controlling interest is impossible whilst the other 90% remains in the Glazers private control - only they can dictate when and to whom they sell.

Ultimately, this arrangement will be very convenient for a new buyer wishing to take control of the Glazers stake in the club, because it would not be necessary to buy this £100m portion in order to take control, they would just buy a controlling interest from the Glazers and leave this £100m because the voting rights aren't worth shit, dividends will be nominal, and it is £100m they don't have to find themselves.

Judging by what the document reportedly says, won't the Glazers be in a position of either selling up more shares or asset stripping if the rags fail to win stuff ?

If you mean the bit about FFP and competition etc, when any stock market listing is offered, specific and fundamental risks facing the business have to be documented in the offer. The same statements were contained within the bond sale a couple of years back, and they are simply documenting the potential risks rather than a statement that the club will be in trouble.

In reality, the Premier League's new TV deal for example is a massive boost to United's income/profitability and there is no reason to believe that not winning stuff will cause them immediate problems, so long as they remain in the Champions League, they will continue to be seeded and should always (although this year was a warning sign for them) qualify for the knockout stages and the decent TV money.

Longer term, there will be an issue in theory if worldwide commercial and sponsorship income tails off, but you would have to think that it would take several years, rather than that happening as a reaction to one season. In any case, if you look at Barcelona and Real Madrid - despite Barcelona's recent dominance, Real Madrid continued to grow financially.

I think it is only a serious long term demise that would be an issue for them - financially though, the big risk that they havent mentioned is the change of manager, because that is going to cost them a fucking fortune to remain competetive even with Mourinho in charge.

Beefymcfc wrote:A pound for a penny, can't see why anybody would want to buy them. Also, what is the true value of Manchester United rather than what the Glazer's are forecasting? Are they stating that the clubs value is in the region of £1.5 billion?

I can't see people wanting to invest myself, but eh, what do I know.

The suggested value is based on their earnings, the price someone ends up paying is based on their current earnings, and future earnings potential.

There is probably still more work to be done overseas, in China particularly where I don't reckon any club has really cracked the market there. As a result anyone buying United would be doing so on the basis of future earnings potential, as the club doesn't stack up at 1.5bn based on current earnings/profitability.

It makes potentially very good sense for a prospective owner with FFP coming in. If someone came in and bought the club and settled the debt, if the club is already consistently making a £100m operating profit, then with no debt interest payments, United could very much dominate the transfer market under FFP, without having to spend huge amounts because transfer fees and salaries will in all likelihood go down or remain static in the near term.

The only problem is, there aren't many people around with £1.5bn in the back pocket.

Interestingly, by the time the Sheikh has spent 1.5bn, City will probably be at break even - something I have always said about the reasons why he chose city rather than an established club. He had the ability to MAKE city into what he wanted, wheras with a club like United he would have had to spend the same, but would have been much more restricted in ability to mould the club into an Abu Dhabi marketing machine

So is this good or bad? In simple terms...

Beefymcfc wrote:A pound for a penny, can't see why anybody would want to buy them. Also, what is the true value of Manchester United rather than what the Glazer's are forecasting? Are they stating that the clubs value is in the region of £1.5 billion?

I can't see people wanting to invest myself, but eh, what do I know.

this.

and as for market valuation. ask yourselves in leu of all that has happened over the last five years, more recently, even yesterday with Barclays and last week with RBS - natwest.

would you trust any financial expert to be able to validly put a value on United ?

only a sentimentalist united fan would buy into this scheme. Nobody can trust the Glazers at all.

It's a tragedy these sleezeballs have been able to get way with it

zuricity wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:A pound for a penny, can't see why anybody would want to buy them. Also, what is the true value of Manchester United rather than what the Glazer's are forecasting? Are they stating that the clubs value is in the region of £1.5 billion?

I can't see people wanting to invest myself, but eh, what do I know.

this.

and as for market valuation. ask yourselves in leu of all that has happened over the last five years, more recently, even yesterday with Barclays and last week with RBS - natwest.

would you trust any financial expert to be able to validly put a value on United ?

only a setimentalist united fan would buy into this scheme. Nobody can trust the Glazers at all.

It's a tragedy these sleezeballs have been able to get way with it

It would be if it was anyone but Utd; it is scandalous.

However, the fact that it's happened to the most obnoxious, arrogant, bunch of shites in the world makes it fantastic & almost makes me believe in Karma.