Glazier Again

The Muppet

Glazer to renew siege of United
By Michael Harrison Business Editor
19 March 2005


The US sports tycoon Malcolm Glazer is set to put renewed pressure on the
Manchester United board next week to accept his £800m takeover bid for the club.

Mr Glazer's financial adviser, Rothschilds, has now completed due diligence
on the club and is due to resume talks with its adviser, Cazenove, about
obtaining a board recommendation for its offer, once Manchester United has
reported its interim results on Tuesday.

The club said in February that although the 300p-a-share proposal from Mr
Glazer was a fair price, it was unlikely to be able to recommend an offer
because of the debt-laden nature of the bid. However, it added that it was
ultimately for shareholders to decide whether any offer would succeed.

One option could be for the club to seek approval from the Takeover Panel
for Mr Glazer to make an offer to shareholders without any recommendation from
the board one way or another. There is also a possibility of the club facing
legal action from hedge funds which have bought into the stock for the board's
refusal to recommend an offer even though it has accepted that the price is
a fair one.

Mr Glazer, the owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers American football team,
holds a 28.8 per cent stake in Manchester United. The Irish horse racing duo of
JP McManus and John Magnier hold a further 29 per cent through their
investment vehicle Cubic Expression, and their support is crucial if the Glazer camp
is to succeed. However, the Irish are anxious not to be seen to deliver
control of the club to Mr Glazer against the wishes of the board.

Shareholders United, the fan-based organisation, is vehemently opposed to
the Glazer bid, even though he has indicated he would keep down ticket prices
and retain ownership of the club's Old Trafford ground. The fans say the
leveraged nature of the bid would still cause immense damage to the club. Mr
Glazer is proposing to put in £250m of his own cash, raise £300m in debt from a
syndicate of banks and a further £250m from an issue of preference shares, which
would amount to quasi-debt because it would still be secured against club
assets.

He's a persistant little bugger. Another interesting week ahead for United he must be getting near the point where his offer will be accepted, if he hits the £3.50 a share mark I think the board will have to accept that andthe Cubic Expression group will follow suit.

zAbbo

Seems like a good deal, hope it goes through

Thanx 4 The Fish

Am not sure why Man Fns are complaining, there will be plenty of money in the transfer kitty and if he has said he will keep prices low and not move the team then what's the problem ?

Guy:Incognito

Utd fans are giving out that Glazier is in it for the money and not the club. At least Glazier is trying to buy the club instead of the current lot who are just trying to push the price as high as possible before selling. Having said that, I dont want to see Liverpool stock sold to overseas partys but it is a slightly different situation.

PHB

Yeah I don't understand the problem either tbh, a cash injection might be nice to have a nice little transfer kitty this summer.
The fact that his bid is secured by debt is somewhat irrelevant to United, he will owe it, not the club

jesus_thats_gre

He could be keeping the pressure up just to drive up the share price. When he feels the share price is sufficiently inflated, he will just sell his stake in the club for a tidy profit.. He has done it before I have been told..

Jivin Turkey

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

He could be keeping the pressure up just to drive up the share price. When he feels the share price is sufficiently inflated, he will just sell his stake in the club for a tidy profit.. He has done it before I have been told..

That is a possibility, but having performed the due dillegence already, and also considering an announcement that he is selling his shares would slash the share price, it is a risky business.

United is a good investment. Id be more inclined to think that is his thinking.

SteM

PHB wrote:

The fact that his bid is secured by debt is somewhat irrelevant to United, he will owe it, not the club

Mr Glazer is proposing to put in £250m of his own cash, raise £300m in debt from a syndicate of banks and a further £250m from an issue of preference shares, which would amount to quasi-debt because it would still be secured against club assets.

So debts secured against club assets are irrelevant to United?

SteM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2005/04/01/sfnman01.xml&sSheet=/sport/2005/04/01/ixfooty.html

Glazer's United recipe turns the stomach
By Tim Rich (Filed: 01/04/2005)

To the generals - David Gill in his chief executive's office at Old Trafford - and the foot soldiers of Shareholders United and the staff of fanzines such as Red Issue, this must feel like a phoney war. Malcolm Glazer's bid to take control of Manchester United is overdue, the question is when the blow will come.

The bid will come; the man who would rule Old Trafford has borrowed some £200 million to finance his proposals and, every day that passes, the greater the amount of interest he pays.

If he backs down, the Manchester United share price will begin to slide and the value of his 28 per cent holding will start to shred. In the past, Glazer has worked himself into similar positions and won a tactical victory by persuading someone else to buy him out at a hefty profit. There is no sign of anyone riding to his rescue. The only way is to lunge hopefully forward.

There is nothing wrong with one man owning a football club. Manchester United won their first European Cup under the charge of Louis Edwards, a man whose business practices were more dubious than anything Glazer has been accused of. With his shambling gait and baseball cap, Glazer resembles a capitalist version of Michael Moore without the visceral loathing for George Bush. If he gave interviews, he might sound quite likeable.

Yet it is what a Glazer-run Manchester United would resemble that turns so many stomachs. The ticket price rises expected in response to United's halved six-monthly profits may be only the beginning. Under the regimes of Ken Bates and then Roman Abramovich, £45 got you some of the most expensive away seating in the Premiership - and neither man planned to sell the name of Stamford Bridge to make a few million quid.

What value the statue of Sir Matt Busby or the Munich Clock at the Nike Stadium. The McDonald's Kop at Anfield was a cause for lasting regret at Liverpool while the Arsenal chairman, Peter Hill-Wood, will give a silent shudder every time he contemplates a trip to the Emirates Stadium. Then there is the debt. If Glazer were buying your house he would offer a small deposit, remortgage the property and use the loan to pay your bill. If you want to measure the success of Manchester United, check the worth of share portfolios in Leeds United, Millwall and Sunderland. One of the great achievements of the United board was to expand Old Trafford into a 67,000-seat stadium without borrowing a penny.

If Abramovich were to disappear tomorrow, Chelsea would start careering towards the biggest bankruptcy in football history. Arsenal will be hamstrung for years by the vast sums borrowed to fund the move to their lousily-named stadium; Liverpool have snuggled up to a Thai prime minister who respects human rights every bit as much as Vinnie Jones respected the finer points of football. In this company, Gill and his plc chairman, Sir Roy Gardner, are angels.

What is so remarkable about Glazer is how little he can offer Manchester United. His record in controlling the Tampa Bay Buccaneers is mediocre. In 10 years, they have won one Super Bowl; in the same decade Manchester United have collected 10 trophies. He can give them nothing more in the United States, where United already have tie-ups with the New York Yankees, Pepsi, Budweiser and Nike.

Glazer has tried to win over the supporters by offering to spend money on players. Manchester United have spent £150 million on footballers in the past four years and it is not because they are short of cash that they have failed to regain the Premiership or European Cup.

When the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands happened - an event far less anticipated than Glazer's bid for Manchester United - Michael Foot delivered one of the great parliamentary speeches. General Galtieri should be opposed, he said, not because he was a card-carrying Fascist but "for every other reason" to do with this island's history.

Malcolm Glazer should be opposed not because he would turn Manchester United into a debt-ridden mess but for every other reason to do with our football culture.

super_furry

They're the perils of becoming a PLC and pretty much mortgaging your club's future. On the one hand United got a huge wedge of cash at the start of the 90s that helped them progress as a club. On the other hand, they've left themselves wide open to the likes of Glazier and the Cubic duo, and realistically can do very little to stop Glazier if he's determined enough.

I think it's only a matter of time before he gets control of the club and as much as I dislike the club, for the sake of football, it's nothing something I relish.

PHB

Im sorry, how is this differnet to any other club. Its the same sit, Glazier needs to buy the club off cubic expression, just like any other bid would have to buy another club off a person.

Quasi debt is an interesting way of putting it, I'm fairly sure that Glazier is still libable, and the debts are secured against the clubs assets in the sense that its secured against Glazier's assets. He would lose Man Utd if he could not repay the debt.

That said, the guy is a financial ****ing genius, and I have total faith in his ability to not screw up the club in any way since he wants to make a profit and knows how. If he is going to bring in a transfer kitty, I can't imagine that the fans will care after Zidane is bought or whatever

SteM

PHB wrote:

Im sorry, how is this differnet to any other club. Its the same sit, Glazier needs to buy the club off cubic expression, just like any other bid would have to buy another club off a person.

Quasi debt is an interesting way of putting it, I'm fairly sure that Glazier is still libable, and the debts are secured against the clubs assets in the sense that its secured against Glazier's assets. He would lose Man Utd if he could not repay the debt.

That said, the guy is a financial ****ing genius, and I have total faith in his ability to not screw up the club in any way since he wants to make a profit and knows how. If he is going to bring in a transfer kitty, I can't imagine that the fans will care after Zidane is bought or whatever

Just a quick question. Which team do you support do you mind me asking?

PHB

I'm a united fan

The Rooster

SteM wrote:

So debts secured against club assets are irrelevant to United?

To say the preference shares is secured against club assets is hyperbole - its not strictly true (I know it was the business editor and not you who said it) - albeit there is some truth in it, as at the end of the day it is the club who will have to repay this £250m.

Firstly the preference shares will not be issued by MU, they will be issued by the company that buys it (Glazer Inc or whatever). So the shareholders will get 2.06 cash and a preference share worth 0.94 for every share they currently hold.

In these types of deals it is usual that there is an agreement in place to pay off the preference shares over a certain period of time. I'd guess in this guess something between 10-15 years, but it could be anything (in some deals the prefs would only be repaid on a future sale or liquidation - but I think that would be unlikely in this case). But the key thing is that the prefs could only be repaid out of profits made by Glazer Inc. I presume the only way Glazer Inc will make profits will be dividends received from MU, and the only way MU can pay divs to Glazer Inc would be from profits made after Glazer takes over.

So while there are some similarites to debt, there are big difference also - the main one being loans generally have to be repaid no matter how the business is doing, but prefs shareholders only get their money if the company is in profits.

The Q mark United fans might have is will all profits go on dividends, or will there be re-investment also? Given that United already pay £10m a year out in divs, and Glazer will know that a major factor in ensuring future success is investment in new players, it might not be a major worry - though I think its certain dividends will increase - the quantum though is an unknown factor at this time

SteM

Oh, fair enough. I'd imagine your view on Glazers takeover would be a bit different to a lot of United fans that would be bothered to post on forums.

What are your feelings on Tim Rich's article in todays Telegraph? Do you think he hits the mark in anything he says at all?

Like when you say and I have total faith in his ability to not screw up the club in any way since he wants to make a profit and knows how., you would think he'd be in the same position with the Bucs but they've just won one Superbowl in 10 years. From what I can see the way he's made profits from the Bucs is by raising prices, not winning things on the field.

Will the money definately be there for transfer targets after the takeover? It seems that recently the Bucs fielded a lot of free agents because they couldn't afford top name talent, could you see the same thing happening at United?

And when you say Quasi debt is an interesting way of putting it, I'm fairly sure that Glazier is still libable, and the debts are secured against the clubs assets in the sense that its secured against Glazier's assets. He would lose Man Utd if he could not repay the debt., would you be 100% sure of this or just guessing?

These are just questions, I'm a United fan too and am interested in hearing other United fans views of this takeover.

PHB

Like when you say and I have total faith in his ability to not screw up the club in any way since he wants to make a profit and knows how., you would think he'd be in the same position with the Bucs but they've just won one Superbowl in 10 years. From what I can see the way he's made profits from the Bucs is by raising prices, not winning things on the field.

NFL is different, since they don't buy players as such, they just pay there wages.
Glazier needs United to do well for this deal to succedd, so he will recognise that player investment is needed.

The guy above me explain the other bit.

The Muppet

Glazer's United recipe turns the stomach
By Tim Rich (Filed: 01/04/2005)

To the generals - David Gill in his chief executive's office at Old Trafford - and the foot soldiers of Shareholders United and the staff of fanzines such as Red Issue, this must feel like a phoney war. Malcolm Glazer's bid to take control of Manchester United is overdue, the question is when the blow will come.


The bid will come; the man who would rule Old Trafford has borrowed some £200 million to finance his proposals and, every day that passes, the greater the amount of interest he pays.

If he backs down, the Manchester United share price will begin to slide and the value of his 28 per cent holding will start to shred. In the past, Glazer has worked himself into similar positions and won a tactical victory by persuading someone else to buy him out at a hefty profit. There is no sign of anyone riding to his rescue. The only way is to lunge hopefully forward.

There is nothing wrong with one man owning a football club. Manchester United won their first European Cup under the charge of Louis Edwards, a man whose business practices were more dubious than anything Glazer has been accused of. With his shambling gait and baseball cap, Glazer resembles a capitalist version of Michael Moore without the visceral loathing for George Bush. If he gave interviews, he might sound quite likeable.

Yet it is what a Glazer-run Manchester United would resemble that turns so many stomachs. The ticket price rises expected in response to United's halved six-monthly profits may be only the beginning. Under the regimes of Ken Bates and then Roman Abramovich, £45 got you some of the most expensive away seating in the Premiership - and neither man planned to sell the name of Stamford Bridge to make a few million quid.

What value the statue of Sir Matt Busby or the Munich Clock at the Nike Stadium. The McDonald's Kop at Anfield was a cause for lasting regret at Liverpool while the Arsenal chairman, Peter Hill-Wood, will give a silent shudder every time he contemplates a trip to the Emirates Stadium. Then there is the debt. If Glazer were buying your house he would offer a small deposit, remortgage the property and use the loan to pay your bill. If you want to measure the success of Manchester United, check the worth of share portfolios in Leeds United, Millwall and Sunderland. One of the great achievements of the United board was to expand Old Trafford into a 67,000-seat stadium without borrowing a penny.

If Abramovich were to disappear tomorrow, Chelsea would start careering towards the biggest bankruptcy in football history. Arsenal will be hamstrung for years by the vast sums borrowed to fund the move to their lousily-named stadium; Liverpool have snuggled up to a Thai prime minister who respects human rights every bit as much as Vinnie Jones respected the finer points of football. In this company, Gill and his plc chairman, Sir Roy Gardner, are angels.

What is so remarkable about Glazer is how little he can offer Manchester United. His record in controlling the Tampa Bay Buccaneers is mediocre. In 10 years, they have won one Super Bowl; in the same decade Manchester United have collected 10 trophies. He can give them nothing more in the United States, where United already have tie-ups with the New York Yankees, Pepsi, Budweiser and Nike.

Glazer has tried to win over the supporters by offering to spend money on players. Manchester United have spent £150 million on footballers in the past four years and it is not because they are short of cash that they have failed to regain the Premiership or European Cup.

When the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands happened - an event far less anticipated than Glazer's bid for Manchester United - Michael Foot delivered one of the great parliamentary speeches. General Galtieri should be opposed, he said, not because he was a card-carrying Fascist but "for every other reason" to do with this island's history.

Malcolm Glazer should be opposed not because he would turn Manchester United into a debt-ridden mess but for every other reason to do with our football culture.

Article

Im not too sure about the Falkland stuff at the ene but apart from that it's a good article that gives an insight into fans fears about the Glazier takeover. The Bit about selling your house sums up the debt issue which is a worry but not the only factor in an equation.

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

The Bit about selling your house sums up the debt issue which is a worry but not the only factor in an equation.

The bit about selling your house is the most moronic of all.

"If Glazer" were buying your house..........

More like, if anyone were buying your house, they would take out a loan on the property (its called a mortgage) and use that loan to pay you.

Do you think many people carry around £300,000 in their own cash to buy houses?

Same goes for companies, people just dont have the cash to go out and buy them, at the same time, banks dont lend people £200M if they dont think they are going to get it back.

PHB

ok, so what happens if Glazier has to default on the loan?
Does United have to sell Old Trafford.
OR Does galzier have to sell Man Utd to the bank?

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

The bit about selling your house is the most moronic of all.

"If Glazer" were buying your house..........

More like, if anyone were buying your house, they would take out a loan on the property (its called a mortgage) and use that loan to pay you.

Do you think many people carry around £300,000 in their own cash to buy houses?

Same goes for companies, people just dont have the cash to go out and buy them, at the same time, banks dont lend people £200M if they dont think they are going to get it back.

Yeah Why take out a mortgage on a house if you already own it? As the article said United have not needed to do that up to now and I dont see the benefit in stating now. United supporters want to own the club ourselves and would be unhappy at our club being touted around the world. I wouldn't expect supporters of some other clubs to understand that.

Thanx 4 The Fish

United supporters have no chance of having any say in the running of the club. That right was revoked the minute that it was decided to sell out , become a plc and try to make money that way. Now that this decision has been taken (one that I do not recall too many man u fans moaning about then, or since) all chances of man united belonging to the fans or even any fans having a say are dust.

The benefit of starting now would be to revive uniteds team with some well needed cash.

PHB

Sorry, but do Liverpool fans, for example, whose club is privatly owned have any more say? No fans, in england, really have any more or less say in running of the club.

Also, can someone anwser my question, hopefully someone who knows something about business

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

United supporters have no chance of having any say in the running of the club. That right was revoked the minute that it was decided to sell out , become a plc and try to make money that way. Now that this decision has been taken (one that I do not recall too many man u fans moaning about then, or since) all chances of man united belonging to the fans or even any fans having a say are dust.

The benefit of starting now would be to revive uniteds team with some well needed cash.

United fans have more of a say in the running of their club than any other Fan of an English Club. Through Shareholders United each member is entitled to attend the Clubs AGM and voice their views. The committee of Shareholders United regularly meet with The board and is fully backed by the manager and Players at United. Some of the players have backed SU financially by becoming members.

Unfortunatey at the moment they do not own enough to have overall say but they do aspire to that position. Membership is swelling and at the moment with all the publicity with new memebers from all over the world joining every day. If they can get a further 8% of the shares they will be in a position to block any takeover of the club.

So you see floating was not the sell out you imply as it allowed Fans have ownership of the club if they wished. It did leave us open to hostile takeover but IMO the pros far outweigh the cons, in fact if it were not a PLC the deal may already have been done and we would have had absolutely no influence on it.


There is no dust and United do not need the debt Glazier will bring to the club. United are the richest and best syupported club in the world with an estimated over 50 million supporters worldwide so the goal of fans ownership is very much attainable.

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

Yeah Why take out a mortgage on a house if you already own it?

But Glazer does not yet own said "house". Its just woeful journalism, total scare-mongering.

The Muppet wrote:

As the article said United have not needed to do that up to now and I dont see the benefit in stating now.

They dont need to start now? McManus and Magnier own 30% of the £900M (?) of United. Do you think they just went up and withdrew that £300M from the bank to buy the shares?

The would have got a loan secured on the valued of the shares to purchase the shares.

The Muppet wrote:

United supporters want to own the club ourselves and would be unhappy at our club being touted around the world. I wouldn't expect supporters of some other clubs to understand that.

You wouldnt expect supporters of other clubs to understand? Thats very arorgant. I want Liverpool fans owning Liverpool, which they do, so Im happy. Anybody can own United, I could go buy some shares now if I wanted.

PHB

Jivin, thats not the point.
Liverpool fans happen to own Liverpool, theres no security in because you are privately owned that that is assured.
Man Utd fans could own Man Utd, but being a PLC doesn't make it any easier or less.
You still have to buy the shares off someone, just like you have to buy the club off someone for liverpool.

That said, I don't see how other clubs wouldn't want the same thing Muppet

Anyway,
does anyone know the anwser to this question:

what happens if Glazier has to default on the loan?
Does United have to sell Old Trafford.
OR Does galzier have to sell Man Utd to the bank?

Jivin Turkey

PHB wrote:

Anyway,
does anyone know the anwser to this question:

The bank would get control on whatever assets the loan is secured on, which they would sell to return their money.

The Rooster

If Glazer defaulted, the banks would take ownership of the shares (the security/mortgage held by the banks would be over Glazer's shares rather than MU's property), and sell to the highest bidder, either by a private sale to one individual/group or by making it a PLC again and making a general public offering.

The Muppet

Man United bid expected
Investor's Business Daily USA April 5th 2005

Shares in Manchester United jumped 2.8% as Dow Jones Newswires reported that Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Malcolm Glazer plans to
launch a formal bid for the soccer club next week.
The Glazer family, who currently holds 28.8% of Manchester United's shares, has reportedly completed due diligence and will engage
the club's board this week with an offer at 300 pence a share, or at the same level at which Glazer's previous indicative bid was
proposed.

The Muppet

Glazier has raised his head again today with reports that he is expected to make a fresh bid for united as early as Thursday of this week. The bid is said to include a guarantee to keep ticket prices affordable and £20 million for the transfer market next season .

p.pete

Considering uniteds current financial difficulties I'd jump at this opportunity if I was a united supporter.

The Muppet

p.pete wrote:

Considering uniteds current financial difficulties I'd jump at this opportunity if I was a united supporter.

Which financial difficulties are these ? We're not £300 million in debt at the moment. I believe the board will reject Glaziers new offer.

The Rooster

What do you think Muppet (and other MU fans):

Glazer + £20m additional summer transfer kitty

OR

Status quo + no summer transfer kitty (other than a small amount for a keeper)

SteM

The Rooster wrote:

What do you think Muppet (and other MU fans):

Glazer + £20m additional summer transfer kitty

OR

Status quo + no summer transfer kitty (other than a small amount for a keeper)

For me it's not about this summer or next season, it's about the long term future of the club, which I'm still not convinced is safe should this take over go ahead so I'd go with...

Status quo + no summer transfer kitty (other than a small amount for a keeper)

TBH, I think if the right player(s) becomes available in the summer for the right price and we off load some of the dross there will be money to spend no matter what's been said in public.

United do not have any real financial difficulties at the moment - although profits were down on last year they still made a profit which is more than can be said for a lot of premiership clubs.

p.pete

SteM wrote:

For me it's not about this summer or next season, it's about the long term future of the club, which I'm still not convinced is safe should this take over go ahead so I'd go with...

You should be striving for more then just a decent run of seasons every 30 years :rolleyes:

The Muppet

p.pete wrote:

You should be striving for more then just a decent run of seasons every 30 years :rolleyes:

LOL

SteM

p.pete wrote:

You should be striving for more then just a decent run of seasons every 30 years :rolleyes:

What in the blue blazes are you talking about? Most English clubs success is cyclical it would seem but maybe you're right.......

[SARCASM]
Yes, we should win everything all the time.

WORLD DOMINATION BABY!
[/SARCASM]

I don't think my post warranted your reply or :rolleyes: , I'm allowed to have my opinion as much as you or anyone else.

I was replying to Roosters question and giving the reason for my opinion - so far today you've posted one unsupported 'financial difficulties' comment and one smart remark, not very beneficial to the thread.

p.pete

SteM wrote:

What in the blue blazes are you talking about? Most English clubs success is cyclical it would seem but maybe you're right.......

[SARCASM]
Yes, we should win everything all the time.

WORLD DOMINATION BABY!
[/SARCASM]

I don't think my post warranted your reply or :rolleyes: , I'm allowed to have my opinion as much as you or anyone else.

I was replying to Roosters question and giving the reason for my opinion - so far today you've posted one unsupported 'financial difficulties' comment and one smart remark, not very beneficial to the thread.

I said financial dificulties and yes the clubs finances for the large part look healthy but when a publicly traded company issue profit warnings then people take note. (Do I have to support everything I say, is that written down somewhere?).

Some people argue that Manchester United currently have the best manager ever (largely Manchester United fans I will admit, which is possibly not very credible), so maybe you won't win everything every season but I don't see why ye wouldn't plan on hoping and striving to win from the outset, given ye have the "greatest manager ever".

SteM

p.pete wrote:

I said financial dificulties and yes the clubs finances for the large part look healthy but when a publicly traded company issue profit warnings then people take note. (Do I have to support everything I say, is that written down somewhere?).

Some people argue that Manchester United currently have the best manager ever (largely Manchester United fans I will admit, which is possibly not very credible), so maybe you won't win everything every season but I don't see why ye wouldn't plan on hoping and striving to win from the outset, given ye have the "greatest manager ever".

The profits warning had nothing to do with 'financial difficulties' in Uniteds case, it was simply issued because profits were down from the previous year. So United won't go and spend £20m+ on a player in the summer like they did in the last two, that does not equate to financial difficulties. If it does then there are lots of clubs that would love to be in that position I'm sure!

I think either you misread what I originally posted to Rooster or I didn't explain myself properly because you seem to be going off on some sort of tangent with your second paragraph. Perhaps I should have said

For me it's not just about this summer or next season, it's about the long term future of the club, which I'm still not convinced is safe should this take over go ahead so I'd go with...

but that doesn't make much difference.

Anyway.

The Muppet

The Times
April 13, 2005
By Ashling O’Connor

Glazer takeover does not require United support

MALCOLM Glazer’s bid to buy Manchester United will not be derailed by
anything but an outright rejection of his £790 million offer by the club’s board.
According to a source close to the takeover process, the Glazer family’s
financial backers would continue to support the proposal in its present form, even
without a recommendation from the board.

It had previously been assumed that the success of the takeover was
contingent upon the board’s sanction because the investment banks lending the money
were unwilling to back a hostile bid. However, it is understood that the banks
would now regard the situation as hostile only in the event of a formal
rejection of the offer. A “middle way”, whereby the United board withheld a
recommendation but still put the offer to shareholders for their consideration,
would not constitute a hostile bid.

The news will put Sir Roy Gardner, the United chairman, and his fellow
directors under even more pressure from fans to spurn directly the advances of the
American billionaire and his sons, Joel and Avi, rather than deferring the
decision to shareholders. The board is widely expected to reiterate a previous
assertion that the cash offer of 300p a share is “fair”, but that it cannot
recommend the proposal because of the level of debt involved.

Despite tweaks to the capital structure to make it more “conservative” and
more “palatable” to United, the deal would still burden the club with £300
million of debt secured against future commercial revenues. The Glazers would
raise a further £250 million through preference shares secured against their
28.1 per cent stake in the club.

Analysts do not expect a straightforward rejection of the bid after United
consulted their lawyers about the fiduciary duty of directors of a public
company to get the best price for shareholders. The board does not have any big
shareholders publicly on their side against Glazer, despite the best efforts of
supporters to rally opposition, and could face lawsuits if they were to
block the offer without proper justification.

J. P. McManus and John Magnier, the Irish horseracing magnates who own 28.89
per cent of the club through Cubic Expression, their investment vehicle,
have remained steadfastly silent on the issue, except to say that they are
long-term investors. The future of United remains theirs to decide — a position of
power they might relish, were it not for the backlash from fans that would
follow a sale of their pivotal stake.

United’s shares yesterday closed at 269p, well below the offer price. A
formal offer from NM Rothschild, the Glazers’ financial adviser, is expected to
be delivered to United’s advisers at Cazenove by Friday. A response is not
expected to be forthcoming immediately.

Nick Towle, chairman of Shareholders United, a fans’ group against the
takeover, said: “The fans will be very disappointed if the board doesn’t reject
the bid. There will be anger if they even make a partial recommendation on
price.”


The group is planning a demonstration at Old Trafford at 5pm on the day the
formal offer is received by the club.

The Muppet

Board set to reject Glazer's bid again
The battle for United
By Jason Nisse, Business Editor
Independent 17 April 2005

Manchester United's board are expected to deliver another snub to Malcolm Glazer next week by rejecting the American's £800 million
indicative offer for the club. The tycoon, who owns the Tampa Bay Buccaneers American football club, has told United's board he is
willing to pay 300p a share in cash for the company; the closing price on Friday night was 268p.
Having looked closely at the club's books and sorted out a financing package with his lenders, Glazer's merchant bank, NM
Rothschild, told United's City advisers, Cazenove, last week that they were in a position to make an offer. United said they needed
more time to consider their position, and the board will meet next week to decide whether to recommend the offer.
Their main objection to the US tycoon's proposals is that his bid carried too much borrowing, which could destabilise the club. This
position was articulated by Greg Dyke, the former director-general of the BBC and an ex-director of United, who warned that if
Glazer took over the club could end up like Leeds United, who went into administration with debts of £100m.
Glazer has tried to quell these fears by changing the structure of his offer, cutting the bank-debt element and using a type of
investment called a preference share. However, this is unlikely to convince staunch opponents of the bid, such as United's chief
executive, David Gill, who are worried about the wider effects if Glazer were to purchase the club.
United's largest shareholders, Cubic Expression, have said they will not accept a bid unless it is recommended by United's board.
Cubic, run by the Irish tycoons J P McManus and John Magnier, own 29 per cent of United shares, while Glazer owns 28 per cent.
About 15 per cent of the club is owned by private shareholders, many of whom are fans who would not sell out to Glazer at any price.
The rest are held by City institutions, who will sell out at the highest price they can get.
Some fans are working hard to galvanise opposition to he American's takeover, encouraging supporters to boycott the products of
United's sponsors should Glazer gain control of the club. Nor were they impressed by the suggestion that the American would make a
£20m transfer fund available to Sir Alex Ferguson, the club's manager. That sum is hardly a king's ransom these days, and it would
not allow United to compete with Chelsea, or even Arsenal, in the transfer market.
"This talk of a £20m sweetener is a total con," Mark Longden, the spokesman for the Independent Manchester United Supporters'
Association, said. "He is borrowing the money anyway, so it is the supporters who will have to pay that back.
"And as for more of the debt being in his name, once he bought Manchester United, it would be regarded as an asset just like his
caravan parks in Florida. If he couldn't pay back the money he owed, the club would be sold off just like everything else."

I wonder will this put an end to it or will he be back again? If The Cubic Expressions group stick to their word he has no chance of taking over.

SteM

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,1469556,00.html

Glazer might sell United stake

Matt Scott
Monday April 25, 2005
The Guardian

Malcolm Glazer would consider selling his stake in Manchester United if rumours of a £900m takeover bid prove true, his advisers said yesterday.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum is said to be preparing to mount the offer, which would put a premium of almost 50p per share on the bid currently on the table from Glazer.

The sheikh, a crown prince of Dubai and the owner of the Godolphin horse-racing operation, was linked with a bid for the club in 2003.

Article continues
"From the perspective of the Manchester United board, if someone is putting together an offer, they would be obliged to consider it," said a source close to Glazer.

"If someone offered a higher price, the board would have to consider it and perhaps recommend it. Glazer would have to trump it or accept it, make a profit and disappear. Our other option would be to sit tight and block it because we have a big stake."

United's board has yet to deliver its verdict on Glazer's bid, with its advice to shareholders expected to fall well short of a recommendation to sell their stock. Separate reports yesterday suggested that, regardless, Glazer would take his 300p-per-share offer to the shareholders, notably John Magnier and JP McManus.

A successful bid for the Irishmen's 28.9% stake would provide Glazer with a majority of the club, though there are no indications that they are so minded.

The supporters trust Shareholders United feel that Sheikh Mohammed would be preferable to Glazer. "We don't think it would be healthy to have any single owner," said the vice-chair Oliver Houston. "But from what we hear about Sheikh Mohammed, he would be the gentleman to Glazer's scoundrel."

The Muppet

The Shiek is an interesting developement, There would no prospect of any debt if he were to launch a bid. He would be the worse of two Evils if United are to be sold.

okidoki987

Cubix don't need the hassle they would get from selling their stake to Glazier.
Also they don't need the money (profit) either so I'd say it will be no change at UTD for the moment.

SteM

okidoki987 wrote:

Cubix don't need the hassle they would get from selling their stake to Glazier.
Also they don't need the money (profit) either so I'd say it will be no change at UTD for the moment.

They're set to make £70 million in profit if they sell their shares to Glazer. They may not need the profit but I doubt they'll say no to that sort of money. Surely when they bought the shares at first they were thinking of making a profit further down the line?

The Muppet

Malcolm Glazer has to act by 17 May
US tycoon Malcolm Glazer has been given an ultimatum over his bid ambitions for Manchester United.

The UK's Takeover Panel said Mr Glazer must make known by midday on Tuesday, 17 May whether he plans to launch a firm bid or not.

No extension to this deadline will be granted, the Panel Executive said.

Mr Glazer has been in talks with Manchester United over a potential £800m ($1.5bn) bid for the world's wealthiest football club.

Manchester United's board said it welcomed the announcement by the Takeover Panel.

It said it had made a submission to the Panel Executive because it believed that the "ongoing uncertainty" surrounding the potential bid was disruptive to the company.

It added that Mr Glazer's business plan was "aggressive" and that his capital structure proposals would put "significant" financial strain on the company, burdening the club with debt.

However, it acknowledged that the 300p-a-share proposed price was a fair one and could be attractive to shareholders.

In talks

According to reports, Mr Glazer is seeking to persuade Manchester United's two largest shareholders to back his takeover bid.

Mr Glazer's representatives were set to meet JP McManus and John Magnier this week, the reports said.

Their investment vehicle, Cubic Expression, is the club's largest shareholder, with a 28.9% stake.

If Mr Glazer can buy their shares, his takeover would be all but unstoppable.

Added to his current 28.1% share in the club, it would give him a majority 57% holding in the Old Trafford club.

But it remains unclear whether the Irishmen are in favour of the American's bid.

United's fans, meanwhile, have made no secret of their contempt for Mr Glazer's approaches and are continuing with high-level campaigns to voice their opposition.

About time too. He'll have to make his move now or go away. One way or the other it's time to put an end to the uncertainty surrounding the club so todays developements are very welcome.

jesus_thats_gre

He is doing this to increase the share price and then he will just sell his stake. I said somewhere on this forums previously that he has a history of doing this. Did it with some transport company in the states during the 90's.

Chucky the tree

i hope he doesnt buy the club, the less money united have this summer for transfers the better.

phenom

Chucky the tree wrote:

i hope he doesnt buy the club, the less money united have this summer for transfers the better.

20 million will not buy too much anyway especiallay if they are bidding against Chelsea.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.