|
Post by ianwhit on May 15, 2005 8:47:59 GMT 1
can anyone explain the financil side to me or point me to an article that does.
the one thing i don't understand is when he takes them over how are man u going to be £250ish million in debt?
surely it's a straight takeover where by he buys up the required amount of shares to have the contraolling interest in the club.
how does that make the club own the debt? surely the debt is with galzier?
cheers
|
|
wingrove financial services
Guest
|
Post by wingrove financial services on May 15, 2005 8:56:08 GMT 1
only about a third of the 790 million is his own money. he is borrowing a fair sum and using the club as security against the loans. i think a sum of about 46 million a YEAR in interest payments was mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rogerson on May 15, 2005 9:02:57 GMT 1
That is why 75 percent is so important. Under UK company law, once he owns 75 percent of a company he can pass his personal debt onto the company. He is borrowing money to finance the purchase. That at the moment is a personal debt. As soon as he hits 75 percent, he can pass that debt onto Man Utd. Effectively, he is mortgaging the club.
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on May 15, 2005 9:06:02 GMT 1
cheers for that steve... i understood that he was borrowing to take over the club but didn't now that piece about uk company law...
|
|
|
Post by rob on May 15, 2005 10:06:56 GMT 1
At 75% he can also delist the company (Man United) from the stock market. This would mean he wouldnt have to pay out X amount of millions in dividends each year, which could go towards paying part of the interest.
If he gets 97% of the shares (90% of the remaining shares from when you launch your take over) he can take out a demand of purchass on the remaining shares I believe
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rogerson on May 15, 2005 10:17:49 GMT 1
I thought he only needed 90 per cent of the total shares to do a compulsory purchase on the remainder, but I may be wrong
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2005 11:48:10 GMT 1
I thought he only needed 90 per cent of the total shares to do a compulsory purchase on the remainder, but I may be wrong 90% is what Sky Sports News were saying.
|
|
|
Post by rob on May 15, 2005 12:05:12 GMT 1
So its not 90% of the remaining shares once a takeoverbid has been launched?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2005 12:10:10 GMT 1
I've become 100% more knowledgable on the subject after reading this thread Now, can someone tell me 1) Why this whole thing is potentially as bad for english footie as some United fans are saying it is? 2) Why 'Shareholders United' didn't obtain the 25%+ shares in Utd to prevent a such like takeover in the first place? Many thanks
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on May 15, 2005 12:16:01 GMT 1
At 75% he can also delist the company (Man United) from the stock market. This would mean he wouldnt have to pay out X amount of millions in dividends each year, which could go towards paying part of the interest. If he gets 97% of the shares (90% of the remaining shares from when you launch your take over) he can take out a demand of purchass on the remaining shares I believe news.ft.com/cms/s/a290dda0-c418-11d9-a56d-00000e2511c8.htmlThe finance has so many twists and turns, the experts seems to have trouble keeping up.
|
|
|
Post by rob on May 15, 2005 12:19:07 GMT 1
Because Glazier will probably employ some expensive layers to challenge the collective tv deal (which is already coming under scrutiny within the EU).
Also JP Morgan (the chief lenders) have in the passed attempted to set up a closed shop European super league. They may also try this route.
as for shareholders united, well ask them. I guess they would say they are reliant upon members (28000) donating money and shares to them.
And that they probably couldnt compete with the price Glazier was willing to pay, a lot of the shareholders "invest" to make money, and as such most would probably want as high a price as they could get, which would mean the shares were possibly out of shareholders uniteds reach.
Leading on from that 60%+ of the shares were held by 3 parties (one including Galzier, the other two sold up to him) whilst a lot of the remainder of the shares may well have been held by investment companies etc.
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on May 15, 2005 12:20:03 GMT 1
2) Why 'Shareholders United' didn't obtain the 25%+ shares in Utd to prevent a such like takeover in the first place? I made the same point on another thread a couple of days ago. Shareholders United have 28,000 members, pathetic with their supporter base.
|
|
|
Post by rob on May 15, 2005 12:26:06 GMT 1
I saw that Glazier would need £1.6million to buy up the remaining .6 % or something.
Thats big money. You're looking at £3million or so just to but 1%, admittedly thats at Glaziers £3 per share price.
But its still a hell of a lot of money. And i would immagine a lot of the members of shareholders united are just normal people like the members of shrewsTRUST will be
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on May 15, 2005 12:37:07 GMT 1
I saw that Glazier would need £1.6million to buy up the remaining .6 % or something. Thats big money. You're looking at £3million or so just to but 1%, admittedly thats at Glaziers £3 per share price. But its still a hell of a lot of money. And i would immagine a lot of the members of shareholders united are just normal people like the members of shrewsTRUST will be True enough. But how long has Manchester United been a PLC, 10 years plus. You could get people to pledge differing amounts a month through Direct Debit to what they could afford. How many thousands of shares could they have bought over that period. The truth of the matter is most so called supporters just want to follow a supposedly successful team.
|
|
McKie
Midland League Division One
Pretend this text is something clever.
Posts: 389
|
Post by McKie on May 15, 2005 14:02:19 GMT 1
2) Why 'Shareholders United' didn't obtain the 25%+ shares in Utd to prevent a such like takeover in the first place? I thought they were existing shareholders who joined together in order to have a bit more clout. i dont think they have actively bought shares as sharholders united. I may be wrong. In fact I normally am. This whole business of passing debt onto the company is just bizarre to me. The financial world is full of strange laws that most normal people would think of as unacceptable. Going from no debt to around 500 million is massive. I think UEFA will have something to say about it too.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 15, 2005 14:28:43 GMT 1
i cant see the problem if when he comes to sell utd, if its only worth £100m then he will have lost out his usa footy team did well and even if he folds the club, if every man u fan gives 10p they will automatically become the richest club again
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on May 15, 2005 19:44:32 GMT 1
;D
|
|
|
Post by BlueinSY2 on May 15, 2005 20:51:37 GMT 1
Lets be honest Shareholders united could have secured the future for Man U a few years ago when the shares where for sale @ 50p each. Mind you too many of them were distracted cos thay issued a Man U away 3rd strip for cup games played on a tuesday only at £39.99 at the same time Stable door and Horse bolting
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2005 21:18:47 GMT 1
Ant - as it stands, Man Utd have (thanks to good work by their Chief Execs) squeezed as much TV money as they are ever likely to get from the current collective TV deal. They are still by far the post popular English football club, but they do not receive as much as they could do revenue wise if they were to negotiate their own TV deal.
Now, it needs 14 clubs under current rules to let Utd do this, but Glazier needs money quick to service the interest on his debt, so TV money will be the first place he looks.
And that is bad bad news for English club football.
I also have to disagree with Andy calling Shareholders United 'pathetic'. They are just normal fans with day jobs, trying to take on multi-millionaires to protect the club they love. They are also part of the Supporters Direct structure, hosting meetings etc, and I for one have massive respect for them.
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on May 16, 2005 8:07:17 GMT 1
I also have to disagree with Andy calling Shareholders United 'pathetic'. They are just normal fans with day jobs, trying to take on multi-millionaires to protect the club they love. They are also part of the Supporters Direct structure, hosting meetings etc, and I for one have massive respect for them. 'pathetic' was aimed at the number, 28,000, members of Shareholders United. When you consider the total number of fans they have.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 16, 2005 8:39:33 GMT 1
They reckon the club will have to pay £120k interest a day to service the debt Glazer will place on it
Th ebiggest issue for me is how Glazer can "buy" it with money that is not his, then service the loan with money that is not his (although it will be by then)
It is all a big financial coup by Glazer and for his business acumen he should be congratulated, and if the finger of blame should be pointed at anyone try Martin Edwards and the others who listed the club to make their own personal fortunes despite the risks associated with doing so
expect higher ticket prices, higher merchandise prices, an attempt to split the TV deal, an attempt to win at least the Man Utd overseas rights, and also a pre season tour in the US
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on May 16, 2005 9:41:13 GMT 1
I spoke to a Man U shareholder who is also an accountant over the weekend. Now the 75% has been broken and the company comes off the stock market the existing share holders will shortly be in a "use 'em or lose 'em" situation with their shares - whereby they can sell them to Glazier within a specified time scale (usually weeks) for his specified price (presumably 3.00 which he has bought all the others at) or hang on to them and they will be effectively worthless at the end of the time period (and not valid as shares of the club). An interesting test of the fans resolve
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2005 10:14:01 GMT 1
I spoke to a Man U shareholder who is also an accountant over the weekend. Now the 75% has been broken and the company comes off the stock market the existing share holders will shortly be in a "use 'em or lose 'em" situation with their shares - whereby they can sell them to Glazier within a specified time scale (usually weeks) for his specified price (presumably 3.00 which he has bought all the others at) or hang on to them and they will be effectively worthless at the end of the time period (and not valid as shares of the club). An interesting test of the fans resolve I though that this (effectively) compulsory purchase scenario only came in to effect when Glazer has 90% (+1) shares ??
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on May 16, 2005 10:18:13 GMT 1
- yes, you are correct (it was a conversation over a cider or two)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2005 18:01:51 GMT 1
'pathetic' was aimed at the number, 28,000, members of Shareholders United. When you consider the total number of fans they have. 28,000 = pathetic? Come off it Andy. By that logic, out of the 10,000+ people who would call themselves Shrewsbury Town fans, the 150 attendance at the shrewsTRUST meeting would also have to be classed as pathetic. Which it certainly wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on May 16, 2005 19:07:31 GMT 1
I notice since the address and mobile phone number of Sean Bones, the chair of Shareholders united was posted on the Liverpool supporters website this morning he has been kept very busy today. He has apparently beeen promised 15,000 postcards from Istanbul. That Impish Liverpudlian sense of humour
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on May 16, 2005 19:13:27 GMT 1
28,000 = pathetic? Come off it Andy. By that logic, out of the 10,000+ people who would call themselves Shrewsbury Town fans, the 150 attendance at the shrewsTRUST meeting would also have to be classed as pathetic. Which it certainly wasn't. Slightly different case Gareth. Manchester United have been a PLC for over 10 years in which time only 28,000 have signed up to Shareholders United which when you consider they have 10 million supporters (conservative estimate) worldwide is pathetic. I thought the shrewsTRUST meeting was just to test the water. I would hope after 10 years of shrewsTRUST there are 2 to 3,000 signed up. Just a thought, if Shareholders United had mobilised 200,000 supporters 10 years ago and they had all put £10 a month in THEY would now have the 75% of shares, keeping in mind for most of the past 10 years Manchester United shares have traded at below £1.50p.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2005 19:20:22 GMT 1
Slightly different case Gareth. Manchester United have been a PLC for over 10 years in which time only 28,000 have signed up to Shareholders United which when you consider they have 10 million supporters (conservative estimate) worldwide is pathetic. I thought the shrewsTRUST meeting was just to test the water. I would hope after 10 years of shrewsTRUST there are 2 to 3,000 signed up. Just a thought, if Shareholders United had mobilised 200,000 supporters 10 years ago and they had all put £10 a month in THEY would now have the 75% of shares, keeping in mind for most of the past 10 years Manchester United shares have traded at below £1.50p. So essentially, because 200,000 haven't given over a grand each to a Supporters Trust, then that's pathetic? I don't know if you're just baiting me here Andy ( ) but I don't understand how calling the volunteer efforts of football supporters 'pathetic' can be justified?
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on May 16, 2005 19:28:51 GMT 1
So essentially, because 200,000 haven't given over a grand each to a Supporters Trust, then that's pathetic? I don't know if you're just baiting me here Andy ( ) but I don't understand how calling the volunteer efforts of football supporters 'pathetic' can be justified? Not baiting at all. The hard facts are Gareth, virtually all Manchester United fans whether they are season ticket holders or PremierPlus supporters could not give a damn who or what owns the club. What I am driving at is it would have been easy for Supporters United to own the club if enough supporters had the will.
|
|
|
Post by CuyahogaBlue on May 16, 2005 19:30:12 GMT 1
28,000 members of Sharesunited is excellent. The work they do is to be commended. The worldwide "support" is a market that is being tapped - 10 million customers are being groomed to support the financial needs of the business. I think these are two totally different bases, one is comprised of fans , the other is comprised of customers .
|
|