BBC BLOGS - David Bond
« Previous | Main | Next »

Manchester United's Singapore share sale cleared

Post categories:

David Bond | 12:51 UK time, Friday, 16 September 2011

It was no surprise that Manchester United received approval from the Singapore Stock Exchange today to launch their $1bn (£650m) share sell off.

The decision was always going to be a formality.

But what the club must now decide is whether they can realistically raise the money they are seeking to help reduce their debts (net debt is just over £300m according to the most recent set of accounts). Although details of United's plans are sketchy to say the least - they haven't even publically admitted any of this is happening - there are already questions over the valuation.

The club's owners, the Glazer family, are aiming to raise £650m from selling off between 25% and 30%. That values United at more than £2bn. City sources say this is way too ambitious.

A public listing in Singapore will bring the reigning league champions closer to their legions of fans in Southeast Asia. Photo: AFP

A public listing in Singapore will bring the reigning league champions closer to their legions of fans in Southeast Asia. Photo AFP

The other big problem for United is the turmoil in global stock markets. This could force the Glazers to reconsider at least the timing, but then United and football have continually bucked the economic trend and the message this week from sources close to the deal is that it was full steam ahead. There is no doubt there will be a number of wealthy foreign tycoons eagerly anticipating the opportunity to buy a large chunk of the world's most valuable sports brand.

So what happens now?

United can now start discreetly marketing the share offering. This will start with presentations to what are known as "cornerstone investors" or big banks and financial institutions who are likely to take the lion's share of the offering when it eventually comes to market.

A global roadshow will then take place with United's executives setting out the vision for the future of the business. The final step would see the publication of a prospectus and a public offering to retail investors (you and me).

Singapore's Stock Exchange regulations require all companies granted approval to float to launch their initial public offering (IPO) within six months of their last set of audited accounts.

The club announced their full year accounts to the end of June earlier this month, which means they have until the end of the year to get the float away. That has always been the timeframe being considered by United with the end of November the target date.

But even if they miss that deadline then all they would need to do is re-market the offer based on an up to date set of audited accounts for the end of 2011.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    Wont be a problem selling the shares. I think the valuation is about right. People who buy smaller chunks of a business often have to pay a bit over the top. Wont affect the club in any way i wouldnt have thought. A good decision by the owners and the club.

  • Comment number 2.

    WOO HOO UNITED!

  • Comment number 3.

    Seems a bit strange running this before andersred has updated his blog. How are the green and gold army supposed to know what to think yet?

  • Comment number 4.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 5.

    Hi David,

    I can't help but notice your picture is much less approachable and friendly than other BBC football blog writers such as Dan Walker for example, is this deliberate as you tackle slightly more high brow issues or just coincidence?? Don't take offence but you look like you want to punch the bloggers or treat them with severe contempt.

    On the blog itself i think it's wise from the Glazers, reduce debt and give away a bit of the business in return.

    They have a manageable debt and seem to be managing if far better than many other clubs. Liverpool were probably the worse example and Arsenals stadium (my team) debt currently seems like a millstone around the neck even if in the long run it does pay dividends.

  • Comment number 6.

    Can someone give me a simple summary of all this finance jargon.

    If Glazers sell 25% of their stake (in the form of shares i presume) this will create £650m cash which we can use to pay off £x amount of debt???

    It sounds like a no lose situation unless the Singapore stock market crashes?? Someone with a laymans answer to this would be appreciated!!

  • Comment number 7.

    Talking of stadiums, it'll be interesting to see who comes in for West Ham once they've settled into their shiny new free stadium.

  • Comment number 8.

    Can someone give me a simple summary of all this finance jargon.

    If Glazers sell 25% of their stake (in the form of shares i presume) this will create £650m cash which we can use to pay off £x amount of debt???

    It sounds like a no lose situation unless the Singapore stock market crashes?? Someone with a laymans answer to this would be appreciated!!

    -------

    Sell off 25% of shares for £500m for example.
    Debt for United stands at £300m.
    Glazers can pay off debt and pocket £200m.


    Singapore stock market crashes, Glazers buy back shares for less than half the price ;)

  • Comment number 9.

    It begs the question of where the money raised by this will go; I mean United are not exactly short of cash at the moment, yes they have big enough debt but the profits are more than adequate to service that.

    How are the Glazers' other investments getting along?

  • Comment number 10.

    6 Yes, it's another way of using the club they leveraged the takeover deal with to pay off the debts that that brought about. The money lenders themselves may well be (in my opinion certainly will be and were always going to be) in for a piece of this first carve up, which they could - will - pay for with the interest they've extracted from the original deal and its various adjustments. By the time the final carve up is done the paper trail will be the biggest tangled web ever. And to think, we're supposed to be living in dread of those pesky PIKs come 2017!

  • Comment number 11.

    Good deal all round for Utd/Glazers if they can clear the debt associated with the club. No more annual interest payments in the tens of millions to worry about.

    Just shows what you could get away with in big business prior to the credit crunch!

  • Comment number 12.

    "No more annual interest payments in the tens of millions to worry about."

    And of course the investors did it for ..... for wehat exactly? A dividend, maybe?

    This is simply the owners raising mney to finance their other businesses. And it won't get away at that price - no way!!

  • Comment number 13.

    I read elsewhere that the shares may not come with voting rights, isn't that worth mentioning in the blog as it would raise some interesting questions ?

  • Comment number 14.

    8.At 14:50 16th Sep 2011, Impossible is nothing. wrote:
    Can someone give me a simple summary of all this finance jargon.

    If Glazers sell 25% of their stake (in the form of shares i presume) this will create £650m cash which we can use to pay off £x amount of debt???

    It sounds like a no lose situation unless the Singapore stock market crashes?? Someone with a laymans answer to this would be appreciated!!

    Sell off 25% of shares for £500m for example.
    Debt for United stands at £300m.
    Glazers can pay off debt and pocket £200m.
    Singapore stock market crashes, Glazers buy back shares for less than half the price ;)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    The world doesn't really work like that though does it, there will doubtlss be restrictions on what the money can be used for and they will issue a different asset class of shares likely guaranteeing a dividend return in preference to the Glazers shares and will haveprovisions preventing them simply taking cash out. Investors aren't that stupid!

    Crazy thing will be if they pull it off you will end up with a debt free club making operating prfoits of circa £100-110m pa and PBT of £75m+ (interest of £45m will be gone) and whilst a dividend will be paid from thatit will be a long way short of that amount. The figures will suddenly look very very good really, especially when you consider cash generated from operations has ben > £100m in each of the last 2 years and the amount spent on financing will drop drmatically so you will have a club with more free cash to invest than any other globally makes by a ridiculous margin.

    Not sure I believe it was entirely good judgemnet that led them there but the Glazers might be about to set United finances straight and also reflect quite how big a (paper) gain they've made on the frnakly very little capital they invested

  • Comment number 15.

    @10 - The PIKs have already been repaid? Unless that was sarcasm...

  • Comment number 16.

    However the debt is repaid, when it is repaid then United will be even more formidable than they already are.

    With profits like that, especially in this age of FFP, no team in the world will be able to touch them for the amounts of capital they will have at their disposal.

  • Comment number 17.

    Any have any ideas what that cost of capital will be?

    i.e. how much investors will expect back?

    Does 10% a year seem about right or am I just quoting random numbers?

  • Comment number 18.

    pkoo6 I don't think they'll issue prefs that are effectively debt like instruments but instead shares that take priority over the Glazers regarding dividend payments as they will no doubt want to pay out more to that 25-30% than them.

    I'd be suprised if they had a headline return rate attached I'm expecting they specify a max amount that could be distributed and has to be prior to anything being taken our by the Glazers. It just allows better options for teh club going forward ie they can cut dividend in a bad year

  • Comment number 19.

    Makes you sick.

    Success = Gloryhunters = Money = More success = More gloryhunters = More money = Endless success = destruction of competition in the English game.

    Well done everyone who supports Man Utd who doesn't come from Manchester, you're ruining football.

  • Comment number 20.

    "3. At 14:37 16th Sep 2011, TheTrawler wrote:

    Seems a bit strange running this before andersred has updated his blog. How are the green and gold army supposed to know what to think yet?"
    ________________________________________

    I'll tell 'em what to think: "YOU LOSE"

    Your Green and Gold army was defeated on the floor of the Singapore Stock Market without ever firing a shot. The debt will be eliminated, and Man U sits in the cat bird seat going into FFP.

    I'll tell 'em what to think: "YOU LOSE"

    How much was that scarf again? Where is that money going to go now? Or has it gone already? Do you even know where to begin to find out? Now don't you wish you'd asked these questions in the first place?

    After all, they only took advantage of your ignorance of financial affairs to create a non-issue which motivated you to buy the scarf in the first place...

  • Comment number 21.

    Most of the money from Green and Gold scarves went to scroats anyway

    Very interesting stuff, and it's good to have a comments section not besieged by idiots.

    I for one was an anti-Glazer wehn they took over and still consider myself a little disillusioned, but as has been said that is probably more from an ignorance of how big business works and also some Americanophobia

    If they pull this off, it does clear the debts and they can continue to cream money out of the far East then who are we to complain?

  • Comment number 22.

    Lets face it, no one buying these shares will be doing so to make a profit, they'll be doing it because they support Man Utd. We all know that Utd will be overvalued as a businses, but if the shares are sold they won't care, and the market is only a reflection of opinion anyway. If it's suddenly full of boisterous football fans then sentiment will be high and the price higher than the asset value.

    The business model of touring Asia endlessly is the gift that keeps on giving for Utd. Which must really wind up the naysayers who said that focusing on the domestic games was what really matters. Football is global now, and the premier league's future probably lies at least partially abroad.

  • Comment number 23.

    @21

    I was also very sceptical, but let's be honest, we've had some of our most successful years under their stewardship, still have financial pulling power and top quality first team and back-up players.

    Unless something drastic happens in the future regarding debt with either Manchester United or one of their parent companies, you'd have to say they've been incredibly successful.

  • Comment number 24.

    Setting an example. Liverpool FC want cash to build a stadium. It could be a way to do it.

  • Comment number 25.

    20 wrote:

    I'll tell 'em what to think: "YOU LOSE"

    Your Green and Gold army was defeated on the floor of the Singapore Stock Market without ever firing a shot. The debt will be eliminated, and Man U sits in the cat bird seat going into FFP.

    I'll tell 'em what to think: "YOU LOSE"

    How much was that scarf again? Where is that money going to go now? Or has it gone already? Do you even know where to begin to find out? Now don't you wish you'd asked these questions in the first place?

    After all, they only took advantage of your ignorance of financial affairs to create a non-issue which motivated you to buy the scarf in the first place...

    -------------------------------------------------

    I don't own a green and gold scarf, pal.

    Hope this helps.

  • Comment number 26.

    Seems much too good to be true......beware Utd fans!

  • Comment number 27.

    26 Beware of what?

  • Comment number 28.

    the green and gold campaign ended because as much as fans would have wanted it to be back the way it was before the glazers, there was nobody around willing to put their hand in their pocket. People who boycotted have been replaced by fans who are indifferent to the glazers. Of course united has its glory hunters, but they'd only be supporting someone else who was winning everything.

    From what I've seen attendances are still pretty good, so maybe it's all the average players driving round in bentleys that are killing the game?

  • Comment number 29.

    There are 300 000 000 Manu fans in the world, give us a chance to buy 1 share @ 10 pounds each, the shares will be sold. Valuation and amount of shares are both wrong(so don't hang me), but, they will be sold(3Bn) and the Glaziers are selling shares in the Parent company, does that mean we have a share in their NFL and NHL teams too?

    Sorry if I don't know the whole deal, but I am under the impression that the Parent Company includes all of their dealings? Are they selling shares in Manu only, or the whole lot?

  • Comment number 30.

    I don't understand why Utd fans who say "whatever, the debt is servicable, problem? what problem?".

    Ignore the ~£40m per annum paid to a bank as opposed to another team for one of their players the Glazers have mugged off the Utd fans. They laugh at you, it's nothing to do with football for them. Shame. £40m that could buy an Aguero every season to catch up the Barca.

    At least Chelsea's owner seems a genuine football lover who's goal is to win trophies, and even if he does bin managers he's a fan playing dream team. Like us.

    Glazer's are a switched on version of Hicks/Gillett. Switched on in investment. Not "soccer".

  • Comment number 31.

    19. Sounds like absolute pure jealousy - useless post.

    Let's face it with Man City and Chelsea having seemingly bottomless pockets any deal that will leave Man U debt free so they won't have to use profits to sevice debts and more to spend on players will help keep them at the top.

    People may not like it but that's the modern game and from United's point of view makes sound business sense.

  • Comment number 32.

    @30

    There are plenty of clubs in the world that are owned by people who aren't incredibly interested in the football side of things. Ignoring the fact they have stated they have been fans of "soccer" for a long time and have always been interested in owning a club, who say's they even need to be interested or "switched on" when it comes to football?

    There are PLENTY of people involved in the day to day management of United that are more than "switched on" when it comes to football. The fact is that all professional football clubs nowadays are businesses and NEED the business side of things to not only survive, but to prosper.

    Yes, the Glazers are very interested in the financial side of things - aka making money. But they have consistently said that they know for them to make money from the club, the club needs to be successful both on and off the field. They've consistently said that Sir Alex had transfer funds available to him when he needs it, and based on the amount we've spent this season it suggests they were at least telling the truth.

    I've never been a big fan of the Glazers since they took over, but to be honest since they've been here our revenue has increased substantially season by season, despite having debts lumbered onto the club we've spent money when Sir Alex has thought it needed, and we've been successful on the pitch. And now that the debts could potentially be paid off that leaves even more money to improve both the team and infrastructure of the club. I don't see what we have to complain about.

  • Comment number 33.

    I know this is not the right place to post this but with 606 gone I'll have to say it....
    PLEASE get Robbie Savage off the front page of BBC Football, it just doesnt look good!

  • Comment number 34.

    Seems too easy to me. What about the issue of losing control of 25-30% of the club to investors ( who, incidentally, as shareholders, will be entitled to their share of the profits)?

    Will having so many owners spread around the world have any effect on day to day running of the club ( i.e. making financial decisions)?

    Will the major 'cornerstone' investors, like those who get first look-in in an IPO, see the same value in the shares offered?

    Just questions- could work out well for United.
    Despite the fact that investors are generally wary, these shares will probably sell, not on the potential value of United itself but because it will give fans an opportunity to own part of the club.

  • Comment number 35.

    The Glazers are prophets of biblical proportions. They have calmed the Red Sea and taken us to the top of the mountain where we now gaze upon the promised land!

    Now all that awaits is for the Emperor Platini to to wreak vengence with his FFP scrolls and banish the imposters City and Chelsea with their ill gotten tithes and unruly generals.

    Cast them into the wilderness I say and the red minions can rejoice in the land of milk and honey where all shall worship at the shrine of Sir Alex!

  • Comment number 36.

    Good deal for United. End of!
    It makes great busiess sense to raise money from fans and supporters when you have so many of them waiting to invest (by way of purchasing shares) in the club they support.
    To those who complain about clubs being "owned by big business" - get real! Football is big business, and if you do not realise that you should go crawl back under whatever rock you have just crawled out from under.
    As for #19, it is just your jealousy talking, possibly along with the fact that you were never taught to rather be quiet and avoid being thought a fool than spewing rubbish like this and removing any doubt :)

  • Comment number 37.

    "If they pull this off, it does clear the debts and they can continue to cream money out of the far East then who are we to complain?"

    Why would the Glazers use this money to pay off Utd's debts when the operating profits are already covering the repayments!?

    Don't be daft, it's obvious - they are going to keep this money for themselves and allow the debts to carry on as they are.

    They will suck every last dime out of the club - but hey, that's business right?

  • Comment number 38.

    When the Glazers took over I didn't know where I stood, I felt I could see both sides and resolutely decided to keep an eye on things in the long term. If the club still got results I decided I would continue to give the Glazers the benefit of the doubt.

    So far things have worked out very well for the Glazers, continued to win, with arguably one of the weakest United squads of the last 20 years and now... perhaps more by luck than grand design look set to clear the bulk of the clubs debts. With the clubs revenues that gives some serious money for footballing investment in players and player wages.

  • Comment number 39.

    "perhaps more by luck than grand design look set to clear the bulk of the clubs debts. With the clubs revenues that gives some serious money for footballing investment in players and player wages."

    Dreaming.

    See post 37.

  • Comment number 40.

    @ 6. At 14:47 16th Sep 2011, wirral18

    Once the Glazers sell x% of the company for £xxx million, they are technically free to do what they want. Of course it would make the offer more attractive if they promised to clear the clubs debt in the sale prospectus (they would then be obliged to do that).

    If the day after cashing in 25% for £500 million (or whatever combination), the Singapore stock exchange collapsed and the value of that £500 million dropped to £200 million, the new investors would lose the money, not the Glazers and not Manchester United.

  • Comment number 41.

    30. At 22:05 16th Sep 2011, ComeEnglandAway:

    Chelsea under Roman have been spending more than the equivalent of a Sergio Aguero on average every year. Its won them 3 titles and an equal number of FA Cups but who has been closer to Barcelona than Chelsea since then?

    I'm guessing Manchester United....

  • Comment number 42.

    United's financial capabilities are terrifying, and will only widen when UEFA's fair play laws restrict the spending powers of clubs. With UEFA's financial fair play laws imminent, teams without the financial might of Man U or Man City will no longer be able to pump vast amounts of money into playing staff in the hope of Champions League reward (like Villa and Spurs have done in the past). Having to spend only what you can afford will mean the gap between those outside the top 4 and those receiving Champions League money will widen, causing a gulf that could have catastrophic effects on the Premier League. Read more about the devastating affects these laws could have on the Premier League at alex-keble.blogspot.com

  • Comment number 43.

    I think that if the valuations of the shares is achieved then some of the money will be used to pay off most, if not all of the net debt (remember that gross debt still stands at about £450m). The rest I think will be used to build a £295m state of the art hospital at Carrington. SAF talked about this during the pre-season tour to America (or in the off season at some point anyway, cant exactly remember when) and I wondered then where the money come from to pay for this....well if the raise £600m then £300m could be used to reduce the debt and the other £300m to invest in the hospital. I might be wrong of course but SAF definitely said that the hospital was a definite possibility, and of course this would further increase the value of the club.

    @37: Dude before selling the shares the investors would want to be informed what the money would be used for as it directly effects the value of their investment. I read on another article today that the Glazers are committed to reduce at least part of the debt. There is absolutely no evidence of this, and it would make no business sense at all for the Glazers to "pocket the money" from the ipo. I believe that the Glazers will look to increase the value of the club and if and when they decide to sell they will make their profit that way.

  • Comment number 44.

    Sorry the last 2 sentences in post 43 dont read that well: I meant that there is no evidence that the glazers would pocket the cash.

  • Comment number 45.

    19.At 16:58 16th Sep 2011, blueandwhitehalves1 wrote:
    Makes you sick.

    Success = Gloryhunters = Money = More success = More gloryhunters = More money = Endless success = destruction of competition in the English game.

    Well done everyone who supports Man Utd who doesn't come from Manchester, you're ruining football.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    You've hit the nail on the head.

    If we get to the day when Utd win everything every year football is over, finished even for Utd because no one is interested in forgone conclusions.

    Take away Roman at Chelsea and Utd would have won the league six years in a row without any sign that they could be challenged any time soon, and fifteen out of nineteen PL's.

    Do Utd fans really want an end to competitive football in England?

    PS I bet Blackburn are peeved they didnt get to play Arsenal reserves like others...

  • Comment number 46.

    @45: its an interesting point you make.....and i cant disagree with your reasoning. whats the point of a competition, if theres no competition?! However, massively inflating wages at chelsea and now city is not the way forward imo. It surprises me that teams like liverpool and arsenal do not follow united's business model as they have massive world wide fan bases, just like united. These teams could easily almost match uniteds commercial growth if they got their act together, and if they did so then that would allow them to be more competitive on the pitch. Not sure about the rest though, apart from the sugar-daddy clubs.

  • Comment number 47.

    Looks like Arsenal first team aint much better than the reserves!

  • Comment number 48.

    So......at a £2 billion valuation let's say the directors decide to declare a dividend......if they don't the share price will plummet......Let's say they pay 3%......£60 million......even more than the current interest bill. When interest rates rise again to say 3% shareholders will expect even more.....say £100 million a year? Why don't people just stop and reflect on what a listing on a Stock Exchange implies???

  • Comment number 49.

    I can see the Red Knights and the Green and Gold campaign taking a big slice of the action, at least two hundred quids worth................

  • Comment number 50.

    As with all business deals taking companies so far into debt, it's just done to avoid tax, so whatever they raise, they should be forced to pay off all debts so that they'll finally start to pay taxes at the correct level.
    This is a company who make vast profits, yet they're effectively stealing from the state every single day, this system we have in Britain might no be too uncommon worldwide, but it's blatant proof for all to see that the richer you get, the easier it is to avoid paying the tax that you should do, the same can be said for the takeover of Cadburys and many other compaines too.
    The country is indebted to levels we can only dream of, yet massive companies are allowed to avoid taxes that Joe Bloggs has to pay or he goes to jail, if these companies paid fair taxes, we wouldn't have half the defecit we currently have, jobs wouldn't be slashed everywhere and the cuts would be no more than a trim, our business 'system' is what's ruined our economy and deals like the Glazers at Utd are a BIG part of the problem.

  • Comment number 51.

    Let the bidding commence

    David Bond analyses Manchester United's share sell-off

    __________________________

    "analyses" are you joking?

    You set out to allude to the detail level early on;

    "But what the club must now decide is whether they can realistically raise the money they are seeking to help reduce their debts".

    So this hasn't yet been planned (as far as you know - and how would you know).

    "Although details of United's plans are sketchy to say the least"

    Says who? You? Are you privy to any such plans? Are you merely suggesting they are sketchy to anybody who, like yourself, has no real idea so their opinion is in fact the 'sketchy' element?

    "there are already questions over the valuation".

    More like, 'there are questions over the media's guess at the valuation'.

    "The other big problem for United is the turmoil in global stock markets".

    Followed by

    "United and football have continually bucked the economic trend"

    What are your thoughts then? Why make floaty comments that sit on the fence and, if anything, just lead to more speculative opinion.

    "There is no doubt there will be a number of wealthy foreign tycoons eagerly anticipating the opportunity to buy a large chunk of the world's most valuable sports brand".

    Sounds quite positive. (if your 'analysis' is accurate?)

    You then talk of Marketing, Legalities and time frame but end with;

    "But even if they miss that deadline then all they would need to do is re-market the offer based on an up to date set of audited accounts for the end of 2011"

    This totally disregards any allotted 6 month time frame that you mention in the preceeding 2 paragraphs.

    Would it be more sensible to name this blog,

    David Bonds midweek pub football conversation with mates!

  • Comment number 52.

    David - its not difficult to guess at the Glazer's strategy in floating these shares on the Singapore Stock Exchange; however I don't think most of those who buy these shares will necessarily be 'just' United fans, there is too much money involved!
    The likelyhood is that those who buy the majority of these shares will be those who want some kind of commercial 'return', as well as just 'owning a piece ' of the Club. United is already a commercial success e.g. through franchises, merchandising, TV, Travel, you name it, in SE Asia; if United's names' on it it will sell, hence those buying shares are quite likely to be interested in seeing this commercial interest increase... .......if a '39th PL' game ever does come to pass, you can bet it will involve Man United and the venue will be in SE Asia!

  • Comment number 53.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 54.

    42.At 11:38 17th Sep 2011, akk wrote:
    United's financial capabilities are terrifying, and will only widen when UEFA's fair play laws restrict the spending powers of clubs. With UEFA's financial fair play laws imminent, teams without the financial might of Man U or Man City will no longer be able to pump vast amounts of money into playing staff in the hope of Champions League reward (like Villa and Spurs have done in the past).
    ===============================================
    I took the time to read your blog posting and that's 5 minutes of my life I won't get back. The fact that you mention City in the above quote shows that you have no idea of what the FFP rules say or of City's financials and I suggest that you refrain from commenting when you clearly have done no research and have little understanding of the subject at hand.

  • Comment number 55.

    48.At 14:30 17th Sep 2011, kp wrote:
    So......at a £2 billion valuation let's say the directors decide to declare a dividend......if they don't the share price will plummet......Let's say they pay 3%......£60 million......even more than the current interest bill. When interest rates rise again to say 3% shareholders will expect even more.....say £100 million a year? Why don't people just stop and reflect on what a listing on a Stock Exchange implies???

    ============================================================
    Yet another financial genius, in this case one who has no clue whatsoever as to how dividend policy is applied in companies. Here's a clue, firstly it's discretionary.

    Secondly, it is not based on a percentage of valuation but a percentage of profits in any given year. That comment is so clueless it goes beyond funny and into the realm of pityful.

  • Comment number 56.

    For me the only question with this is will the money raised by selling shares be used to pay off debt? If it is then everyone else should be afraid... VERY AFRAID MWHAA HHA MWHAA HA HA (evil laugh)

  • Comment number 57.

    Buy low sell high (all the while overseeing unprecedented success for one of the greatest club in worlds football)

    Not to shabby for a bunch of Americans gingers.

    Hopefully the amateur accountants will shut up now (nah didn't think so)

  • Comment number 58.

    This MUST work for United

  • Comment number 59.

    Good news for the club, and (sadly) for the owners.

    But does any football fan really care about the finances as long as their club is solvent? I have my doubts. We will surely begrudge the Glaziers their money, but if we are able to compete in the transfer market for the likes of Cavani (please, oh please Sir Alex), then I for one couldn't give a rat's...

  • Comment number 60.

    We are in a very turbulent economic world at the moment, this is the worst time for an IPO which seems to be extremely expensive bearing in mind the price paid for the company in the first place, I personally do not think any football company is worth £2 Billion pounds, those persons who are expected to purchase these shares would be wondering why they are paying £650 million for a minority share in a company they have no control over.

    Between 2005 and 2011, no football company has doubled in valuation, bearing in mind we are living within a post credit crunch period since 2008 and recession is once again looming on the horizon.

 

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.