Glazers selling a significant amount of shares

Coops73

Full Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
2,516
95% of this forum have absolutely no clue how a public companies finances work. Regardless - this is extremely bearish for United’s future. They sold at a ~13% discount to the market price. You don’t do that unless you’re projecting some very tough times ahead.
Excuse my ignorance but what does this mean in layman’s terms?
 

steve.crowford

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
295
Location
USA
Kevin Glazer has wanted to sell his shares for a long time so this isn't something new.
He converted his Class B shares to Class A. Class B has 10x the voting rights of A. The family retains 69% of the shares and they are all Class B shares. This means that even if there were only 100 shares available, they would have the voting rights worth 690 votes while everyone else has a whopping 31.
Basically, it means feck all to us.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
16,678
Ok cheers, is this a good thing? I.e. the Glazers are more likely to sell?
Their end game may be to sell (as in - sell the majority of their shares for a huge profit) at some point, but they won't do that when stocks are low. And United's stocks will undoubtedly rise again - there's no reason to think otherwise.

So - no, probably not.

ETA I agree with @Revan
 

manc exile

Full Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
921
Supports
City
Glazers controlling only 69% of the shares pretty much guarantees we won't be bought out by a nation state (thankfully) no?

I mean, why would they want to drop 2.5b and not own the whole thing?

if you are thinking about city and their owners, they "only" own 78% of city
so not sure that works the way you think it does
 

dabeast

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
335

This thread highlights the nasty maneuvering that the Glazers have done to bring back Ronaldo. At his age and fame, he pays for himself. I love Cristiano but he may not be the best for us right now.

While I have a great deal of pride for the way that our supporters disrupted the end of last season, it has not lasted. The Glazers have managed to deflect all the dissatisfaction at the end of last season that built up over nearly two decades with just one transfer window.
 

pocco

loco
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
16,944
Location
Keep a clean shit tomorrow, United is my final bus

This thread highlights the nasty maneuvering that the Glazers have done to bring back Ronaldo. At his age and fame, he pays for himself. I love Cristiano but he may not be the best for us right now.

While I have a great deal of pride for the way that our supporters disrupted the end of last season, it has not lasted. The Glazers have managed to deflect all the dissatisfaction at the end of last season that built up over nearly two decades with just one transfer window.
Not sure I buy any of that and you can tell that guy didn't watch us pre Ronaldo like he said based on his analysis of how we play.

He's also completely guessing that Ronaldo was forced on Ole... based on what? I've seen a few hint at that but I think only because it suits their narrative. Ole went on TV and told Ronaldo he's got a place here if he wants it, just before we signed him. According to Rio this was before Ronaldo had decided to come back here, so it's not as though Ole just said this as he knew Ronaldo was coming.

Basically I believe Ole wanted Ronaldo and helped make it happen. This one can't be pinned on the Glazers.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
18,944
Location
Sydney
I really do think this is a decent time for them to take their profit and run, and all these recent sells indicate the process might have started

the inflation in the game isn't slowing down any-time soon, and Newcastle's new owners are only going to accelerate things and make it even more expensive to stay in and around the top of the league
 

Demaw

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
103
I really do think this is a decent time for them to take their profit and run, and all these recent sells indicate the process might have started

the inflation in the game isn't slowing down any-time soon, and Newcastle's new owners are only going to accelerate things and make it even more expensive to stay in and around the top of the league
Newcastle will be the knife in the back for the Glazers. That's why they wanted the super league so badly. Newcastle, Chelsea, city and pool could end up being a realistic top 4 in the future and the crowds will turn on the Glazers and they will realise they have milked us for about s much as they can get. Selling our media rights is their only hope.
 

Coops73

Full Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
2,516
Their end game may be to sell (as in - sell the majority of their shares for a huge profit) at some point, but they won't do that when stocks are low. And United's stocks will undoubtedly rise again - there's no reason to think otherwise.

So - no, probably not.

ETA I agree with @Revan
Thanks, gutted.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
16,678
Bear market means buyer's market. More supply than demand.
People tend to use those terms (buyer's/seller's market) differently (and contradictory). So, probably best not to use them at all in this context.

Bull = rise

Bear = decline

...would be the simplest explanation.
 

Coops73

Full Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
2,516
Do we have an idea who has bought these shares? Or is that not known yet?
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
1,198
95% of this forum have absolutely no clue how a public companies finances work. Regardless - this is extremely bearish for United’s future. They sold at a ~13% discount to the market price. You don’t do that unless you’re projecting some very tough times ahead.
It’s impossible to make this determination unless we know why the shares were sold. It may have been to address an immediate cash flow problem for example. You wouldn’t in that scenario always wait to sell at optimum price
 

Red_Aaron

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
3,596
Location
Dig up stupid!
I'm a financial novice so please correct me if I'm wrong but I read on the BBC news that it's stated no funds from this sale will go to the club? Is that right?

So essentially the glazers are selling the fans shares with almost negligible voting rights in exchange for 100m+ in their own pockets.

Surely any fan stake is a good thing but this is just yet another way for them to milk the club but this time some will see it as a positive step
 

MUFC OK

Full Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
3,184
I'm a financial novice so please correct me if I'm wrong but I read on the BBC news that it's stated no funds from this sale will go to the club? Is that right?

So essentially the glazers are selling the fans shares with almost negligible voting rights in exchange for 100m+ in their own pockets.

Surely any fan stake is a good thing but this is just yet another way for them to milk the club but this time some will see it as a positive step
Yes. Why? Because they can, legally.

It's absolutely a way to milk they club. They pocket north of £100m and relinquish zero control over the club or it's operations - that's the way majority shareholding works.
 

mitchmouse

Full Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2014
Messages
10,891
Not sure if this has been asked/answered but the club statement said United wouldn't be getting the proceeds. So where is it going?
 

Jibbs

Full Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
1,631
People tend to use those terms (buyer's/seller's market) differently (and contradictory). So, probably best not to use them at all in this context.

Bull = rise

Bear = decline

...would be the simplest explanation.
Bear market always means the market for a commodity is down, which in simple words means there are more sellers than buyers. Bullish trend means market is up as there are more buyers than the sellers.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
16,381
Bear market = seller's market.

As in - United shares are going down (and staying down for the foreseeable), so get rid.
Not necessarily. Not saying whether it's positive or negative but you cant read into it too much, selling at a discount is common if you have a large supply you want to get rid of in block transactions.

Issuing new ones at a discount however...
 

pascell

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
10,083
Location
Sir Alex Ferguson Stand

This thread highlights the nasty maneuvering that the Glazers have done to bring back Ronaldo. At his age and fame, he pays for himself. I love Cristiano but he may not be the best for us right now.

While I have a great deal of pride for the way that our supporters disrupted the end of last season, it has not lasted. The Glazers have managed to deflect all the dissatisfaction at the end of last season that built up over nearly two decades with just one transfer window.
Struggling to see the 'nasty manoeuvring' you're alluding to? Fans cried out that we can't let Ronaldo join City, which we did. There is also no way that Ole would sanction the transfer unless he fully backed it, it's Ronaldo afterall.

Infact, I can't actually fault the Glazers in this transfer, nor our rubbish form, that blame lies with the manager.

And you're right, he might not be best for us right now, we're going to let him down massively, he actually deserves better than what we can offer him in terms of trophies etc.
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
1,198
I don’t get how fans who proudly displayed their shares certificates in whatever the 90s version of a mancave was, still pretend to be shocked at capitalism.

The Edwards family weren’t taking their dividends and insisting the manager of the day take it all to spend on players or sweets for the fans
 

reddevilchennai

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2019
Messages
553
I'm sure United will be sold in next 5 years. Glazers know they can't milk anymore without winning trophies. And with Saudi buying Newcastle it will be tough to get into top 4 after 3 to 4 years.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
16,678
Bear market always means the market for a commodity is down, which in simple words means there are more sellers than buyers. Bullish trend means market is up as there are more buyers than the sellers.
Yes, correct.

But the terms in themselves ("seller's market" versus "buyers' market") are sometimes used in a way that seemingly indicates the opposite of what you'd think they mean in the specific context of stocks/shares.

While bull markets are fueled by optimism, bear markets — which occur when stock prices fall 20% or more for a sustained period of time — are just the opposite. Bulls are generally powered by economic strength, whereas bear markets often occur in periods of economic slowdown and higher unemployment. Instead of wanting to buy into the market, investors want to sell, often fleeing for the safety of cash or fixed-income securities. The result is a seller’s market.

If you're looking to buy a house, "seller's market" means the buyer is at a disadvantage (the market favours the seller, not the buyer). But in the context of stocks/shares the same term can (confusingly) be used to describe a market where selling (and not buying) is the norm.

Anyway - I don't think we disagree. I just used a misleading term.
 

Water Melon

before it dries out, eh
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
4,113
Location
garden bed
I'm sure United will be sold in next 5 years. Glazers know they can't milk anymore without winning trophies. And with Saudi buying Newcastle it will be tough to get into top 4 after 3 to 4 years.
Agreed. I will not be surprised to see United owned by new people in the next 3 years.
 

RUCK4444

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
8,271
Location
$¥$¥$¥$¥$
Why’s that?
Saudi’s we’re literally the only suitor who could buy us and not want a major return on their outlay.

Anybody else who buys us for all the billions were supposedly worth will be looking to take out a hell of a lot more than the Glazers do in dividends every year.

Who’s going to drop £4 billion on us and not want every penny and more back, nobody. If was state backed or stick with what we have.

So I don’t want to see the ones who were bang against the Saudi’s buying us whinging about the Glazers to be honest, because there was never an alternative to them.
 

Coops73

Full Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
2,516
Saudi’s we’re literally the only suitor who could buy us and not want a major return on their outlay.

Anybody else who buys us for all the billions were supposedly worth will be looking to take out a hell of a lot more than the Glazers do in dividends every year.

Who’s going to drop £4 billion on us and not want every penny and more back, nobody. If was state backed or stick with what we have.

So I don’t want to see the ones who were bang against the Saudi’s buying us whinging about the Glazers to be honest, because there was never an alternative to them.
We don’t really know that though. I agree there’ll be very few out there, states or billionaires that will want/willing to part with the best part of 3-4 billion quid and take on millions in debt but you never know. I guess it’s the hope that kills you.
 

RUCK4444

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
8,271
Location
$¥$¥$¥$¥$
We don’t really know that though. I agree there’ll be very few out there, states or billionaires that will want/willing to part with the best part of 3-4 billion quid and take on millions in debt but you never know. I guess it’s the hope that kills you.
There just isn’t though, it’s been given a lot of thought and the best people can come up with is Bezos.

What we need is an owner that is not looking for financial gain through owning the club, that’s possible for a small value club but not for any business or businessman who needs to pay what we are worth. Anybody who buys us and wants a return on their investment are worse for us than the glazers by default due to our value being massively more than the Glazers paid in their leveraged buyout. Can you imagine the debt we would be in if a leveraged buyout happened at our current value - if it’s even possible. Dread to think.

Says online we are worth $4.65 BILLION as of May 2021. Even an oil state like the Sheikh at City would think twice about that outlay, it’s like a fifth of his overall worth. Difference is they bought city for a relative pittance in comparison so it made sense and met their sportswashing needs. The Saudi’s imo were the only potential suitor who could do the same for us.

So… victims of our own worth and the worst that could happen would be for the Glazers to accept a low ball bid from some Yankee firm looking to make money off the back of our past success like the glazers have.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
34,571
There just isn’t though, it’s been given a lot of thought and the best people can come up with is Bezos.

What we need is an owner that is not looking for financial gain through owning the club, that’s possible for a small value club but not for any business or businessman who needs to pay what we are worth. Anybody who buys us and wants a return on their investment are worse for us than the glazers by default due to our value being massively more than the Glazers paid in their leveraged buyout. Can you imagine the debt we would be in if a leveraged buyout happened at our current value - if it’s even possible. Dread to think.

Says online we are worth $4.65 BILLION as of May 2021. Even an oil state like the Sheikh at City would think twice about that outlay, it’s like a fifth of his overall worth. Difference is they bought city for a relative pittance in comparison so it made sense and met their sportswashing needs. The Saudi’s imo were the only potential suitor who could do the same for us.

So… victims of our own worth and the worst that could happen would be for the Glazers to accept a low ball bid from some Yankee firm looking to make money off the back of our past success like the glazers have.
I'd say even worse than that is being fully listed on the stock market. At least with actual owners, they have to at least pretend to look like they care about fans and success etc.

Once it's all publicly listed, there's nobody to villanise. The board is there to answer to the shareholders (i.e. the market) and they don't have to pretend that they give two shits about anything but the share price and bottom line.
 

RUCK4444

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
8,271
Location
$¥$¥$¥$¥$
I'd say even worse than that is being fully listed on the stock market. At least with actual owners, they have to at least pretend to look like they care about fans and success etc.

Once it's all publicly listed, there's nobody to villanise. The board is there to answer to the shareholders (i.e. the market) and they don't have to pretend that they give two shits about anything but the share price and bottom line.
Yeah that’s another awful alternative. Sad state of affairs.

Basically we just need to hope the glazers keep spending like they did in the summer. Better the devil you know…