Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

DM_7

Samich wrote: »

The Glazers have always made money available for Fergie, why think this time is any different?

The money is going to themselves

not the club

in the past the money made available for players was money that the club had in its bank account.

not the glazers personal bank account.

this money won't be going into the club as stated in the IPO

Thats why its differant

LostBoy101

This is businessmen for you, they want the money and it's all about the money.

I don't fully understand this IPO but what I do understand is that United will keep going and winning trophies in style.

kryogen

Samich wrote: »

Eh because we mightn't need to sign players. Glazers popped out 50 million last summer.

So why did you say the money could be going to sign players?

If you keep harping on about how much they give Fergie I am going to have to bring out some dreaded "net spend" figures for you

homerjay2005

A positive spin on this is that 90% of the club is still available to be sold. with a turnover of £250-300 million i think theres a long way to go yet before the club is in trouble. looks like they are personally fuc*ked and need the money but the club is a gold mine and apart from debt is being run well.


I hope this is the beginning of them parasites selling up.

Samich

kryogen wrote: »

So why did you say the money could be going to sign players?

If you keep harping on about how much they give Fergie I am going to have to bring out some dreaded "net spend" figures for you

Do, but I'll be taking out the Ronaldo sum as it wasn't the clubs decision to sell.

POSSY

Dozyart wrote: »

Ye whipped yourselves into a proper frenzy about this....as for the calls for Fergies head?? Fcuk off.....even if he was offered these shares who says he would accept them??

+1 on the frenzy, but why wouldn't he accept them and I'm not blaming him if he does. The reaction here...you'd swear we had been docked 10 points and gone into administration!

Adamcp898

We're basically being floated as a money making exercise for the Glazers, makes you wonder what else do they have up their sleeve in order to fill their pockets . I was never one of the people that bought into the Red Knights and the Green and Gold campaign but perhaps it wouldn't have been as bad if that had happened.

Hoping some better news will come from this tomorrow after it's been properly digested.

kryogen

Samich wrote: »

Do, but I'll be taking out the Ronaldo sum as it wasn't the clubs decision to sell.

You know what, this is why.

Red Crow

As the dust settles a little bit more I'd like Ferguson to disclose his financial interests in United.

I also think that this could be a vehicle to pay players with shares as a bonus reward. Obviouslly, it decreases our debt. I stand by my initial comment that Ferguson and Gill should resign if they are in receipt of financial gain as a result of this IPO floatation. Also, I'm disappointed in Ferguson who is the Glazers #1 fan and face to United fans. We still have been lied to.

DM_7

Samich wrote: »

Yeah but that's just what people think should be done, what can be done to change it?

You asked what people thought should be done

your asking a new question now - I haven't a clue what can be done. I am sure smarter people than me will look at it. Hopefully people have the sense not to buy the shares.

lordgoat

Dozyart wrote: »

Ye whipped yourselves into a proper frenzy about this....as for the calls for Fergies head?? Fcuk off.....even if he was offered these shares who says he would accept them??

Ya it's not like he has a history of money grabbing. Oh wait. Rock Of Gibralter.

LostBoy101 wrote: »

This is businessmen for you, they want the money and it's all about the money.

I don't fully understand this IPO but what I do understand is that United will keep going and winning trophies in style.

No we won't. It's foolish arrogance to suggest this.

What will happen is first of all we will stop signing players. Stop paying higher wages. Then we might miss champions league qualification a season or two. Then players will be sold. Then we're mid table. Then we can't pay our debts. Then what?

The above is very feasible. Had we ploughed alot of the money raised back in to repayments. Rather than lining 'our wonderful owners' pockets the above would still be a possibility but nowhere near as distinct a one as it is right now.

Samich

kryogen wrote: »

You know what, this is why.

Que?

Your Airbag

Looks like I'll have to get out my green and gold Newton Heath shirt out again.

Its quite ironic I got Flethcers name on the back a couple of years go as it seems like the owners are sh1tt1ng all over the club.

Samich

@Lordgoat, what can be done to change the current situation.

I'm not talking about what you think should be done.

Blatter

It's obviously really sickening that all the proceeds of the IPO won't be going towards the debt, but people are seriously going way over the top with the doom and gloom.

Two key facts from this whole episode:

1 - United WILL be in a better position after the IPO than before it, just not in nearly as good as a position as we wanted, expected or were told we would be. You would swear the way some are going on that it's going to weaken us further than what we have been over the last 7 years of their ownership, that's just nonsense.

2 - The Glazers ownership will be diluted. They currently own 100% of the club, after the IPO they will own 89.8% of the club. It's not hugely significant but at least it's a start in terms of them eventually leaving.

Dozyart

POSSY wrote: »

+1 on the frenzy, but why wouldn't he accept them and I'm not blaming him if he does. The reaction here...you'd swear we had been docked 10 points and gone into administration!

Well the main reason would be to stay on the fans good side..if there is such a thing...

lordgoat

Samich wrote: »

@Lordgoat, what can be done to change the current situation.

I'm not talking about what you think should be done.

See my last post to you.

POSSY

Eli Manning wrote: »

As the dust settles a little bit more I'd like Ferguson to disclose his financial interests in United.

I also think that this could be a vehicle to pay players with shares as a bonus reward. Obviouslly, it decreases our debt. I stand by my initial comment that Ferguson and Gill should resign if they are in receipt of financial gain as a result of this IPO floatation. Also, I'm disappointed in Ferguson who is the Glazers #1 fan and face to United fans. We still have been lied to.

It's an american owned corporation who is rewarding one of it's most responsible employees with stock options. Why on earth should he resign? He's being rewarded for a job very-well done over the years since they've owned the club. The idea he is guilty of some crime for this is nonsense. In any big company, in particular in american companies, high ranking employees are rewarded with a share of the profitability of the company. That is all this is. If you've a problem with this then maybe you should stop using products from Apple, Microsoft, CocaCola, Pepsico, Nike, Volkswagen etcetc. Alex Ferguson is an employee. His job is to manage a football team.

kryogen

Blatter wrote: »

It's obviously really sickening that all the proceeds of the IPO won't be going towards the debt, but people are seriously going way over the top with the doom and gloom.

Two key facts from this whole episode:

1 - United WILL be in a better position after the IPO than before it, just not in nearly as good as a position as we wanted, expected or were told we would be. You would swear the way some are going on that it's going to weaken us further than what we have been over the last 7 years of their ownership, that's just nonsense.

2 - The Glazers ownership will be diluted. They currently own 100% of the club, after the IPO they will own 89.8% of the club. It's not hugely significant but at least it's a start in terms of them eventually leaving.

They will retain around 98% control of the club, Ill get the exact figure in a second

homerjay2005

Glazers are not stupid. they are shrewd businessmen and the turnover and commercial madness shows this. One question? Is there anything stopping another ipo in the future if this one is successful?

DM_7

Honest question,

is SAF actually senior management? He has no control over the actual running of the 'company'.

In my mind the term Senior management normally means executives etc rather than team coaches/managers.

Samich

lordgoat wrote: »

See my last post to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_DK84qnweU

kryogen

Blatter wrote: »

It's obviously really sickening that all the proceeds of the IPO won't be going towards the debt, but people are seriously going way over the top with the doom and gloom.

Two key facts from this whole episode:

1 - United WILL be in a better position after the IPO than before it, just not in nearly as good as a position as we wanted, expected or were told we would be. You would swear the way some are going on that it's going to weaken us further than what we have been over the last 7 years of their ownership, that's just nonsense.

2 - The Glazers ownership will be diluted. They currently own 100% of the club, after the IPO they will own 89.8% of the club. It's not hugely significant but at least it's a start in terms of them eventually leaving.

They will retain around 98% control of the club, Ill get the exact figure in a second,

98.7% to be exact, in the document.

POSSY

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Glazers are not stupid. they are shrewd businessmen and the turnover and commercial madness shows this. One question? Is there anything stopping another ipo in the future if this one is successful?

No, in fact it would be even easier as the infrastructure would already be in place and a market value for the asset established.

niallo27

I think Fergie should do a Rafa and do whats best for the club and come out publicly criticise the way the club is being run.

Mgoraf

Eli Manning wrote: »

As the dust settles a little bit more I'd like Ferguson to disclose his financial interests in United.

I also think that this could be a vehicle to pay players with shares as a bonus reward. Obviouslly, it decreases our debt. I stand by my initial comment that Ferguson and Gill should resign if they are in receipt of financial gain as a result of this IPO floatation. Also, I'm disappointed in Ferguson who is the Glazers #1 fan and face to United fans. We still have been lied to.

It is very common for employees to recieve shares as bonuses in business. Don't see what the big deal over that is?

Paul Tergat

DM-ICE wrote: »

Honest question,

is SAF actually senior management? He has no control over the actual running of the 'company'.

In my mind the term Senior management normally means executives etc rather than team coaches/managers.

This is what im unsure of and something nobody can know as yet

lordgoat

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Glazers are not stupid. they are shrewd businessmen and the turnover and commercial madness shows this. One question? Is there anything stopping another ipo in the future if this one is successful?

I've wondered this. I don't think you can float the same company twice on the same exchange but possibly on other stock exchanges.

I think it's a slippery slope, they've basically given away 2% of United for 25M for the 6 of them. while paying off a pittance of the debt.

I'm not sure where they plan on going long term but I can see them drip selling off our club while bleeding us dry. It's a sad day for united. I can't see it being dressed up as anything positive.

POSSY

lordgoat wrote: »

I've wondered this. I don't think you can float the same company twice on the same exchange but possibly on other stock exchanges.

I think it's a slippery slope, they've basically given away 2% of United for 25M for the 6 of them. while paying off a pittance of the debt.

I'm not sure where they plan on going long term but I can see them drip selling off our club while bleeding us dry. It's a sad day for united. I can't see it being dressed up as anything positive.

You can very easily issue more stock, say 10% for $X. It's a common method of increasing capital reserves,in particular in the financial sector.

Jame Gumb

Smegball wrote: »

Don't see how this makes sense tbh! Why would anyone invest their money if they know most of it is just going into the Glazers pockets and the the company they are actually spending their money on.

If they think that the club's value will increase over time.

- Say that the market value of Manchester United is $1.5b.

- Say there are 100 shares in MUFC Ltd, the company that owns Manchester United, the Glazers own those shares and the company has debts of $500m. Very crudely, that means that the Glazers' shares are worth $1b (asset worth $1.5b less liability of $500m).

- Say the Glazers decide to raise $500m by way of IPO. They can effectively just sell 50% of their shares (i.e. 50 shares) and take the $500m off the table. Or the company can issue 50 new shares (which is what we all hoped would happen) in exchange for $500m. That $500m is then used to repay the company's debts. The end result is a company with an asset worth $1.5b and no debt. The Glazers own 100 shares of the company worth $1b and the investors own 50 shares worth $500m.

Unfortunately, it appears that what's happening is a hybrid of the above scenarios, with the balance tilted heavily towards the Glazers just selling shares. If they've such faith in the future of the club, then why are they willing to divest themselves of any shares? The more I look at this, the more it stinks from an investors' perspective. I can't see people going for it. I could be wrong but this does not look like a good investment, passion for United aside.

I fear that this is a dark day for Manchester United and I'm genuinely upset by this.

J

Mgoraf

I think Blatter & Homerjay are right here. There is a major overreaction to this news frm a majority of United fans. Obviously it is disappointing that the debt will not be reduced by more, but some are reacting if this was the last ever chance for the club to raise money to pay off the debt. Nothing is preventing future share sales to raise more money.

Paul Tergat

Mgoraf wrote: »

I think Blatter & Homerjay are right here. There is a major overreaction to this news frm a majority of United fans. Obviously it is disappointing that the debt will not be reduced by more, but some are reacting if this was the last ever chance for the club to raise money to pay off the debt. Nothing is preventing future share sales to raise more money.

The answer lies in the middle. Some of the debt is being reduced (slightly) but then a lot more could be done and we are still being bled in a disgusting way. Id like further transparency now to see who is getting what. The amount spent on interest on our debt is ridiculous

Red Crow

POSSY wrote: »

It's an american owned corporation who is rewarding one of it's most responsible employees with stock options. Why on earth should he resign? He's being rewarded for a job very-well done over the years since they've owned the club. The idea he is guilty of some crime for this is nonsense. In any big company, in particular in american companies, high ranking employees are rewarded with a share of the profitability of the company. That is all this is. If you've a problem with this then maybe you should stop using products from Apple, Microsoft, CocaCola, Pepsico, Nike, Volkswagen etcetc. Alex Ferguson is an employee. His job is to manage a football team.

No just that he is supporting a reign of lies and debt over United and he's standing to actually recieve money where we were told the IPO was being used to totally pay off the companies debts.

Mgoraf wrote: »

It is very common for employees to recieve shares as bonuses in business. Don't see what the big deal over that is?

It is but under the terms I think it's highly inappropriate.

kryogen

Paul Tergat wrote: »

This is what im unsure of and something nobody can know as yet

Im not being a dick here, believe me, but all the info is in the document. Look under management to find the info you are looking for, Gill is named senior management alright, you have to go through the rest of the pages read what the Remuneration committee will be responsible for, for example. It is a big document but to worth the read if you have an interest.

Mgoraf

Eli Manning wrote: »

It is but under the terms I think it's highly inappropriate.

What terms?

Paul Tergat

kryogen wrote: »

Im not being a dick here, believe me, but all the info is in the document. Look under management to find the info you are looking for, Gill is named senior management alright, you have to go through the rest of the pages read what the Remuneration committee will be responsible for, for example. It is a big document but to worth the read if you have an interest.

aye ive an interview tomorrow so hesistant to launch into the document. as a finance masters student im hugely interested in all this given i love the club as well but again, i dont see anything about Fergie there so I think until we know we should hold off on him

Red Crow

Mgoraf wrote: »

What terms?

That we were lied to about the full intent of the IPO.

Also a minority shareholding with 1/10th of the voting rights was never great in the first place. The markets will react badly to this if United fans continue to voice their concerns.

POSSY

Eli Manning wrote: »

No just that he is supporting a reign of lies and debt over United and he's standing to actually recieve money where we were told the IPO was being used to totally pay off the companies debts.



It is but under the terms I think it's highly inappropriate.

Are you serious? In all reality who expected the Glazer's to spend all the IPO money on the debt? From a business point of view that would be a very stupid thing to do. You'd loose tax write-offs concerning the loss, the debt is more than manageable, they are sacrificing very little in terms of club capital. It's a business lads.

And you know the ironic thing I see happening? Once the Glazer's get the company debt-free, take some nice dividends and then sell it. The purchaser will probably use some form of leverage to buy it!

POSSY

Eli Manning wrote: »

That we were lied to about the full intent of the IPO.

Also a minority shareholding with 1/10th of the voting rights was never great in the first place.

What were the lies?

lordgoat

Paul Tergat wrote: »

aye ive an interview tomorrow so hesistant to launch into the document. as a finance masters student im hugely interested in all this given i love the club as well but again, i dont see anything about Fergie there so I think until we know we should hold off on him

Good luck with the interview.

Blatter

kryogen wrote: »

They will retain around 98% control of the club, Ill get the exact figure in a second

Oh I know that's the case with regards voting rights, but they will only own 89.8% equity in the club which is better than them owning 100%. It's only be further diluted as time goes on. Eventually they will sell up and leave, and this is the first step of that process.

DM_7

Mgoraf wrote: »

I think Blatter & Homerjay are right here. There is a major overreaction to this news frm a majority of United fans. Obviously it is disappointing that the debt will not be reduced by more, but some are reacting if this was the last ever chance for the club to raise money to pay off the debt. Nothing is preventing future share sales to raise more money.

While I agree with the idea that this is not the end of the world scanario I do think it appears an ilogical move.

surely it makes sense to clear the debts asap so you don't have interest to pay each year, that increases the money available to be used by the club year on year. It removes the worry of paying off a large bond in 2017. It could allow the Glazers a chance to pay themselves a dividend to make money for themsleves if they want. They could also sell more shares at a later date and keep the whole lot fot themsleves as no debt would exist.

its all a bit odd imo.

kryogen

Paul Tergat wrote: »

aye ive an interview tomorrow so hesistant to launch into the document. as a finance masters student im hugely interested in all this given i love the club as well but again, i dont see anything about Fergie there so I think until we know we should hold off on him

Jesus get off this yoke and get some rest in that case

Good luck tomorrow too

Samich

DM-ICE wrote: »

While I agree with the idea that this is not the end of the world scanario I do think it appears an ilogical move.

surely it makes sense to clear the debts asap so you don't have interest to pay each year, that increases the money available to be used by the club year on year. It removes the worry of paying off a large bond in 2017. It could allow the Glazers a chance to pay themselves a dividend to make money for themsleves if they want. They could also sell more shares at a later date and keep the whole lot fot themsleves as no debt would exist.

its all a bit odd imo.

As I said earlier, once the money goes into the debt the money is gone forever. What happens if Rooney gets injured for the season and we need to buy a 40m pound striker, we'd have no money.

DM_7

kryogen wrote: »

Im not being a dick here, believe me, but all the info is in the document. Look under management to find the info you are looking for, Gill is named senior management alright, you have to go through the rest of the pages read what the Remuneration committee will be responsible for, for example. It is a big document but to worth the read if you have an interest.

To be a dick, is SAF listed or not?

I can't read the doc just yet. On phone with minimal internet access.

Paul Tergat

lordgoat wrote: »

Good luck with the interview.

kryogen wrote: »

Jesus get off this yoke and get some rest in that case

Good luck tomorrow too

Cheers lads. Will look forward to trying to get a greater handle on this stuff tomorrow. Interested to see what the mainstream media make of it too. Night all

Mgoraf

DM-ICE wrote: »

While I agree with the idea that this is not the end of the world scanario I do think it appears an ilogical move.

surely it makes sense to clear the debts asap so you don't have interest to pay each year, that increases the money available to be used by the club year on year. It removes the worry of paying off a large bond in 2017. It could allow the Glazers a chance to pay themselves a dividend to make money for themsleves if they want. They could also sell more shares at a later date and keep the whole lot fot themsleves as no debt would exist.

its all a bit odd imo.

You are right, on the face of it it does seem very odd indeed. Obviously they have their reasons for doing this, I am sure we will never know what they are though.

But it is certainly not the doomsday scenario some people are painting.

Blatter

Eli Manning wrote: »

That we were lied to about the full intent of the IPO.

Also a minority shareholding with 1/10th of the voting rights was never great in the first place. The markets will react badly to this if United fans continue to voice their concerns.

In fairness we weren't really lied to. Led to believe something different yes, but not really lied to.

The original prospectus was a draft and it did state that it was subject to change.

POSSY

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Cheers lads. Will look forward to trying to get a greater handle on this stuff tomorrow. Interested to see what the mainstream media make of it too. Night all

Mainstream media and finance... well they'll generate populist ****e without really knowing what they are on about. That is of course if history is anything to go by!

kryogen

Samich wrote: »

As I said earlier, once the money goes into the debt the money is gone forever. What happens if Rooney gets injured for the season and we need to buy a 40m pound striker, we'd have no money.

But we do have money.

You cannot be serious here, you simply can't be failing to grasp simple facts.