Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

Sgt Pepper 64

But who would be mad enough to buy shares if

"We do not currently intend to pay cash dividends on our Class A ordinary shares in the foreseeable future."

and

"Investing in our Class A ordinary shares involves a high degree of risk," it reads.

I just dont get it

kryogen

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

But who would be mad enough to buy shares if

"We do not currently intend to pay cash dividends on our Class A ordinary shares in the foreseeable future."

and

"Investing in our Class A ordinary shares involves a high degree of risk," it reads.

I just dont get it

People who want to own a piece of Man United
People who feel the value of the share will go up and would like to make a profit on it

Mitch Connor

kryogen wrote: »

The debt has actually increased again, and that is with buying back 92million worth of the bond already.

Cash is king, and the clubs cash reserves are being drained massively by this bond/debt.

The only sensible thing to do is to get as much from the IPO as possible and use it to pay down the debt.

I'm not entirely sure that it has.

I think the debt is actually less - it is the net debt that had risen as our cash flow has reduced - on back of player purchases, and the accounts this understanding is based on not accounting for the season ticket sales as theones the previous year had. Football finances are seasonal with a peak in the summer and a general drain over the course of the season.

I don't think the position is, in reality, much worse now than we were this time a year ago. It might be a bit worse with less CL revenue to come in but I don't think the differences are all that significant.

Sgt Pepper 64

kryogen wrote: »

All the shares will be sold most likely, the minimum I expect the club to raise is 250million, if it is any less then that I would be absolutely shocked, and the money raised is not for player transfers, it is more then likely to use other peoples money to pay off the debt on the club, what better way is there for them get rid of it?

I feel you aren't going to really be all that interested in genuine discussion on this are you?

Oh I am, but you must admit its not quite as rosy as you paint.

Your not making much inroads on the debt and now have to turn to the stock exchange. I'd be amazed if you raise even half that.
Utd's debt absolutely has tied your hands in the transfer market, you dont make the big splashes you did before and certain targets get away for all the smoke put out by Fergie regarding agent fees etc.
Did you know you actually offered Hazard more wages than Chelsea btw?

Mitch Connor

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

But who would be mad enough to buy shares if

"We do not currently intend to pay cash dividends on our Class A ordinary shares in the foreseeable future."

and

"Investing in our Class A ordinary shares involves a high degree of risk," it reads.

I just dont get it

The same type of people that bought Google shares based on the exact same deal. It is not an uncommon IPO structure in America.

I don't really understand it myself, but clearly people do buy this type of share and the Glazers, along with a few big banks, obviously think they can drum up good interest.

kryogen

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure that it has.

I think the debt is actually less - it is the net debt that had risen as our cash flow has reduced - on back of player purchases, and the accounts this understanding is based on not accounting for the season ticket sales as theones the previous year had. Football finances are seasonal with a peak in the summer and a general drain over the course of the season.

I don't think the position is, in reality, much worse now than we were this time a year ago. It might be a bit worse with less CL revenue to come in but I don't think the differences are all that significant.

Oh Im not saying we are much worse off, just that the cash is being used to buy back the bond that was issued (at a higher price then was given) and that the debt is still going up so it really is just a pointless drain on the clubs cash reserves, the sooner it is serviced fully the better for all concerned.

The club would be one of if not the most profitable clubs in the world then and could theoretically crush any other team on the planet if the FFP rules were strictly adhered to by all.

Sgt Pepper 64

kryogen wrote: »

Oh Im not saying we are much worse off, just that the cash is being used to buy back the bond that was issued (at a higher price then was given) and that the debt is still going up so it really is just a pointless drain on the clubs cash reserves, the sooner it is serviced fully the better for all concerned.

The club would be one of if not the most profitable clubs in the world then and could theoretically crush any other team on the planet if the FFP rules were strictly adhered to by all.

good article here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/9375462/Manchester-Uniteds-100-million-flotation-may-reduce-Glazer-debt-slightly-but-it-wont-boost-transfer-kitty.html

kryogen

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Oh I am, but you must admit its not quite as rosy as you paint.

Your not making much inroads on the debt and now have to turn to the stock exchange. I'd be amazed if you raise even half that.
Utd's debt absolutely has tied your hands in the transfer market, you dont make the big splashes you did before and certain targets get away for all the smoke put out by Fergie regarding agent fees etc.
Did you know you actually offered Hazard more wages than Chelsea btw?

I am not painting anything, I am offering you facts about it and my own projection on what the minimum amount raised will be.

Also, the floatation is nowhere near being new news, this was originally supposed to take place last year (you know the summer we spent 50million?)

Where is your source on us offering Hazard more wages? Does it mention how much each club offered the agent?

The club has never been one to make big splashes all the time, anyone around football long enough would know this. There have been exceptions of course, but are you aware that the money spent last year is the most or almost the most ever spent in one window by the club?

Mitch Connor

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

good article here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/9375462/Manchester-Uniteds-100-million-flotation-may-reduce-Glazer-debt-slightly-but-it-wont-boost-transfer-kitty.html

Yeah - but no one here is saying anything different.

No one is saying the IPO will boost the transfer funds and people, as far as I can see, don't want it to. We want it to pay down the debt. We pay down the debt the transfer funds will increase anyway.

kryogen

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

good article here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/9375462/Manchester-Uniteds-100-million-flotation-may-reduce-Glazer-debt-slightly-but-it-wont-boost-transfer-kitty.html

Forgive me but Im not going to read it

I have seen the headline and that is enough, the 100million is the basement figure that the club needed to register, they have not even set a valuation of the club yet so how can they have a set amount that they are looking to raise?

The second part mentioned the transfer kitty, which is irrelevant as the IPO will be nothing to do with the transfer kitty.

Do you also know that it is a bit contradictory of you to say our hands are tied by the debt yet we were able to offer Hazard more money then Chelsea?

UnitedIrishman

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

But who would be mad enough to buy shares if

"We do not currently intend to pay cash dividends on our Class A ordinary shares in the foreseeable future."

and

"Investing in our Class A ordinary shares involves a high degree of risk," it reads.

I just dont get it

They won't get a dividend but their money being investment means debt will be paid off --> lowering the interest on debt and debt levels --> therefore increasing the value of the 'company'.

They'd also be banking on further debt being paid off aswell as continued success and therefore a massive % profit on their shares when they sell them down the road.

If potential investors had any inkling that the money would be thrown at buying players, then I'd very much doubt we'd get a lot of interest.

titan18

Saying the IPO doesnt help transfer funds is pretty retarded tbh. Using it to write down debt and reduce interest payments means there's more money available to be used in future seasons. I'm not sure how anyone can think different tbh

Also in relation to why now. I wouldn't be surprised if the Glazers wanted to do this for a while, but stock markets crashed, and Singapores one last year took a hit which resulted in a few IPOs being withdrawn. Considering the amount of huge IPOs this year in the US, it's a pretty good time to try

kryogen

titan18 wrote: »

Saying the IPO doesnt help transfer funds is pretty retarded tbh. Using it to write down debt and reduce interest payments means there's more money available to be used in future seasons. I'm not sure how anyone can think different tbh

Saying that the IPO will be used to help with buying players and not paying off the debt is pretty retarded also.

The IPO will be used to pay down the debt, that will have knock on effects in other areas of the business naturally, but the primary goal of it will be to pay down debt.

Mitch Connor

titan18 wrote: »

Saying the IPO doesnt help transfer funds is pretty retarded tbh. Using it to write down debt and reduce interest payments means there's more money available to be used in future seasons. I'm not sure how anyone can think different tbh

Because it is an easier way of looking at it.

If people are told the IPO will boost transfer funds they will expect that money from the IPO will be used to sign players - which is, seemingly and hopefully, incorrect.

The end result will hopefully be a substantial increase in funds available to the club, but it won't be immediate and massive, it will more likely be sent next summer, and be nowhere near the value of the IPO.

It isn't fair to say it is retarded to think of it or look at it differently, it is simply a way of seperating the potential funds raised from the money we will hopefully spend on players.

Mitch Connor

titan18 wrote: »

Also in relation to why now. I wouldn't be surprised if the Glazers wanted to do this for a while, but stock markets crashed, and Singapores one last year took a hit which resulted in a few IPOs being withdrawn. Considering the amount of huge IPOs this year in the US, it's a pretty good time to try

i'm shocked it wasn't done within a couple of years, but then I suppose they wanted to substantially increase the value of the club so that the money needed to be raised would be a smaller percentage of the overall value making it easier for the Glazers to retain control.

titan18

kryogen wrote: »

Saying that the IPO will be used to help with buying players and not paying off the debt is pretty retarded also.

The IPO will be used to pay down the debt, that will have knock on effects in other areas of the business naturally, but the primary goal of it will be to pay down debt.

Paying down debt, reducing interest payments mean more funds can be available for transfers though. It doesn't need to be short term, you have to look at the potential effect long term tbh

kryogen

titan18 wrote: »

Paying down debt, reducing interest payments mean more funds can be available for transfers though

Nobody has said anything different though have they?

titan18

kryogen wrote: »

Nobody has said anything different though have they?

The Telegraph article. Just even the headline Manchester United's $100 million flotation may reduce Glazer debt slightly - but it won't boost transfer kitty

Sgt Pepper 64

kryogen wrote: »

Forgive me but Im not going to read it

I have seen the headline and that is enough, the 100million is the basement figure that the club needed to register, they have not even set a valuation of the club yet so how can they have a set amount that they are looking to raise?

The second part mentioned the transfer kitty, which is irrelevant as the IPO will be nothing to do with the transfer kitty.

Do you also know that it is a bit contradictory of you to say our hands are tied by the debt yet we were able to offer Hazard more money then Chelsea?

Yep, I know - its all a bit mad to me. Trying to raise money to pay off debt, whilst still spending???

kryogen

titan18 wrote: »

The Telegraph article. Just even the headline Manchester United's $100 million flotation may reduce Glazer debt slightly - but it won't boost transfer kitty

Yeah but that has already been shot down as rubbish

titan18

kryogen wrote: »

Yeah but that has already been shot down as rubbish

Oh, definitely, just already had one person saying it's a good article.

kryogen

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Yep, I know - its all a bit mad to me. Trying to raise money to pay off debt, whilst still spending???

As you have given up, can you answer me now, what source do you have for us offering Hazard more money then you?

What does it say about how much you paid the agent, contrasting it with how much United/City were willing to pay him?

Do you understand the contradiction in your claim that the debt ties our hands so much when we were apparently able to out do you with a wage offer?

I am expecting a pretty good source here!

kryogen

titan18 wrote: »

Oh, definitely, just already had one person saying it's a good article.

Ah don't listen to him he's a Chelsea fan who doesn't know much about it

DM_7

Why would united spend money on the business when they want to pay off debt, are you serious?

If you have a mortgage you still spend money to go to work every day to pay it off. You wouldn't stop paying for transport to get you to work just because you owe money. You still but clothes and food, if you didn't you would be sick and naked so couldn't go to work. Its costs money to make money.

for a football club, even one in debt, they still need to spend money to be successful. Success makes money directly through prizes and raising more commercial revenue. The club would stop making money if it stopped spending money.

Its pretty simple.

v3ttel

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

But investors arent stupid - they will know the glasers and know if they are likely to get something out of it.
I think they are in for a big APPLE sized shock!

So you are the merchant of doom and it's all going to go wrong for United

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

I just dont get it

Despite the fact that you then admit you haven't a clue

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

its all a bit mad to me.

And again.

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

good article here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/9375462/Manchester-Uniteds-100-million-flotation-may-reduce-Glazer-debt-slightly-but-it-wont-boost-transfer-kitty.html

Good? That article is an absolute pile of rubbish.

FutureGuy

Rooney10 wrote: »

So you are the merchant of doom and it's all going to go wrong for United



Despite the fact that you then admit you haven't a clue



And again.



Good? That article is an absolute pile of rubbish.

Just ignore his posts. It serves me well. Except when Chelsea are getting beaten by United. Then they are highly readable. Read the match threads from the United v Chelsea games last year.

kryogen

I would recommend that also, chap goes mental when things are going badly for Chelsea

After you witness it you can truly never be wound up by him again! Also, just keep asking him to back up some of his more outlandish (total bs) statements and he normally goes away if you are getting bored.

FutureGuy

kryogen wrote: »

I would recommend that also, chap goes mental when things are going badly for Chelsea

After you witness it you can truly never be wound up by him again! Also, just keep asking him to back up some of his more outlandish (total bs) statements and he normally goes away if you are getting bored.

QFT

bullvine

Chelsea are in a much worse state than United, RDM will get found out soon enough, they've lost Drogba, a massive loss for them, Lampard and Terry are a year older, they have lots of good young players but very few coming into their prime.

United will be much better next year, will have their best player back, a brilliant young keeper with a season under his belt, rafa, cleverly, evans, smalling, jones, welbeck will all be even better next year with the addition of a midlfielder, they'll get the title back!

homerjay2005

bullvine wrote: »

Chelsea are in a much worse state than United, RDM will get found out soon enough, they've lost Drogba, a massive loss for them, Lampard and Terry are a year older, they have lots of good young players but very few coming into their prime.

United will be much better next year, will have their best player back, a brilliant young keeper with a season under his belt, rafa, cleverly, evans, smalling, jones, welbeck will all be even better next year with the addition of a midlfielder, they'll get the title back!

chelsea will be as big a threat next seasons as City IMO. the players they are signing or will sign are going to make them even stronger.

right now, unless united sign 2 players in midfield, we will struggle to finish in the top 3....

kryogen

homerjay2005 wrote: »

chelsea will be as big a threat next seasons as City IMO. the players they are signing or will sign are going to make them even stronger.

right now, unless united sign 2 players in midfield, we will struggle to finish in the top 3....

Who would you think will finish ahead of us?

City obviously, but the other being Chelsea I assume?

MoscowFlyer

United games live on Sky

August:

Everton v Manchester United, Mon 20, 8pm

Sept:

Southampton v Manchester United, Sun 2, 4pm
Liverpool v Manchester United, Sun 23, 1:30pm

Oct:

Newcastle United v Manchester United, Sun 7, 4pm
Chelsea v Manchester United, Sun 28, 4pm

Nov:

Manchester United v Arsenal, Sat 3, 12:45pm
Aston Villa v Manchester United, Sat 10, 5:30pm

Mitch Connor

so annoyed about the Everton game. Horrid wating til monday last season, and the same again this season.

MoscowFlyer

Thankfully I'll be propped up in a bar in Sunny Beach, Bulgaria. Guzzling a few cold ones :cool:

Blatter

Mitch Connor wrote: »

so annoyed about the Everton game. Horrid wating til monday last season, and the same again this season.

Or opener last season was a Sunday, wasn't it? West Brom I think.

It was the Spurs game the week after that was on a Monday night.

FutureGuy

Blatter wrote: »

Or opener last season was a Sunday, wasn't it? West Brom I think.

It was the Spurs game the week after that was on a Monday night.

Yep, 4pm, Liverpool v Sunderland was on before it.

Every year, i find myself in Krakow for the start of the season. I head to the Irish bar by myself, order some cold pints and relax.

Bit disappointed by the Monday kickoff but, hey, another match to watch!

bullvine

homerjay2005 wrote: »

chelsea will be as big a threat next seasons as City IMO. the players they are signing or will sign are going to make them even stronger.

right now, unless united sign 2 players in midfield, we will struggle to finish in the top 3....

I honestly don't understand this fear of chelsea, they've bought Hazard, he could take time to settle. There first 11 doesnt scare me personally.

QikBax

Fulham and Wigan to be Saturday 3 o clock games so?

kryogen

Chelsea are always a threat imo, but without Drogba and with Terry and Lampard fading fast they will need to find a new core of the team, this might take a while or it may click instantly, we can only hope not.

I am not overly concerned by Hazard, Ramires will be a huge player for them next season I think, other then that they have Torres who may or may not find form, Mata who is quality but won't win you things alone. The defence is still not 100% especially while they will persist in playing Terry, the right back situation is up in the air, Cole is aging, though still an excellent player.

Di Matteo did not impress in the league last season so it will be interesting to see how he does this season, if they get off to a bad start then all hell could break loose again. They are not a team I get overly concerned about these days but they have the players to mount a real challenge if things go well for them.

They get on a run and they will consistently grind out results, they have some bad results the wheels will probably come off again

homerjay2005

bullvine wrote: »

I honestly don't understand this fear of chelsea, they've bought Hazard, he could take time to settle. There first 11 doesnt scare me personally.

Marin, Hulk?

strong links to Maicon and now Modric? Torres back on form perhaps?

they just won a cup double and had half a season with a manager who couldnt handle them.

right now, Chelsea are 2nd favourites for the league IMO. they will sign at least 3 more players IMO.

kryogen

Wouldn't believe it, Daily Fail

but he is a machine for me in Fifa!

Manchester United are resurrecting their interest in Brazil midfielder Lucas Moura.
A United delegation met Moura’s father this year but were given the impression he was set to sign for Real Madrid.

Chelsea had a £32.4million bid rejected by Sao Paulo for the 19-year-old but United hope they can persuade Moura and his family to come to England.
Chelsea were told to forget about Moura until after the 2014 World Cup.
The player’s influential agent, Wagner Ribeiro, said he has told Roman Abramovich directly that the playmaker is in no rush to leave Sao Paulo.
United are looking to strengthen their midfield after missing out on major silverware last season.
Sir Alex Ferguson has already signed Shinji Kagawa from Borussia Dortmund but looks set to miss out on Tottenham's Luka Modric to Real Madrid


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2168979/Manchester-United-revive-Lucas-Moura-Sao-Paulo.html#ixzz1zkHJgxcD

kryogen

Another signing completed

Manchester United have completed the signing of Exeter City youngster Sean Goss for an initial fee of around £100,000.

Sir Alex Ferguson has moved to snap up the 16-year-old after he impressed on trial for the Red Devils during a tournament in the Netherlands earlier this year.

Goss joined Exeter's centre of excellence as an eight-year-old and scored 13 goals from midfield for the club's Under-16 team last season.

The League Two prospect professed to growing up as a United supporter and revealed he was overwhelmed after sealing a deal to join his boyhood club.

"The last few days haven't felt real - seeing all the first team players around and the training facilities is like a different world," Goss told Exeter's official website.

"As a Man United supporter as well as an [Exeter] City fan I couldn't believe it, I'd dreamt about it all my life.

"I can't wait to get started now and we've got pre-season games coming up now."

Goss is now focused on progressing through the ranks at Old Trafford but insisted that he would continue to keep an eye on the fortunes of his first club.

"I just have to continue working hard and my aim now is to just push higher and higher through the ranks," he continued.

"I've got family nearby and I'm sure it'll help a lot knowing they are just around the corner. City's will be the first result I look out for on a Saturday and I'll be doing my best to get to northern away games if I haven't got a fixture."

MoscowFlyer

Marin is not an upgrade on what they have. From some German guys I know they think he will be a complete bust and won't be able to adapt to the PL style. Hulk isn't done yet is it?

They ran as hot as the sun during Di Matteo's time in charge, expect them to return to planet Earth under his guidance. As they stand right now I still think we finish ahead of them but they are not done in terms of transfers this summer.

Come back in Sept and we will have a much clearer picture.

ozzy jr

kryogen wrote: »

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.

Have you ever given a detailed post as to what makes the Glazers excellent owners?

I'm new to this forum, I'm not looking to get into a "yes they are, no they aren't" debate, I'm sure it's been done 100's of times. I'm just curious to read what makes someone think that.

Pro. F

kryogen wrote: »

I would recommend that also, chap goes mental when things are going badly for Chelsea

After you witness it you can truly never be wound up by him again! Also, just keep asking him to back up some of his more outlandish (total bs) statements and he normally goes away if you are getting bored.

True. He has a decent collection of examples of him talking bullshìt in this thread and then failing to respond when called on it. He'll get himself in trouble soon enough if he keeps carrying on like that.

This thread could really do with some proper knowledgeable opposition fans coming in here to criticise and stir the pot. There just doesn't seem to be very much to criticise United about recently that the United fans aren't already giving out about. Big debt and the risk arising from that, problems in midfield and left back, Rooney being very good but not near the likes of Ronaldo and Messi - all these things we acknowledge. I can't really think of anything else that opposition fans could sensibly criticise or argue about.

kryogen

ozzy jr wrote: »

Have you ever given a detailed post as to what makes the Glazers excellent owners?

I'm new to this forum, I'm not looking to get into a "yes they are, no they aren't" debate, I'm sure it's been done 100's of times. I'm just curious to read what makes someone think that.

You have caught me at a bad time as I am about to head out, Im sure I or someone else has detailed the positives about the Glazers before

In short, they have stayed out of the football side of things, are excellent business men who have grown the brand monstrously during their tenure. They have given Fergie money when he has asked for it etc

If nobody else gets back to you with more detail I will do my best to get back on later.

Thats the gist though, the only negative is the leveraged buy out and the debt that is now burdening the club, as I said, it is a huge black mark and I will not exactly be a fan of theirs until it is gone, I will always resent them in a way but I can acknowledge how brilliant they have been other then that

---

Rio Ferdinand‏@rioferdy5

Woke up 2day early + excited like I used to as a kid like it was christmas morning....1st day of pre season at Man utd...come oooooon!




First day back!!

right I'm gone

Mitch Connor

ozzy jr wrote: »

Have you ever given a detailed post as to what makes the Glazers excellent owners?

I'm new to this forum, I'm not looking to get into a "yes they are, no they aren't" debate, I'm sure it's been done 100's of times. I'm just curious to read what makes someone think that.

Mainly, the don't get involved in picking the team or interfer in footballing matters. They let Gill and Fergie get on with it. They have also increased the turnover/revenue of the club brilliantly.

The debt is obviously a massive issue, and holds us back form competing for top players and thus has an impact on the quality of the team. If the debt is wiped out by the IPO and they continue their hands off approach in terms of the football, while actually allowing United to use the profits the club generates to fund the team - then great.

MoscowFlyer

The debt FAR and AWAY outweighs all the other things. United were going to grow and grow no matter who their owners were, any successful business man/people could do the same job as the Glazers. As for not interfering in footballing matters? Again, any owner could do this because they have seen Fergie at work, it's not like they would buy the club and not have a clue what is going on and what is the best way for the club to be ran.

Fact is, they should never have been allowed to buy the club the way they did. Man Utd is a printing money machine that has over £400m worth of debt hanging over it's head. It's a disgrace.

Schism

It's most likely nonsense but Football365 have a little addendum on their transfer gossip today about us being interested in Tiote and Ba.

I can see where the interest in Tiote could be cooked up from, but Ba seems a bit odd.

Mitch Connor

Schism wrote: »

It's most likely nonsense but Football365 have a little addendum on their transfer gossip today about us being interested in Tiote and Ba.

I can see where the interest in Tiote could be cooked up from, but Ba seems a bit odd.

I don't see any real pressing need for a striker, but if we are after one Ba makes sense - would be available for 7million.