Desperation from Utd?

[-V-]

Manchester United seeks $100m New York stock sale

Manchester United will use the money to repay debt


Manchester United has applied to list on the US stock market in a share sale aimed at raising $100m (£64m).

In documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Premier League giant said it was listing on the New York Stock Exchange.

The club had earlier explored the possibility of a $1bn flotation on the Singapore stock market.

United, among the best-supported clubs in the world, said it would use money from the listing to repay debt.

The club has been controlled since 2005 by the Glazer family, the billionaire US sports investors who also own the Tampa Bay Buccaneers American football franchise.

But the club has in recent years been weighed down with heavy debts despite its huge global fan base and promotional and marketing efforts.

"We intend to use all of our net proceeds from this offering to reduce our indebtedness," the prospectus filed with the SEC said.

In September United received approval for a share sale in Singapore, but the process was delayed because of volatility in the stock markets.

Several high-profile flotations have been pulled in recent months as investor appetite has been dampened by the European debt crisis and worries that Asian economies are slowing.

[Bender]

The principal intention, set out in a US Stock Exchange registration statement, is to sell enough shares to new investors to pay off an as yet unspecified portion of United's £423m debts, which the Glazers loaded on to the club when they bought it in 2005. To date the Glazers' takeover has cost United more than £500m in interest, bank charges and fees, after they borrowed £525m to buy the club, then made it responsible for servicing their debts.

[baitman]

if they are going to sell 64m worth of shares, what proportion of the club would that be? this is the crucial question.

they might just be selling a minute fraction of the club, so some american can say he owns a part share, but he will actually own the equivalent of a paper clip on fergies desk.

[dom9]

if they are going to sell 64m worth of shares, what proportion of the club would that be? this is the crucial question.

they might just be selling a minute fraction of the club, so some american can say he owns a part share, but he will actually own the equivalent of a paper clip on fergies desk.

Just a guess, but it would proably be new shares. It usually is with this sort of thing. That doesn't answer your question.

£64M doesn't sound like a lot. The got £16M more than that from selling Ronaldo.

[dom9]

Not sure it is desperation either.

[Kenneth]

They're floating a minority Stake to put market price on them so they can extrapolate a market value for the club as a whole. This is either because they want to sell, or because they think their creditors undervalue their asset and they think a higher market based value will improve their credit terms. Imo.

[Kenneth]

The move to the Cayman Islands for tax reasons is a cuntish move.

[McDermotX]

if they are going to sell 64m worth of shares, what proportion of the club would that be? this is the crucial question.

they might just be selling a minute fraction of the club, so some american can say he owns a part share, but he will actually own the equivalent of a paper clip on fergies desk.

Thought I heard something about there being two 'categories' of shares, A and B.
With one of them holding voting rights - i.e. the ones the Glazers are holding onto. The other ones are the ones planned to go up for grabs - i.e. money generation.

Not interested enough to find out more about it TBH, just something that was mentioned on the radio this morning.

[dom9]

That's pretty normal too.

[tsb]

The move to the Cayman Islands for tax reasons is a cuntish move.

Where's David Cameron when you need him?

[Cormack74]

They're floating a minority Stake to put market price on them so they can extrapolate a market value for the club as a whole. This is either because they want to sell, or because they think their creditors undervalue their asset and they think a higher market based value will improve their credit terms. Imo.

Just listening to a bloke from The Telegraph on the radio and he wasn't sharp enough to come out with anything like that.

Kenneth FTW

[Chazza]

Manchester United file out-of-date accounts for share offer

• Glazers avoid revealing 2011-12 financial performance
• Figures expected to show a decline due to failings in Europe



The Glazer family's timing for floating Manchester United is facing criticism from some analysts who argue the Glazers are deliberately avoiding having to present United's expected decline in financial performance in 2011-12.

The Glazers have filed with the New York Stock Exchange, to float a Manchester United company registered in the Cayman Islands tax haven, United's financial accounts for the year before that, to 30 June 2011. United's income is expected to have suffered a significant decline last year, principally due to Sir Alex Ferguson's team being eliminated from the Champions League at the group stage, whereas in 2011 they earned €53m (£44m) from Uefa after reaching the final.

Presenting accounts more than 12 months old fails to comply with US Securities and Exchange Commission requirements, and United have had to apply for special dispensation to have the out-of date accounts allowed. In a letter dated 3 July, Edward Woodward, United's executive vice-chairman based in London, points out the accounts for United's most recent financial year, to 30 June 2012, are not overdue in the Cayman Islands – "its jurisdiction of incorporation" – or any other country. Having to present the 2011-12 accounts, Woodward claims in the letter, would be: "impractical and involve undue hardship" for United.

United spokesmen both at their Old Trafford offices and representing the Cayman Islands-registered company in New York are not commenting on any aspect of the proposed flotation until it is complete and declined to explain why the Glazers had chosen this timing for the float, and to deliver out-of-date accounts.

Owen Wild, deputy editor of International Finance Review, has criticised the timing, suggesting it is because United's financial performance in 2011-12 is likely to have been significantly worse than for 2010-11. "It is very often unnecessary to do this, and investors are rightly suspicious when companies do it," Wild said. "We have several times seen companies file out-of-date accounts, then when the more recent accounts come out, they show a decline in financial performance."

United's 2011-12 accounts are almost certain to show the club made less money than in 2010-11. That year, Ferguson's team won the Premier League and lost in the Champions League final at Wembley, to Barcelona. With full houses at Old Trafford regular and the team's success marketed for global sponsorships by a team Woodward oversees in the London office, United posted a record income of £331m in 2010-11. Despite paying interest and other finance costs of £53m on the debts, then standing at £459m, which the Glazers loaded on to United to buy the club, United returned a £12m profit in 2010-11.

The club's income from European competitions will be significantly reduced for the most recent season, when United were dismissed from the Europa League by a skilled Athletic Bilbao after their Champions League failure. Uefa are due to release figures on Friday for how much each club was paid for Champions and Europa League participation last season. United's payment can be expected to be around half that of the previous year. The club also missed the earnings from three knockout stage matches at Old Trafford, which are thought to bring in around £3m each.

Many United fans feel that last season was the one in which the debts loaded on to the club by the Glazers, now at £423m, finally started to bite into the performance of Ferguson's team. Its relative drop in fortunes will have dented the club's financial performance. Those figures are not the ones being presented to potential investors in Manchester United Ltd (Cayman Islands) in New York.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/10/manchester-united-accounts-share-offer?CMP=twt_gu

[Leyton388]

cheeky ****ers

[ChesterDave]

Putting morals to one side, how far do you have to go to legally have been considered to deceive [potential] investors?

[muddym2002]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ufo-sighted-at-manchester-united-game/story-e6freuy9-1226423398096