News4 mins ago
Man Utd - the Glazers - JJ ranting on
29 Answers
Maybe this should go under "Business" ... I'm not sure.
Over coffee this morning, I read the details of the Bond Issue Prospectus, seeking to raise £500m. The Prospecus declares that on 19 December 2008, the Glaziers took loans of £10m out of the club.
Before the 2006 revisions to The Companies Acts, those loans would have been illegal. Now, they just seem undesirable. Does Roman Abramovitch "borrow" millions of ££'s from Chelski? Of course not. No Directors of any other Premier League club have borrowed from their club. Most, if anything, are lending money to the clubs.
So the Glaziers came into the club in the face of opposition from supporters, and from Chief Executive David Gill ... despite the bid documents describing the Glazier family as "Billionaires".
Was that true? Most of the Glaziers' business interests are registerd with the New York Dept. of State, and this gives ememption from publication of annual accounts. The only visible activity is the Glaziers' interest in Zapata, a company with a stake in Omega Proteins (a name familiar to anyone who shops in Holland and Barrett). But in 2006, Zapata ditched it's share in Omega for $29m and, last summer, the Glaziers sold their stake in Zapata to Harbinger Capital - a hedge fund.
The Glaziers have retained an interest in a property company called First Allied - but no information is available about how that company is doing in a US market where property values have fallen. Did the Glaziers burden that company with loans, as they have done with Man Utd, only to find that the market returns are now insufficient to service the debt?
(continued ...)
Over coffee this morning, I read the details of the Bond Issue Prospectus, seeking to raise £500m. The Prospecus declares that on 19 December 2008, the Glaziers took loans of £10m out of the club.
Before the 2006 revisions to The Companies Acts, those loans would have been illegal. Now, they just seem undesirable. Does Roman Abramovitch "borrow" millions of ££'s from Chelski? Of course not. No Directors of any other Premier League club have borrowed from their club. Most, if anything, are lending money to the clubs.
So the Glaziers came into the club in the face of opposition from supporters, and from Chief Executive David Gill ... despite the bid documents describing the Glazier family as "Billionaires".
Was that true? Most of the Glaziers' business interests are registerd with the New York Dept. of State, and this gives ememption from publication of annual accounts. The only visible activity is the Glaziers' interest in Zapata, a company with a stake in Omega Proteins (a name familiar to anyone who shops in Holland and Barrett). But in 2006, Zapata ditched it's share in Omega for $29m and, last summer, the Glaziers sold their stake in Zapata to Harbinger Capital - a hedge fund.
The Glaziers have retained an interest in a property company called First Allied - but no information is available about how that company is doing in a US market where property values have fallen. Did the Glaziers burden that company with loans, as they have done with Man Utd, only to find that the market returns are now insufficient to service the debt?
(continued ...)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joggerjayne. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think your being a bit hard on the Man U fans. When the Glazers bought the club there were huge protests. In fact some fans broke away and formed Manchester FC.
You should also consider that Man U havent always been the premier brand they rebuilt the stadium based on the money raised from thier share issue. Martin Edwards did get rich but not from the share issue.
If you buy shares in the club that money is the property of the club, like any other PLC. What Edwards did was only sell off part of the club and kept the rest as equity in the club. He used the money to rebuild the stadium etc.
Edwards sold up after increasing criticism about the way the club was run and he had enough, in a way the suppoters of the club got what they wanted Edwards gone.
As for the take over if someone buys 30% of the shares they have to by law make an offer for the rest
You should also consider that Man U havent always been the premier brand they rebuilt the stadium based on the money raised from thier share issue. Martin Edwards did get rich but not from the share issue.
If you buy shares in the club that money is the property of the club, like any other PLC. What Edwards did was only sell off part of the club and kept the rest as equity in the club. He used the money to rebuild the stadium etc.
Edwards sold up after increasing criticism about the way the club was run and he had enough, in a way the suppoters of the club got what they wanted Edwards gone.
As for the take over if someone buys 30% of the shares they have to by law make an offer for the rest
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
Technology24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.