Glazers selling a significant amount of shares

Livewire1974

If it moves, report it.
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
6,993
Location
Dublin
Manchester United have announced that co-chairman Avram Glazer has put a portion of his shares in the club up for sale. The United chief could receive roughly £71million after he put five million of his shares in United up for sale late on Thursday night.

A successful sale would see Avram's personal stake in the club reduce down to 10.2% while the family's as a whole would drop from 78% to 74.9%

In a lot of companies 25% is required to block decisions by the board, so this could be significant.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...manchester-united-glazer-shares-sale-20097746
 

NFM

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
281
Manchester United have announced that co-chairman Avram Glazer has put a portion of his shares in the club up for sale. The United chief could receive roughly £71million after he put five million of his shares in United up for sale late on Thursday night.

A successful sale would see Avram's personal stake in the club reduce down to 10.2% while the family's as a whole would drop from 78% to 74.9%

In a lot of companies 25% is required to block decisions by the board, so this could be significant.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...manchester-united-glazer-shares-sale-20097746
In Company Law , 75% is required for Special Resolutions, 50% for Ordinary Resolutions. Special Resolutions are required for very specific items, most business decisions only require 50%.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
44,869
Location
Munich
I do not think it changes much short term. They would still control 75% of the shares and 90%+ of the voting.
 

Pexbo

Online influencer who has never watched Star Wars
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
58,145
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
If he’s dropped it to 74.9% it sounds to me like a very calculated decision.

I would imagine that he’s trying to fetch a premium price from his family members who will be keen to maintain total control.
 

Livewire1974

If it moves, report it.
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
6,993
Location
Dublin
Do we get to find out the identity of whoever buys these? It might indicate if someone if interested in buying the club ?
 

KiD MoYeS

Good Craig got his c'nuppins
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
29,568
Location
Love is Blind
My understanding is that these sold shares have no voting control, so this is just a cash grab by the leeches and nothing more. No indication of a sale or anything like that.
 

Green_Red

Full Member
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
9,385
I'd love to own some of the club purely as a supporter, but as far as investment decision goes it's not a good investment. Shareprice has barely been above its current price in the 7/8 years since the PLC was re-listed. We're all in a very good position to judge whether it has potential for growth which most of us would agree it doesn't.

On another topic I wonder whether they're (the Glazers) more interested in the Buccanneers than United and that's what they keep taking the money out for. Basically, did United just fund a Super Bowl title?
 

Hoof The Ball

Full Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
8,546
Location
San Antonio, Texas.
I'd love to own some of the club purely as a supporter, but as far as investment decision goes it's not a good investment. Shareprice has barely been above its current price in the 7/8 years since the PLC was re-listed. We're all in a very good position to judge whether it has potential for growth which most of us would agree it doesn't.

On another topic I wonder whether they're (the Glazers) more interested in the Buccanneers than United and that's what they keep taking the money out for. Basically, did United just fund a Super Bowl title?
Of course!
 

limerickcitykid

There once was a kid from Toronto...
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
13,661
Location
East end / Oot and aboot
On another topic I wonder whether they're (the Glazers) more interested in the Buccanneers than United and that's what they keep taking the money out for. Basically, did United just fund a Super Bowl title?
US major sports franchises are self sufficient salary capped businesses which post yearly profits. $0 have been taken from Manchester United to fund Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
 

Green_Red

Full Member
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
9,385
US major sports franchises are self sufficient salary capped businesses which post yearly profits. $0 have been taken from Manchester United to fund Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
So apart from the $192 million they bought the Buccanneers for they haven't invested any of their own personal wealth into the club at all?
 

elmo

Can never have too many Eevees
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
10,520
Location
AKA: Slapanut Goat Smuggla
So apart from the $192 million they bought the Buccanneers for they haven't invested any of their own personal wealth into the club at all?
Didn't they basically mortgage the club just to fund their purchase of it? We're still paying off the debts while they take dividends every year.
 

Zaphod2319

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,789
Supports
Chelsea
US major sports franchises are self sufficient salary capped businesses which post yearly profits. $0 have been taken from Manchester United to fund Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
Perhaps for player acquisition and salary. The salary cap does not prohibit the Glazers from using profits from Man Utd for upgrading the Buc's stadium, media capabilities, and training grounds, which they have been doing with all three. The Glazers are very savvy in pumping out merchandise. I live 300 miles from Tampa and there is Tampa merchandise in every store that sells a t shirt. You see Man Utd swag everywhere too.
 

luke511

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
5,534
He's been waiting for the 20 dollar mark the shrewd bastard.
 

MrMarcello

In a well-ordered universe...
Joined
Dec 26, 2000
Messages
48,283
Location
On a pale blue dot in space
US major sports franchises are self sufficient salary capped businesses which post yearly profits. $0 have been taken from Manchester United to fund Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
However, not all compensation in a given year is charged to a cap. So, if the Bucs give Player A a six-year, $120M contract with $30M signing bonus, that bonus is often paid in full upfront. But it can be stretched over the lifetime of the contract for cap purposes (accelerated when released/traded). Player A then receives a $10M salary in year 1 (no other payments), total comp. is $40M, but only counts $15M against the cap in year 1.

Bucs revenues in 2019 were $419M, which includes the TV money from the league and other shared revenues like merchandising. Also includes ticket sales, box suite sales, sponsorships, naming rights, etc. The cap was $188.2M in 2019 but not all of that was actual compensation given in 2019. However, the CBA enforces a salary floor limit that each team must spend X on current year compensation, which was o/a 89% of the 2019 hard cap number, so around $167M from little research I've read this morning.

How much of that revenue above the salary cap floor came from revenues or from the Glazers pockets? That is the question to consider.

IMO, the Glazers likely are funding the Bucs through revenues generated and using United as a cash cow for personal wealth accumulation. But it's not inconceivable they could be using some revenues leeched from United to help fund the Bucs in some way.
 

Tallis

Full Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
732
Doesn’t mean anything for us fans I think.

Just the glAzers taking some money off the table. Probably to invest in some tech stocks or property or mistresses
 

limerickcitykid

There once was a kid from Toronto...
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
13,661
Location
East end / Oot and aboot
However, not all compensation in a given year is charged to a cap. So, if the Bucs give Player A a six-year, $120M contract with $30M signing bonus, that bonus is often paid in full upfront. But it can be stretched over the lifetime of the contract for cap purposes (accelerated when released/traded). Player A then receives a $10M salary in year 1 (no other payments), total comp. is $40M, but only counts $15M against the cap in year 1.

Bucs revenues in 2019 were $419M, which includes the TV money from the league and other shared revenues like merchandising. Also includes ticket sales, box suite sales, sponsorships, naming rights, etc. The cap was $188.2M in 2019 but not all of that was actual compensation given in 2019. However, the CBA enforces a salary floor limit that each team must spend X on current year compensation, which was o/a 89% of the 2019 hard cap number, so around $167M from little research I've read this morning.

How much of that revenue above the salary cap floor came from revenues or from the Glazers pockets? That is the question to consider.

IMO, the Glazers likely are funding the Bucs through revenues generated and using United as a cash cow for personal wealth accumulation. But it's not inconceivable they could be using some revenues leeched from United to help fund the Bucs in some way.
The average NFL franchise posts operating profits of over $100m a year. So your specifics are irrelevant. They are self sufficient business that operate off self generated profits.
 

limerickcitykid

There once was a kid from Toronto...
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
13,661
Location
East end / Oot and aboot
So apart from the $192 million they bought the Buccanneers for they haven't invested any of their own personal wealth into the club at all?
The Buccaneers are their own personal wealth. They own it. Every dollar spent is theirs.

Apart from the $192million (closer to $400m with inflation), you say that like it’s nothing. It was the most expensive NFL franchise at the time. And how do you think businesses are run? The spent $400m to buy a profitable successful business. You seem to expect business to be propped by cash injections from their owners. There isn’t a successful business in the world that operates like that. You don’t spend $400m on a business to pump even more money into losses. Businesses are run to generate profit, not lose the owners money.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
8,110
So apart from the $192 million they bought the Buccanneers for they haven't invested any of their own personal wealth into the club at all?
They don't need to, they fund themselves like United do.

If they need a new statement it's funded by the state/City for example or less teams up and leave.
 

arnie_ni

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
8,110
The Buccaneers are their own personal wealth. They own it. Every dollar spent is theirs.

Apart from the $192million (closer to $400m with inflation), you say that like it’s nothing. It was the most expensive NFL franchise at the time. And how do you think businesses are run? The spent $400m to buy a profitable successful business. You seem to expect business to be propped by cash injections from their owners. There isn’t a successful business in the world that operates like that. You don’t spend $400m on a business to pump even more money into losses. Businesses are run to generate profit, not lose the owners money.
People don't seem to grasp this.

Man utd is a business like tesco is.

The only 2 teams that have owners pumping in money is city and psg via inflated deals.
 

DanClancy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,160
I'm aware these Class A shares have 10% of the voting rights that the shares the Glazer family own but is their a limit on how many these Class A shares they can offer? It will be just over 25% if Avram Glazers issue is taken up
 

Hectic

account not controlled by niall
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
73,378
Supports
30fps
If he’s dropped it to 74.9% it sounds to me like a very calculated decision.

I would imagine that he’s trying to fetch a premium price from his family members who will be keen to maintain total control.
Yeah but what if it was meant to be 75.1% and he just totally fecked it.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,915
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
So apart from the $192 million they bought the Buccanneers for they haven't invested any of their own personal wealth into the club at all?
Technically they're paying from unitef profit. Aka their profit. Aka their money.

They just front the upfront from the bank.

If you bought a car on mortgage and drive uber. Can i say you didnt pay a penny of your money ?
 

Lappen

Full Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Messages
329
Location
Sweden
Didn't they basically mortgage the club just to fund their purchase of it? We're still paying off the debts while they take dividends every year.
That is the sad thing for me at least!

The debt cost the club a lot every year. Let us pay of the debt and put the money the club earn in to the club, and I bet we get even better and stronger as a club. I wouldn't be surprised if the stocks increase in value at the same time. This is not certain of course, unlike the way its done now. The first option is win- win, the other is win - ........

We want to be run like a football club for fans.

We are a business with a god football team. Not a football club doing good business.
 

big rons sovereign

Full Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2015
Messages
4,025
They're his to sell, he can do whatever he wants with them.
He can shove em up his arse for all I care.
 

Tallis

Full Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
732
People don't seem to grasp this.

Man utd is a business like tesco is.

The only 2 teams that have owners pumping in money is city and psg via inflated deals.
Pretty sure that half the premier league teams have had cash injections from their owners. Everton / chelsea have had big inflows. Man Utd is the worst in terms of investment - most money has been taken out on a net basis
 

Zaphod2319

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,789
Supports
Chelsea
Pretty sure that half the premier league teams have had cash injections from their owners. Everton / chelsea have had big inflows. Man Utd is the worst in terms of investment - most money has been taken out on a net basis
Chelsea always shows a profit. The loan army brings in big profits.
 

redrobed

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Messages
551
Fingers crossed they sell to someone actually interested in investing in the playing squad
 

el3mel

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Messages
38,669
Location
Egypt
He still has 74% of the club shares.

Barely anything changed due to this. Don't get our hopes up.