Glazier still trying to Buy United

The Muppet

By Sam Wallace and Nick Harris

21 December 2004
Manchester United were last night plunged into their third "offer period" in
the space of 12 months by the Stock Exchange after the Old Trafford board
confirmed that the American multi-millionaire Malcolm Glazer had renewed his
interest in buying the club.

The offer period status has come to represent a real administrative headache
for chief executive David Gill and finance director Nick Humby and can be
triggered by any suggestion from Glazer, the club's second largest shareholder,
that he is planning a bid for the entire club.

The offer period is effectively a takeover alert which places certain
restrictions on the club over trading in their shares. However, it also gives
United the power to ask the Takeover Panel, part of the Stock Exchange, to force
Glazer to make a formal bid within up to 90 days. Failure to do that can
preclude him from launching another takeover within a period of time up to six
months, set at the panel's discretion.

United were first placed in an offer period in February when Glazer released
an open-ended statement that said he was still considering whether to make a
bid for the club. As he quickly increased his stake through October the club
was subject to another offer period.

It means that, over Christmas, United will have to contact all of their
estimated 37,000 shareholders to let them know that Glazer, who owns 28.14 per
cent of the club, has come to them with plans for a new takeover. It is unclear
what the details of the new deal are, but Glazer has been told by the club
that they are not willing to enter into negotiations until he can present a
full plan to them.

Despite United's confirmation that Glazer is revising his bid proposal, the
American's ambitions remain undermined by doubts that he can secure the
finance or co-operation of key shareholders he needs, let alone the backing of the
board.

Since being dumped by his previous bankers, JP Morgan, for his aggressive
stance, Glazer has sought replacement backers without success. City sources say
that the latest firm linked to him, Commerzbank, have also decided not to
fund him further.

The German bank has already leant him some £100m to fund his stockpiling and
is reluctant to get more deeply involved. Even a less leveraged bid will
probably rely on more borrowing, and his options are diminishing.

Should he find the money - perhaps by liquidating assets in America - there
are no guarantees that Glazer will gain the crucial co-operation of John
Magnier and JP McManus. Their stake is the keystone of any Glazer buyout. Without
it, Glazer cannot control United.

The Irish tycoons, who own 28.89 per cent of United through their Cubic
Expression company, halted talks with Glazer in October because they were unhappy
with his offer for their shares. There has been no contact since, with Cubic
equally happy to either keep their stake indefinitely or wait for a
substantial offer above the 300p per share offered last time.

cournioni

Fúck off Glazier!

super_furry

Looks like he's determined to get his hands on the club and the way things seem to be going, he'll probably succeed. It's a dangerous thing becoming a PLC, anyone with enough money can buy Man U now and as with Cubic Expressions and Glazier, it's more likely that it will end with business men and not supporters in charge.

The Muppet

super_furry wrote:

Looks like he's determined to get his hands on the club and the way things seem to be going, he'll probably succeed. It's a dangerous thing becoming a PLC, anyone with enough money can buy Man U now and as with Cubic Expressions and Glazier, it's more likely that it will end with business men and not supporters in charge.

I don't think he will get his hands on United but I do agree with you that he looks on it purly a a profit making business for him. I don';t really have a problem with that if he continued to invest in big signings but I would be worried that he would try make a killing in the short term and move on. After all the guy is no spring chicken.

Man United supporters could be in a posiiton to block hostile take overs if enought of them purchased shares through Shareholders United . They already have a substantial stake in the club and with a Worldwide fanbase of 50 million it is feasable that the fans could end up owning the club.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

jesus_thats_gre

What if the people on the board and the chairman/Chief Executive are supporters?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Seaneh

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Milan are owned by thier biggest fan, he just happens to be the richest owner of a sports team in the world aswell, good old papa Silvio!

cournioni

Problem is that this guy is no fan, and he will plunge United into debt if he succeeds with his takeover. He has to be stopped.

Jivin Turkey

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Problem is that this guy is no fan, and he will plunge United into debt if he succeeds with his takeover. He has to be stopped.

I wouldnt say this will actually be the case. If he is a businessman it would not be in his best interest to plunge the club into debt. Im sure he would still run it properly with the view of continuing to make a profit, whether the onfield performances would suffer is a totally different matter.

SteM

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Problem is that this guy is no fan, and he will plunge United into debt if he succeeds with his takeover. He has to be stopped.

I've been reading over the past few weeks about what's he's done at Tampa Bay. It would be bad news for United if this man takes over. As far as Commerzbank not funding him I read this on a different forum this morning and it made me smile....

To be honest, as far as I can see Commerzbank may decide they have to lend Glazer the money, in part to stop him from defaulting on the interest repayments on the $100m loan. Apparently the Great Entrepeneur is paying more in interest repayments than he receives in dividends from United. What a shame.

jesus_thats_gre

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Problem is that this guy is no fan, and he will plunge United into debt if he succeeds with his takeover. He has to be stopped.

I do not agree with this. From reading about his previous exploits, he seems to want his companies to work under very strict budgets. If anything, the one thing that he will prevent is stupidly high wages and the large transfers that United have come used too. He is nearly the opposite of the Chelsea owner.. If amything, he may force United to return to what made them what they are, their youth setup!!

Spalk0

Who here's up for gettin Glazer locked, dressing him up as a leprachaun and ditching somewhere in the kerry mountains?.......no?

Lets see the fecker get out of that!

Ok ok ill get me coat!

jesus_thats_gre

Where are the stories that United will be burdoned with debt coming from?

He has to borrow the money to buy the club I know, but how does this put the club i debt?

cournioni

As far as I know, he will be taking out a huge loan in order to buy United, which he cannot pay off unless he sells off some of the clubs assets.

I'm certainly no expert on this subject. But if he is in debt, and he owns the club, then the club is in debt. Is that not how it works? That is why they were saying in the papers that Glazier was planning to sell Old Trafford in order to fund his bid.

jesus_thats_gre

He is also the 20th richest person in America though.. The problem is everyone is saying its bad but no one knows the exact facts...

Lets face it, he is not going to get into massive debt to buy an asset and then drive it into the ground.

The Muppet

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

If amything, he may force United to return to what made them what they are, their youth setup!!

The days of United or any other club for that matter scouring the country and signing the best young talent are gone I'm afraid. The FA change the rules so that the young players smust sign for their local clubs.

I think people are afraid of the debt because Glazier has to borrow so much to buy the club. I would worry that the money to service this hugh debt will be raised by increased ticket prices etc, money that would otherwise be reinvested in the club.

cournioni

Well David Gill (United Chief Exec.) said that Glazier would be putting himself into a huge debt in order to buy the club, which is why they rejected Glazier's first takeover bid.

He will ruin the club if that is the case and he takes over. Money isn't going to grow on trees, so something will be sold to replace the debt. And I doubt if the sale of Djemba x2, Kleberson and Bellion will be able to erase that debt that is for sure!

Jivin Turkey

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Well David Gill (United Chief Exec.) said that Glazier would be putting himself into a huge debt in order to buy the club, which is why they rejected Glazier's first takeover bid.

He will ruin the club if that is the case and he takes over. Money isn't going to grow on trees, so something will be sold to replace the debt. And I doubt if the sale of Djemba x2, Kleberson and Bellion will be able to erase that debt that is for sure!

Its different, he will secure funds to buy the club on long term debt, which he will earn back over a long period through the huge profits that the club earns every year.

Selling club assets such as the stadium would be a terrible move because the revenue earned from the stadium would be greater over a number of years than any resale value on it today.

I dont know why everyone is so against this guy. He brought a relatively obscure American football team to super bowl glory. He is obviously a shrewd business man.

jesus_thats_gre

Jivin Turkey wrote:

I dont know why everyone is so against this guy. He brought a relatively obscure American football team to super bowl glory. He is obviously a shrewd business man.

That was my line of thinking too..

SteM

Jivin Turkey wrote:

I dont know why everyone is so against this guy. He brought a relatively obscure American football team to super bowl glory. He is obviously a shrewd business man.

Anyone that thinks a takeover by Malcom Glazier is a good thing should look through this site.

http://www.mufcnotforsale.com/insidermemo.php

Take 20 minutes out of your day to read that page and the 'Myths & Facts' section in particular.

No Manchester United fan should be backing this mans takeover attempts.

Plenty of other information available here
http://www.shareholdersunited.org/home.php

jesus_thats_gre

Yeah but its not exactly impatial..

cournioni

Do you think the United fans are willing to take any chances on this joker?

jesus_thats_gre

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Do you think the United fans are willing to take any chances on this joker?

You say it as if they have a choice.. Ye reaped the rewards of a flotation on the stock exchange for long enough. This was always a possibility!!

jesus_thats_gre

Having now read all the material in those links, I can genuinely say there is not one fact in there..

Everything is based on assumptions!!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

jesus_thats_gre

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Why is there such a difference?

cournioni

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

You say it as if they have a choice.. Ye reaped the rewards of a flotation on the stock exchange for long enough. This was always a possibility!!

We will have a choice if Shareholders United own 5.2% of the shares. That is enough to block Glazier's move. That figure may have been reached already, I'm not sure tho...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

The Muppet

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

You say it as if they have a choice.. Ye reaped the rewards of a flotation on the stock exchange for long enough. This was always a possibility!!

Its true to say United have benefitted from flotation but the fans have a history of successfully halting takeovers . They stopped Murdoch and its likely the cubic expression plans were halted because of the fans backlash.

Glazier has had the same response and yet he continues to try forge ahead which indicates to me that he doesn't care what the fans think which considerinf we are major shareholders is worrying.

Ordinary United fans through shareholders united can[may already] own enough of the clib to block his takever what other supporter group can say that.

The Rooster

I think you need 25% to be able to block a bid, 5% can delay it, but cant block it.

If Glazer obtains more than 75% of the shares, he can force the remaining shareholders to sell at the highest price paid. So Cubic Expressions can block it, Shareholders Utd cannot. What Shareholders Utd can try and do is turn all the fans against Glazer, in the hope of making him have second thoughts - as happened with Sky/Murdoch.

There is a lot of misinformation out there about what Glazer will do to the club - aimed completely at turning the fans against him.

The fact that Glazer needs to borrow to fund his share acqusition in no way shape or form puts United into debt.

Glazer will need to take money out of the club, and the only way he will be able to do that is by paying dividends to himself (United already pay divs to shareholders in any event). And he can only pay dividends out of profits that the club makes. So its in his interest that United makes as big a profit as possible - and I'm sure he knows that the best way of doing that is investing money to bring great players to the club. So if Glazer did win, it would not be the doomsday some are suggesting.

In saying all that, I would much prefer the soccer club I support to be owned by Brits and Irish rather than Yanks.

SteM

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Having now read all the material in those links, I can genuinely say there is not one fact in there..

Everything is based on assumptions!!

Can you tell me that it's going to be a good thing for a FACT? No facts there, did you even read the 'Facts & Myths' section? It's a FACT that he cannot afford to take over Manchester United with his own money - this is not an Roman Abromavich (sp?) - he just doesn't have the money to do it. This man has to borrow money to afford to buy out the remaning shares he needs. How do you think he's going to repay his massive loan? He'll make/save the money anyway he can - rename the stadium, up the admission price (which he's already done at Tampa against fans wishes), cap transfer amounts - these are just the obvious things. How can these be good things for the fans or the club?

Jivin Turkey said he brought Super Bowl glory to Tampa Bay, here's a FACT for you from that site:

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers won a Super Bowl under him.

FACT: When Malcolm Glazer took over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers they were a lacklustre club with a miserable history. Even Tampa fans will agree this fact.

So Malcolm Glazer took them to the Super Bowl. Has he taken them to EVERY Super Bowl since he took over? No. Only one. Has he made it to the postseason playoffs in EVERY season since he took over? No. In fact the Buccaneers haven’t been all that good in recent years. If you are going to give Malcolm Glazer credit for winning, you must give it to him for losing too.

One thing is for sure though. Malcolm Glazer has in fact TREBLED his profits since his ownership began. Where has that money come from? Directly from the Tampa Bay fans – and it went straight into his pockets.

Consider that in the comparable time period, the Green Bay Packers – a club owned ENTIRELY by supporters – has had a BETTER record than Tampa Bay. They have won a Super Bowl and had better results. It’s proof positive that investors like Malcolm Glazer are no saviours.

We all know that there are no guarantees when it comes to silverware. Further, one must recognise that when Malcolm Glazer took over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers they were a lacklustre club with a miserable history. Put this in contrast with Manchester United. We had a ‘bad’ season in 2003-2004 and we STILL took home a major honour.

So if there are no guarantees in terms of glory, what’s an investor like Malcolm Glazer going to do for us except siphon money out of the club?

Nothing good can come from this man taking over. Please tell me how MUFC can benefit from him taking over?

por

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

There is nothing incorrect about Man Utd being called a franchise, it is a franchise within the primer league as the Tampa Bay Bucks. are a franchise within the NFL, it's just symantics.

MK Dons are a franchise in The Football League

The above examples by daveirl are just differences between the way the NFL and other sports leagues (both here and in the US) run their business.

The Muppet wrote:

Its true to say United have benefitted from flotation but the fans have a history of successfully halting takeovers . They stopped Murdoch and its likely the cubic expression plans were halted because of the fans backlash.

I though monopolies comission in the UK blocked the Murdoc bit as he would have had 2 voices at the TV rights negotations table, i.e. BSkyB and Utd.

The Muppet

por wrote:

I though monopolies comission in the UK blocked the Murdoc bit as he would have had 2 voices at the TV rights negotations table, i.e. BSkyB and Utd.

Thats True but who put the pressure on the politicians to make that happen ?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

jesus_thats_gre

SteM wrote:

Nothing good can come from this man taking over. Please tell me how MUFC can benefit from him taking over?

I am not saying that i will be good, I am just telling you that it will likely be no where near as bad as suggested on those biased sites.. Thats all they are, is biased speculation.

It could happen, it might not happen.. If the personal debt that he takes on to buy the club becomes uncontrollable, he will just sell the club again.. It will not become bankrupt..

jesus_thats_gre

The Muppet wrote:

Thats True but who put the pressure on the politicians to make that happen ?

You are kidding yourself if you think the fans of one club are responsible for bringing about that legislation..

Those fans, like others, highlighted the problems that may occur if one person owns more than one club who compete with each other..

This is all they done..

jesus_thats_gre

por wrote:

There is nothing incorrect about Man Utd being called a franchise, it is a franchise within the primer league as the Tampa Bay Bucks. are a franchise within the NFL, it's just symantics.

MK Dons are a franchise in The Football League

The above examples by daveirl are just differences between the way the NFL and other sports leagues (both here and in the US) run their business.



I though monopolies comission in the UK blocked the Murdoc bit as he would have had 2 voices at the TV rights negotations table, i.e. BSkyB and Utd.

perfect and perfect.. The NFL is a number of years ahead of the PL in terms of development.. The NFL is now purely a successful business based around a game and the PL will become the same..

Jivin Turkey

SteM wrote:

http://www.mufcnotforsale.com/insidermemo.php
[/url]

As mentioned already, hardly impartital. I also think the title of the site is so ironic. MUFC is for sale, its bought and sold every day.

The Muppet

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

You are kidding yourself if you think the fans of one club are responsible for bringing about that legislation..

Those fans, like others, highlighted the problems that may occur if one person owns more than one club who compete with each other..

This is all they done..

Is that your opinion or fact. If you are stating that as fact can you prove it. As i remember it United Supporters were the ones Lobbying the politicians on this issue.

jesus_thats_gre

The Muppet wrote:

Is that your opinion or fact. If you are stating that as fact can you prove it. As i remember it United Supporters were the ones Lobbying the politicians on this issue.

Is that what you rememeber of is that fact?

The Muppet

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Is that what you rememeber of is that fact?

Opinion it is so. I thought as much

por

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

As franchises you cannot compare MK Dons with MU, if it were fast food franchises it would be like comparing MacDonalds and Abrakababra.

MK Dons\Wimbeldon are a club that have only been in the football league since the late '70s and even in their original home in Plough Lane had relatively small support

Utd are a franchise cos if you moved them to a 80K + stadium in Land's End next week they would still fill it day in day out, still be one of the favs. in every competition they are in, still sell more merchandise that any other club in the world, still be the pride of Singapore and there would still be only one club in Manchester