Manchester Utd & Glazer: An Epic Swindle?

[txj]

Man Utd 'overvalued' - expert

August 1, 2012

By Richard Jolly

A leading football finance expert has said that Manchester United are overvalued and believes that their forthcoming IPO will prove the prelude to the sale of the club.

United's owners, the Glazer family, will make 10% of shares available on the New York Stock Exchange next Friday and should raise at least $300 million which would make the club's total value over $3 billion.

"If you look at the current exchange rate, you get about £2 billion. They were talking about £1.8 billion a year ago, which is way too high," said David Bick, chairman of Square1 consulting. "I just don't get the valuation. I don't get why major banks [as underwriters] have put their name behind it."

United plan to use some of the proceeds to repay around £75 million of their debts, which currently stand at £437 million. But Bick said: "It is barely 20% of the debt. It is the bare minimum. I think that this float is just the prelude to them getting a market price and selling the club."

Selling a limited amount of shares can produce a higher value, he explained. "It is easier to float 10% of the shares for an inflated price than half a company," he said.

With global financial markets experiencing difficult times and Britain in a double-dip recession, Bick questioned the motives and the timing of the Glazers.

"The thing that doesn't make sense is doing it in these market conditions," he said. "You would be more inclined to wait for a year or two. The timing strikes me as odd particularly in market terms. They [the Glazers] may need the money."

While 10% of shares in the club are for sale, the Glazers will retain 98.7% of voting rights, because shares are split between Class A shares, which carry one vote per share and Class B shares, which have 10 votes per share.

It is a reason why the club is being floated in the United States, rather than the United Kingdom, and Bick said it would deter potential investors.

"You would never get it in London and I am kind of surprised they would have it in the US with A Shares and B shares," he added. "Most London institutions would not touch that with a bargepole. I can't remember the last time there was some kind of double voting structure on the London market."


http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... rt?cc=5901

[grandverve]

Glazers own MUFC and as such can do whatever they like with their property and run it however they deem fit. MUFC was a sitting duck as a Plc any way. Glazers were smart enough to move in on it. The business model they're running MUFC on isn't unique. Many private equity firms and VC's do exactly the same. Ultimately they will sell MUFC but wont do so until the extract as much cash as possible from their golden goose.

It doesn't matter what the fans think, they can hardly pressure the Glazers into doing anything they want. No one can pressurise the Glazers to do anything (if the UK Govt failed with Cardury's....) They certainly didn't pay Rooney crazy wages as a result of fan pressure, losing Wayne Rooney would have damaged MUFC's perceived value - if they can't hold on to their best assets - how can they sell the biz jargon "the sum of the part is greater than current value"? The Glazers will do anything and everything to ensure MUFC is perceived as overvalued (including spending foolish £30m on an unproven Brazillian kid). It is the only way they can extract maximum cash.

Hick and Gillet left Liverpool because they violated financing covenants. Their violation basically handed control of Liverpool to RBS (the bank that loaned them the cash to buy Liverpool) who could do whatever they wanted with the club and did buy selling it promptly to FSG. Similarly, the Glazers paid of the dangerous PIKs to avoid a Hicks/Gillet situatuation occuring at MUFC. Some financial experts that have been following the Glazer ownership are even posturing that other borrowings within their family is what is forcing them to list MUFC to raise much needed cash.

Just as private equities/VC's always have an exit strategy at the time of investment, similarly the Glazers will have one as their business model necessitates it. MUFC fans should be patient, the Glazer will eventually surrender control and fully list the company. Unfortunately, they would in all likelihood have extracted close to at least $500m by the time they relinquish control.

It is highly unfortunate, but it is what it is.

[txj]

Glazers own MUFC and as such can do whatever they like with their property and run it however they deem fit. MUFC was a sitting duck as a Plc any way. Glazers were smart enough to move in on it. The business model they're running MUFC on isn't unique. Many private equity firms and VC's do exactly the same. Ultimately they will sell MUFC but wont do so until the extract as much cash as possible from their golden goose.

It doesn't matter what the fans think, they can hardly pressure the Glazers into doing anything they want. No one can pressurise the Glazers to do anything (if the UK Govt failed with Cardury's....)

U guys are funny! Of course the fans can put pressure! Why did nobody loan Hicks and Gilette the money to avoid default?

They certainly didn't pay Rooney crazy wages as a result of fan pressure, losing Wayne Rooney would have damaged MUFC's perceived value - if they can't hold on to their best assets - how can they sell the biz jargon "the sum of the part is greater than current value"? The Glazers will do anything and everything to ensure MUFC is perceived as overvalued (including spending foolish £30m on an unproven Brazillian kid). It is the only way they can extract maximum cash.

Hick and Gillet left Liverpool because they violated financing covenants. Their violation basically handed control of Liverpool to RBS (the bank that loaned them the cash to buy Liverpool) who could do whatever they wanted with the club and did buy selling it promptly to FSG. Similarly, the Glazers paid of the dangerous PIKs to avoid a Hicks/Gillet situatuation occuring at MUFC. Some financial experts that have been following the Glazer ownership are even posturing that other borrowings within their family is what is forcing them to list MUFC to raise much needed cash.

Just as private equities/VC's always have an exit strategy at the time of investment, similarly the Glazers will have one as their business model necessitates it. MUFC fans should be patient, the Glazer will eventually surrender control and fully list the company. Unfortunately, they would in all likelihood have extracted close to at least $500m by the time they relinquish control.

Dude, u are far behind the curve! They already have extracted $500m in interest payments!

It is highly unfortunate, but it is what it is.

[grandverve]

Glazers own MUFC and as such can do whatever they like with their property and run it however they deem fit. MUFC was a sitting duck as a Plc any way. Glazers were smart enough to move in on it. The business model they're running MUFC on isn't unique. Many private equity firms and VC's do exactly the same. Ultimately they will sell MUFC but wont do so until the extract as much cash as possible from their golden goose.

It doesn't matter what the fans think, they can hardly pressure the Glazers into doing anything they want. No one can pressurise the Glazers to do anything (if the UK Govt failed with Cardury's....)

U guys are funny! Of course the fans can put pressure! Why did nobody loan Hicks and Gilette the money to avoid default?

They certainly didn't pay Rooney crazy wages as a result of fan pressure, losing Wayne Rooney would have damaged MUFC's perceived value - if they can't hold on to their best assets - how can they sell the biz jargon "the sum of the part is greater than current value"? The Glazers will do anything and everything to ensure MUFC is perceived as overvalued (including spending foolish £30m on an unproven Brazillian kid). It is the only way they can extract maximum cash.

Hick and Gillet left Liverpool because they violated financing covenants. Their violation basically handed control of Liverpool to RBS (the bank that loaned them the cash to buy Liverpool) who could do whatever they wanted with the club and did buy selling it promptly to FSG. Similarly, the Glazers paid of the dangerous PIKs to avoid a Hicks/Gillet situatuation occuring at MUFC. Some financial experts that have been following the Glazer ownership are even posturing that other borrowings within their family is what is forcing them to list MUFC to raise much needed cash.

Just as private equities/VC's always have an exit strategy at the time of investment, similarly the Glazers will have one as their business model necessitates it. MUFC fans should be patient, the Glazer will eventually surrender control and fully list the company. Unfortunately, they would in all likelihood have extracted close to at least $500m by the time they relinquish control.

Dude, u are far behind the curve! They already have extracted $500m in interest payments!

It is highly unfortunate, but it is what it is.

The £500m they extracted didnt go into their personal bank accounts. I am talking about the reason why they bought the club in the first place. Not to pay banks £500m!

Banks will continue to lend to MUF because its revenues are supportive of such obligations. Liverpools revenues - and certainly not from the Hicks/Gillet biz model supported any loan application. They did not get further loans because there were no guarantees the banks will make any money and not from fan pressure. RBS sold Liverpool in the end at a loss. No bank will touch Liverpool based on their model. Their model depended largely on getting Stanley Park developed. Even the govt didnt support them, why then will a bank extend facility to a crashing business model.

Stop over-estimating the impact fans can have. Fans only have one impact tool, decline season ticket renewal. As long as there are fans that apply for season tickets, no amount of pressure any fan group can place on club owners will have impact. It didn't work at Newcastle (in fact same fans are now singing Ashley's praises), it didnt work at Rangers, it didnt work at Liverpool and it wont work at Old Trafford!

[Waffiman]

It is the Glazer's club, they can do whatever they want with it, and they are doing what all vulture capitalists in their position usually do to any business entity. However, the fans still have the power to hurt their revenue streams if they do not get success on the pitch. Besides, they can always sell to another billionaire cos of the type of club Manure are. They have turned down offers we hear because it was not enough. Eventually, IMHO, they will sell when there is milked the cow to almost certain death.

Manure's Glazer strategy is built on success. So long as they win, most Manure fans shut up. The Glazer have increased all prices at the club, for example, they have increased Season Ticket (ST) prices by an average of 6£ since they arrived, they have even increased car parking by double digits % but so long as they won, they was hardly a sound.

The Glazers have increased Sponsorship revenue ten fold and many now look to them as a model to copy on this side of revenue increases. The Arsenal owner even praised them publicly because of this and many Arsenal fans were not impressed. However, I am impressed because Arsenal have been asleep and need to get this part of their business model sorted, if they do, they will be in the top 3 clubs in terms of revenue in the next 5 years excluding clubs like Shitty, Chelski and PSG.

However behind the Sponsorship and Silverware successes lay serious problems which the crippling debt has put on the club. these problems have come to the fore because things have now changed. Manure did not win a thing last season and the Noisy neighbours are now flexing their financial muscle. Suddenly all those ills covered up by silverware have now come to the fore.

Suddenly, Manure fans are aware of the following:

But for the crippling debt, they would have been able to compete with Shitty and Chelski. Manure fans now complain that their club is now copying Arsenal strategy of buying cheap youth players, plus blooding youth from their academy. They ask, when was the last time they broke the record transfer fees, which is something they did almost every summer before the Glazers came. They point out Manure now look for cheap deals even with experienced players like Kagawa instead of paying top dollar for the likes of Sneider.

The Glazer's have spent over £500m servicing debt, paying off lawyers and bankers fees, raising funds by via a bond scheme.

The £80m cash from Ronaldo's sale all went into servicing debt.

The Glazers have paid themselves over £25m in cash via various deals.

The fans are now complaining of ST price increases that for the first time in years, this summer Manure did not sell out their allocation of STs. For me, I take the view this has more to do with the economic times than the Glazers.

But the most damning is the revelation that top Manure executives (and maybe Fergie) stand to gain millions from the IPO. Many are seeking confirmation from Fergie if he stands to gain from the IPO.

I listened to a journalist question if Manure can afford RvP on the radio. He argued that Shitty will get RvP because they will outbid Manure and Manure know it. Why? He pointed out that Manure made noises about Nasri last season and did not get the player. So why should it be different for RvP? For him, it was Manure trying to show as if they are in for top players when they really cannot afford them. This was a journo from Manchester. That must hurt Manure fans.

However, all will be forgotten if come next May, Manure are champions. However, weare talking football fans, the vast majority of of football fans are notorious for being fickle. Manure win again, all will be swept under the carpet and the Glazers can keep on pillaging the club.

From day one, i have written on the Glazers and their debt disaster for Manure, I have talked about their get out of jail cards, like selling, and increasing revenue. But the real problem for the Glazers now is Man Shitty. In Manchester, this is a huge deal. Man shitty has completely changed the dynamics of this situation and it looks like the Glazers and Fergie may not be able to stem the tide from the fans. Something will have to give and it must happen sooner rather than later. I cannot see peace if Manure do not win silverware next May even if the IPO is a success.

[grandverve]

The Glazers are using classic PE/VC business model. Nothing new there. The model is dependant on incremental revenues and success on the pitch. As long as those two are not eroded, the value they want for the club will be easier for them to sell. Like Waffi said, the on pitch success will shut the fans up and ensure season tix still sell enough to not knock the biz model, success off pitch will support their valuation.

If both continue along the last 5year trend, then it becomes probable that the Glazers will extract up to $1b cash from MUFC into their personal pocket. Nothin any fan(s) can do about it. It is pure capitalism at its most ruthlessness.

[txj]

Glazers own MUFC and as such can do whatever they like with their property and run it however they deem fit. MUFC was a sitting duck as a Plc any way. Glazers were smart enough to move in on it. The business model they're running MUFC on isn't unique. Many private equity firms and VC's do exactly the same. Ultimately they will sell MUFC but wont do so until the extract as much cash as possible from their golden goose.

It doesn't matter what the fans think, they can hardly pressure the Glazers into doing anything they want. No one can pressurise the Glazers to do anything (if the UK Govt failed with Cardury's....)

U guys are funny! Of course the fans can put pressure! Why did nobody loan Hicks and Gilette the money to avoid default?

They certainly didn't pay Rooney crazy wages as a result of fan pressure, losing Wayne Rooney would have damaged MUFC's perceived value - if they can't hold on to their best assets - how can they sell the biz jargon "the sum of the part is greater than current value"? The Glazers will do anything and everything to ensure MUFC is perceived as overvalued (including spending foolish £30m on an unproven Brazillian kid). It is the only way they can extract maximum cash.

Hick and Gillet left Liverpool because they violated financing covenants. Their violation basically handed control of Liverpool to RBS (the bank that loaned them the cash to buy Liverpool) who could do whatever they wanted with the club and did buy selling it promptly to FSG. Similarly, the Glazers paid of the dangerous PIKs to avoid a Hicks/Gillet situatuation occuring at MUFC. Some financial experts that have been following the Glazer ownership are even posturing that other borrowings within their family is what is forcing them to list MUFC to raise much needed cash.

Just as private equities/VC's always have an exit strategy at the time of investment, similarly the Glazers will have one as their business model necessitates it. MUFC fans should be patient, the Glazer will eventually surrender control and fully list the company. Unfortunately, they would in all likelihood have extracted close to at least $500m by the time they relinquish control.

Dude, u are far behind the curve! They already have extracted $500m in interest payments!

It is highly unfortunate, but it is what it is.

The £500m they extracted didnt go into their personal bank accounts. I am talking about the reason why they bought the club in the first place. Not to pay banks £500m!

Banks will continue to lend to MUF because its revenues are supportive of such obligations. Liverpools revenues - and certainly not from the Hicks/Gillet biz model supported any loan application. They did not get further loans because there were no guarantees the banks will make any money and not from fan pressure. RBS sold Liverpool in the end at a loss. No bank will touch Liverpool based on their model. Their model depended largely on getting Stanley Park developed. Even the govt didnt support them, why then will a bank extend facility to a crashing business model.

Stop over-estimating the impact fans can have. Fans only have one impact tool, decline season ticket renewal. As long as there are fans that apply for season tickets, no amount of pressure any fan group can place on club owners will have impact. It didn't work at Newcastle (in fact same fans are now singing Ashley's praises), it didnt work at Rangers, it didnt work at Liverpool and it wont work at Old Trafford!

On the contrary u are the one underestimating LFC fan pressure. Everywhere Hicks and Gilette went for money, they had fans picketting them and forcing the institutions to think twice. Why do u think certain banks quietly dropped them from consideration? Why do you think Hicks referred to LFC fans as terrorists?

Also their model did not simply depend on getting Stanley Park developed. It depended on staying in the CL and the revenue accruing from there. FSG has already debunked the myth of a new stadium...

[txj]

Ferguson denies IPO payments

August 2, 2012
By ESPN staff

Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson has issued a statement denying that he would receive any payment following the upcoming sale of shares in the club.

There had been some suggestions that Ferguson, who has been supportive of the Glazer ownership at Old Trafford, would financially benefit from the sale of shares, as part of a potential payment to "senior employees".

The Scottish manager, though, has moved quickly to deny the claims in a statement released on Thursday afternoon, adding that the suggestion "insults" him after 25 years at the club.

The statement read: "Being aware of the media coverage that is currently ongoing I felt, on this occasion, that I should make my position clear to the Manchester United fans.

"In regards to suggestions that I have praised the Glazer Family because I stand to financially benefit from the proposed IPO, there is not a single grain of truth in this allegation. I do not receive any payments, directly or indirectly, from the IPO.

"Ultimately, I run the football side of this club and in order to do this, you need backing from above.

"The Glazer family have let me get on with my job, there is no interference or obstruction, only support.

"My decisions and beliefs are not based around what is best for my personal financial gain. That is an accusation that insults me. If that was the case, I would have left Old Trafford a long time ago.

"I am speaking out because I do not want a situation to develop whereby the media and other parties create a rift, however small, between myself and any Manchester United fan. I've spent 25 years of my life pushing this club forward and not only could I not have done it without those fans, I do it for them."



http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... ns?cc=5901

[okokobioko]

lol @ this rabid liverpool supporter/ Rafa benitez yansh sucker!

This ATF is the only person i know who can be supporting a fialure of a club, yet attacks successful clubs. has unprotected sex with benitez, yet attack more successful coaches.

[metalalloy]

yaya, is the benitez bit necessary.. haba

[txj]

yaya, is the benitez bit necessary.. haba

Ignore the man with a deranged mourinho syndrome...

He can be forgiven for thinking everyone here is obsessed with a coach like he does mourinho to the point of necrophillia...

any serious interest I had in Rafa ended with his LFC spell. I am a Liverpool fan not of any specific coach...He's wasting his time thinking he is goading me....

[txj]

United lower share flotation value

August 10, 2012

By ESPN staff and Richard Jolly

Manchester United will begin trading shares in New York on Friday in an Initial Public Offering (IPO) at a lower figure than had originally been planned.

United said they would sell shares at $14 each, having previously announced that the shares would be worth between $16 and $20. They are selling shares representing 10% of the club and will raise $233 million - $100 million less than envisaged.

But Manchester United fans branded United owners the Glazer family "greedy" and said shares in the club are only worth half as much as the owners hope to receive in the IPO.

The funds will be partly used to pay off some of the debt, estimated at around £423 million, owed by the club, which was bought by the American family in 2005.

The lower flotation price is the latest in a series of setbacks to hit the launch of United shares after previous proposals to float them on exchanges in Hong Kong and Singapore failed due to fears over a lack of buyers, but the shares will now begin trading under the stock market ticker Manu.

Richard Hunter, the head of UK equities at Hargreaves Lansdown stockbrokers, said the lowered flotation price was "disappointing but not unexpected", adding: "Football clubs are notoriously difficult investments, ultimately tied to the fortunes of the club on the pitch.

"However, interest in the sport is taking off in the US, and last night's Olympics victory for the women's football team is likely to fuel interest further."

But other analysts said they were surprised the price was as high as $14 and warned that United could struggle to find investors in what is a risky area.

The Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) has called for the Florida-based Glazers to sell the club at a lesser price.

Duncan Drasdo, the trust's chief executive, said: "It would seem all the analysis of the true valuation was correct - the Glazers and their advisors were being far too ambitious, or perhaps greedy - and the true value of the shares should be around $10 rather than the $20 the Glazers were seeking.

"As it stands, the club is valued at around one-third less than their expectations, but many commentators expect the price to slide over the next two weeks once it opens for trading."

A successful IPO would reportedly result in investors owning 42% of the shares available but only carrying voting rights of 1.3%.

It emerged that the Glazers would make about £90 million from the deal, having originally said that all proceeds raised would go towards paying down United's debt.

Drasdo said: "The Glazers [should] stop looking after themselves and for the first and last time do what is best for Manchester United Football Club and put it up for sale at a reasonable price so that fans can once again share in real ownership of their club."

News that the Glazers would make money from the IPO led MUST to call for a boycott of products made by United's sponsors. A statement said: "The Manchester United Supporters' Trust has called for a worldwide boycott of Manchester United sponsors' products, with support across the UK, Europe, Asia and the US.

"The boycott strategy is intended to send a loud and clear message to the Glazer family and club sponsors that, without the support and purchasing power of the fans, the global strength of the Manchester United brand doesn't actually exist."


http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... ue?cc=5901

[grandverve]

United lower share flotation value

August 10, 2012

By ESPN staff and Richard Jolly

Manchester United will begin trading shares in New York on Friday in an Initial Public Offering (IPO) at a lower figure than had originally been planned.

United said they would sell shares at $14 each, having previously announced that the shares would be worth between $16 and $20. They are selling shares representing 10% of the club and will raise $233 million - $100 million less than envisaged.

But Manchester United fans branded United owners the Glazer family "greedy" and said shares in the club are only worth half as much as the owners hope to receive in the IPO.

The funds will be partly used to pay off some of the debt, estimated at around £423 million, owed by the club, which was bought by the American family in 2005.

The lower flotation price is the latest in a series of setbacks to hit the launch of United shares after previous proposals to float them on exchanges in Hong Kong and Singapore failed due to fears over a lack of buyers, but the shares will now begin trading under the stock market ticker Manu.

Richard Hunter, the head of UK equities at Hargreaves Lansdown stockbrokers, said the lowered flotation price was "disappointing but not unexpected", adding: "Football clubs are notoriously difficult investments, ultimately tied to the fortunes of the club on the pitch.

"However, interest in the sport is taking off in the US, and last night's Olympics victory for the women's football team is likely to fuel interest further."

But other analysts said they were surprised the price was as high as $14 and warned that United could struggle to find investors in what is a risky area.

The Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) has called for the Florida-based Glazers to sell the club at a lesser price.

Duncan Drasdo, the trust's chief executive, said: "It would seem all the analysis of the true valuation was correct - the Glazers and their advisors were being far too ambitious, or perhaps greedy - and the true value of the shares should be around $10 rather than the $20 the Glazers were seeking.

"As it stands, the club is valued at around one-third less than their expectations, but many commentators expect the price to slide over the next two weeks once it opens for trading."

A successful IPO would reportedly result in investors owning 42% of the shares available but only carrying voting rights of 1.3%.

It emerged that the Glazers would make about £90 million from the deal, having originally said that all proceeds raised would go towards paying down United's debt.

Drasdo said: "The Glazers [should] stop looking after themselves and for the first and last time do what is best for Manchester United Football Club and put it up for sale at a reasonable price so that fans can once again share in real ownership of their club."

News that the Glazers would make money from the IPO led MUST to call for a boycott of products made by United's sponsors. A statement said: "The Manchester United Supporters' Trust has called for a worldwide boycott of Manchester United sponsors' products, with support across the UK, Europe, Asia and the US.

"The boycott strategy is intended to send a loud and clear message to the Glazer family and club sponsors that, without the support and purchasing power of the fans, the global strength of the Manchester United brand doesn't actually exist."


http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... ue?cc=5901

The underlined part is pure rhetoric and nothing more. The shares will be listed, some mugus will buy it, no one will boycott the club sponsors, the Glazers will eventually surrender control but would be cash rich by the time they do so. MUST is no where near well organised to pull off unionism.

How do fans go about boycotting sponsors like nike, aon and or chevrolet? Exactly.

[txj]

United lower share flotation value

August 10, 2012

By ESPN staff and Richard Jolly

Manchester United will begin trading shares in New York on Friday in an Initial Public Offering (IPO) at a lower figure than had originally been planned.

United said they would sell shares at $14 each, having previously announced that the shares would be worth between $16 and $20. They are selling shares representing 10% of the club and will raise $233 million - $100 million less than envisaged.

But Manchester United fans branded United owners the Glazer family "greedy" and said shares in the club are only worth half as much as the owners hope to receive in the IPO.

The funds will be partly used to pay off some of the debt, estimated at around £423 million, owed by the club, which was bought by the American family in 2005.

The lower flotation price is the latest in a series of setbacks to hit the launch of United shares after previous proposals to float them on exchanges in Hong Kong and Singapore failed due to fears over a lack of buyers, but the shares will now begin trading under the stock market ticker Manu.

Richard Hunter, the head of UK equities at Hargreaves Lansdown stockbrokers, said the lowered flotation price was "disappointing but not unexpected", adding: "Football clubs are notoriously difficult investments, ultimately tied to the fortunes of the club on the pitch.

"However, interest in the sport is taking off in the US, and last night's Olympics victory for the women's football team is likely to fuel interest further."

But other analysts said they were surprised the price was as high as $14 and warned that United could struggle to find investors in what is a risky area.

The Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) has called for the Florida-based Glazers to sell the club at a lesser price.

Duncan Drasdo, the trust's chief executive, said: "It would seem all the analysis of the true valuation was correct - the Glazers and their advisors were being far too ambitious, or perhaps greedy - and the true value of the shares should be around $10 rather than the $20 the Glazers were seeking.

"As it stands, the club is valued at around one-third less than their expectations, but many commentators expect the price to slide over the next two weeks once it opens for trading."

A successful IPO would reportedly result in investors owning 42% of the shares available but only carrying voting rights of 1.3%.

It emerged that the Glazers would make about £90 million from the deal, having originally said that all proceeds raised would go towards paying down United's debt.

Drasdo said: "The Glazers [should] stop looking after themselves and for the first and last time do what is best for Manchester United Football Club and put it up for sale at a reasonable price so that fans can once again share in real ownership of their club."

News that the Glazers would make money from the IPO led MUST to call for a boycott of products made by United's sponsors. A statement said: "The Manchester United Supporters' Trust has called for a worldwide boycott of Manchester United sponsors' products, with support across the UK, Europe, Asia and the US.

"The boycott strategy is intended to send a loud and clear message to the Glazer family and club sponsors that, without the support and purchasing power of the fans, the global strength of the Manchester United brand doesn't actually exist."


http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... ue?cc=5901

The underlined part is pure rhetoric and nothing more. The shares will be listed, some mugus will buy it, no one will boycott the club sponsors, the Glazers will eventually surrender control but would be cash rich by the time they do so. MUST is no where near well organised to pull off unionism.

How do fans go about boycotting sponsors like nike, aon and or chevrolet? Exactly.

By learning from LFC fans...

[wanaj0]

Grandverve, you do have time. Fans are customers of the product. They can boycott and stop buying the product. That does not make them owners of the club! The Glazers did not get to where they ate by being stupid. Like you said they have a business plan.

The Glazers issue at United is one of the case studies at Manchester Business School. The issues are well analysed there. That's why I laugh at some of the things posted here.

[wiseone]

Manchester United see record revenue as debt falls to £359.7m
• Growth comes from 10 new sponsorship deals
• £26.5m tax credit sees club avoid overall loss
Share 43


inShare
1
Email
Jamie Jackson
The Guardian, Wednesday 14 November 2012 11.12 EST

Manchester United saw their total revenue rise to a record £76.3m in the first quarter thanks to increased sponsorship deals – though the club would have made an overall £6m loss had it not been for a £26.5m tax credit received by registering its holding company in the tax-free haven of the Cayman Islands.

In the three months to the end of September, the club's debt fell to £359.7m, a drop of 17% from the £433.2m in the same period last year, though the £24.5m interest on the sum is the same as Sir Alex Ferguson paid for Robin van Persie during the summer.

Ed Woodward, the executive vice-chairman, said: "Manchester United had a record first quarter driven by our commercial operation, which continues to experience extremely strong global revenue growth in new media and mobile, retail merchandising and sponsorship. The team has also made a strong start to the 2012-13 season – currently first place in the Premier League and our Champions League group."

The growth was due to 10 new deals that include contracts with General Motors, Bwin and Santander. Revenue from this sector was up 24.3% from £34.6m to £43m.

The fall in debt was down to the finance raised by floating the club on the New York stock exchange in August, after the holding company was registered in the Cayman Islands.

The report stated that a further "£60m" tax credit could be due to utilise later in this or in future years. United also hope to increase income when negotiations begin with Nike in February regarding the renewal of the £303m kit deal that finishes in 2013.

In July, United secured a lucrative £357m contract with General Motors for the Chevrolet logo to be worn on their shirts from 2014 until 2021. This caused the club to buy out the agreement with DHL for its training kit, which now finishes at the close of this season.

The Glazer family loaded £550m of debt on to the club when they bought United in 2005, including interest and other fees. Regarding these recent results and the debt, Andy Green, a financial analyst who writes the andersred blog" on football ownership, tweeted: "Stop all transfer spending and it would still take 5 years+ for £#MUFC to become debt free."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... debt-falls