I hope this never happens at Norwich

[Jack Barak 46]

The $100m listing is still only a place holder amount at the moment, they need to ascribe a value to the listing at the point of notification but this can and most probably will be changed before the final offering. I would assume they are floating this amount to gauge the interest, apparently the Glaziers were going to drop the whole idea of a listing but JPM persuaded them that it was still viable, to be honest you''d have to be mad to buy what are in effect non-voting, non-div shares...it would just be more honest to send everyone and envelope in which they can put any money they want the Glazers to have.Speaking of which, who wants a donate to SHA envelope?

[GMF 757]

Although it is correct to say that debt can be "rolled over" this is dependant on the Club''s perceived ability to service any interest and capital repayments contractually due in a timely manner, plus the banks appetite to provide such future debt at that particular moment when the refinancing becomes due. Nothing should be taken for granted on each account and corporate history is littered with examples of failures where the market no longer had the desire to fund companies and they simply ran out of money.

Looking at the headline figures here, it seems that in seven years, United have managed to reduce their total debtedness by just over £70 million but it has cost them circa £500 million to achieve that!

[SwindonCanary 455]

The football authorities should be more prominent in matters concerning the buying of clubs.For the biggest club in the country to be bought with a loan is unbelievable, and the ''right a proper'' scenario is clearly not being upheld, just look at Pompey.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Victor Segura and the Yellow Cards"]Options:

1) A girlfriend

2) A hobby

3) Drugs/Alcohol

4) Exercise

5) Binge Eating

Just anything to make you a little less boring Tangible Fixed Assets Anyone?....I don''t mean that to be offensive at all, but getting out now and again really does have it''s benefits.[/quote]MEGALOL! [:D]

[PurpleCanary 5,606]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="paul moy"]Accounting-wise, of course Manure have a rosey picture as the owners get their dividend each year and interest payments are financed, but in the real football world, in order to maintain their No 1 club status they are in the mire as they need to generate funds to invest in their future and they are failing to do this to the level required because of the enormous debt burden. Their supporters saw this coming in 2005 and so did many others.[/quote]

In the Q3 2012 Accounts I can''t see any dividend! I wish we were a club that had £64m spare (£47m spent on transfers and £17m on capex.). Its just that they are competing against a club (Man City) with what appears to be unlimited funds and that the size of Man Utd debts almost seems irrelevant in that scenario.

I have wondered why they are even bothering with a US$100m IPO as the impact on the interest charge is not very much, e.g., if the interest is say 10% then the reduction in the interest costs is  US$10m (roughly £6m). Hardly a sign of people desperately raising funds is it? 

 

 

[/quote]

 

The Glazers don''t seem to agree. I highlighted yesterday evening what looks like the key part of their New York IPO prospectus:

“Our indebtedness increases the risk that we may be unable to generate cash sufficient to pay amounts due in respect of our indebtedness. It could also have effects on our business.”

And I see The Guardian has this morning picked up on this paragraph. Of course $100m is not much, but it may be all the Glazers think they can expect to get; the significant figure is the $1bn they wanted to raise  in Singapore.

[/quote]

 

The FT is now reporting that the Glazers have put this IPO (the target for which they had raised to $300m) on hold because of market volatility.