I do not think Fergie would look to buy someone who could only offer to play as an 'Anchor man' for example. I think Fergie likes players who can offer different aspects to a team and Moutinho would definitely fit that, ok he may not be a midfield enforcer but I definitely think he would add some bite to the midfield and he is pretty good in the defensive aspect of play e.g. tackling/ positioning.
The Manchester United Thread
- Thread starter MisterStubbs
- Start date
- Replies 106K
- Views 6M
I do not think Fergie would look to buy someone who could only offer to play as an 'Anchor man' for example. I think Fergie likes players who can offer different aspects to a team and Moutinho would definitely fit that, ok he may not be a midfield enforcer but I definitely think he would add some bite to the midfield and he is pretty good in the defensive aspect of play e.g. tackling/ positioning.
craig curtis
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,834
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I would love to see moutinho at united would be excellent next to carrick/fletcher protecting back 4 then letting the attacking players do there thing! But it does seem like we not going to sell many palyers.
hembrough747
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2009
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Valencia requested and has been given the iconic number 7 shirt. Kagawa gets 25, Powell 26. Link = Official Manchester United Website check it out!
craig curtis
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,834
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Think he should have it imo has been quality replacement for ronaldo even tho different types of players, and was one of our best players last 2 seasons.
Good luck getting a game there Paul. They've more midfielders than us now
Asamoah and Isla move to Juventus - Juventus.com
Hate the Glazers with a passion, all of this could backfire/ If it works out Glazers walk away with the money and Fergie probably sees none of it. If it doesn't work out it gets put on to United's debt.
Last edited:
United earn a yearly profit of arounf 120m (ish) give or take champions league form and the selling of assets (players). That money currently goes towards the repaying of debt which has been halved in 4 years. What united fans don't realize is by 2015 united will be debt free and almost twice as commercially valuable worldwide. We'll then have 120m + rising year on year to invest in whatever areas are needed. From a business point of view the Glaziers will have turned the club into the richest in the world by a mile and self sustaining by 2016. By the time the spending cap gets put in place. City will be unable to spend as much as united because their revenue and commercial value will pale in comparison. The Glaziers are working wonders, watch this space!
Someone quoted this on another site (Sky Sports) and it got a lot of likes.
Someone quoted this on another site (Sky Sports) and it got a lot of likes.
To be fair, a lot of that is due to the rising profile of the British league and associated rights/sponsorships. If you consider the Glazers borrowed 500m to buy the club and have taken 550m from the club to repay the loan thus far I'm sure they'd be in a better state without them. I'm pretty sure nobody is working wonders, it's more like this leech on the side of an already massive brand.
The more frustrating thing is moving the club to the Cayman islands and changing the share setup, as the more profitable the business becomes the more pressure there is to release money to shareholders, which is why the spending in real terms may be able to exceed City but likely won't.
The more frustrating thing is moving the club to the Cayman islands and changing the share setup, as the more profitable the business becomes the more pressure there is to release money to shareholders, which is why the spending in real terms may be able to exceed City but likely won't.
craig curtis
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,834
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Man utd have completed the signing of exeter youngster luke goss think his name? for 100,000 after a trial period. exeter official site, dont know anything about this lad apparently scored 15+ goals last to seas from CM in youth league. And on rumour front after lucas father came to old trafford for tour and talks with fergie united have sent party with chief scout jim lawler to thrash out 30m deal and look to find ways to make familly happy who own half his contract.
I really hope we don't sign Lucas Moura, he looks like he will be an incredible player in a few years, but he is too raw, we need a great midfielder NOW not in a few years time...
Not to mention incredibly expensive for someone his age and present ability
craig curtis
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,834
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
would be good if could get him and moutinho
If it works out the glazers get none of the money. The whole reason this is happening is because the Glazers have clocked onto what we have all been saying: Sooner or later the debt would start to bite. Shame it has taken them 500m to work that out.
http://andersred.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/manchester-united-ipo-some-initial.html
[h=3]The Manchester United IPO some initial observations[/h]
the andersred blog: The Manchester United IPO some initial observations
There’s been a lot written about Manchester United’s proposed listing on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) since it was announced on Tuesday night by the filing of an SEC Form F-1 (the document is available here), this post is designed as a brief summary of my thoughts on the subject.
This is a massive change in strategy by the Glazers and a positive one financially
Since the takeover, the club have insisted that the debt loaded onto United is not in any way a problem. As recently as last March, David Gill was reiterating this to the House of Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee.
Suddenly, the attitude to debt has changed. The SEC filing clearly states:
The other key aspect of this debt reduction is that the prospectus makes it clear that there is no intention to pay dividends in the forseeable future. Interest payments will not simply be replaced with dividend payments.
The 2010 bond issue was supposed to lock in long-term (seven year) funding, and yet only two years later, that entire costly structure is being ripped up. A major change of heart has taken place.
The family can still cash in some shares under the "over allotment" mechanism
Although the prospectus says all the net proceeds will be used to reduce debt, the family can still sell some of their shares (as opposed to the new shares in the main offer) under the "over allotment" option. This is a feature of many IPOs, whereby the owners make additional shares available for sale if demand is higher than expected. Over allotment is not normally for more than 10-15% of the shares being offered.
At this early stage we are missing some very key details
The SEC filing is a “preliminary prospectus”. It contains no details on the number of shares being issued or the price of these shares. It is subject to revision.
The success or failure of the offer will have a lot to do with the valuation the offer puts on United. In the past, the Glazers have appeared to have placed a higher value on the club than most analysts or potential buyers. The FT recently reported that Morgan Stanley had left the IPO syndicate (of underwriters) because of disagreement over the valuation.
It is not too late for this offer to collapse spectacularly if the Glazers attempt to sell shares on too high a valuation or if financial markets weaken further. This is not a “done deal”.
The share offer will be significantly greater than $100m
The much quoted “$100m” issue is a red herring. There is a requirement in a preliminary prospectus to estimate the cost of registration fees and as these are dependent on the size of the share offer, a “placeholding” assumption has to be made. That is where the $100m figure comes from. It is not a guide to the size of the eventual offer. There is little or no point raising $100m (£64m). The exact amount raised will depend on the valuation placed on the company and the state of the markets in the next few weeks but I would expect at least $300m.
This is not a change of ownership
Sadly for those of us who want supporters to have a meaningful stake in Manchester United, this IPO is of virtually no use at all. The “A shares” on offer will only have very limited voting rights. Even if the Glazers sold 90% of the club in the IPO (which they won’t), the “B shares” the family will hold would still have a majority of the votes as each B share has 10x the votes of an A share.
Non-Glazer shareholders will therefore have virtually no influence over the club.
This remains a very short-sighted and depressing approach to governance. The experience from Spain and Germany shows that supporter participation in ownership is a huge plus for football clubs. United’s unwillingness to engage with supporters as anything other than potential customers remains an enormous problem that can probably only be solved by intervention by government.
They’ve chosen New York rather than London because they want to maintain control
The principal advantage to the Glazers from listing in New York rather than London is that the A/B dual share structure is acceptable in the US and not in the UK. Well known companies such as Google, Ford, Facebook and (infamously) News Corporation all have dual voting structures. It would be very hard to float a company with such diminished voting rights for outside shareholders in London.
The downside of US listing is the higher tax that the club will have to pay. United has been UK tax registered for all of its existence but will now be subject to US Federal Income tax on profits at the high rate of 35% (the UK rate is 28%). The fact that the Glazers are happy for the club to pay a higher tax rate tells us a lot about the importance of the A/B share structure to them.
Is this all about a post Fergie world?
Why is this all happening now? We can only speculate, but it seems to me that the Glazers are preparing for a Manchester United without Sir Alex Ferguson. As we know, the club has achieved great success on the pitch on a pretty low transfer spending since 2005. Would another “big name” manager come on board with this limited budget, especially as City, Chelsea, Real Madrid and Barcelona continue to flex their financial muscles?
What happens next?
The underwriting banks and the company will now undertake a road show for potential investors. United have ninety days from the date of the preliminary prospectus to file their “final prospectus”, which includes the price and number of shares being offered. The IPO can still be cancelled at any time prior to this….
Watch this space.
[h=3]The Manchester United IPO some initial observations[/h]
the andersred blog: The Manchester United IPO some initial observations
There’s been a lot written about Manchester United’s proposed listing on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) since it was announced on Tuesday night by the filing of an SEC Form F-1 (the document is available here), this post is designed as a brief summary of my thoughts on the subject.
This is a massive change in strategy by the Glazers and a positive one financially
Since the takeover, the club have insisted that the debt loaded onto United is not in any way a problem. As recently as last March, David Gill was reiterating this to the House of Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee.
Suddenly, the attitude to debt has changed. The SEC filing clearly states:
“We intend to use all of our net proceeds from this offering to reduce our indebtedness”
The Glazers do not need to take this approach, they could float United and retain the proceeds themselves. The fact they have chosen not to do so is very telling and has the potential to transform the financial position of the club. As I have mentioned again and again on this blog, over £500m has been spent on interest, debt repayments, fees and derivative costs since 2005. In the first nine months of the 2011/12 financial year alone the club spent £71m on interest and bond buybacks. The elimination or significant reduction of these costs is huge news.The other key aspect of this debt reduction is that the prospectus makes it clear that there is no intention to pay dividends in the forseeable future. Interest payments will not simply be replaced with dividend payments.
The 2010 bond issue was supposed to lock in long-term (seven year) funding, and yet only two years later, that entire costly structure is being ripped up. A major change of heart has taken place.
The family can still cash in some shares under the "over allotment" mechanism
Although the prospectus says all the net proceeds will be used to reduce debt, the family can still sell some of their shares (as opposed to the new shares in the main offer) under the "over allotment" option. This is a feature of many IPOs, whereby the owners make additional shares available for sale if demand is higher than expected. Over allotment is not normally for more than 10-15% of the shares being offered.
At this early stage we are missing some very key details
The SEC filing is a “preliminary prospectus”. It contains no details on the number of shares being issued or the price of these shares. It is subject to revision.
The success or failure of the offer will have a lot to do with the valuation the offer puts on United. In the past, the Glazers have appeared to have placed a higher value on the club than most analysts or potential buyers. The FT recently reported that Morgan Stanley had left the IPO syndicate (of underwriters) because of disagreement over the valuation.
It is not too late for this offer to collapse spectacularly if the Glazers attempt to sell shares on too high a valuation or if financial markets weaken further. This is not a “done deal”.
The share offer will be significantly greater than $100m
The much quoted “$100m” issue is a red herring. There is a requirement in a preliminary prospectus to estimate the cost of registration fees and as these are dependent on the size of the share offer, a “placeholding” assumption has to be made. That is where the $100m figure comes from. It is not a guide to the size of the eventual offer. There is little or no point raising $100m (£64m). The exact amount raised will depend on the valuation placed on the company and the state of the markets in the next few weeks but I would expect at least $300m.
This is not a change of ownership
Sadly for those of us who want supporters to have a meaningful stake in Manchester United, this IPO is of virtually no use at all. The “A shares” on offer will only have very limited voting rights. Even if the Glazers sold 90% of the club in the IPO (which they won’t), the “B shares” the family will hold would still have a majority of the votes as each B share has 10x the votes of an A share.
Non-Glazer shareholders will therefore have virtually no influence over the club.
This remains a very short-sighted and depressing approach to governance. The experience from Spain and Germany shows that supporter participation in ownership is a huge plus for football clubs. United’s unwillingness to engage with supporters as anything other than potential customers remains an enormous problem that can probably only be solved by intervention by government.
They’ve chosen New York rather than London because they want to maintain control
The principal advantage to the Glazers from listing in New York rather than London is that the A/B dual share structure is acceptable in the US and not in the UK. Well known companies such as Google, Ford, Facebook and (infamously) News Corporation all have dual voting structures. It would be very hard to float a company with such diminished voting rights for outside shareholders in London.
The downside of US listing is the higher tax that the club will have to pay. United has been UK tax registered for all of its existence but will now be subject to US Federal Income tax on profits at the high rate of 35% (the UK rate is 28%). The fact that the Glazers are happy for the club to pay a higher tax rate tells us a lot about the importance of the A/B share structure to them.
Is this all about a post Fergie world?
Why is this all happening now? We can only speculate, but it seems to me that the Glazers are preparing for a Manchester United without Sir Alex Ferguson. As we know, the club has achieved great success on the pitch on a pretty low transfer spending since 2005. Would another “big name” manager come on board with this limited budget, especially as City, Chelsea, Real Madrid and Barcelona continue to flex their financial muscles?
What happens next?
The underwriting banks and the company will now undertake a road show for potential investors. United have ninety days from the date of the preliminary prospectus to file their “final prospectus”, which includes the price and number of shares being offered. The IPO can still be cancelled at any time prior to this….
Watch this space.
Well yeah that would be great, but imagine how much that would cost...Fergie would be lucky to be given 30M to spend on a midfielder this summer.would be good if could get him and moutinho
craig curtis
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,834
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
yeah would think would cost 50-60m for the pair.