Hit the road Malc

Manchester United’s commercial team launched the club’s investor roadshow on Thursday ahead of an Initial Public Offering (IPO) in New York this August. The team, comprising chief strategist Edward Woodward, commercial director Richard Arnold, and operations head Michael Bollingbrook, is meeting potential investors in Asia, Europe and the US ahead to drum up interest in the flotation ahead of pricing next week.

In a performance of undoubted woodenness, total lack of charisma and no little bluster, the trio kicked off the tour that the Glazer family hopes will prompt investors to pump more than $300 million into club family coffers.

Key points:

  • The United team claim that revenue growth will come from retail and commercial sectors in the future
  • Bollingbroke repeatedly stresses that Financial Fair Play (FFP) will benefit the club – presumably concerned that UEFA’s flag-ship programme may not have teeth
  • Woodward says that deal with General Motors is “a world record” shirt sponsorship – it’s put at anywhere between £25 and £54 million per season by the press
  • Woodward says that commercial revenue could account for more than 50 per cent of total revenues inside three years – it is currently around 30 per cent
  • Bollingbrooke says historic net player expenditure over 10-15 years is £20-25 million – it is, of course, substantially lower during the Glazer regime
  • “We are giving guidance at the moment,” says Bolingbroke, “that the current transfer period could result in net expenditure nearer £40 million
  • “Matchday is our annuity business,” says Woodward – United not taking the fans for granted then. Much.

Steve Jobs it isn’t, but don’t take Rant’s word for it, view the video presentation and read the prospectus here.

Sharing is caring

Comments

  1. marlon says

    On the sponsor, unless GM put in the contract that we couldn’t release details of the agreement (maybe their embarrassed?) I’d imagine it’s closer to the £28 some are reporting – surely if it was 54m they would shout it from the rooftops. On the other hand, suggesting a commercial revenue jump within 3 years coincides conveniently with the start of the shirt deal. If it does turn out to be just £28m, I expect in 2 years, when that deal starts, it won’t be the biggest deal and by the end in 9 years time it will be way down.

    I believe they also said that they expected the Kagawa/Powell transfers to be offset by player departures so there is potentially 40m, if Fergie can find value. Current net is 13m – assuming we get Berba price of 5m, that still leaves 8m so we must be expecting more departures (unless of course 5m is not really Berba’s price). Nani’s contract negotiations aren’t going well (we all know he wants to follow Ronaldo) and we have been looking at RVP and Moura so he could well go.

    • says

      marlon – thinking back I’m not sure Bollingbrooke was talking about THIS SUMMER. He was guiding for the 2011/12 FY – so July 1 2011 to June 30 2012. Wasn’t that about £40 million net? Or am I remembering incorrectly?

  2. Minus The Bear says

    I think the key word in the whole thing is “could”. A lot of things could happen, doesn’t mean they will though.

  3. King Mob says

    Remember in the midst of Wayne’s wobble in 2010, when Fergie held that press conference, in equal parts a masterful expression of hurt, anger and bemusement. Remember the part when he said, words to the effect, that he’d told Rooney to respect the good name of the club and not to drag it through the mud. A sentiment that he no doubt meant and as committed reds we wholeheartedly agreed with. What price that now? For the past couple of weeks, once again United have been framed within an endless narrative of debt, decline, greed, bafflingly complex financial instruments, all of which imposed on us completely against our’ wishes. And completely against the wishes of Gill, Fergie and the rest of the board..As fans we’re understandably fuming about this but are constantly belittled by our leader for expressing our concern Many of us, myself included, are so concerned about our club, that we’ve spent long hours in dilligent study of f**king global finance for gods sake;many of us,myself included, have taken the ultimate sacrifice and walked away. None of us want praise, but will we not except slander.In fairness, neither should Fergie. I’ve made allusions to Fergie’s tendency towards avarice on probably all of my handful of posts on this blog. This is an opinion based largely at my disillusionment with a man i once oonsidered great. But even I was a bit shocked at Andersred forthright assertion on Sky News of the motivations behind the “great owners” statement. It was an opinion that i concured with but personally felt that for it to carry the credence.required for an open airing on such a high profile stage, more information was required re’ who would be considered “senior exces.” So fair play Fergie. However i felt in other ways his statement was very disingenious:by pointing to the insinuations of personal gain as the cause of the potential rift, when it was the “great owners/real fans remark” that really angered the faithful. Like the Rooney interview, I read it as part sincere part specious: designed to curry favour with the less mentally agile of our support.-for evidence read the comments on the republic of mancunia from yesterday. If fergie wants reapproachment, he needs to at least acknowledge our concerns as valid. He doesn’t need to agree with them. I read on twitter that andersred -who in my opinion is a man i’m proud to call a fellow red- has apologized for his Sky New4 remark.So should Fergie for his “real fans” comments. That would be a great means to heal rifts on both sides. ..

  4. says

    I find myself in a strange position in relation to what other posters are saying, because whilst I agree with a lot of what is being said, I am saying something a bit off at a tangent.

    Firstly, I don’t know how corrupt or or perfidious Fergie is (or intends to be re the Glazers and the IPO) , and if he is, I would say that whilst I would not disagree that this is not goodat all, I would venture that it doesn’t concern me as much as his arrogance (which I have always disliked, but now find utterly unacceptable). Fergie is a great manager, if that is the label that applies to managers who have achieved what he has achieved, and still carry that aura of achievement around with them. He is, of course, historically-speaking, our greatest manager. But, manifestly he is no longer great; he is no longer what he was; he has lost something. He no longer has what it takes. And this is sadly, inevitable, it is what happens to human beings when they get old.His younger self would take him to the cleaners. Even Roberto Mancini took him to the cleaners (in the critical derby match, where he sacrificed common sense at the altar of defensive tactics, leaving out our best player and including our worst). Let us remember Fergie of old didn’t just build teams, he built fantastic, nigh-invincible teams, having a great sense of how the players would fit together into a cohesive whole. This sense is now completely lacking, we have a squad of players and I think most of us are still unsure how all the player-parts fit together, and if we needed to put our best team out, what in fact this team would be.

    In this darkening climate, if I were he I would leave whilst the good still way outweighs the bad, whilst fans might still be in a mood and of a mind to still accord him respect and gratitude, before what is beginning here becomes a huge groundswell that may, at the end of the day, damage his legacy irreparably.

  5. RobDiabloRobDiablo says

    Commenter said:… manifestly he [Sir Alex Ferguson] is no longer great; he is no longer what he was; he has lost something. He no longer has what it takes. And this is sadly, inevitable, it is what happens to human beings when they get old…

    I have to disagree with your point of view somewhat. I believe Sir Alex still has “it” as a manager. Two seasons ago, United won the league as the worst side ever to be crowned Premiership champions, and, a season later, came within a whisker of retaining the crown with what would have been the second worst side ever to win it. One has only to evaluate United’s squad objectively to see that only a great manager could win anything with a squad riddled with mediocrity, where once there were stars and superstars. Let’s not forget the unbelievable number of games lost to injury, sometimes claiming all the first choice players in the back four, or the number of players playing out of position.
    Yes, Sir Alex is arrogant, and this arrogance often leads him to eschew putting out his best sides in favor of sides that should be good enough to beat the other side, but all to often don’t. He doesn’t seem to realize that all this tactic does is give hope to the opposition. Perhaps he has always done this, and it is only the marked decline in the true quality and depth of his squad that has changed the results. I don’t know, but I believe that if the “it” is man management and all the other skills that go into the making of a great manager, then Sir Alex still has it. What he no longer has is the money to buy the players who would form squads worthy of comparison to those he fashioned in his younger years.

  6. uncleknobheadffsuncleknobheadforfucksake says

    this utd team is only so bad because regardless of the money he hasn’t been given, the money he has has been wasted on shite like young berbatov hargreaves anderson, that’s 90m of dross, carrick valencia hernandez and nani wouldn’t have cut it at old utd sides either

  7. BiscuitBarrell says

    I think both of you could be correct. He is not as good a manager as he once was, but few others could have marshalled their resources as well as him in the last 3 years.

    He is far from a great man, however. His arrogance, pettiness, hypocrisy and greed will forever taint the great memories I have of his era.

    There’s been a lot of talk on this forum, about a lack of gratitude from reds who’ve “quickly” turned on Fergie. Talk of ingratitude of lack loyalty. There’s nothing quick about this, it’s been 6 years since the takeover, that hostility has been there the whole time. Fergie’s comments have just brought it to a head. I’d have been grateful for a manager with the principles to stand up to the takeover, and if necessary a period of no success. The trophies are just icing on the cake, the club is much bigger than that.

  8. ja says

    Methinks Fergie doth protest too much. Basically the prospectus said key employees etc would be included in this share option scheme. Andersred simply raised the question of surely Ferguson is a key employee, and if not, who is?
    The answer, it would appear, is that the football side of the business is not key. Says it all about the gimps.

  9. RobDiabloRobDiablo says

    uncleknobheadforfucksake said:
    this utd team is only so bad because regardless of the money he hasn’t been given, the money he has has been wasted on shite like young berbatov hargreaves anderson, that’s 90m of dross, carrick valencia hernandez and nani wouldn’t have cut it at old utd sides either

    You’re not wrong, but Sir Alex has always wasted money on players who weren’t good enough. It just wasn’t as critical then, because those poor choices couldn’t get past Scholes and Keane, for example, to make their way into the first XI.

  10. marlon says

    Revision to the IPO prospectus: (basically $560 million over the life of the contract)

    Only July 26, 2012, consistent with our strategy to grow our global sponsorship revenue, we entered into an agreement with General Motors for Chevrolet to become our exclusive shirt sponsor, beginning in our 2014/15 season. The term of the agreement runs through the end of the 2020/21 season. Annual revenue from our new shirt sponsorship agreement will be $70.0 million in the first season, and will increase by an additional 2.1% in each season thereafter through the term of the agreement. We will also receive approximately $18.6 million in fees in each of the 2012/13 season and 2013/14 season under the terms of our new shirt sponsorship agreement. Total revenue payable through the end of the 2020/21 season under our new shirt sponsorship agreement is approximately $559 million.

  11. marlon says

    Ed – he said ‘our current transfer period’ could be ‘near’ 40m net. You’re right in saying last year was about 40m net too. Seems odd to have two big consecutive transfer windows, although our average net spend under the Glazers still wouldn’t reach £12m.
    Guess it depends when the video was done – ‘current’ would have started in July, so I would assume it means this window – they surely could’ve been more categorical if talking about last season.

  12. King Mob says

    i think with all leaders, especially those of a dictatorial bent, the signal for the end of their tenures’ is when their virtues end up becoming their vices. In other words, the single mindedness,stubboness of character and arrogance -tools which were essential to their climb to the summat- become the traits which precipitate their downfall. Wegner is a prime example:a footballing absolutist who refuses to temper his vision of nuturing young players, despite the obvious effects of oil money on the footballing landscape. Another example being Thatcher whose certitude was considered by many to be her greatest attribute but, thankfully, led to her demise via the folly of the poll tax. Fergie’s similar, pigheaded and convinced of his own omniscience. In so many ways we have reeped the benefits: selling Rudd when it seemed utter madness to even consider it, being just one example. But now his seeming unwillingness to even acknowledge what is glaringly obvious: our lack of midfield and need for quality reinforcements in numerous areas, especially left back, is truly worrying. Will he prove us wrong again? Who knows; times running out though.

      • King Mob says

        Pleasure mate. In troubling times, I always find solace in this blog and the quality of its participants. Off subject a bit here, but the other day I purchased EL-P Cancer4cure album. Would highly recommend it, The best hip-hop album since “it takes a nation of millions.” Cheered me up no end.

  13. ja says

    Why do so many pro Glazer posters think their heroes will pay the debt down? Even if the debt goes down gradually, the Glazers will use the club as a kind of equity release ATM and keep taking out more money without ceding an inch of voting power.

    The choice is clear:
    Do everything you can to force the Glazers out and regain a club where revenues are invested in the club, team and facilities
    or
    Accept a parasitic host that will do the bare minimum to keep the host producing blood for it to suck out.

  14. Damian Garside says

    A lot of the “let’s keep the faith brigade” argue explicitly or implicit that we should take the long- term view. But the Glazers financial managing (read “exploiting”) of the cub (read “brand”) is founded on the huge global support , of which the vast majority ae filled, fair-weather, certainly not hard-core. A few seasons of no major trophies and we shall see what happens to the figure of 650 million fans and their buying power.

    • says

      Damian – funny, but in the prospectus they give a few more details on those so-called 659 million fans. Turns out just the 277 million support United alone. The rest support a range of other clubs. In any case, it’s a meaningless number used to prove some kind of reach that the ‘brand’ has. So suckers like GM can pay way over the odds for shirt sponsorship.

  15. Alfonso BedoyaAlfonso Bedoya says

    That 650 million is bollocks… it’s based on a rigged survey.

    And the so called “long term view” is bollocks aswell… before the Glazers, we didn’t need any long term patience… but the real issue is how much will the Glazers have wasted, and pilferred over the long term.

    At the current rate, in a few more years, the Glazers will have wasted in interest payments alone, enough to have bought United outright.

    It fuckin sickening what they’re doing… and even more sickening is all the naive cunts making excuses for it.

    • Damian Garside says

      Alf, your reply brings me to raise something that probably most United fans will react badly to: if we are into decline: a slow decline of the team but a faster financial decline, wouldn’t it be a perversely good thing if we were to have a season that is far below expectations, maybe even calamitous, because that will surely unite the fans in calling for complete change and the exit of the Glazers and Sir AF? A calamitous season would probably be one where we win nothing and do not qualify for Europe and our football is so stilted that it frustrates the life out of people. If this should happen the current apologists of the Glazers will have the carpet pulled up from under them.

  16. Alfonso BedoyaAlfonso Bedoya says

    No… the time to drive out the Glazers has come and gone, in my opinion.

    With Fergusons support, we might have gotten rid a few years back, but not now… the Glazers are very clever… and experienced… they trod a similar path in Florida with Bucs fans, and know how to play naive fans… like the suckers they are.

    Manchester United is just a host now, to a family of parasites, who are well and truly dug in.

    • Damian Garside says

      OK Alf, how will you feel and what will you do if United finish 5th in the league and do not reach the knock out stage of the European Championship: multiply this by a couple of million and who knows…

  17. Alfonso BedoyaAlfonso Bedoya says

    Ask Bucs fans… they won the Superbowl in the early days under the Glazers… have been mostly gash ever since.

    • Damian Garside says

      Compare how the Tampa Bay buccaneers (and United) are approaching their new seasons with how a team that have set their sights on Superbowl glory and being as great as they were in the 1980s again: the SF 49ers. Lost so narrowly in the division final to the Giants, but now determined to go one better. The 49ers fans cab’t wait for the new season to start to see how last years surprise team has been strengthened by the new acquisitions. Do we think a single new player is going to do it for us when we were absurdly lucky to get so close ( and even more absurdly found ourselves in a position where it was ours for the taking — or throwing away?)

  18. Denton Davey says

    Damian Garside @ 4:26: “He is, of course, historically-speaking, our greatest manager. But, manifestly he is no longer great; he is no longer what he was; he has lost something. He no longer has what it takes. And this is sadly, inevitable, it is what happens to human beings when they get old.His younger self would take him to the cleaners.”

    You might be right that SAF would be “taken to the cleaners” by his younger self – not by Mancini ! – but the evidence would seem to suggest that you might want to give the crafty OldFootieKnight a bit more respect. However, it would seem that respect doesn’t enter into your “analysis” – but facts should be considered.

    I have to think that you’d be singing a different tune if the five points lost to shitty refereeing had come UTD’s way. Equally, I would imagine that your insightful comments don’t seem to take heed that SAF’s team lost the 2011/2012 EPL championship on goal difference (which would have been the fifth in six years, with a team that was ravaged by long, long injury list to key players – and which might have been the sixth EPL title in six years IF Martin Atkinson wasn’t blind to the offsides rule), hasn’t been part of your “insight” into the fighting qualities of the OldFootieKnight.

    Like I said above, don’t let the facts get in the way of your insightful analysis.

  19. Damian Garside says

    I take some of your points ( though you really should try to write with more panache)

    But AF not taken to the cleaners last season by Mancini? Here’s a fact for you: 1-6 at OT . Our biggest Premier league defeat, biggest loss at home ever (if I remember rightly): did it put you into denial? Chance for revenge and to secure the championship: he selects a team for a 0-0 draw. RM puts out his most attacking team.

  20. Damian Garside says

    OK you will probably have the last laugh and hit me with lots of “told you so”s . Here’s the deal: if United win the Champions League this year I will come round to your house in sackcloth and ashes to confess to my sin of losing faith in AF

    just want to tell you though, that a lot of your “facts” sound a bit like excuses.

  21. Denton Davey says

    Damian Garside @ 7:02: “AF not taken to the cleaners last season by Mancini? Here’s a fact for you: 1-6 at OT”

    On the surface – according to the score-line – that was an absolute, complete barracking. BUT,

    Even down to ten men, Ashley Young missed not one but two excellent chances to draw level – in the 54th minute, if memory serves.

    Down 0-3, DarrenFletcherinho (in his last appearance ?) drew TheLads back to within a ghost-of-a-chance AND SAF is nothing if not a gambler so he didn’t just have TheLads “turtle” and accept a 1-3 defeat to keep goal-difference under control. Like, AS IF, who knew that the next three goals would be the difference between winning and losing the EPL title ?

    The last three goals by ManShitty were awful, terrible, atrocious – no argument from me about that. BUT my view is that TheLads let down SAF – they’d given up and lost focus. I know that it’s the manager’s role to have the players keep their focus but, really, how can you blame that meltdown on a manager whose players have repeatedly – for more than 25 years – played to the final whistle and grabbed-victory-from-the-jaws-of-defeat/draw on countless occasions. Shit happens. What was particularly annoying about stepping-in-the-shit is that these three goals resulted in six-goal swing in GD that proved to be critical, in the last analysis.

    The defeat at the EmptiHat was demoralizing, coming on the heels of the defensive meltdown against Everton and the strangely passive loss to Wigan in the previous two matches. HOWEVER, I’m not sure that the defeat at the EmptiHat can necessarily be laid at the managers’ feet, except insofar as he selected ThreeLungPark to try to contain GreatBigHugeYaYa. The younger Toure had previously been a thorn in UTD’s side – e.g., his goal in the 2011 FACup semi-final – and, really, apart from designating MrJones to play against him mano-a-mano, UTD just don’t have the player with the speed and power to control him.

    BUT, in regards to footie players, YaYa is a freak – which other player has the same combination of speed, power, and skill ? Perhaps a healthy DarrenFletchinho in his “football genius” mode) and, maybe Pepe, when Jo$e plays him in midfield might be big enough, fast enough and strong enough to contain YaYa. But who else from among the truly elite players has YaYa’s combination of speed, power, and skill ? SO can SAF be criticized for not having someone to combat him ? Do you want to “blame” SAF for the unfortunate illness that has robbed him of DarrenFletcherinho’s combative, box-to-box “football genius” ?

    The point about being “out-foxed” by Mancini only really came into play in that second match when BobbyMancs brought on Nigel De Jong and moved YaYa into a more attacking role. Before that change, UTD had largely contained ManShitty – and lets not forget that a draw would have been a perfectly-good result for UTD. BUT when YaYa was moved into the attacking-midfield role then SAF was left without credible personnel with which to combat him AND, if memory serves, it was only after that change in formation/strategy that ManShitty got the goal that brought them level on points – and ahead on goal-difference.

    To digress a bit, it’s very interesting that SAF hasn’t “learned a lesson” from those defeats. No replacements for DarrenFletcherinho has been bought; there’s no new guy to combat the threat posed by YaYa. Instead, he has kept-the-faith with his veteran midfielders (minus ThreeLungPark) and actually signed two guys who are attackers – not defensive or “containment” players.

    Leave aside the 1-6 score-line; sure, the result was bad but it was also freakish. Insofar as TheLads didn’t put up much of a fight at TheEmptiHat, I’m more worried that performance than I am about the last three goals at OT last autumn.

    If SAF now signs Lucas Moura and RVP then the “un-learned lesson” will seem even more odd. BUT if he is working under the radar to get Daniele De Rossi from ASRoma ( I wish !) or maybe even Nuri Sahin from Madrid then perhaps Michael Carrick might not be so vulnerable – and UTD won’t be so vulnerable because of the team’s reliance on Michael Carrick.

    OR, just maybe, MrJones will be that box-to-box player that was lacking when GreatBigHugeYaYa got the last laugh, last year. Or, even less likely in my opinion, DarrenFletcherinho regains his health and can compete at the very highest level of professional footie so that SAF has a player who can “contain” or “neutralize” GreatBigStrongFastYaYa.

    So, it’s my opinion, if you want to criticise the wily OldFootieKnight then it’s probably more realistic to look at his team-building and transfer-targets – as opposed to in-match strategies – which have left him bereft of personnel to deal with TheYaYaEffect. BUT, no matter how important those two city derbies are, they are still only two matches out of 38 in the EPL season.

    On the other hand, if you are a glass-half-full kinda guy then it’s exciting to see SAF address what was a defensive fragility by reverting to the traditional ATTACK ! ATTACK ! ATTACK ! game-plan.

  22. Damian Garside says

    Nice reply. Do you think Sir AF can embrace attacking football again: we started last season like dambusters, then there was the Cleverley injury: bug it seemed to lead to him turning away from the football that had got our hearts racing and thinking we were going to seem something special: even it meant a crazy 2 horse race with City where we finished behind them but still beat our own record for points and goals scored. Instead both teams flipped and flopped and it became a final day lottery. We need something to get us excited this season and Sir AF must try to do this: not play uninspired, the dull containment football that is not what we are about.

  23. Denton Davey says

    Damian Garside @ 6:55: “We need something to get us excited this season and Sir AF must try to do this: not play uninspired, the dull containment football that is not what we are about.”

    i could not agree more. That’s why i’ve trumpeted my belief that the 3-5-2 is the way to go.

    Most teams start from a negative containment structure with three in midfield with four defenders behind them who have a limited licence to roam. By and large, ALL of SAF’s teams are set up in some version of a 4-4-2/4-5-1 which, in practice, usually amounts to the same thing with different personnel. Very, very few modern teams play with out-and-out wingers like UTD. And even fewer play with overlapping full-backs on both sides of the field.

    Does any other team play with BOTH two out-and-out wingers AND two overlapping full-backs ? The result is that when UTD play against opposition with a comparable skill-level they are out-numbered in midfield. The man-difference isn’t helped when TheGingerNinja plays alongside Michael Carrick.

    18 months ago Paul Scholes realized that he just doesn’t have the legs to play in an out-numbered midfield – just watch how slowly he gets back when there’s a quick reversal of play. It’s like watching me running alongside – and behind ! – Usain Bolt.

    When UTD line up with Scholes/Carrick, there is a big problem in that Scholes seems to “intimidate” Carrick, who is always too deferential to his senior partner. For a 4-4-2 to work with Michael Carrick there needs to be a more aggressive and combative partner – or else he needs more manpower alongside him.

    I’m doubtful that YoungTomCleverley is “the answer” and even more sceptical that we’ll ever see something special from Anderson. Against inferior opposition these guys are adequate partners but when TheLads play a two-man midfield against fast, athletic pressing defences then the absence of DarrenFletcherinho and Owen Hargreaves is magnified. Some people think that Ryan Tunnicliffe might be “the answer” – I happen to think that Daniele De Rossi would be an absolutely-perfect complement for Michael Carrick but SAF doesn’t seem interested in spending big on a guy who might be termed a “water carrier”.

    The foregoing is a roundabout way of getting at two points:

    first, without a change in formation away from the two-man midfield TheWayneBoy is always going to roam backwards thus depriving the attack of its most essential player; and,

    second, playing with two up-front – and two on the wings – can only be accommodated by depriving the midfield of manpower. That’s why I think that the 3-5-2 is a way to address both issues, which leaves behind the rigidity of a 4-4-2 which is – too often – a recipe for “dull, containment football”, as you rightly point out.

  24. BiscuitBarrell says

    I think the issue is much more simple than your analysis. We have the personnel to set up for attack, or to defend, but not both at the same time. This is a consequence of square pegs in round holes, a lack of legs in midfield and an absence of midfield creativity (which Kagawa may partially address).

    I predict a similar pattern to last year, fluidity early on in the easier games, followed by short-comings in the bigger games. Unless there’s a big influx, I think we’re nailed on for 3rd

  25. Denton Davey says

    BiscuitBarrell: “We have the personnel to set up for attack, or to defend, but not both at the same time. This is a consequence of square pegs in round holes, a lack of legs in midfield and an absence of midfield creativity (which Kagawa may partially address).”

    Well, I disagree insofar as the place where there are “square pegs in round holes” in the central midfield – and, really, the problem there is that there is no suitable partner for Michael Carrick whose “shielding game” needs either an energetic water-carrier or else two other guys to prevent him from being over-run.

    To my way of thinking, Michael Carrick is this team’s key player for two reasons:

    First, what happens if he’s injured and can’t play ? and,

    Second, playing him alongside TheGingerNinja doesn’t really address the issue you point out – “a lack of legs in midfield”.

    Michael Carrick isn’t going to change his game so the question is how does the team get built around him, not only to protect him from harassment but also to provide him with support in moving the ball from defence to attack.

    The worst answer is to have TheWayneBoy wander all over the pitch. The best answer – to me, at least – is to have three guys (say, KagawaBunga and/or YoungTomCleverley somewhat behind two inside forwards like, say, Nani and Ashley Young [or Lucas Moura ?] ) – who move “between the lines”.

    Given that footie is a game of continuous movement, formations don’t really capture a fluid, interchanging approach but – at the cost of contradicting myself – some version of a 3-5-2/5-3-2 seems the best way of taking pressure off Michael Carrick and NOT playing with just one striker.

    Will it work ? I don’t see why not. Like I wrote earlier, the Italians used it against Spain and could have/should have won the match but they were let down by an inability to finish their chances.

    For the hidebound conservatives, the only feasible option is to get Michael Carrick a partner who is part-man/part-monster like Keane-o or Daniele De Rossi. BUT since that ship seems to have sailed, persisting with the 4-4-2 seems to me to be quite a bit like Einstein’s description of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again in the hope that it works”.

  26. Ichiro says

    uncleknobheadforfucksake said:
    this utd team is only so bad because regardless of the money he hasn’t been given, the money he has has been wasted on shite like young berbatov hargreaves anderson, that’s 90m of dross, carrick valencia hernandez and nani wouldn’t have cut it at old utd sides either

    of those four, I would say they were all decent punts and they didnt work out. Maybe overpaid for Berbatov and Anderson. On the flipside Nani and Hernandez were decent buys and Carrick and Valencia were inspired, no one really rated them that much at the time. Whether they are ‘good enough’ for United is a different question.

  27. AnantaxAnantax says

    Some news reports claim credible sources saying IPO is oversubscribed at high end of range.

    Bit torn about this…would smile to see IPO flop coz I dont like Glazers. Yet successful IPO is the only real short term solution to our cashflow (and thus transfer market) issues..even though a big chunk will go to shareholders instead of debt. In other words ANY reduction indebt is good for ManUtd, and that requires a successful IPO

    Thoughts?

    • says

      Anantax – IPO will do nothing for United’s cash flow or ability to compete in the transfer market. Half is going into the Glazers’ pockets, the other half to retire some bonds. It’ll save about £5m per season in interest. Or around £4m after tax is taken into account. This IPO was never about benefiting Manchester United – and all about providing easy cash for the family. Any Glazerites who try and tell you otherwise are lying.

  28. BiscuitBarrell says

    The reports I’ve read quote “an unnamed source” about the IPO. We seen all this before with the Glazers, spin, lies and more spin. I’ll believe it when the money’s on the table. This IPO won’t help cash flow anyway. Halfs going straight into the Glazers pockets, the other half is a drop in the Ocean.

  29. Alfonso BedoyaAlfonso Bedoya says

    I want this IPO to fail badly, and expose the Glazers to real scrutiny and ridicule… but I’ve a feeling it will do well… not because smart investors will want a piece, because I doubt they will… but because a lot of clueless fans will see this as a chance to own a token piece of Manchester United… this will be the ultimate bit of United merchandise…

    If I wasn’t always bitching about the Glazers, I doubt my missus would even know who they are… and if it was my birthday or summat, this is exactly the type of thing she might buy me.

  30. Pikey McScumPikey McScum says

    Alfonso Bedoya said:
    If I wasn’t always bitching about the Glazers, I doubt my missus would even know who they are… and if it was my birthday or summat, this is exactly the type of thing she might buy me.

    LOL – you’re a lucky man

  31. Alfonso BedoyaAlfonso Bedoya says

    Well, when you’ve got kids, you soon learn that you move to the very bottom of the pecking order in the family unit.

    Kids obviously come first, but Mom still maintains a fairly special rank in the unit, as she’s deemed the house martyr… Dad is just the house mule.

    Before kids, the bloke used to get all the womans attention, and for birthdays and Chrimbo would often get some great presents… once kids arrive, you need to get used to socks, and Lynx gift packs… ffs…

  32. bman says

    Alfonso Bedoya said:
    I want this IPO to fail badly, and expose the Glazers to real scrutiny and ridicule… but I’ve a feeling it will do well… not because smart investors will want a piece, because I doubt they will… but because a lot of clueless fans will see this as a chance to own a token piece of Manchester United… this will be the ultimate bit of United merchandise…

    If I wasn’t always bitching about the Glazers, I doubt my missus would even know who they are… and if it was my birthday or summat, this is exactly the type of thing she might buy me.

    It’s probably better for the club if the IPO is as successful as possible. If nothing else, the more cash the Glazerscum get from the IPO, the less pressure they’ll feel to siphon off the club’s cash flow. I dunno though, maybe a flopped IPO would be good in the long-run for the club, but it sounds like a dangerous hope. My fear is that if the club ends up going through a major financial trauma and drops out of the CL places, we might never get back again.

  33. Bill says

    It just hit me before – are we playing any home games in preseason?! You know so that those who pay their hard earned every year to watch United week in week out can actually see their team warm up for the season? You know those fans who actually live in the same town as the club they support? Or even just in the same country. Unreal. Just so wrong and another nail in the coffin of the current United set up. Fergie has definitely forgotten where he came from in his old age.

  34. squigs says

    Yes because top teams play all their pre season games at home and United haven’t been touring every summer for two decades.

  35. BiscuitBarrell says

    bman said:
    It’s probably better for the club if the IPO is as successful as possible. If nothing else, the more cash the Glazerscum get from the IPO, the less pressure they’ll feel to siphon off the club’s cash flow. I dunno though, maybe a flopped IPO would be good in the long-run for the club, but it sounds like a dangerous hope. My fear is that if the club ends up going through a major financial trauma and drops out of the CL places, we might never get back again.

    I’m of the opposite opinion, the more cash the Glazers get out, the more they’ll milk it. If this IPO is successful we may never be rid of them. They are like rats suckling at the teat of the sacred cow. They’ll hold on for dear life.

    I may be wrong, but this talk of overscribed IPO sounds like spin to me. “Come and get your united shares, last one left…. etc”. By any rational valuation it’s overpriced. You could call institutional investors a lot of things, but thick isn’t one of them. If the Glazers have been offered £1-1.2bn, that’s probably not far off value – I’m not sure where this £2bn value comes from, certainly not on current trading. More likely the institutions have offered to buy the shares, but significantly under the IPO value. The Glazers are probably hyping the price up.

  36. bman says

    I think the IPO might do quite well because wealthy people and institutions have nowhere to put their money at the moment. United’s risk/stability profile will probably find a few takers in the current environment.

  37. bman says

    Sounds like that would generate about £73M to reduce the debt, or a bit more than Chelsea’s net spend on transfers so far this summer. Whoop de fucking doo.

  38. BiscuitBarrell says

    bman said:
    I think the IPO might do quite well because wealthy people and institutions have nowhere to put their money at the moment. United’s risk/stability profile will probably find a few takers in the current environment.

    http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-09/manchester-united-said-to-raise-233-mln-pricing-ipo-below-range.html

    As predicted, they’ve overpriced. The shares will sell eventually the question is at what price. Kinda blows a hole in the “we’re totally oversubscribed” rumours – surprise, surprise. Even less money will be available to reduce debt. Particularly as they won’t be able to pay off the other glazers in full.

  39. BiscuitBarrell says

    Btw is Ferguson so senile he can’t count. Bitching about PSG he’s quoted as saying they’ve spent about £150m (pounds, yes pounds). I’ve done a little totting up – ibra and silva €65m, Moura €43m. Comes to about £85m. No wonder he thinks there’s no value, if he’s doing the adding up.

    • Damian Garside says

      It’s the long-division that’s messing with his mind: converting Euros into Sterling is hard for one who has gone more than one red wine bottle too far. What we need to do is find a great CM who is also a Maths or accounting whizz: no problem selling him that

  40. marlon says

    Quote on the Man Utd website:
    “They must have spent about €150million in the last month.”
    Sounds like it was off the top of his head – in €.
    They bought Cavani too – I think about £21m. That makes ~ €135m – knowing Fergie he’d include all the agents fees and so on, so it probably is close to €150.

    I know that half of the total IF it sells out is ~ £75m, but once you include the £12m fees for listing the IPO (all of which is to be payed by the club), and additional costs for paying of the debt earlier than scheduled, the total will be much lower. £75 million was estimated for an $18 share price. At $14 the total is £42m less, so the debt pay off will be nearer £50m.

  41. BiscuitBarrell says

    marlon said:
    Quote on the Man Utd website:
    “They must have spent about €150million in the last month.”
    Sounds like it was off the top of his head – in €.
    They bought Cavani too – I think about £21m. That makes ~ €135m – knowing Fergie he’d include all the agents fees and so on, so it probably is close to €150.

    Just checked it out – You’re right Lavezzi for £21m, That comes to about 116-117m. Quoted figures appear to include agents fees, certainly the Moura deal does. . Still, I take your point. Interestingly the difference is almost exactly our net spend since 2008/9. For a man shopping at the Champions league equivalent of Aldi, you’d think he’d count his pennies better.

  42. BiscuitBarrell says

    I cant find the quote on the united website, everywhere else says £s not €s. I suspect it’s more United revision of history.

  43. BiscuitBarrell says

    Ta. Everywhere else it’s £150m but the Moura fee in €s. fairly typical of Ferguson to pick the figures that suit him best.

  44. Alfonso BedoyaAlfonso Bedoya says

    Arrrrrrrrrrrrrggghhh ffs… who gives a fuck if it’s £150m, or a £100… the sentiment is still the same… sometimes I despair at some of the pedantic numpties we get here.

    “Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don’t need badges. I don’t have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and ching’ tu madre! Come out from that shit-hole of yours. I have to speak to you.”

  45. Pikey McScumPikey McScum says

    Don’t be scaring them off Alf!

    ffs, it doesn’t seem that long ago we were moaning about the lack of new members

  46. Alfonso BedoyaAlfonso Bedoya says

    I don’t want to scare them off… just trying to whip the drooling little guttersnipes into shape dammit!

    • Damian Garside says

      Alf, you owe it to us to write the manual for posting on Rant. So we know what not to say and how not to say it. Like last season you killed me for I suggesting it would be insanely close but that City would do it. Hey, wait a minute…

  47. AnantaxAnantax says

    So ManUtd is valued at 2.3 billion. Bought for 1.2 billion in 2005, thats a 2x return in 7 years. 10% pa return. Not bad but definitely not great. Return on equity is probably decent then given the high leverage

    One thing is for sure…IPO shows plenty of suckers out there. I would not have bought it even at 10. We won plenty of titles in last aeven yearsand we “only” doubled…can you imagine the next 7 years with City and Chelsea competing for honors?

  48. Pikey McScumPikey McScum says

    Alfonso Bedoya said:
    I don’t want to scare them off… just trying to whip the drooling little guttersnipes into shape dammit!

    You work in PR, don’t you?

  49. BiscuitBarrell says

    Anantax said:
    So ManUtd is valued at 2.3 billion. Bought for 1.2 billion in 2005, thats a 2x return in 7 years. 10% pa return. Not bad but definitely not great. Return on equity is probably decent then given the high leverage

    One thing is for sure…IPO shows plenty of suckers out there. I would not have bought it even at 10. We won plenty of titles in last aeven yearsand we “only” doubled…can you imagine the next 7 years with City and Chelsea competing for honors?

    I may be wrong, but $14 is the price the club have set to sell the shares at. This is not a guarantee that they will sell. Only then will the club value be known. We’ll know more after trading starts. Anyone got any info from NYSE?

  50. Damian Garside says

    Given that what is being sold, or what they are trying to sell to investors is essentially the incomparable glamour of the MANU brand, I wonder whether the price would have been higher if we were reigning champions.

    Could it be that that last second goal by Aguero is costing the Glazers a huge chunk of change?

  51. AnantaxAnantax says

    BiscuitBarrell said:
    I may be wrong, but $14 is the price the club have set to sell the shares at. This is not a guarantee that they will sell. Only then will the club value be known. We’ll know more after trading starts. Anyone got any info from NYSE?

    No. 14 is essentially the price at which the order book is filled. Remember the Glazers wanted an original range of 16-20.
    Of course once its traded the stock can easily go up and down but 14 is the valuation that Glazers are cashing in the current 10% they are selling now…

  52. AnantaxAnantax says

    Commenter said:
    Given that what is being sold, or what they are trying to sell to investors is essentially the incomparable glamour of the MANU brand, I wonder whether the price would have been higher if we were reigning champions.

    Could it be that that last second goal by Aguero is costing the Glazers a huge chunk of change?

    I am sure it does.
    But i think what hurt them more was the

    - dual structure where new shareolders have pretty much zero power
    - zero dividends
    - lack of transparency as MANU can forgo filing quarterly reprots for next five years

  53. Alfonso BedoyaAlfonso Bedoya says

    Commenter said:
    Alf, you owe it to us to write the manual for posting on Rant. So we know what not to say and how not to say it. Like last season you killed me for I suggesting it would be insanely close but that City would do it. Hey, wait a minute…

    Feel free to write whatever you like… just don’t use the word “cunt”.

    It’s not allowed here.

  54. BiscuitBarrell says

    Anantax said:
    No. 14 is essentially the price at which the order book is filled. Remember the Glazers wanted an original range of 16-20.

    Of course once its traded the stock can easily go up and down but 14 is the valuation that Glazers are cashing in the current 10% they are selling now…

    Thanks for that. Makes more sense.

  55. BiscuitBarrell says

    How does that work with underwriters buying the shares to prop the price up? Does that mean the Glazers still get $14?

  56. AnantaxAnantax says

    BiscuitBarrell said:
    How does that work with underwriters buying the shares to prop the price up? Does that mean the Glazers still get $14?

    Usually yes unless theres spcial arrangements otherwise

Leave a Reply

Login with your Social ID

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *