Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

MagicMarker

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-03/manchester-united-files-for-100-million-initial-offer-in-u-s-.html

Manchester United Ltd., the English soccer team with a record 19 national championships, filed to raise $100 million in a U.S. initial public offering.
The club didn’t say how many shares it will offer or at what price. The offering amount is a placeholder used to calculate registration fees and may change.

United, which previously planned to raise as much as $1 billion in a Singapore IPO, may hold the U.S. offering this summer, people with knowledge of the plans said last month. The Singapore process was stalled as volatile stock markets roiled equity sales, people familiar said at the time. Proceeds from the sale will be used to repay debt, today’s filing shows.

Jefferies Group Inc., Credit Suisse Group AG and JPMorgan Chase & Co. will lead the offering, United’s filing shows. Morgan Stanley, which had been hired to lead the sale in Singapore, isn’t listed as an underwriter in the filing for the U.S. offering. Singapore’s benchmark stock index, the Straits Times Index, has fallen about 8 percent since Aug. 1, when United was contemplating an IPO in the city state.

Banks pitched the idea of a U.S. sale to the Glazer family, the club’s U.S. owners, one person said. The Glazer family bought United in 2005 for 790 million pounds ($1.24 billion) and also owns the National Football League’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

United, whose players include England’s striker Wayne Rooney and Welshman Ryan Giggs, has 659 million followers, making it the world’s most popular club, United said in May, citing a study by market research company Kantar. Its supporters have Kenzie Elegant Liquor in five years, helped by 108 million fans in China, where the team plans to play two exhibition matches this summer.

kryogen

Bit more on the financial stuff, it may be boring to some!

MANCHESTER, England, Jul 03, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Manchester United today announced that it has filed a registration statement on Form F-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the proposed initial public offering of its Class A Ordinary Shares. Manchester United intends to apply to list its Class A Ordinary Shares on the New York Stock Exchange. The number of Class A Ordinary Shares to be offered and the price range for the proposed offering have not yet been determined.

The book-running managers for the proposed offering are Jefferies, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, J.P. Morgan, BofA Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank Securities.

A registration statement relating to these securities has been filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission but has not yet become effective. These securities may not be sold nor may offers to buy be accepted prior to the time the registration statement becomes effective.

When available, copies of the preliminary prospectus related to the offering may be obtained from (i) Jefferies & Company, Inc., Attention: Equity Syndicate Prospectus Department, 520 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10022, or by telephone at 877-547-6340, or by email at Prospectus_Department@Jefferies.com, (ii) Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Attention: Prospectus Department, One Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 10010, or by telephone at +1 (800) 221-1037, or by email at newyork.prospectus@credit-suisse.com, (iii) J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, c/o Broadridge Financial Solutions, 1155 Long Island Avenue, Edgewood, NY 11717 or by calling toll-free 866-803-9204, (iv) BofA Merrill Lynch, 222 Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10038 Attn: Prospectus Department, Email: dg.prospectus_requests@baml.com, or (v) Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (Prospectus Group, 60 Wall Street, New York, New York, +1 (800) 503-4611 or prospectus.cpdg@db.com ).

This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of, these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such an offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction.

In the United Kingdom, this announcement is only directed at, and any investment or investment activity to which this announcement relates is only available to, and will be engaged in only with, investment professionals falling within Article 19(5), or high net worth entities falling within Article 49(2), of the Financial Services and Markets Act (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 or other persons to whom such investment or investment activity may lawfully be made available (together "relevant persons"). Persons who are not relevant persons should not take any action on the basis of this announcement and should not act or rely on it.

SOURCE: Manchester United

RasTa

We are going to be facebook rich

Fenix

Andy Green ‏@andersred
#MUFC to become a Cayman Islands company. Classy. Not.

Gonna need someone to give me the low-down on the implications of this?

JaMarcus Hustle

It means our HQ is no longer Old Trafford, but rather an office in the Cayman Islands. It's for tax purposes, nothing more.

kryogen

This from wiki should give you an idea of what he is on about

Financial services industry

The Cayman Islands are a major international financial centre. The biggest sectors are "banking, hedge fund formation and investment, structured finance and securitization, captive insurance, and general corporate activities."[28] Regulation and supervision of the financial services industry is the responsibility of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA).

The Cayman Islands are the fifth-largest banking centre in the world,[29] with $1.5 trillion in banking liabilities.[28] There are 279 banks (as of June 2008), 19 of which are licensed to conduct banking activities with domestic (Cayman-based) and international clients, the remaining 260 are licensed to operate on an international basis with only limited domestic activity. Financial services generated CI$1.2 billion of GDP in 2007 (55% of the total economy), 36% of all employment and 40% of all government revenue. In 2010, the country ranked fifth internationally in terms of value of liabilities booked in the Cayman Islands and sixth in terms of assets booked. It has branches of 40 of the world's 50 largest banks. The Cayman Islands are the second largest captive domicile in the world with more than 700 captives, writing more than US$7.7 billion of premiums and with US$36.8 billion of assets under management.[30]

There are a number of service providers. These include global financial institutions including HSBC, Deutsche Bank, UBS, and Goldman Sachs; over 80 administrators, leading accountancy practices (incl. the Big Four auditors), and offshore law practices including Maples & Calder.[31] They also include wealth management such as Rothschilds private banking and financial advice.[32]

Since the introduction of the Mutual Funds Law in 1993, which has been copied by jurisdictions around the world, the Cayman Islands have grown to be the world's leading offshore hedge fund jurisdiction.[31] In June 2008, it passed 10,000 hedge fund registrations, and over the year ending June 2008 CIMA reported a net growth rate of 12% for hedge funds.[33]

Starting in the mid-late 1990s, offshore financial centres, such as the Cayman Islands, came under increasing pressure from the OECD for their allegedly harmful tax regimes, where the OECD wished to prevent low-tax regimes from having an advantage in the global marketplace. The OECD threatened to place the Cayman Islands and other financial centres on a "black list" and impose sanctions against them.[34] However, the Cayman Islands successfully avoided being placed on the OECD black list in 2000 by committing to regulatory reform to improve transparency and begin information exchange with OECD member countries about their citizens.[34]

In 2004, under pressure from the UK, the Cayman Islands agreed in principle to implement the European Union Savings Directive (EUSD), but only after securing some important benefits for the financial services industry in the Cayman Islands. As the Cayman Islands are not subject to EU laws, the implementation of the EUSD is by way of bilateral agreements between each EU member state and the Cayman Islands. The government of the Cayman Islands agreed on a model agreement, which set out how the EUSD would be implemented with the Cayman Islands.[35]

A report published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in March 2005, assessing supervision and regulation in the Cayman Islands' banking, insurance and securities industries, as well as its money laundering regime, recognised the jurisdiction's comprehensive regulatory and compliance frameworks. "An extensive program of legislative, rule and guideline development has introduced an increasingly effective system of regulation, both formalizing earlier practices and introducing enhanced procedures", noted IMF assessors. The report further stated that "the supervisory system benefits from a well-developed banking infrastructure with an internationally experienced and qualified workforce as well as experienced lawyers, accountants and auditors", adding that, "the overall compliance culture within Cayman is very strong, including the compliance culture related to AML (anti-money laundering) obligations".[36][37]

On 4 May 2009, United States President Barack Obama declared his intentions to curb the use of financial centres by multinational corporations. In his speech, he singled out the Cayman Islands as a tax shelter.[38]

The next day, the Cayman Island Financial Services Association submitted an open letter to the President detailing The Cayman Islands' role in international finance and its value to the US financial system.[39]


Taxation

No direct taxation is imposed on residents and Cayman Islands companies. The government receives the majority of its income from indirect taxation. Duty is levied against most imported goods, which is typically in the range of 22% to 25%. Some items are exempted, such as baby formula, books, cameras and certain items are taxed at 5%. Duty on automobiles depends on their value. The duty can amount to 29.5% up to $20,000.00 KYD CIF and up to 42% over $30,000.00 KYD CIF for expensive models. The government charges flat licensing fees on financial institutions that operate in the islands and there are work permit fees on foreign labour. A 10% government tax is placed on all tourist accommodations in addition to US$25.00 airport departure tax which is built in to the cost of an airline ticket.[54]

There are no taxes on profits, capital gains, income or any withholding taxes charged to foreign investors. There are no estate or death duties payable on Cayman Islands real estate or other assets held in the Cayman Islands

kryogen

Quite popular for money laundering also

kryogen

JaMarcus Hustle wrote: »

It means our HQ is no longer Old Trafford, but rather an office in the Cayman Islands. It's for tax purposes, nothing more.

HQ has not been OT for some time now has it not?

markc1184

So in a nutshell is this good or bad?

Red Crow

Fenix wrote: »

Andy Green ‏@andersred
#MUFC to become a Cayman Islands company. Classy. Not.

Gonna need someone to give me the low-down on the implications of this?

Tax efficiency. I don't care where the company is based.

Justin10

It really depends on the reaction to the shares and what the share price is at.
Also depends how many shares go on the stock exchange.

Jimmy Iovine

markc1184 wrote: »

So in a nutshell is this good or bad?

I've no idea :pac:

kryogen

markc1184 wrote: »

So in a nutshell is this good or bad?

Good for the Glazers, no real effect on the club, well there shouldn't be anyway

Gamb!t

kryogen wrote: »

Good article here http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1245881-manchester-united-transfer-rumours-axel-witsel-ideal-move-for-midfield-makeover

Witsel has completely slipped my mind, would not be opposed to him at all

Cant take to the guy after that leg breaker he did to a guy a few years back.

mar-z

kryogen wrote: »

I will ask again, in vain possibly

Anybody have any thoughts on Petrucci for the coming season? Would he be better served going for a full seasons loan or maybe staying till christmas then heading on loan? He has the potential for sure, he has been great since he got back to fitness and he always comes across brilliantly when being interviewed.

I would like to see him stay till christmas and then go on loan if he is unlikely to get games. From what I've seen of him watching clips/matches of reserves online (not exactly a reliable indicator I know) I think he is well able to play a role starting in the league cup and possible a few sub appearances in the league and he actually impressed me more for the reserves last season than Pogba.

Of course if he is not in the plans to play those type of games going on loan for the season would be for the best. If the rumours are true that he turned down bigger money from elsewhere I hope it is a sign he was told he would have some part to play soon.

DM_7

kryogen wrote: »

I will ask again, in vain possibly

Anybody have any thoughts on Petrucci for the coming season? Would he be better served going for a full seasons loan or maybe staying till christmas then heading on loan? He has the potential for sure, he has been great since he got back to fitness and he always comes across brilliantly when being interviewed.

He probably won't get much time in the first team so I think he would be doing well if he gets to go on loan to a decent footballing team in the Championship maybe and getting to play at a better standard then reserve team football to see how he gets on, could have a little gem there too.

I think United will have to be very careful with Petrucci. If he has returned to full fitness and up to the rigors of first team football. United could call in a favour to get him a good loan move. He would need to be at a club that will give him proper rest and a good chance to play games. League one may be a good fit for him. Perhaps three months at Oldham to keep him close by would be a good start.

kryogen

Gamb!t wrote: »

Cant take to the guy after that leg breaker he did to a guy a few years back.

Horrible challenge alright, wouldn't write him off because of it though

Edit: you know what, horrible challenge doesn't do it justice, it was disgusting the way he almost completely separated the guys foot from his leg

No excusing it, he obviously didn't intend to break the leg though and I would not hold it against him for his whole career, he was young and hopefully he will never be that rash again.

Fenix

Thanks for the replies

Andy Green ‏@andersred
I'd guess the reason for becoming Caymen co involves shielding future capital gains if the family sell B shares.... I stress "guess"

Just from what ive read so far, this sale is for A Shares, Glazers will own 100% of B shares which hold 10 times the votes of an A share...

So they hope to raise £100m, but at the end of the day, its up to them what they do with it and they dont have to declare where its going? We can only hope its going to debt reduction but I have to worry they will pocket a decent proportion.

DM_7

Fenix wrote: »

Thanks for the replies

Andy Green ‏@andersred
I'd guess the reason for becoming Caymen co involves shielding future capital gains if the family sell B shares.... I stress "guess"

Just from what ive read so far, this sale is for A Shares, Glazers will own 100% of B shares which hold 10 times the votes of an A share...

So they hope to raise £100m, but at the end of the day, its up to them what they do with it and they dont have to declare where its going? We can only hope its going to debt reduction but I have to worry they will pocket a decent proportion.

That Bloomberg article above says the money raised will be used to pay debts.

JaMarcus Hustle

David Gill, March 2011:

"We know [the debt is] there but it doesn't impact what we do. There has been no impact in terms of our transfers."

Manchester United IPO SEC filing, July 2012:

Indebtedness could adversely affect our financial health and competitive position. [Could reduce] availability of our cash flow to fund the hiring and retention of players and coaching staff.

iMuse

Heres the document if people are bored and want to read 150 odd pages


Interesting point in the document on page 25/26

Our indebtedness could adversely affect our financial health and competitive position.

As of March 31, 2012, we had total indebtedness of £423.3 million. Our indebtedness increases the risk that we may be unable to generate cash sufficient to pay amounts due in respect of our indebtedness. It could also have effects on our business. For example, it could:

affect our ability to compete for players and coaching staff

DM_7

We intend to use all of our net proceeds from this offering to reduce our indebtedness by exercising our option to redeem $ million in aggregate principal amount of our 83/8% US dollar senior secured notes due 2017 at a redemption price equal to 108.375% of the principal amount of such notes and £ million in aggregate principal amount of our 83/4% pound sterling senior secured notes due 2017 at a redemption price equal to 108.750% of the principal amount of such notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of such redemption.

So it is to pay debts due in 2017.

TheTownie

DM-ICE wrote: »

That Bloomberg article above says the money raised will be used to pay debts.

Which debts though.

Are the PIKs still around just under a different guise?
Would it be legal to use the money raise in IPO to pay that if such a debt still exists?
Does my memory serve me correct that the Glazers have the right to take money out of the club?

I'm hoping for three "No's" here. :P

EDIT: Ah, DM-ICE's quote answers that then.

kryogen

He raised a wow figure on twitter a few minutes ago that was quite impressive

Andy Green‏@andersred

A few "wow" figures in #MUFC doc. "New media and mobile" revenue £17m. Arsenal's total commercial income from all sources is only £46m.....

RasTa

100m is of no use to the club tbh. I'm guessing it's going to be a lot more.

kryogen

At least they are now basically admitting that the club cannot compete with the burden on it, thats a positive?

Andy Green‏@andersred

Will be interesting to hear David "debt isn't a problem" Gill justify a u-turn like this....

kryogen

RasTa wrote: »

100m is of no use to the club tbh. I'm guessing it's going to be a lot more.

It is apparently the minimum they will be looking to raise

homerjay2005

kryogen wrote: »

At least they are now basically admitting that the club cannot compete with the burden on it, thats a positive?

Andy Green‏@andersred

Will be interesting to hear David "debt isn't a problem" Gill justify a u-turn like this....

there is no u-turn, the bonds needed to be paid back in 5 years time. to do that over the next 5 years, the club basically needs to pump the 100+million profit a year its making into the debt each year.

its a good think i think, that they realised this and have acted early.

kryogen

Peter Hyllman‏@pmophy17421

Alright, Andy Green is no longer even pretending to read the materials before forming his already made opinions on the subject matter.

Anyone know him?

kryogen

homerjay2005 wrote: »

there is no u-turn, the bonds needed to be paid back in 5 years time. to do that over the next 5 years, the club basically needs to pump the 100+million profit a year its making into the debt each year.

its a good think i think, that they realised this and have acted early.

It is quite a nice bit of reversing in fairness to go from a stance of the debt has no effect on how the busines is run to the debt could affect our ability to compete.

I agree that that is a positive of course.

kryogen

Seems like a good time to link to the last blog he had about the finances, particularly the bits about the buying back of the bond shares and the effect that has had on the overall debt, and the overall cash the club has.

Wont quote as its quite long and not everybody will want to read it

http://www.andersred.blogspot.ie/

homerjay2005

people are treating this as if its some sort of revelation and new. the debt has been there since 2005 for f*ck sake. have people completely ignored the

the doc states the obvious, if 50% of our profits are going on interest, of course this is going to affect the club with this money being wasted.

kryogen

homerjay2005 wrote: »

people are treating this as if its some sort of revelation and new. the debt has been there since 2005 for f*ck sake. have people completely ignored the

the doc states the obvious, if 50% of our profits are going on interest, of course this is going to affect the club with this money being wasted.

Who has said anything other than that?

All that was said is, it will be funny to see what Gill has to say since he has always maintained the debt has no effect on the business.

you know well that people have not ignored the debt since 2005, there has been pages and pages of debate about it over the years, at last the club seem to be taking a positive step to rid it once and for all.

Nobody is acting like this is a revelation or new that I see, the IPO was to be attempted last year but didn't go ahead sure

homerjay2005

kryogen wrote: »

Who has said anything other than that?

All that was said is, it will be funny to see what Gill has to say since he has always maintained the debt has no effect on the business.

you know well that people have not ignored the debt since 2005, there has been pages and pages of debate about it over the years, at last the club seem to be taking a positive step to rid it once and for all.

Nobody is acting like this is a revelation or new that I see, the IPO was to be attempted last year but didn't go ahead sure

sorry mate, not directed at you at all. are you on twitter? the main United fans are doing their nut saying this is "bleak" a disaster, outragrous, calling for green and gold campaigns, saying gills reputation and fergies are in tatters and all this s*ite.

nothing tonight is new, for those who are following the 1/4 updates every 3 months. club has had this debt since 2005, yet in that time, has grown its revenue by 100%.

people are using the debt to cover over other facts such as united have never been big spenders (50million last year being the second biggest in our history) and never a major draw for world class players when up against other big clubs. also, fergie has had the money there for him and always chose not to spend it.

kryogen

Yeah I'm on it but I don't really post or anything, just follow a few people is all

I agree with most of what you are saying, I have said many times I am happy with the Glazer ownership bar the debt, but it is a huge black mark, they have been excellent owners thus far besides that. It is also true of course that United have never spent huge money on transfers over the years, Fergie has always had a policy of trying to get the talent young and develop it in his own way, I could count the number of genuine marquee signings in the last 20 years on one hand actually.

There is nothing wrong with the model at the club really, but the playing field has been changed with the influx of billionaire sugar daddys and the debt is going to cause a problem competing with them unless something is done about it, besides of course, if it is not paid by the deadline the Glazers could actually lose the club!

The best way for them to pay it, the most desirable way will be to use other peoples money to pay, same way they bought the club and the share sale is a great way to do that.

kryogen

This is nothing but good news

Andy Green‏@andersred

Right, enough from me. Two key takeaways, no dividends and proceeds of IPO will be used to reduce debt. That's very good news for United.

homerjay2005

one clown on there, who has never been to the stadium as they live in europe, has called for a boycott after tonight...

its idiots like this that embarrass me with united fans. how can you boycott something that youve never been involved in?

kryogen

homerjay2005 wrote: »

one clown on there, who has never been to the stadium as they live in europe, has called for a boycott after tonight...

its idiots like this that embarrass me with united fans. how can you boycott something that youve never been involved in?

I don't get it?

Why does he want a boycott?

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Just stumbled across this there,

Ahead of the start of the 2011–12 season, Ferguson confirmed that Pogba will feature with the senior team during the season stating "I mean if we hold Pogba back, what’s going to happen? He’s going to leave."

Can have no complaints for him leaving really, as for the manner in which he left, well that's a whole different matter.

homerjay2005

kryogen wrote: »

I don't get it?

Why does he want a boycott?

he wants to organise a boycott march outside the stadium during matches....

homerjay2005

THFC wrote: »

Just stumbled across this there,

Ahead of the start of the 2011–12 season, Ferguson confirmed that Pogba will feature with the senior team during the season stating "I mean if we hold Pogba back, what’s going to happen? He’s going to leave."

Can have no complaints for him leaving really, as for the manner in which he left, well that's a whole different matter.

Pogba clearly said a few weeks back the problem was not fergie, so i assume that he means not getting game time was an issue.

however, the problem appears to have been a greedy agent and stubborn board. looks like $ and the agent won.

Jimmy Iovine

homerjay2005 wrote: »

he wants to organise a boycott march outside the stadium during matches....

What's his name on it?

kryogen

homerjay2005 wrote: »

he wants to organise a boycott march outside the stadium during matches....

Why though? Because the club is in debt?

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Pogba clearly said a few weeks back the problem was not fergie, so i assume that he means not getting game time was an issue.

however, the problem appears to have been a greedy agent and stubborn board. looks like $ and the agent won.

I'm a bit confused. You're saying that you assume Pogba not getting game time was as issue for him, but you're also saying that he left for money? It seems to me he left because he wasn't being treated right at OT, whatever the reasons. Fergie said at the start of last season that Pogba would feature throughout the season, yet a RB and Park were consistently chosen ahead of him. I don't blame him for leaving, and tbh I don't think money was the reason, it may have been the reason he went to Juve, but it doesn't seem like it was the reason for leaving.

Justin10

I also remember SAF saying the reason we didnt bring in a CM was because of the emergence of Pogba.

Really disappointing.

VW 1

@THFC, rafael and park started one game together, and the partnership was so bad that it was broken up at half time. Explain to me how that means rafael and park were "chosen consistently" ahead of Pogba.

I'm not happy he left/was allowed to leave, but best of luck to him breaking into the Juventus midfield.

Kylo Ren

RasTa wrote: »

We are going to be facebook rich

Hey Fergie $100 million isn't cool, you know what's cool? $100 billion.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

VW 1 wrote: »

@THFC, rafael and park started one game together, and the partnership was so bad that it was broken up at half time. Explain to me how that means rafael and park were "chosen consistently" ahead of Pogba.

I'm not happy he left/was allowed to leave, but best of luck to him breaking into the Juventus midfield.

Fair enough, I may have jumped to conclusions on the Rafa/Park thing, didn't know it was only one game, I made assumptions based on certain posts.
My point, which still stands, is that he didn't (well, at least he didn't seem to) leave for financial reasons, which is what some posters are making out.

kryogen

I am sure he did not leave for financial reasons, and have stated that already, Juve do not go all out in terms of wages.

His agent on the other hand would have only been interested in what was best for him financially, it is possible that Juve offered him more of a fee of course. I am sure they did in fact, but Pogba just wants to play, that's all I have ever gotten from him and he will get his chance at a club like Bologna this season I guess.

If he was given more of a run at United I don't think he would have left, but I don't think he was treated very well and it is easy to say he is at fault 100% and that is the spin United will come out with naturally. It is rarely that black and white of course. Again I just say good luck to him, its his career and if he can get regular first team football now he should go for it. Shame he made a bad choice in appointing his agent (imo) but what will be will be, he owed United nothing and he has to look after himself.

I'm really sad to see Pogba go, anytime I saw him on the pitch I could see his potential, he'll be a star IMO.

Also, while we're being all disappointed about stuff, I'll mention we will eventually feel aggrieved that the Keane twins chose to play for England and not Ireland.

And now for something upbeat, Robbie Brady looks like the real deal, fantastic potential. He'll become a regular in the Irish set up no doubt too at some point.