2015 I believe. Will be negotiated over next 12-18 months. Will be a big increase.
Manchester United on the US stock market
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
2015 I believe. Will be negotiated over next 12-18 months. Will be a big increase.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,507
- Location
- LU7
Well £30m+ would be flipping fantastic! What's the highest kit sponsorship deal in world football? Utd + Aon were near the top, if these figures are true, then we must surely have the new highest deal?
How much do Nike pay Utd? About £23-24m a year if my rubbish maths is right. 2002-2015 for the initial Nike deal with £302.9m over those years. So a big increase would mean £28m a year at least if not £30m?
Anyone else noticed all our American sponsors? Aon. Nike. Chevrolet. Budweiser. Not to forget AIG from the past.
You'd imagine it will be a lot more than £30m. Liverpool's new deal (taking into account what rights have been sold) could be worth as much as £50m per year.
It probably is the most lucrative deal going I imagine. I'm not sure what the likes of BWIN pay Real Madrid though.
It's not really a surprise that Americans are keen to use us as an advertising platform. Most people probably hadn't heard of Aon/AIG until they were on our shirt.
GM are huge and will probably want to start pushing the Chevrolet brand in Europe now (it's not exactly popular, even though people will have heard of it), your brand name on the Manchester United shirt is rather good exposure.
Tariq Panja of Bloomberg is reporting that Utd will be selling 16,666,667 class A shares at a price of between $16-20 which would raise somewhere between $266-332m.
edit: Half of the money raised is going to the Glazers too.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549107/000104746912007537/a2210287zf-1a.htm
edit: Half of the money raised is going to the Glazers too.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549107/000104746912007537/a2210287zf-1a.htm
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,507
- Location
- LU7
Is that for the Warrior kits? £50m a year is stunning. So really Utd need to be on £40m a year to be on terms with Liverpool, if you're right about rights having been sold.
Perhaps overall the Chevrolet Utd deal will be bigger than that of BWIN and Madrid but since ours is newer, it'll be a larger deal. I'm sure when BWIN and Madrid negotiate a new contract they'll match up.
True. I'd heard of neither Aon or AIG before they sponsored us.
Yep. Makes sense.
Was going to ask how much of it stays with the club to reduce the debt. So about $133m will be used by the club?
The Warrior deal is only worth £25m per year but unlike our previous deal and Utd's current deal with Nike, we've only sold the rights to our kit and training gear. Previously Adidas also owned the rights on other merchandise as well as restrictions on official club stores. It's said that the value of the of the other merchandise could be worth another £25m to the club.
Half of the $260-$330m that's raised will stay within the club to pay down the debt, the other half goes to the Glazers. This goes against what was initially said about all the money raised going towards the debt.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,507
- Location
- LU7
Ah right.
Typical Glazers eh. Still at least $130m is potentially £82m to the club, hopefully to reduce the debt a bit.
Based on £75m being paid off the debt, you'll be around £4m better off per year with the IPO costing around £8m. I think it's safe to say that this IPO was designed to raise money for the Glazers and not for Utd.
Last edited:
Well yes, the obvious motivation for them is to make money. However they're releasing some of their share of the club to do it. They aren't taking new loans and the end result of this ipo will be for the club to be in c75m less debt. The club can't be seen to be in a worse position due to the ipo.
They're selling some of their share in the club (while remaining in total control) to pay off a relatively small amount of the debt that they put the club in and forcing the club to pay a greater interest rate which will all but wipe out any saving from paying down the debt. It will take 2 years before the saving even pays for the cost of this IPO, never mind the costs of the ditched IPO's.
I've said it before, you sound like you work for the Glazers sometimes Dan.
Last edited:
Did you? I didn't notice sorry. 4m a year over 5 years and then c75m off the capital debt. There's nothing to prevent a future release of funds to either pay down debt or indeed to line their own pockets, and the key thing is though that going down a po route means the manner in which they do that is by diluting their own equity (class a and b shares have the same equity value even if not the same voting rights) not by touching either the cash in the club or by loading more debt on to it.
Yes, they're paying off a tiny amount of the debt they put the club in and it still barely benefits the club. They should be celebrated by the Utd support? I'm sure you noticed in the prospectus that the Glazers took £10m of the clubs money back in April?
And seeing as if there is sufficient demand beyond the 16.7m shares being sold, a further 2.4m shares can be sold with all proceeds going to the Glazers not towards paying more of the debt off, I think it's unlikely that the Glazers have any imminent plans to further reduce the debt.
edit: that should be a further 2.5m shares, not 2.4m.
Last edited:
Who said anything about celebrate? That's just a straw man. The fact is that this IPO will have an overall beneficial effect for the club, reducing interest payments in the short term and taking 75million or so off the capital that needs to be repaid in 5 years time. This has been achieved by a lessening (however slight) of the glazers control rather than borrowings or dipping into our revenue streams. Whether I'd have liked it to be more or I think we should be in a position of debt in the first place is beside the point.
I think it's probably best not to speculate with too much certainty what the Glazer's next plans are, attempts to do so haven't been hugely successful so far.
I'm not particularly interested in bickering though Baz. You're entitled to your opinion and other people are entitled to theirs.
I think it's probably best not to speculate with too much certainty what the Glazer's next plans are, attempts to do so haven't been hugely successful so far.
I'm not particularly interested in bickering though Baz. You're entitled to your opinion and other people are entitled to theirs.
I'm not bickering. I'm just genuinely surprised how a Utd fan can try to put a positive spin on the news that the Glazers aren't going to be paying down the debt with all the proceeds (they were briefing reporters that they were looking for $500m too) as initially claimed but in actual fact will be paying down just ~£75m - which is not going to make a noticeable difference to the interest bill.
And it's isn't really speculation; as I said, a further 2.5m shares can be sold if there is sufficient demand and the proceeds from that would go to the Glazers not the club. If there was plans to further reduce the debt that money would have stayed in the club. So would the £10m they took out of the club in April.
And it's isn't really speculation; as I said, a further 2.5m shares can be sold if there is sufficient demand and the proceeds from that would go to the Glazers not the club. If there was plans to further reduce the debt that money would have stayed in the club. So would the £10m they took out of the club in April.
I would imagine a much shorter time-frame than that
Given that the start of the Chev deal is two seasons away (admittedly this is seemingly a while further away compared to usual shirt sponsorship deals), the Nike deal could easily be announced in ~ 6 months time (ie similar 2 years in advance)
For right or wrong, without the Glazers the Utd marketing department wouldnt be pulling in ~ £120m/annum which it currently is either
(of course its impossible to know what Utd would be pulling in if it was under different ownership, but this figure cant be complained about)
The Glazer's do appear to be taking out mountains of $$ but they are also pulling in huge deals as well.
As long as the team keeps on performing to the levels they have been over the last 5 - 10 years for the next 3 - 4+ a number of huge deals will start paying out huge amounts to pay off the debt even faster than the club has done so far (which given the interest will always be getting less, the debt payoff will get faster and faster in turn)
Last edited:
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2008
- Posts
- 1,246
- Location
- Sheffield
Anyone who even semi believes this is for the benefit of Manchester United LTD is being very naive.
The shares being sold are class A which gives no voting power as the proper shares 'weigh' 10x the amount. A lot of the shares are being distributed internally within the club the rest the rest will be bought by people for show rather than profit.
I'm biased in this argument due to my football allegiances however Andersred on twitter is a united fan (http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/) and is very good at explaining it in layman's terms. Well worth a read.
The reason this was done in America and not London, Hong Kong or Singapore is because these share types aren't allowed on these markets. Says it all really.
The shares being sold are class A which gives no voting power as the proper shares 'weigh' 10x the amount. A lot of the shares are being distributed internally within the club the rest the rest will be bought by people for show rather than profit.
I'm biased in this argument due to my football allegiances however Andersred on twitter is a united fan (http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/) and is very good at explaining it in layman's terms. Well worth a read.
The reason this was done in America and not London, Hong Kong or Singapore is because these share types aren't allowed on these markets. Says it all really.