Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

RVD420

Reading over the posts since yesterday evening, it's like seeing the winning numbers on your lotto ticket, then copping that the ticket is a week out of date :mad:

Lord TSC

I'm laughing so hard at the calls for Fergie to resign. For people to stay they fear United will go under and then claim they think Fergie should step down.....Jesus, there'd be no faster way to tank the club than to force Fergie to step down in a PR nightmare straight after a stock launch!

Sometimes I suspect some people are idiots. Reading back over some posts here, now I know who is an idiot :rolleyes:

Nalz

Hey guys can someone point me to the post best describing this IPO and what it could mean? A lot of posts here and I'm too lazy/working this morning!

tjhanjks

Blatter

Trilla wrote: »

Hey guys can someone point me to the post best describing this IPO and what it could mean? A lot of posts here and I'm too lazy/working this morning!

tjhanjks

In short, the debt will be reduced by around 20% and the Glazers will own 90% of the club's shares rather than 100%.

Corvo

Has anyone a link for the official press release noting that the Glazer's are taking out the cash?

homerjay2005

in my opinion, until/unless the club suffers on the pitch, it is in a very healthy state.

taking away the debt issue, United is performing very very well off the pitch and the glazers are doing it well. if they bought the club with their own money, the club would be wonderfully well run and one of the best sporting clubs in the world.

while we continue to top profits of 80-100 million pounds, in theory there is no fear that the club is safe.

i can see any problems until 2017 at the earlies to be honest and hopefully by then, the debt is cleared, maybe another ipo worth 10% will sort it or more to the point, the glazers f*ck off.

Red Crow

Blatter wrote: »

Trilla wrote: »

Hey guys can someone point me to the post best describing this IPO and what it could mean? A lot of posts here and I'm too lazy/working this morning!

tjhanjks

In short, the debt will be reduced by around 20% and the Glazers will own 90% of the club's shares rather than 100%.

That's incorrect. They will own 98.7%.

Mitch Connor

Griffin1988 wrote: »

Has anyone a link for the official press release noting that the Glazer's are taking out the cash?

There is no press release.

It is in the official IPO document.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549107/000104746912007537/a2210287zf-1a.htm#cm71301_use_of_proceeds

16million shares being sold.

The proceeds of half of that will be used to pay down debt (page 42).

Page 113 for the Equity Plan information.

chainsawman

Glazier have right to take out some cash for himself, He was a man who bought United, periods. He done well for United, Even Sir Alex supported him (He was not when Glazier first bought United). Debt will be cleared within 3/4 years like Arsenal, but United fared far better in both ways, winning trophies and cutting their own debt. Cant believe when I heard United have 650 million fans worldwide ? Wow ? Must be from Asia /

s_carnage

Eli Manning wrote: »

That's incorrect. They will own 98.7%.

No from my understanding he is right. They own 90% of the club but have 98.7% voting rights or control of the club. Shares are really worthless tbh. Suppose the only reason for buying them would be if you'd think they'd increase over time

Schism

So how's everyone feeling about this whole IPO thing today? A few got a bit heated last night!

bullvine

The worry is that how long more can Ferguson stay, 2 years maybe?? What happens then if the club still has massive debt attached to it when he leaves, if the right replacement is not made. Things could be very ropey, look what has even happened to Liverpool in the last few years with their managerial decisions, without the right replacement we could end up out of the Top 4 with massive debts and rapidly decreasing revenue.

Mitch Connor

Schism wrote: »

So how's everyone feeling about this whole IPO thing today? A few got a bit heated last night!

As disgusted and disappointed as I was last night.

IPO was the best chance United had of clearing the debt without meaning we were compromised financially in terms of competing for or retaining top players.

Instead, the IPO will line the pockets of the Glazers and selected employees and consultants, and have a fairly insignificant impact on the overall debt level of the club.

It is a deeply depressing outcome and the final killer blow to any hope I had for the Glazers doing something actually good for the club. Everything they do is purely to service their own greed.

s_carnage

Mitch Connor wrote: »

As disgusted and disappointed as I was last night.

IPO was the best chance United had of clearing the debt without meaning we were compromised financially in terms of competing for or retaining top players.

Instead, the IPO will line the pockets of the Glazers and selected employees and consultants, and have a fairly insignificant impact on the overall debt level of the club.

It is a deeply depressing outcome and the final killer blow to any hope I had for the Glazers doing something actually good for the club. Everything they do is purely to service their own greed.

Totally agree with all of this. If they cleared the debt like what was the original plan with this IPO then we would probably be the most financially healthiest sports club in the world. We would have plenty of money every season to finance our own transfers and they also could even have taken sizeable fees for running the club.

Schism

Mitch Connor wrote: »

As disgusted and disappointed as I was last night.

IPO was the best chance United had of clearing the debt without meaning we were compromised financially in terms of competing for or retaining top players.

Instead, the IPO will line the pockets of the Glazers and selected employees and consultants, and have a fairly insignificant impact on the overall debt level of the club.

It is a deeply depressing outcome and the final killer blow to any hope I had for the Glazers doing something actually good for the club. Everything they do is purely to service their own greed.

Ok, so you're pretty dead set in your opinion now. I'm not defending the Glaziers or what they plan to do but they have to realise that United is a profitable club still right? What good can come from gutting it? Other than a few lump sums, surely they have more foresight than that.

Do you think that if United remain profitable that the debt can be cleared still or are any funds garnered most likely going to be siphoned out?

Adamcp898

Anyone have a download link for the SEC filing as opposed to the online version?

Mitch Connor

Schism wrote: »

Ok, so you're pretty dead set in your opinion now. I'm not defending the Glaziers or what they plan to do but they have to realise that United is a profitable club still right? What good can come from gutting it? Other than a few lump sums, surely they have more foresight than that.

Do you think that if United remain profitable that the debt can be cleared still or are any funds garnered most likely going to be siphoned out?

We are only servicing the debt at the moment, and even that is resulting in us being significantly impaired financially. We still have the vast majority of the Bonds to pay off, we've barely touched them and the IPO isn't changing that to a significant degree. It is highly likely that it will simply be another Bond offering in 2017 to pay off the remainder of the current ones, meaning more money out of the club on financial consultants, banking fees and bond interest repayment.

As it is, the club can service the debt while providing a nice stream of cash to the Glazers. As long as it can do that, they clearly don't give a sh1t what effect they are having on the club. CL qualification, that is all they actually need and care about. As long as we are top and getting out of the group phase, they don't care if play 1st or 4th. That is the reality of the situation.

Caveman1

bullvine wrote: »

The worry is that how long more can Ferguson stay, 2 years maybe?? What happens then if the club still has massive debt attached to it when he leaves, if the right replacement is not made. Things could be very ropey, look what has even happened to Liverpool in the last few years with their managerial decisions, without the right replacement we could end up out of the Top 4 with massive debts and rapidly decreasing revenue.

I was just thinking along the lines of that, Fergie basically runs United so when he eventually steps down it'll be interesting to see how things change, although I can still see him sticking around as an advisor or something

DM_7

So they are selling 8 million shares to be used for clearing debt

and another 8 million of the Glazers own shares where it states the club/compnay will not receive any proceeds from sale of the shares.

if they get the mid point share price it will reduce the debt to 345.4 million Sterling.

The costs of carrying out the IPO will be paid from the cash on hand in the club.

the Glazers will still own 90 percent of the club and leave them with 98plus percent of voting rights.

Is that it?

Mitch Connor

Andy Green will be on Sky News at 10.40 talking about the IPO.

If you can watch Sky News, I would suggest you do so.

Kylo Ren

chainsawman wrote: »

Glazier have right to take out some cash for himself, He was a man who bought United, periods. He done well for United, Even Sir Alex supported him (He was not when Glazier first bought United). Debt will be cleared within 3/4 years like Arsenal, but United fared far better in both ways, winning trophies and cutting their own debt. Cant believe when I heard United have 650 million fans worldwide ? Wow ? Must be from Asia /

Jesus Christ.

Glazer did buy United, but not with his money. He took out a ton of loans to buy United and engulfed the club in debt. Of course he is entitled to take a wage from the IPO, but 50%? It's absolutely sickening.

Copper_pipe

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/7952143/Sao-Paulo-line-up-new-Moura-deal


Another twist in the tale

Schism

Mitch Connor wrote: »

We are only servicing the debt at the moment, and even that is resulting in us being significantly impaired financially. We still have the vast majority of the Bonds to pay off, we've barely touched them and the IPO isn't changing that to a significant degree. It is highly likely that it will simply be another Bond offering in 2017 to pay off the remainder of the current ones, meaning more money out of the club on financial consultants, banking fees and bond interest repayment.

As it is, the club can service the debt while providing a nice stream of cash to the Glazers. As long as it can do that, they clearly don't give a sh1t what effect they are having on the club. CL qualification, that is all they actually need and care about. As long as we are top and getting out of the group phase, they don't care if play 1st or 4th. That is the reality of the situation.

I can certainly see where your vitriol for the Glazers is coming from and sorry to press you again but you're making sense here!

If that's the case, if it's happening the way you believe it to be, how does that change your opinion as a United fan? Considering they're going to be around for the foreseeable future.

Lord TSC

I wonder if the mistake they've made here is letting people get their hopes up for weeks/months.

If we had no clue about the IPO and then, yesterday, they just announced "We're putting up x amount of stock, we're going to earn y amount of money from it and we're going to pay z amount of the debt", would people have still been as annoyed? If we hadn't had the thought they were going to put a huge chunk towards the debt and they simply announced they were about to pay off 100m of the debt, would people have still been as annoyed?

Mitch Connor

Schism wrote: »

I can certainly see where your vitriol for the Glazers is coming from and sorry to press you again but you're making sense here!

If that's the case, if it's happening the way you believe it to be, how does that change your opinion as a United fan? Considering they're going to be around for the foreseeable future.

Change my opinion of what as a United fan? Of them, it hasn't changed much - I thought they were parasites before but hoped the IPO would be used to clear the debt leaving United to make profits, of which I figured they would take a percentage for themselves. Parasites, but I thought they could and would do something good for the club (and themselves long term, in my uneducated opinion) but they have gone for the quick short term personal win while 'helping' to an insignificant degree.

My opinion on United? Right now I am utterly disillusioned and depressed regarding the future of United. I so want us to be healthy and successful, but I just can't see a way to it while the Glazers act only in their own self-interest.

Jax Teller

There is a bloke on Redcafe who is contradicting Andy Green . His name is LondonRed if any of has access over there .

Schism

Cheers for the replies Mitch.

Samich asked last night amongst other things what would people do about this. He may have gone about it in the wrong way, antagonising people somewhat, but I see the point in his question.

Personally I'll still follow United as normal, even if it's a terrible situation the club is in. I still want us to succeed, to win trophies.

I presume that would be the general consensus.

Mitch Connor

Coletrickle88 wrote: »

There is a bloke on Redcafe who is contradicting Andy Green . His name is LondonRed if any of has access over there .

please link - i can't find it.

Donnielighto

If these shares have no voting and no dividend does that mean that they are pretty much worthless until there is a takeover of the club?

Jax Teller

It's in the newbie section in the man united file for Ipo thread . Not sure if you can get to that from the Mains section I'll screen what he is saysing in a few mins .

Mitch Connor

Donnielighto wrote: »

If these shares have no voting and no dividend does that mean that they are pretty much worthless until there is a takeover of the club?

an increae in value of the club, or more accurately the share price would mean they can sell at a profit.

Based on the current share price they are looking for, the club would need to be sold for more than £2billion for the shares to profit from that. Can't see that being likely.

Fenix

Do people think its a realistic situation regarding SAF, and that he's been so publicly supportive of the Glazers, because of the colossal payday he's about to recieve?

This is a massive u-turn by the glazers, they HAVE to know the ****storm they are going to creat in doing this.

Also, is there anyway the FA can intervene? At the end of the day, these shower of <unts are pocketing $130m while the club is saddled with $550m debt created by aforementioned <unts.

Sick to the stomach at whats happening to the club.

Donnielighto

Fenix wrote: »

Do people think its a realistic situation regarding SAF, and that he's been so publicly supportive of the Glazers, because of the colossal payday he's about to recieve?

This is a massive u-turn by the glazers, they HAVE to know the ****storm they are going to creat in doing this.

Also, is there anyway the FA can intervene? At the end of the day, these shower of <unts are pocketing $130m while the club is saddled with $550m debt created by aforementioned <unts.

Sick to the stomach at whats happening to the club.

Well the Glazers are selling their stake in the club arent they as opposed to issuing new capital?

Fenix

Donnielighto wrote: »

Fenix wrote: »

Do people think its a realistic situation regarding SAF, and that he's been so publicly supportive of the Glazers, because of the colossal payday he's about to recieve?

This is a massive u-turn by the glazers, they HAVE to know the ****storm they are going to creat in doing this.

Also, is there anyway the FA can intervene? At the end of the day, these shower of <unts are pocketing $130m while the club is saddled with $550m debt created by aforementioned <unts.

Sick to the stomach at whats happening to the club.

Well the Glazers are selling their stake in the club arent they as opposed to issuing new capital?

They are selling 10% of the club and because they are doing it in New York, they can do it in such a way that they will retain 98% control of they club while pocketing $130. Also, all the costs of the flotation will be financed by MUFC, not they Glazers.

I hate to say it, but unless they get an offer they can't refuse, these bastards are going to ruin the club I've supported for 21 years.

Blatter

Originally Posted by LondonRed
I am knackered and want to go to bed soon but quick summary after scowering the new prospectus:

a) ****ing *****. From selling 10% of the total offering size (if the banks elect to exercise the over allotment option) to a minimum 50%. That means that the maximum the club will make from this will be $166.67m, a minmum of $133.33m and an average (middle of the price range is a pretty good bet generally) $150m before expenses. The over-allotment (should they get enough demand for the shares) is also of existing shares.

I know this is a lot less than people expected but I guess it is better than nothing.

The other point to mention on this is that it is much cheaper for the owner to sell shares under the company's IPO. The co will pay all of the expenses of the issue other than the banking commission relating to the sale of the existing shares. Assuming a 4% commission (could be anywhere from around 2% to 6%) not including any performance related fees (if one is to be paid it will be around 0.75% - 1.25%) then total expenses will be around $20m (13% of the offering size) if one includes the $12m cost of listing as quoted in the prospectus. Hefty.

b) The voting rights attached to those shares are hilarious. In total there will be 1,279,685,700 'votes' available post admission. The new and existing shares being offered represent 1.30% of this figure. Imagine that. All shareholders that are not connected persons (employee, director, own more than 5% of the voting rights) (called the free float in the UK) have 1.3% of the voting rights! If they were listing on the LSE and wanted a premium listing or to be included on an indices like the FTSE250 etc. they would need the free float to be 25%. Ours is 1.3%. Mental....

The Glazers/directors will also be subject to a lock up for 180 days from admission (can't sell any shares until that date) without the banks permission.

c) The offer is fully underwritten - all the shares will be sold (even if it means the banks owning them) so the amount that utd raise (not including the selling shareholder) will definitely be between the figures quoted in a) assuming they haven't been too optimistic about the valuation (should be reasonably accurate after doing their pre-marketing).

d) It is actually very difficult to put a figure on the club's evaluation. Only the A shares will be admitted so no one has any idea what the B shares are worth. If we ignore the B shares voting rights for a minute, the B shares convert to A shares on a one to one basis so in theory we have a share capital of 163,685,700 ordinary shares (again not counting the voting rights influence over this figure). This values the club at somewhere between $2,618.97m and $3,273.71m (£1,668,877,844 & £2,086,095,711).

e) Shares being given to employees is very common, no real issues with that. They don;t vest immediately, only on hitting certain performance targets or previous targets that they hit. Much better to pay them in shares (it's free!) than having them on cash bonuses. Might be an interesting topic for discussion that. By employees we mean people like Gill/senior management etc. not the players but might be an interesting way to pay certain big bonuses. X shares for winning the champions league etc. Not sure the players would be happy but again, it's free so ..

Initial thoughts - Kind of expected something like this to happen along the way. On the same day as we have (according to Reuters which is generally as reliable as it gets) the world's/football's biggest shirt sponsorship deal you get this change. Always release bad news when you can dampen it down with good news on the same day.

It isn't great news i will give you that. Cheeky as **** might be a better way to word it actually. Staggering turn around from a potential maximum of 10% of the offering to a potential maximum of 60% of the offering. All the press reports said that the IPO wasn't going too well in pre-marketing. The total level of interest they received in total was $X. It makes no difference to investors whether they are buying new or existing shares (relative to their valuation of the club). But to then go ahead and divide $X by half is a kick in the teeth to be honest. They could have knocked up to $300m off the debt. Instead it will be about $150m. The costs are high as well. As we are paying all the fixed costs and the Glazers only pay the banking com that aplies to their shares sold, the relative cost of the issue is very high (c.13%). Had we been talking about $300m then the costs would have been nearer $27m (9%). If we want to raise another $150m in a year's time we will be paying roughly the same fixed costs all over again.

But, ignoring the voting rights, the Glazers now only own 89.82% of the equity in the club whereas before the IPO it was 100%. Their share (equity not voting) is only ever going to get diluted further as time goes on. Not ideal but it is a start...

EDIT: And we will be in a better position after the IPO than before it, just not in as good a position as the Glazers initially led us to believe. But I am sure no one expected anything less from the Glazers.

Seems to know what he's talking about alright.

Mitch Connor

Blatter wrote: »

Seems to know what he's talking about alright.

doesn't appear to contradict Andy Green to any significant degree to be honest.

Says the offering is poor, a U-Turn on the previous prospectus promises and won't significantly impact the overall debt of the club.

He does say we will be in a better position than before the IPO.

Technically it is correct, but imo it is a massively wasted opportunity to put the club on a good financial footing, and that the overall effect of the IPO (taking the missed opportunity into account) is negative.

v3ttel

Couple of things:

- Apparently the Chevy deal is worth £28 million a season. Total £196 million over 7 years. Compared to the Nike deal that was worth £20 million per season.

- Half of the money from the IPO is being used to pay off debt. This still puts United in a better position that the club are currently in. Sure, it's sickening that they could be doing so much more, not the great news we hoped for, but still, improving the current situation. Debt is sustainable to a certain level, see the simplified example with United vs Leeds/Pompey about mortgages posted a few pages back.

- They've given up around ~11% ownership of the club. Previously, they always said "Not for sale". Granted, they've only given up 1.3% control, but again, it is a start.

- Anyone who has called for Fergie to resign, or questions that he wants the best for the club he has spent 26 years building, should instantly receive a permaban, imo, and not just from the soccer forum, from the internet and football in general.

Blatter

Mitch Connor wrote: »

doesn't appear to contradict Andy Green to any significant degree to be honest.

Agreed, but it's somewhat more balanced. It's hard to take Andy Green's word as gospel, we all know he's a serial Glazer hater. It was only a few days ago that he gleefully claimed 'top level' sources at United told him the IPO was to be pulled too. How wrong was that...

Mitch Connor

Blatter wrote: »

Agreed, but it's somewhat more balanced. It's hard to take Andy Green's word as gospel, we all know he's a serial Glazer hater. It was only a few days ago that he gleefully claimed 'top level' sources at United told him the IPO was to be pulled too. How wrong was that...

It was pulled.

The original IPO was pulled, quite clearly, and it wasn't just Andy Green saying that.

A new IPO is going ahead, with far worse conditions from the perspective of United.

Fenix

Need some cheering up in here...



Current USA ladies striker, Alex Morgan.

Jame Gumb

If only this was 2007.

Anglo would definitely have lent us the money to buy the club with a personal guarantee from kryogen and my car as security...

Blatter

Mitch Connor wrote: »

It was pulled.

The original IPO was pulled, quite clearly, and it wasn't just Andy Green saying that.

A new IPO is going ahead, with far worse conditions from the perspective of United.

My understanding from what he was saying was that the whole thing was off. The draft prospectus was just that, a draft. It did say that it was subject to change.

I don't see how the prospective changing equates to the IPO being ''pulled''.

Also iirc he was saying that the reason it was ''pulled'' was because the Glazers overvalued the shares and there wasn't demand for them. That doesn't seem the case now at all does it?

Jax Teller

LondonRed wrote: »

http://www.teamtalk.com/manchester-united/7951791/United-amend-share-plans

And this is a load of ****. So misleading. Same as AndersRed who I enjoy following but this is simply not true. "Fury by Man utd supporters as Glazers take half the proceeds." Jesus. Glazers own less of the club and we pay down some debt. Fury my arse. This is a good thing.

Please just read the posts above.

Another post by LondonRed

Sgt Pepper 64

Rooney10 wrote: »

Couple of things:

- Apparently the Chevy deal is worth £28 million a season. Total £196 million over 7 years. Compared to the Nike deal that was worth £20 million per season.

- Half of the money from the IPO is being used to pay off debt. This still puts United in a better position that the club are currently in. Sure, it's sickening that they could be doing so much more, not the great news we hoped for, but still, improving the current situation. Debt is sustainable to a certain level, see the simplified example with United vs Leeds/Pompey about mortgages posted a few pages back.

- They've given up around ~11% ownership of the club. Previously, they always said "Not for sale". Granted, they've only given up 1.3% control, but again, it is a start.

- Anyone who has called for Fergie to resign, or questions that he wants the best for the club he has spent 26 years building, should instantly receive a permaban, imo, and not just from the soccer forum, from the internet and football in general.

But what happens if the uptake for this IPO is low?
As Ive said before, I just cant see the desire for this.
Sport is not a good investment and football in the states is a much less attractive proposition, and despite the good and global name of Utd, investors know why they are doing it and also know that in real terms they are getting very little and certainly not any control

Your finances also depend on how well you do in the CL
(Because Utd went out early - it cost you quite a bit of money)

Kit sponsers (as chelsea learnt) can be very fickle and if Utd do the unthinkable and not qualify for CL, then sponsers will either pull out or re-negotiate

Completely agree about Fergie - all Utd's rivals would love to see him retire\replaced.

There should also be rules about how much owners can take out of a club, as much as there should be how much they put in!
(Reverse FPP!)

Blatter

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

But what happens if the uptake for this IPO is low?
As Ive said before, I just cant see the desire for this.
Sport is not a good investment and football in the states is a much less attractive proposition, and despite the good and global name of Utd, investors know why they are doing it and also know that in real terms they are getting very little and certainly not any control

Your finances also depend on how well you do in the CL
(Because Utd went out early - it cost you quite a bit of money)

Kit sponsers (as chelsea learnt) can be very fickle and if Utd do the unthinkable and not qualify for CL, then sponsers will either pull out or re-negotiate

Completely agree about Fergie - all Utd's rivals would love to see him retire\replaced.

There should also be rules about how much owners can take out of a club, as much as there should be how much they put in!
(Reverse FPP!)

It's underwritten, all the shares will be bought.

Jax Teller

Quote:
[Originally Posted by coolredwine
Yes. But the initial IPO prospectus said that the money generated will go towards servicing the debt. They changed it and from the money that is being generated, 20MP will be pocketed by each Glazer. That means 120MP in their pockets. Is it because they used their money to buy back bonds worth 200MP? That is what I am asking.]

Londonreds reply
Sorry that isn't true. The use of the proceeds has not changed at all (pay down debt). Every single penny earnt from the sale of new shares will be used to pay down the debt. What has changed is that the Glazers are also selling some of their shares as well. This is not the club's money but the Glazers money as they own 100% of the equity in Utd.

This brings up two important points.

a) Demand is not infinite. After doing their pre-marketing the banks will have told the Glazers that they think they can place between $266.6m - $333m worth of shares. What they have done is satisfy part of this demand with their own shares. They could have elected to issue new shares for all of this demand. So whilst we will be better off than before (less debt) we are not as well off as we could have been. That is why people are a little angry.

For the founder to be selling shares in an IPO is not uncommon. In fact, I would say for him not to be selling shares would be very uncommon. I would however say it is very rare to change the structure of the IPO so much following pre-marketing. Which brings me nicely onto point b...

b) For the Glazers to be selling shares they are obviously happy at this valuation. After all the purported Red Knights/Middle Eastern interest in the club that petered out when they baulked at the Glazer's valuation we at least know roughly what it will cost to get rid of them.

Regardless, for the vast majority of fans the Glazers ownership has not been great for the club (whether this is true in reality or not is irrelevant). It is our general consensus on this forum that it would be better for our club if they were no longer in charge. This is the first step of that. They will only own c.89% of the club after the float (potentially more if the over allotment option is exercised). And in addition, we will knock $114m - $145m (after expenses) off the debt. Whilst not as much as we hoped, that is better than nothing. Very expensive for the club mind (c.13% of the proceeds will be paid in fees/banking commissions).

What should be taken away from this is that we will be in a better position after we float than we are currently. The much bigger news today is that if the figures in Reuters are accurate, we have just signed the biggest shirt sponsorship deal in history. More importantly, we get a nice bit of cash upfront. I hope that doesn't go under the radar as we debate the merits of the Glazers/Fergie's(?) culpability.

....

That was the post that caught my eye ealier.

Kylo Ren

I don't completely get this.

The underwriters have an option to purchase up to an additional 2,500,000 Class A Ordinary Shares from the selling shareholder

Does this mean after the IPO anyone who bought shares can purchase up to 2,500,000 more? How much will that raise?

DM_7

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

But what happens if the uptake for this IPO is low?
As Ive said before, I just cant see the desire for this.
Sport is not a good investment and football in the states is a much less attractive proposition, and despite the good and global name of Utd, investors know why they are doing it and also know that in real terms they are getting very little and certainly not any control

Your finances also depend on how well you do in the CL
(Because Utd went out early - it cost you quite a bit of money)

Kit sponsers (as chelsea learnt) can be very fickle and if Utd do the unthinkable and not qualify for CL, then sponsers will either pull out or re-negotiate

Completely agree about Fergie - all Utd's rivals would love to see him retire\replaced.

There should also be rules about how much owners can take out of a club, as much as there should be how much they put in!
(Reverse FPP!)

they will sell the shares as pointed out above

finances are not dependant on champions league alone. Far from it. A quick look at the prospectus shows that.

'fickle' Kit sponser will be paying a large chunk of money up front so they will have a big incentive to finish the contract.

Glazers are not actually taking money out of the club. The only money leaving the actual club is the cash used to pay for this IPO. The rest is selling of shares. Its not actually taking money from the clubs cash reserves. (Your suggested rule would be good for football though as it would potentially discourage the buying of football clubs to make money for investors).

Copper_pipe

ON THIS DAY In 2006, we signed Michael Carrick for £18.6m

MagicMarker

Copper_pipe wrote: »

ON THIS DAY In 2006, we signed Michael Carrick for £18.6m

World class midfielder imo, up there with Keano....


:pac: