You said "It wasn't just "a source". If you check Bloomberg they have a quote from the Sigapore Exhchange that they have put a suspension on the floatation due to possible structural problems."
That is not structural problems, that just means the big boys will note take the risk.
The 'problems' refer to the structure of the potential offer - that is a fact. The date for the start of the offer had already been established - that is a fact. The managers of the offer have suspended the offer whilst in discussions with the Singapore authorities - that is a fact. The reason for the withdrawl has only been commented upon by the offering agents - that is publicity!
That doesn't seem to chime with what anyone else is saying on the subject dave...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...4502767105950.html?KEYWORDS=manchester+united
"The club remains intent on a flotation and on Friday received approval from Singapore Exchange Ltd. to list on the city-state's bourse."
"Having originally planned to list in Hong Kong, Manchester United switched to Singapore in June to take advantage of the dual-share listing structure that is available"
Neither do you to be honest - FSG is also a private company and registered in Delaware, the same "ultra secret" location that the Glazers have chosen to register.
In fact, the New York Times recently sold its stake in FSG for a price that values the whole entity (Red Sox, Liverpool, 80% of NESN and 50% of Rousch Racing) at just $1.5 billion, so that implies everything is not financially rosy in your garden given that Forbes values Liverpool at $550 million, the Red Sox at $900 million and NESN at over $1 billion. A minimum 40% discount to fair value may imply the NYT knows something we don't...
As for the news that the flotation has been pulled, this was reported by Reuters to have come from "a source". Which is journalist speak for "we heard a rumour". Reuters rumours may be more concrete than those in the Daily Mail, but until the club makes an announcement I wouldn't put my house (or even my daughter's doll house) on it![]()
Well there's your clue. NYT sold their own stake for a '40% discount', which suggests nothing more than a desperation to bring some money in because of their own financial troubles. They clearly took whatever price they could get.
Well there's your clue. NYT sold their own stake for a '40% discount', which suggests nothing more than a desperation to bring some money in because of their own financial troubles. They clearly took whatever price they could get.
**** off you scouse ****s!![]()
Or the value has dropped significantly.
Seems more likely tbh.
If the value were plummeting, nobody would have even bought the share from NYT.


How is it more likely? You buy low, sell high. The only reason for the low price is a desperation to sell. If the value were plummeting, nobody would have even bought the share from NYT.

Plummeting?
Where do you get that idea from Swarbs?
You're seriously not going to quote a G&H valuation to back this up.

Forbes valued Liverpool at $1.05 billion in 2008, $1 billion in 2009 and $800 million in April 2010. They were sold for around $450 million in October 2010. Looks pretty much like a plummet to me![]()
Liverpool will be the new Leeds, a fall from grace.
Kenny gone by xmas, SG will move to that Russian team, Mandy Carrell, will stick look like a hairy woman.
And Everton will overtake them in the league.
Life is looking good!!!!
Liverpool will be the new Leeds, a fall from grace.
Kenny gone by xmas, SG will move to that Russian team, Mandy Carrell, will stick look like a hairy woman.
And Everton will overtake them in the league.
Life is looking good!!!!
