If Man United shares get any lower ...

[Ted Hughes]

Hang in there lads, you are heroes.

[moomey]

I hate to burst everyone's bubble but the value of this class of shares is no reflection on the value of U*nited.

As I understand they are non voting non dividend minority shares and therefore have the intrinsic value of a Panini sticker - ie none

[BlueinBosnia]

And I know Soccs and a couple of others probably have a better handle on this, but the Glaziers just sold shares, so that money isn't being pumped back into the club is it? It's going right in the Glaziers' pockets.

Half right..I think.

I believe what was proposed is that some of the proceeds would be used to pay down some of the club's debt and the remainder going to the leprechaun family.

(btw...is your misspelling of Glazer deliberate. As it's you I would assume so, but for what purpose?)

Do you still have the door to door salesmen in England trying to sell you double glazing or am I just old and out of touch now?

Yes, although they are not glaziers, like the person who sells stamps in a shop is not a postman.

[Slim]

I hate to burst everyone's bubble but the value of this class of shares is no reflection on the value of U*nited.

As I understand they are non voting non dividend minority shares and therefore have the intrinsic value of a Panini sticker - ie none

Bubble isn't burst, I just like the fact the money they are raising headlined as "for man utd" is in fact just making the glazers(okay ant?) richer and not helping the filth.

[Alex Sapphire]

Is there a trend already do you think?

EDIT: I think this graph is automatically staying up to date. Freekin clever.

[AG7]

Is there a trend already do you think?

No volume ... dead beat share!

[ronk]

Bubble isn't burst, I just like the fact the money they are raising headlined as "for man utd" is in fact just making the glazers(okay ant?) richer and not helping the filth.

Has to be. Ownership of the club is some of the security for their debt. They can't just sell a chuck of the club without the assent of banks and bond holders.

Though as I understand it, these shares could be taken as part of a foreclosure process anyway.

[Bianchi on Ice]

Having the Glaziers in must be a real pane

[Bianchi on Ice]

Having the Glaziers in must be a real pane

[Socrates]

Having the Glaziers in must be a real pane

it wasn't funny the first time...

[Florida Blue]

I don't really know about these things so these are genuine questions.
[highlight]But, everybody seemed to know that the shite were massively over valued and these shares appeared to not be worth a wank, so why did anybody shell out the money at the original price?[/highlight]

And why, when it apparently leaves the Hillbillies vulnerable to a take over, did they proceed with it for the sake of a relatively paltry seventy five million squiddlies?

The answer to your first question is pretty simple, it is a vanity to some people -- "I own Manchester Un***d"" The other is even more simple, Scum have been a success for years, and that is measurable. People who buy on emotion get all excited when there is an IPO in something they understand (i.e. a championship football team - it would be no different if the Dallas Cowboys or New York Yankees went public with similar issues) and they want it. My favorite line over the past few months when people found out I am a stockbroker was "I want some Facebook, it cannot miss! RIght?" It is really hard to explain to most people that just because a name is well known, doesn't mean it is good (reference Lehman Brothers, Tyco and Enron here).Go back the late 1990s and anything that went public was supposed to triple in money (and a lot did). IPOs are few and far between now unlike those days when there was one every couple of days that skyrocketed on the open. We used to bet how long it would take before an IPO started trading on issue date while the market figured out the opening market price based on the issue price the day before. It could take hours, now it takes mere minuted for a new issue to price.

People still believe that can happen, and shares of something "sexy" like Facebook and MANU(re) drew that attention - financials be damned. While I am not sure it is valued at $5 (I have to believe the breakup value - i.e. the sum of everything the club has that can be valued less debt has to be higher than that pricing) I am sure it is somewhere closer to that number than $14.

Answer to #2 has been touched upon, but frankly if the stock were to plummet a rational person would consider it time to see what they could get for it all, the Glazers on the other hand really do not need Scum to succeed. Honestly if the shares go to zero (virtually impossible as I assume the Glazers would find a way to buy it back at pennies on the dollar) it wouldn't be devestating.

[Beefymcfc]

What's going on, they've had massive pikes early only to trail off in the end.

[Dameerto]

Kin ell they have dropped off haven't they? Was looking earlier and it was half a dollar higher. I wonder if it's because their underwriter is getting fed up with buying them back...

[Evenmydoghatesunited]

VG article about why the Glazers are bad for the rags. A heart warmingly bleak picture for football's "biggest franchise"

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/jim-white/united-stock-slumps-thanks-glazers-122107463.html

[Ted Hughes]

I love the idea that the Glazers will hang around but I fear the opposite. Not because of what is happening to the Utd share price but because they are clearly desperate for money. If the rest of their empire is struggling, surely it would make sense to cash in on Utd rather than run it into the ground ?

I truly hope they choose option B but if they need the money to prop up the rest of their empire, is option A a better option; to asset strip Utd rather than just cash in ?

If they do choose option A, this season is a biggie. An injury to RVP & missing the top 4 would be interesting; panic sales.

[Alex Sapphire]

Kin ell they have dropped off haven't they? Was looking earlier and it was half a dollar higher. I wonder if it's because their underwriter is getting fed up with buying them back...

I spose what they are trading at now and in the future is more of a problem for the suckers that bought them than for the scum themselves. This was a sale of "square feet of turf", and not worth the money.

Except they wanted to sell 16 million of them.
If they sold all 16 million at $14, they raised $112 for the club (to pay off debt) and $112 for themselves(their very own Euro millions)

NASDAQ lists show that nearly twice that number (31,845,61) were traded at 14 dollars on the opening day which I need explaining to me.
But 1st day trades on that basis were worth $446m which even when malc has creamed his bit off would give them a bit of a boost.

[Beefymcfc]

Kin ell they have dropped off haven't they? Was looking earlier and it was half a dollar higher. I wonder if it's because their underwriter is getting fed up with buying them back...

I spose what they are trading at now and in the future is more of a problem for the suckers that bought them than for the scum themselves. This was a sale of "square feet of turf", and not worth the money.

Except they wanted to sell 16 million of them.
If they sold all 16 million at $14, they raised $112 for the club (to pay off debt) and $112 for themselves(their very own Euro millions)

NASDAQ lists show that nearly twice that number (31,845,61) were traded at 14 dollars on the opening day which I need explaining to me.
But 1st day trades on that basis were worth $446m which even when malc has creamed his bit off would give them a bit of a boost.

The stocks can be traded over and over again mate once they are out there. They could just release one share and 10 people could buy that share each day.

Also, they already have their money at $14 as that's what the underwriters are for. They won't lose out there but it may have a big affect in the future. I've just had a quick peek and it's noticeable that after one week trading that the stocks are starting to slip.

Last week it started around $14 and stayed around that level for the day. Monday saw a large spike to well over $15 but then seemed to tale off back to the original figures. Each day since saw a spike to begin with then tale off again however, yesterday the shares continued a slow downward motion then severely dropped off finishing well below the opening level. Today has continued that trend to the point that it is now well below the $13.50 level.

It looks like the underwriters are now cooling off from propping the shares up and with very low volumes being sold we might start to see what they are really worth.

[blues-clues]

What about short selling? Would this not also boost the number of sales on day one? I get the point about the shares being sold a number of times but if speculators were selling shares they have not yet purchased on the basis they could buy some back later at a lower price that would add to the number sold would it not?
Not sure what the settlement period is on the part of the NYSE that these shares are listed.

There is such an insignificant market for the shares now, even if the price does fall there is very little to be read into it short term.

[Beefymcfc]

There'd be a market no doubt and it could be that quite a few would be making a profit already, but not enough to make a decent profit looking at those turnovers.

Looking at it, I'm not even sure if all of the shares have been sold on the open market, it could be that the underwriters are lumped with them until the market sees a fair price.

As I've mentioned before, I'm no expert, just my interpretation from what I've read. I'll stick to poker for the time being.

[Dameerto]

Today's the first day I haven't monitored how they've been doing. I'll go have a quick look now.