If you think this is simply about me not agreeing with him then you haven't read any of it. Not that I'd blame you in the slightest for not trying to translate half of it, or indeed being arsed to just read it.
Was meaning throughout the whole site, so many idiots. I am still not convinced they all believe what they are saying though, maybe I am just being hopeful? And no I didnt read it lol, bad enough trying to work out what the chelsea and liverpool fans are harping on about.
Actually, RVP was more of a left sided forward in the usual 433/343 dutch style and was played there mostly because Van Hooijdonk was there main man up front and was definitely more suited to the central role, he did play left wing at times though when they changed formations but that doesn't really make him a winger, just like Rooney isn't a winger or a central midfielder even though he's played there, and Ronaldo hasn't really adapted his style that much at all, he's still a winger, Real play with inverted wingers with Ronaldo cutting in from the left and Di Maria cutting in from the right, where as United used him more as a right winger who still cut inside a lot.
I think what you'll find is you prefixed whatever you said with " he he he ", so it's not so clean cut as us disagreeing with what position he plays in. If you didn't come across as such a smart arse perhaps I wouldn't take you on, just a thought. As it goes, regardless of his position, my argument was ALWAYS that he was way too much money for an unknown quantity. You knew better of course though didn't you? Guess I was right though. This argument goes back weeks and was NEVER about where RVP used to play, I merely used that as an example of the cut and paste king above.
CR has always been give the freedom to roam but he usually always starts from on the left wing (or right wing for United) and moves into other areas of the pitch when making runs or looking for a through ball and then heads back over to his starting position, for Real both him and Di Maria play mostly from the sidelines and look to drive inside into the channels in between the fullbacks and center backs where it is so difficult to pick them up.
No, it wasn't. It was used as an example of when you just regurgitate information that you've read somewhere. Obviously. I don't need to wriggle out of this one pal, trust me. The argument was how you KNEW that Moura would become an exceptional attacking midfielder, and then you produced stats from football manager. Let's not just keep making things up eh Shwan, or this little argument will just run and run. As long as you bend the truth I will never let go.
NEW YORK/LONDON (Reuters) - An unusual sight greeted guests at New York's posh St. Regis hotel on Monday: dozens of investors trickled out carrying red Manchester United hats and soccer balls after a marketing event for the British soccer club's upcoming initial public offering. Soccer, as Americans call the kind of football played in Europe and elsewhere, is not a particularly popular sport in the United States. The U.S. chapter of Manchester United's official fan club has only 5,000 paid members and even the presence of David Beckham on the Los Angeles Galaxy roster has failed to ignite widespread U.S. fan interest. But U.S. investors may turn out to be the ones who help the club and its owners, the Glazer family, raise up to $333 million in the offering. A source close to the deal said on Tuesday the IPO, which is expected to price on Thursday evening, is already oversubscribed and two other sources said bankers on the last leg of a two-week global marketing effort are finding Americans particularly receptive to the IPO. The unexpected American support for the IPO adds to the intrigue and controversy surrounding the Glazers' stewardship of the club and its second attempt to go public. The Glazers, an American family with business interests ranging from shopping centers to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers football team, have been reviled by Manchester United fans since they took the club private in 2005 in a leveraged buyout. Fans say the Glazers saddled the club with debt, hurting its ability to buy players and win matches. The team holds a record 19 English championships, but failed to win a trophy last season for the first time since 2005. Some investors and experts also say the club's proposed valuation - $3.3 billion at the high end of the $16-to-$20 per share range - is hard to justify, especially given the volatile nature of its business. Without other listed sports teams with which to compare Manchester United, the club's valuation has been a source of consternation for potential investors. That was one reason why Morgan Stanley dropped out of the underwriting syndicate after plans to list the club in Singapore were abandoned. COMPARISON SHOPPING Club officials and the banks involved in the IPO are trying to convince potential investors across the globe that Manchester United should be seen as a powerful global brand and not just a sports team with fickle fortunes that shift on the outcome of every match. Jefferies Group Inc , the lead underwriter, is positioning the club as a high-growth consumer brand, comparing it to retailers like Michael Kors Holdings Ltd and Lululemon Athletica Inc , sources said. JPMorgan Chase & Co and Credit Suisse Group AG are marketing it as an e-commerce company, comparing it to online giant Amazon.com Inc . Deutsche Bank AG sees it as a media company, comparing it to companies like Walt Disney Co , sources said. "I think it is very interesting how they have been shopping this around the world, first in Asia, now the U.S. Why not list in London where people actually know something about the business?" said James Clunie, head of equities at Scottish Widows Investment Partnership, a British fund management house overseeing 142 billion pounds in assets. "I suspect the reason is that they think they can get a higher price from foreign investors than they can in the UK. That makes me very cautious as an investor. They are trying to get the higher price instead of a fair price," Clunie said. Manchester United officials declined to comment. GETTING THE RIGHT VALUE The comparisons are crucial to a valuation analysis. Manchester United will be valued at around 26 times its adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) in the 12 months through June 30, if valued at the high end of its pricing range. That compares with 49 times last 12 months EBITDA for Amazon, 29 times for Michael Kors and 19 times for Lululemon. Disney trades at around 10 times, Thomson Reuters data shows. The banks are using Manchester United's earnings projections for 2014 in their valuation analysis, but that figure could not be ascertained. JPMorgan, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank officials declined to comment. Officials with Jefferies could not be reached for comment. Still, U.S. value investors who look at such multiples are largely staying away from the IPO, a source said. Instead, potential investors include hedge funds and mid-cap-focused funds betting on the club's growth prospects, a source said. One fund manager who attended the marketing roadshow in New York said he sees the club as a media company, but "only better," because it engenders strong brand loyalty around the world. The club's push in emerging markets where it has plenty of room to grow is also attractive, he said. "With Disney, you're not going to go see a movie or buy merchandise because you have any sense of loyalty to the company," he said. "But with Manchester United, you have a huge global base of fans." http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfee...k/1037945.html
We have just made £75million. $14 they sold for, half for us half for the glazers. Club valued at £1.46billion, the most valuable in sport.
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...on-the-new-york-stock-exchange?all_comments=1 CNBC Tweeted it aswell. http://www.ifrasia.com/equities-manu-rides-institutional-support-to-public-markets/21034599.article
So the club has valued the share price shorter than expected which is sensible rather than over valuing at the start of the IPO trading. It was expected that for each share price, it would be $16-20 dollars but has started at $14 Dollars for a share.
I can't see the point in getting all excited about this until such time that it is shown to benefit the club, not just the Glazers. They remain leeches on the inner thigh of Manchester United.
Pretty much what i have been thinking, not sure how the glazers can justify not reinvesting all of it to be honest, though i don't like to moan too much about them. They have seen us through some pretty succesful times.
£70 million will go towards paying down the debt. it was a condition of the IPO. so that knocks about 10million in interest off or something like that thus benefitting the club.
I reckon they aren't reinvesting all of it cos they are getting ready for a full sale later on. Many rumours about Malcolm being close to death's door, and the six kids would rather sell the club and have the money than have to share 16.6% ownership of the club. This 10% stake is being sold off purely to get the club back on the market, so they can see how the price moves and try and identify the best point in the market to sell the whole lot. I take the point about financial leeches, but then it's only fair to point out that they have boosted revenue much more than the plc. The fact they could double our shirt sponsorship within a year of taking over, and increase it by around five times over seven years (including the DHL deal) shows how poor the plc board were at leveraging our brand. And as you say, the success of the pitch can hardly be faulted, particularly given the free spending of Chelsea and City over the same period. In fact, as I've said before, the Glazers have been far better at this area than the plc board were. Look at how we snatched Berb from under the noses of City, and ditto with Jones and Young from Liverpool. It's not inconceivable that if we'd still been a plc then we'd have dallied with those players like we did with Shearer, and either lost out or had to pay a much higher price.
That benefits the club in one extremely minuscule way on the grand scheme of things. They're robbing us blind lads, no amount of flotation schemes will ever disguise that.
True but all their curent actions are aimed at them going down the line so its all leading to a good end. Still, the next owners could be worse, as business men they are by far the best in english football.
Just to point out, our debt is at a similar level to Barcelonas and our owners make much more effort to reduce ours than Barcelonas do. We really could have much much worse owners.
