http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18699885
Official document: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549107/000104746912007026/a2210109zf-1.htm
Some interesting snippets from it:
Hopefully this will end up resolving some of the debt issues.
Manchester United on the US stock market
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18699885
Official document: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549107/000104746912007026/a2210109zf-1.htm
Some interesting snippets from it:
Hopefully this will end up resolving some of the debt issues.
Would the Singapore option have been better?
I don't understand most of it but there's a lot that's not great reading
What doesn't make good reading? All the "risks" are fairly obvious but have to be made clear in the document for legal reasons.
They're looking to raise $100m (probably more than that in actual fact) to pay down some of the debt.
What are you Lolling about.....as I said POTENTIALLY could have secured the funds to BECOME debt free.......
The figures being mentioned (The IPO was reported to be in the region of $1bn or £637m) would have been in the ball park.
The $100m quoted is only the pro-forma amount and the reports are the Glazers are actually looking a similar amounts fro the US IPO as they were from the abortive Singapore IPO.
United debt as of 31st March stands at £423m with total liabilities at £606m.
Whether you beleiove the figures or not is immaterial to the statement I made referring to the potential rather than the definite value of the respective IPOs and the reported debt and liability figures released by Red Football LLC.
£423m TOTAL indebtidness according ot the Guardian today (not £600m)......
This section goes on to state: "As of March 31, 2012, we had total indebtedness of £423.3m. Our indebtedness increases the risk that we may be unable to generate cash sufficient to pay amounts due in respect of our indebtedness. It could also have effects on our business."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/04/manchester-united-fans-concern
Cant really see a downside really - if it fails completely, it wont cost the club that much to reverse the situation (and I cant see that happening anyway)
I wouldnt be surprised if Utd are completely debt free within two seasons (given some income will also be used to pay off debts too if /when required)
bare in mind the article seems to have a swipe at Utd from a City angle right at the end (even though the information contained is nothing unusual in anyway, and nothing unknown aprt from the IPO itself) - not exactly balanced journalism......
This section goes on to state: "As of March 31, 2012, we had total indebtedness of £423.3m. Our indebtedness increases the risk that we may be unable to generate cash sufficient to pay amounts due in respect of our indebtedness. It could also have effects on our business."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/04/manchester-united-fans-concern
Cant really see a downside really - if it fails completely, it wont cost the club that much to reverse the situation (and I cant see that happening anyway)
I wouldnt be surprised if Utd are completely debt free within two seasons (given some income will also be used to pay off debts too if /when required)
bare in mind the article seems to have a swipe at Utd from a City angle right at the end (even though the information contained is nothing unusual in anyway, and nothing unknown aprt from the IPO itself) - not exactly balanced journalism......
Last edited:
MUFC bond issue 2010 net debt was £360m. Today £423m, despite £100m of bond buybacks. Hence need to raise equity to pay it down
Not looking great is it ..
Business is now worth $2.2Bn according to Forbes - compared to $1.7bn or something back then
$500m increase more than balances out the interest /increases you are talking about imo
Who said it was £600m? Do you not understand what Castiel means when he said liabilities were £606m?
If they got the sort of valuation they were hoping for, if they raised enough money based on that valuation and more crucially, if they used all the money raised to pay off the debt.
Even if they went down the Singapore IPO route and it was successful, I think it's fair to say that Utd still wouldn't be debt free.
The parent company has no relevance to the IPO position - whatever additional money may or may not be owed, its nothing to do with the club's value
Business is now worth $2.2Bn according to Forbes - compared to $1.7bn or something back then
$500m increase more than balances out the interest /increases you are talking about imo
I'm not saying you'll be struggling or anything, just that it isn't ideal and seems to be quite serious debt
Also - pg 25/6, admittance that debt may “affect our ability to compete for players and coaching staff” - never admitted before
That's never going to happen obviously, but you have to worry really, these nobodies are raping your club
One more - Apparently Manchester United is incorporated in the Cayman Islands, with a "principal executive office" at Old Trafford. Hilarious.
:/ .. embarrassing really
Last edited:
I wonder how much it'll go for. $500m upwards obviously with the prinicple purpose being to pay down debt can only be a good thing but I'd expect the to retain some debt just for the purpose of tax efficiency.
Probably the start of a long term exit strategy.
Probably the start of a long term exit strategy.
It depends on which way you look at it. If they are finally admitting that the debt is harming the club then this could be seen as a way for them to retain a controlling interest in the club while paying down enough of the debt so that you can remain competitive.
In the long term for spondoolicks I'd imagine. While I've never been as worried about our financial position as most and think they're very astute businessmen I don't think they're in it for the love. I think a decent proportion of leveraged buyouts result in a later IPO and exit once the investors feel they've maximised the value. I'm not privy to their inner planning but I'd wager they're in it to make as much money as possible from the club. If in a few years they think it more beneficial to leave I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe I should have put 'possible' instead of 'probable'.
They aren't admitting anything. It's just a standard SEC document that needs to include risk factors. If I was filing an SEC for my imaginary Oil company then I could include one of the risk factor's as 'Everyone might wake up tomorrow and feel like saving the planet by stop using fossil fuels'.