no problem and thanks, fellas. Probably the first time I feel like I’ve added value to the board rather than my usual rubbish
Glazers to generate $400m by selling 24m Class A shares (apparently not)
- Thread starter RonaldoVII
- Start date
Christ, I didn't realise this was the conspiracy theory thread. A+ on the creative writing, D- on the financial analysis front and F re: your grasp on reality.
All joking aside though, this is some seriously irresponsible speculation here.
Last edited:
You should post more.no problem and thanks, fellas. Probably the first time I feel like I’ve added value to the board rather than my usual rubbish
Spot on!
IMO this is where we are really lagging behind City and Liverpool (besides on the field as well). I don't have all the information about the workings of the club, much of the money-making side is good (self evident), but once you get onto the business of the football its self it becomes a night mare, there seems to be duplication and cross-overs at all levels. The last announcement I recall was the intention to form a Transfer Committee. Now if this new committee is just to oversee transfers, i.e. to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's etc make sure things go as planned, then it may pass muster, but if its job includes for the strategic planning for and evaluating transfer proposals, including structuring approaches to clubs and players, then I fear we are doomed... remember the horse designed by a committee, usually finishes up as a camel!
I agree. We are way behind Liverpool. City is a bit of a different animal. They can afford to blow 50m on Mendy and 50m on Stones, pay 60m for a squad player in their side - Mahrez, lose Sane for the season and still have a world class side. They also paid a huge amount for staff (Pep) and the structure, cause, well, they are owned by a fecking country. At any rate, they are still our competition, so we have to do better than them with less resources.
No doubt, we have a long way to go.
This is the point I've been making in other posts. We have got the wrong people in charge of the day to day running of the club. Every organisation is run for a profit, so I have no gripes of the Glazer's doing this. Hell, if it isn't them, someone else will be. But point 4 is my MAIN issue. If they could get this right, which shouldn't be too difficult to do, then we as supporters and fans will be much happier. I do have a bee in my bonnet about the lack of investment of the ground, however, one step at a time.
This I agree on. Our place need to be fixed up.
I dont know why it has not happened yet though.
The logical explanation is that we are waiting for a solution to the rail issue and that we are thinking of doing both the expansion and the renovation in "once". Which would be preferrable and logical per se.
But it has taken to long now and the matter should be addressed. Its not like the renovation inself is a lot of money. The rail issue and the expansion is though.
so as a few people have already noted, this is not quite the 'exciting' news that it initially seemed to be - more info in this article
Manchester United: Why the Glazer family’s reported ‘share sale’ is not what it seems
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...s-glazer-shares-sale-latest-now-a9119591.html
No United shares actually up for sale, as outlined in earnings call...
Manchester United: Why the Glazer family’s reported ‘share sale’ is not what it seems
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...s-glazer-shares-sale-latest-now-a9119591.html
No United shares actually up for sale, as outlined in earnings call...
Log onto Youtube and see a United Stand video titled "Man Utd up for Sale" and then came straight on here and read the posts by @ATXRedDevil
Feelz bad man...
Feelz bad man...
@Devil_forever pointed out that the whole story was rubbish in big, bold, capital letters on page 1 of the thread and even requested a mod change the title to avoid this kind of confusion to be fair but everyone decided to ignore it and run with their own little narratives anyway.Log onto Youtube and see a United Stand video titled "Man Utd up for Sale" and then came straight on here and read the posts by @ATXRedDevil
Feelz bad man...
Last edited:
I aint got time to read page 1 brother, I need the latest reaction to confirm whether or not it's legit instead of the inevititable initial confusion. But enough about that, eat sleep and be merry for tonight we hammered Rochdale on penalties. Look after yourself chicken
One more thing to consider re: the shelf registration being a red-herring with respect to a Glazer sale of the club, selling piece-meal into the market does not reward the Glazers for their control stake.
Selling shares into the market to buyers only yields them the market price per share x the number of shares owned. However, if they want to sell the club they will rightly demand a premium over the market price because they aren't just selling a number of shares, they are also selling the control over the club.
So if they have 100 share and sell into the market to 100 new shareholders they would only get 100 x price per share quoted on the NYSE (approx $16/share). However, if they want to sell the club, the can sell the 100 shares to a single buyer for a negotiated price higher (perhaps much higher) than the quoted stock price.
This was simply corporate house cleaning.
Selling shares into the market to buyers only yields them the market price per share x the number of shares owned. However, if they want to sell the club they will rightly demand a premium over the market price because they aren't just selling a number of shares, they are also selling the control over the club.
So if they have 100 share and sell into the market to 100 new shareholders they would only get 100 x price per share quoted on the NYSE (approx $16/share). However, if they want to sell the club, the can sell the 100 shares to a single buyer for a negotiated price higher (perhaps much higher) than the quoted stock price.
This was simply corporate house cleaning.
You should get outside more. Ain't that serious.
I just want to win the Euro Lotto jackpot.
I wonder what is more likely, me winning the jackpot or Woody and the Glazers peeing off?
Both very very very unlikely but I have a ticket so the odds are stacked in my favour
You and the glazers (one of em at least) both have better chances of being struck by lightning, thanks for your sacrifice palI just want to win the Euro Lotto jackpot.
I wonder what is more likely, me winning the jackpot or Woody and the Glazers peeing off?
Both very very very unlikely but I have a ticket so the odds are stacked in my favour
Yeh. Quite stupid. 6 billion can net you 5 to 7 percent conservatively invested in property and blue chips.
That's like 300m per year for doing nothing.
And yet here we are calling glazer leeches for taking 20m divident.
I get your point but blue chips don't give you 5 to 7% in dividends. Rental properties may or may not give you 5-7% in rent annually. You are more likely talking total return, in that case, Glazers are quite clearly much better of being invested in Man Utd than a stock portfolio or real estate.
Although, their handling of club operations is like buying a prime rental property and giving it to their drunk cousin for property management. It's not that they are charging us(Man Utd) too much rent, it's that there are probably better landlords who can manage our property with the care it deserves.
If the club does become up for sale, Jim Radcliffe would borrow some or all of the money to buy it. He wouldn’t throw his own dosh at it which could be £3bn as he probably doesn’t have the cash under his mattress. If he did, I can guarantee the club would be run differently and more efficiently than it has for a long time. It may not solve playing issues short term and some would want him out after a year as that’s the nature of the beast. He takes no prisoners according to those that have worked for his companies. He scared the s*** out of Alex Salmond when he threatened to close Grangemouth if the Jocks didn’t allow fracked gas in from the states, which they did in a heartbeat going against their stated green policy.
Club is being run efficiently, just not the footballing side of things is.
It’s being milked from previous successes, it’s not sustainable.
I said MORE EFFICIENTLY with no passengers. I doubt if Sanchez, DiMaria or Falcao would have got within a hundred miles of Manchester if JR owned United. The commercial side may be efficient but recruitment certainly isn’t. However, makes no difference as he won’t buy United. If someone does, it will be a mega rich country with dodgy human rights record even though that’s been done before
There the ones that could be sold, they have what I've read is put in a shelf to sell if needed, doesn't mean they will, it last for 2 years I think then they have to fill out shelf form again. The class B shares are the ones the Glazers own to control the club.
Wow, this is actually turning into a sensible thread. With the obvious exceptions....
They would make more money by putting their investment into gold. Good post and something people should reflect upon.
Pretty sure someone disputed that at level of investment.
Pretty sure ”they” had no idea what ”they” were talking about. If ”they” were to begin with...
If a billionaire could guarantee 7% returns on blue stock and property they would never invest in a business on their own again.
I am not unaware of the fact that we could have been bought by a "benefactor" or a "sugar daddy" back in 2003-2004.
That was when it was a real possibilty.
Now it is not anymore.
Its at least good to see some proper posts based on reality in this thread.
Why not? How do you think they made those billions in the first place?
A very simple thing to do is buy property with cash (so no interest accrued) and rent it out. The property would rise and you get rent every month. 5 percent perannum return is very conservative
Ok..what do you think is a reasonable return a year for a 6 billion?
An standard VC fund nets about 20% per year
I’m all in then
I really hope none of you invest in penny stocks without knowing what you are getting yourself in for...
Anyway, if you want to learn more about offerings, here's a good place
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shelfoffering.asp
The new sec filing they release post earnings is a amendment to a prospectus filed back in Sept 2018
Anyway, if you want to learn more about offerings, here's a good place
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shelfoffering.asp
The new sec filing they release post earnings is a amendment to a prospectus filed back in Sept 2018
Last edited:
No smart business man will buy a rental property with cash. They get a loan and make the renter pay for it. Take non of the risk, all of the profit.
That depends though, if you have spare cash buying a property outright without loan means more rent as you don't have to pay mortgages and interest. Off course it gets complicated if it's 6 billion, especially with the risk involved.
United without potential growth is a bad business. You get 20-30M divident per year on a good year, while being called a leech, you can't raise tickets without being boycotted, not to mention if shit happens you have to take extra loan or inject more to fix things up, spending 100M per year isn't enough these days, and that's assuming you didn't feck up with choosing the manager.
Glazer made his fortune in capital growth from 1bn to 4bn (assuming he sell it today), but for the next investor to make money spending 6 billion buying United, we will have to grow to 10 Billion in value (which is a very unlikely possibility as there's a ceiling to how far you can get all things considered). 20M divident per year for a 6 billion investment is a stupid investment
PS: I quoted 6 billion as it's only natural for a solid business to be sold above their market value.
Im getting a bit tired of capitalism now. The glazers buy the club with the club's money???? Somehow manage to run it as a cash cow that makes as much when it's unsuccessful as when it's winning (riddle me that Batman), and makes millions selling shares that have virtually no voting rights and they can forcibly repurchase if they choose. It's like a fecking pyramid scheme.
I'd like to see some citations for those stats b/c I don't believe them at all.
“The National Bureau of Economic Research has stated that a 25 percent return on a venture capital investment is the average”
https://www.upcounsel.com/venture-capital-roi-expectations
There’s so much wrong with this post...
because capitalism has funded Abromavich and the Qataris’ takeovers of English clubs?
the vast majority of the club’s shares are held by Glazer affiliates, voting rights were always inconsequential as a result. The club just lost WKSI status because the public float (public shares held by non affiliates are valued <$700m). If you take the valuation of the club and do some basic math, you’ll see that the public shares represent far less than anything close to a majority, and when the majority is owned by a single group of affiliates, you shouldn’t buy shares if you have an issue with that. Securities laws are pretty clear about disclosure requirements for affiliate ownership. If you buy Man Utd expecting your vote to count, you’re a fool and didn’t do your diligence and read publicly available disclosure document to investors.
all that said, those shares do provide economic rights. Issuing primary shares in the public entity decreases the Glazers’ economic interest (which, to an average investor, is far more important than voting rights - especially if you research before investing and realize that this is a controlled company and your vote never mattered anyway...) every time the Glazers issue primary shares (which frankly, I’m not sure they’ve done, they’ve sold their own (secondary sales), but they bought those for their actual value and are well within their rights to sell the shares they own) they dilute their shares and their rights. Dividends have to be distributed equitably across the class of equity securities. So if they sell their own shares, they lose the dividends on those. If they issue new primary shares, the dividends on their shares are decreased because of the dilution.
I’m tired of the Glazers too, but this is an uninformed post.
edit: oh, about the leveraged buyout, this is how business works, unless you’re from a communist or autocratic country where you make your fortune on the bodies of migrant (slave) workers or strict autocratic socialism where a few families benefit from state ownership (see Qatar).
put me in the category that would prefer an owner that conducted a leveraged buyout over an autocrat that profits off of state ownership (corruption) or slavery. That said, the Glazers are shit owners no matter how they made their money.
edit again: I’m not even going to get in to your ridiculous notion about redemption rights on those shares u til you’ve actually read the prospectuses that describe the right of the holder of those shares. Go look that prospectus up and show me where it says they can be forcibly repurchased. Are you confusing equity securities with debt securities (the latter always having a repurchase/redemption right that’s disclosed in the prospectus and registration statement for said securities?)
Last edited: