bevninja:

Could it possibly be that you are just reading to much into it and the explanation that has been given added to the points I highlighted, is well just that.

If it was a maneuver taken in complete isolation, a first and one time only, then possibly; but the fact that it's the latest in a stream of highly contentious business operations, then I'd have to say no.

Let me before I continue echo what Pele said, It is nice to have somebody able to debate and it has been a pleasure. My own personal opinion is just that an opinion but I base it on the information available to us. Please do not take that as you do not, my point is that information can and will be construed differently. The point for me debating on this issue is more born out of the rash uneducated (uneducated on the issue) responses we get on this forum. All I ask from anybody and I would hope/think you do it be prepared to look, acknowledge plus be prepared to learn from people that have taken the time to research the issues.

With regards to the IPO listing and the fact they have listed themselves he way they have must of been on the advice of people in the know but have opted out of some of the advantages listing that way gives them. Maybe I am being naive but I do not see what they have done wrong on this listing. Either way the next few months will be an interesting one. Hopefully it will show us the future to a point of the club.

lee how much more profit are we making now???? our revenue is up but how much profit we made last year and in 2001??? 2001 we paid 4-5 mill dividends. we wouldnt even pay half as 500 mill for the las 7-8 years in dividends even with revrnue going up for various reason like increased ticket prices more money coming in from tv...... good to be back havent been in the forums for few days..,:)

kicking king:

I hope you are right. If we were able to reinvest an extra £40m or so a year instead of making the interest payments then we would be in a powerful position.

I think it's also important to remember that pre-Glazer we were not competing with clubs backed by billionaire owners. So it is very hard to make a concrete comparison because the footballing landscape has changed so much.

I think even if the club were still a PLC it would be difficult to compete with Chelsea and Man City because their business models are far less prudent and they are happy to have a wage bill that is a ridiculously large percentage of turnover. I think Chelsea's is around 80% and CIty's is something stupid like 120%, and our policy is to keep it around 50% which is generally considered sensible.

What I am interested in finding out, is how much the club used to pay in dividends when it was a PLC. Whilst it is generally thought that what the Glazers take out of the club is excessive, it is their prerogotive as owners to seek a return on their investment and many businesses pay out money each year to the owners as a matter of course.

We paid out approximately £59million in dividends under the whole of the plc era, however that was because we weren't actually making a huge profit so the dividend reflected that (again contrary to what everyone seems to think).

IF and it's a big IF we had somehow managed to increase revenues under the plc to anywhere near the levels we're at now then the dividends we would have been paying out now would be much much higher than they were. It is quite possible that the dividends we would have been paying out would be of a similar magnitude to the interest etc we are paying under the Glazers anyway.

People have so many misconceptions about the plc v Glazer debate, all the figures that you see the media throwing around about the cost of the Glazers to our club NEVER take into account what the plc would have cost us or the huge revenue increase the Glazers have generated, we then hear the old rising ticket price argument, yet we haven't seen an increase in, is it three seasons now?

The biggest one you hear is, "The Glazers are only interested in the money", well to a great degree of course they are, this is their biggest investment and they are businessmen but they can't make money from a team that isn't competitive and they know that.

HOWEVER the one thing that I like to point out to people who say this is, "What were the largest shareholders under the plc interested in?"

There were some shareholders who were fans but clearly not enough or the takeover wouldn't have been possible, the main bulk of shareholders under the plc were businessmen/investors and purely interested in how much money they could make from us, nothing else, so what has changed? At least under the Glazers if they see our on-field success falling they can invest in the squad without having to put it to the board and answer to shareholders, some of whom may not want dividends effected that year by transfer fees etc.

So I'm sure you will agree the debate is not a simple one and IMO if people want to lay blame they should look further back, at the main players in the decision to float the club in the first place back in 1991, without which there would have been no shares for the Glazers to buy up and force the takeover.

Could it possibly be that you are just reading to much into it and the explanation that has been given added to the points I highlighted, is well just that.

If it was a maneuver taken in complete isolation, a first and one time only, then possibly; but the fact that it's the latest in a stream of highly contentious business operations, then I'd have to say no.

wliucci:

Lee, my point is not about whether we had a choice or not about the debt. My point is on the consequences of this debt, the restricted spending, on which there is no argument about mate. I will point this out again. Net spending since Glazer era, 7th in premier league. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.

That simply brings us back to the 'need' argument that either Pele or Steersy (think it was Pele tbh) regardless of net spend we have improved areas that needed improvement or looked to the future needs, signing players like the twins, Smalling, Jones etc all great prospects. The lack of a midfield could just as easily be placed at SAF's door rather than the Glazers, we don't know whether SAF wanted to spend on midfield before now and the Glazers stopped him, I think it's more likely SAF has been biding his time on the midfield hoping that the Gibsons, Andersons, Pogbas, Morrisons and Cleverleys of the club made the grade instead of spending.

We have an idea that he was after Sneijder and possibly Modric last summer but there was no-one prior to that and he has now signed Kagawa instead of Sneijder and is currently looking for a Modric type player from all accounts. This to me says that he has been waiting to see how the youngsters came on and now two have left and Anderson has proved unreliable again, he is looking to spend on what is needed.

Our net spend is no indication of lack of funds if it was SAF who was deciding if, how much and on whom he wanted to spend money on. Forget the Glazers for one moment and look at SAF and you will see a man who will not be held to ransom, would sooner tell a player to sod off than pay more money if he thinks our offer is already good enough. SAF uses this/his fair price principle to decide whether a player wants to play for the shirt rather than the money as he doesn't want mercs at his club as it unsettles the squad and I agree with him.

You can't take 'one' fact and declare that it means we have no money to spend or are unwiiling to back the manager, the manager decides who and for how much and from what I can see the Glazers trust in him to get it right.

The reason I mentioned 'choice' btw was because you said, "WE took on the Glazers", or words to that effect and many folk as I say talk as if we have a choice in the matter.

Fact is, we are covered well in attack and in defence, including goalkeepers and so if we strengthen midfield this summer then we are as strong as most of our competitors home and abroad, forget Barca as they not only have some of the best players in the world (who they didn't have to pay big for cos they have been there for years) AND they have a chemistry between them that you cannot buy.

So that aside I don't think we can complain too much about our squad/potential squad by August.

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

pele 10:

steersyutd:

pele 10:

steersyutd:

pele 10:

bevninja:

.

pele 10:

bevninja:

Still find it interesting that all the Clubs' financial statement figures quoted in the listing to the SEC from around the middle 2011 to 31st March 2012 are all summary figures and not audited ones. The most recent audited figures being quoted that are in there come from June 2011.

It could be claimed I suppose that they had not had time to have an audit (although that really doesn't stand up to too much scrutiny) it would have been fairly simple to have this done while they have been taking this protracted time to look at where to fire off the IPO.

Normally a 12 month rule for non-audited would be in place in the UK and Europe to prevent any possible messing around with the figures. In the states there can be some leeway given which would amount to 15 months. Some recent previous IPO's in the States have used summary but stale out of date figures that were not audited, have after the IPO subsequently presented with disappointing financial statements.

I believe you are referring to the article by Owen Wild trying to insinuate the Glazers are up to something underhanded when really they are within the rules.

I think the IPO you are referring to that had problems and investors lost money was Glencore.

Wondered out of the 'third' triumvirate who would pick up the baton first

No Glencore was mentioned because they had used summary figures not audited ones in their registration to disguise the fact that the company had made a large loss and didn't want to declare it, so going into the IPO it wasn't as profitable or healthy as the summary figures had deemed to show.

As for Owen, the IFR, an industry staple not a 'red top looking circulation', has been around for over 35 years and is well respected for it's analysis as is Rueters, the figures used in there, are the ones I used which we both got from source in the registration doc to the SEC.

Nothing I see in that article however has been used to insinuate anything I wouldn't have said, informed comment and just asking the relevant maybe difficult questions that should be asked, because of how the IPO and things leading to the IPO have been set up

My Professor always stressed 'best practice offers best results' a good tenet to keep in mind especially if you want to attract business investment in an IPO, muddy the waters too much and less toes will be prepared to step in.

Probably then not a good idea to register by taking advantage of America's Jumpstart our Business Startups Act (2012) to list as 'a lightly regulated emerging growth company' just so you don't have to legally disclose as much.

Another question is, and rightly so, should a 134 year old giant of a football Club really be registered as a "start up", probably not what the was in the mind of the law makers in the way that it should be used, but loopholes leading to more muddied waters and controversy again not what you need to attract investors.

The very major problem continuing to operate like this gives you is, whether there is anything to hide or not, it will eventually undermine the trust of the very investors you need to attract.

In all a very difficult climate even before the 'sweetheart' deals.

...... and PIKs that haven't actually disappeared yet!

PS. Stale is just an industry term for using figures over 135 days old.

I realize stale is just an industry term. As I said one IPO registered this way that fails doesn´t in anyway prove that the system is wrong. It means in one instance a mistake was made.

The PIKs have actually disappeared but they exist in the form of shares. For all we know the shareholders could be Glazers other companies that he took equity out of around the time of the PIK payoff?

As far as muddying the waters as you put it you could be right, or not. Based on the way Green Bay Packer share sales go everytime there is an offering based on what the shareholder receives for his money, Manchester United shares may sell like hotcakes.

All either of us are doing is speculating. We don´t even know the price of shares or how many are on offer yet?

Only in America.

Don´t take offence what I said about the article was only my perception. I hate articles where they are implying the dark or shady side of something using an anonymous source. It always sends up a red flag for me but that is just me being skeptical.

HMMMMMmmmmm

Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company

As a company with less than $1.0 billion in revenue during our last fiscal year, we qualify as an "emerging growth company" as defined in the Jumpstart our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. An emerging growth company may take advantage of specified reduced reporting and other burdens that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. These provisions include:

• a requirement to have only two years of audited financial statements and only two years of related Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations disclosure; and

• an exemption from the auditor attestation requirement in the assessment of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We may take advantage of these provisions for up to five years or such earlier time that we are no longer an emerging growth company. We would cease to be an emerging growth company if we have more than $1.0 billion in annual revenue, have more than $700 million in market value of our ordinary shares held by non-affiliates, or issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period. We may choose to take advantage of some but not all of these reduced burdens. We have not taken advantage of any of these reduced reporting burdens in this prospectus, although we may choose to do so in future filings and if we do, the information that we provide shareholders may be different than you might get from other public companies in which you hold equity.

The JOBS Act permits an "emerging growth company" like us to take advantage of an extended transition period to comply with new or revised accounting standards applicable to public companies. We are choosing to "opt out" of this provision and, as a result, we will comply with new or revised accounting standards as required when they are adopted. This decision to opt out of the extended transition period is irrevocable.

Nice post steersy. I guess you are a member of the triumvirate as well? Any guesses who the third member might be?

Its only a guess but Manoob?

That definitely calls for a PMSL. Give yourself a pat on the back. I got to go change my trousers.

Hhmmmm ..... just listing what one can or can't, or will, or might do at a later date under the S.Ups Act 2012 is a little pointless really. Buy hey,... pat on the back .... change trousers...PMSL ..... Have a beer and a lie down!

It will hugely interesting to see what turns up the next three months, as time and room to play 'pass the parcel' with debt and interest is running down very quickly.

Bevninja, calm down. We all want the same thing. You have your opinion others have there opinion. All people like Lee, Pele, Matt and myself are trying to do is make sure people look at things in a objective manner.

My point for putting the section from the prospectus was one of two things, firstly so other posters/readers could see what we was talking about and secondly to highlight parts of it,

Those parts are:

'We have not taken advantage of any of these reduced reporting burdens in this prospectus'

'We are choosing to "opt out" of this provision and, as a result, we will comply with new or revised accounting standards as required when they are adopted.'

Now if I am reading that wrong then tell me and I will happily put my hands up, thank you for educating me some more and I will know the answer in the future.

Am always calm, relaxed and objective.

It was an objective comment about the 'use/possibly use' of an Act so obviously not aimed to help an institution such as ours, but by taking it allows the convenient route of being less regulated and also less disclosure.

In the long run this probably will not be in the Clubs' best interest and in the short term will only serve to ignite further controversy.

Just also repeating a few of the quotes made around the recent posts, and recently you did say your head hurt and you were having to have a rest and a beer

Could it possibly be that you are just reading to much into it and the explanation that has been given added to the points I highlighted, is well just that.

steersyutd:

bevninja:

pele 10:

steersyutd:

pele 10:

steersyutd:

pele 10:

bevninja:

.

pele 10:

bevninja:

Still find it interesting that all the Clubs' financial statement figures quoted in the listing to the SEC from around the middle 2011 to 31st March 2012 are all summary figures and not audited ones. The most recent audited figures being quoted that are in there come from June 2011.

It could be claimed I suppose that they had not had time to have an audit (although that really doesn't stand up to too much scrutiny) it would have been fairly simple to have this done while they have been taking this protracted time to look at where to fire off the IPO.

Normally a 12 month rule for non-audited would be in place in the UK and Europe to prevent any possible messing around with the figures. In the states there can be some leeway given which would amount to 15 months. Some recent previous IPO's in the States have used summary but stale out of date figures that were not audited, have after the IPO subsequently presented with disappointing financial statements.

I believe you are referring to the article by Owen Wild trying to insinuate the Glazers are up to something underhanded when really they are within the rules.

I think the IPO you are referring to that had problems and investors lost money was Glencore.

Wondered out of the 'third' triumvirate who would pick up the baton first

No Glencore was mentioned because they had used summary figures not audited ones in their registration to disguise the fact that the company had made a large loss and didn't want to declare it, so going into the IPO it wasn't as profitable or healthy as the summary figures had deemed to show.

As for Owen, the IFR, an industry staple not a 'red top looking circulation', has been around for over 35 years and is well respected for it's analysis as is Rueters, the figures used in there, are the ones I used which we both got from source in the registration doc to the SEC.

Nothing I see in that article however has been used to insinuate anything I wouldn't have said, informed comment and just asking the relevant maybe difficult questions that should be asked, because of how the IPO and things leading to the IPO have been set up

My Professor always stressed 'best practice offers best results' a good tenet to keep in mind especially if you want to attract business investment in an IPO, muddy the waters too much and less toes will be prepared to step in.

Probably then not a good idea to register by taking advantage of America's Jumpstart our Business Startups Act (2012) to list as 'a lightly regulated emerging growth company' just so you don't have to legally disclose as much.

Another question is, and rightly so, should a 134 year old giant of a football Club really be registered as a "start up", probably not what the was in the mind of the law makers in the way that it should be used, but loopholes leading to more muddied waters and controversy again not what you need to attract investors.

The very major problem continuing to operate like this gives you is, whether there is anything to hide or not, it will eventually undermine the trust of the very investors you need to attract.

In all a very difficult climate even before the 'sweetheart' deals.

...... and PIKs that haven't actually disappeared yet!

PS. Stale is just an industry term for using figures over 135 days old.

I realize stale is just an industry term. As I said one IPO registered this way that fails doesn´t in anyway prove that the system is wrong. It means in one instance a mistake was made.

The PIKs have actually disappeared but they exist in the form of shares. For all we know the shareholders could be Glazers other companies that he took equity out of around the time of the PIK payoff?

As far as muddying the waters as you put it you could be right, or not. Based on the way Green Bay Packer share sales go everytime there is an offering based on what the shareholder receives for his money, Manchester United shares may sell like hotcakes.

All either of us are doing is speculating. We don´t even know the price of shares or how many are on offer yet?

Only in America.

Don´t take offence what I said about the article was only my perception. I hate articles where they are implying the dark or shady side of something using an anonymous source. It always sends up a red flag for me but that is just me being skeptical.

HMMMMMmmmmm

Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company

As a company with less than $1.0 billion in revenue during our last fiscal year, we qualify as an "emerging growth company" as defined in the Jumpstart our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. An emerging growth company may take advantage of specified reduced reporting and other burdens that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. These provisions include:

• a requirement to have only two years of audited financial statements and only two years of related Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations disclosure; and

• an exemption from the auditor attestation requirement in the assessment of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We may take advantage of these provisions for up to five years or such earlier time that we are no longer an emerging growth company. We would cease to be an emerging growth company if we have more than $1.0 billion in annual revenue, have more than $700 million in market value of our ordinary shares held by non-affiliates, or issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period. We may choose to take advantage of some but not all of these reduced burdens. We have not taken advantage of any of these reduced reporting burdens in this prospectus, although we may choose to do so in future filings and if we do, the information that we provide shareholders may be different than you might get from other public companies in which you hold equity.

The JOBS Act permits an "emerging growth company" like us to take advantage of an extended transition period to comply with new or revised accounting standards applicable to public companies. We are choosing to "opt out" of this provision and, as a result, we will comply with new or revised accounting standards as required when they are adopted. This decision to opt out of the extended transition period is irrevocable.

Nice post steersy. I guess you are a member of the triumvirate as well? Any guesses who the third member might be?

Its only a guess but Manoob?

That definitely calls for a PMSL. Give yourself a pat on the back. I got to go change my trousers.

Hhmmmm ..... just listing what one can or can't, or will, or might do at a later date under the S.Ups Act 2012 is a little pointless really. Buy hey,... pat on the back .... change trousers...PMSL ..... Have a beer and a lie down!

It will hugely interesting to see what turns up the next three months, as time and room to play 'pass the parcel' with debt and interest is running down very quickly.

Bevninja, calm down. We all want the same thing. You have your opinion others have there opinion. All people like Lee, Pele, Matt and myself are trying to do is make sure people look at things in a objective manner.

My point for putting the section from the prospectus was one of two things, firstly so other posters/readers could see what we was talking about and secondly to highlight parts of it,

Those parts are:

'We have not taken advantage of any of these reduced reporting burdens in this prospectus'

'We are choosing to "opt out" of this provision and, as a result, we will comply with new or revised accounting standards as required when they are adopted.'

Now if I am reading that wrong then tell me and I will happily put my hands up, thank you for educating me some more and I will know the answer in the future.

Am always calm, relaxed and objective.

It was an objective comment about the 'use/possibly use' of an Act so obviously not aimed to help an institution such as ours, but by taking it allows the convenient route of being less regulated and also less disclosure.

In the long run this probably will not be in the Clubs' best interest and in the short term will only serve to ignite further controversy.

Just also repeating a few of the quotes made around the recent posts, and recently you did say your head hurt and you were having to have a rest and a beer

bevninja:

pele 10:

bevninja:

Hhmmmm ..... just listing what one can or can't, or will, or might do at a later date under the S.Ups Act 2012 is a little pointless really. Buy hey,... pat on the back .... change trousers...PMSL ..... Have a beer and a lie down!

It will hugely interesting to see what turns up the next three months, as time and room to play 'pass the parcel' with debt and interest is running down very quickly

Who taught you about `pass the parcel` your college professor?

All any of us can do is speculate(you, steersy, LEE, the journos, the pundits, the Bloggers, other posters, the college professor and me). You are right should be interesting to watch it play out though.

No did a ' PTP course' a long time before I went to University.

Discussion and the rigors of investigation certainly help define the various speculations around, some however are less open minded, and have a more 'black and white' and defensive approach which isn't that helpful. (This observation not aimed at you)

You are an interesting guy to have these discussions with. Really appreciate you taking the time sharing your opinions and reading mine.

wliucci:

pele 10:

That is exactly what United does bring in the missing ingredient as needed. You don´t have to re-invent the wheel everytime you have to replace a spoke? We have a good nucleus, we have good young players in the squad and we have some potentially good players at the academy just waiting for thee chance. So SAF and United will do as they always have spend on the areas deemed necassary.

So what is it I need to think about?

"spend on the areas deemed necessary"

last season if it wasnt for a 38 old coming out of retirement, we might be looking at europa league football next year.

The "we dont need to spend" BS is just fergie defending the glazers to stop a mass mutiny from fans. He s been going on about it for so long you d think most fans with a brain would have figured that out by now.

Oh stop if we wouldn´t have been decimated with injuries Scholes may not have come out of retirement and if he had he certainly wouldn´t have played as much as he did. That includes Giggs as well.

They are legends but they shouldn´t be playing as often as they did last season.

If the club had been healthy there was plenty of cover so quit trying to make things up to suit your argument.

Cleverley, Anderson and Fletcher all missed most of the season. Let me count for you that is three midfielders I´m only guessing SAF was counting on last season? Not to mention all of the other injuries to boot.

bevninja:

pele 10:

steersyutd:

pele 10:

steersyutd:

pele 10:

bevninja:

.

pele 10:

bevninja:

Still find it interesting that all the Clubs' financial statement figures quoted in the listing to the SEC from around the middle 2011 to 31st March 2012 are all summary figures and not audited ones. The most recent audited figures being quoted that are in there come from June 2011.

It could be claimed I suppose that they had not had time to have an audit (although that really doesn't stand up to too much scrutiny) it would have been fairly simple to have this done while they have been taking this protracted time to look at where to fire off the IPO.

Normally a 12 month rule for non-audited would be in place in the UK and Europe to prevent any possible messing around with the figures. In the states there can be some leeway given which would amount to 15 months. Some recent previous IPO's in the States have used summary but stale out of date figures that were not audited, have after the IPO subsequently presented with disappointing financial statements.

I believe you are referring to the article by Owen Wild trying to insinuate the Glazers are up to something underhanded when really they are within the rules.

I think the IPO you are referring to that had problems and investors lost money was Glencore.

Wondered out of the 'third' triumvirate who would pick up the baton first

No Glencore was mentioned because they had used summary figures not audited ones in their registration to disguise the fact that the company had made a large loss and didn't want to declare it, so going into the IPO it wasn't as profitable or healthy as the summary figures had deemed to show.

As for Owen, the IFR, an industry staple not a 'red top looking circulation', has been around for over 35 years and is well respected for it's analysis as is Rueters, the figures used in there, are the ones I used which we both got from source in the registration doc to the SEC.

Nothing I see in that article however has been used to insinuate anything I wouldn't have said, informed comment and just asking the relevant maybe difficult questions that should be asked, because of how the IPO and things leading to the IPO have been set up

My Professor always stressed 'best practice offers best results' a good tenet to keep in mind especially if you want to attract business investment in an IPO, muddy the waters too much and less toes will be prepared to step in.

Probably then not a good idea to register by taking advantage of America's Jumpstart our Business Startups Act (2012) to list as 'a lightly regulated emerging growth company' just so you don't have to legally disclose as much.

Another question is, and rightly so, should a 134 year old giant of a football Club really be registered as a "start up", probably not what the was in the mind of the law makers in the way that it should be used, but loopholes leading to more muddied waters and controversy again not what you need to attract investors.

The very major problem continuing to operate like this gives you is, whether there is anything to hide or not, it will eventually undermine the trust of the very investors you need to attract.

In all a very difficult climate even before the 'sweetheart' deals.

...... and PIKs that haven't actually disappeared yet!

PS. Stale is just an industry term for using figures over 135 days old.

I realize stale is just an industry term. As I said one IPO registered this way that fails doesn´t in anyway prove that the system is wrong. It means in one instance a mistake was made.

The PIKs have actually disappeared but they exist in the form of shares. For all we know the shareholders could be Glazers other companies that he took equity out of around the time of the PIK payoff?

As far as muddying the waters as you put it you could be right, or not. Based on the way Green Bay Packer share sales go everytime there is an offering based on what the shareholder receives for his money, Manchester United shares may sell like hotcakes.

All either of us are doing is speculating. We don´t even know the price of shares or how many are on offer yet?

Only in America.

Don´t take offence what I said about the article was only my perception. I hate articles where they are implying the dark or shady side of something using an anonymous source. It always sends up a red flag for me but that is just me being skeptical.

HMMMMMmmmmm

Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company

As a company with less than $1.0 billion in revenue during our last fiscal year, we qualify as an "emerging growth company" as defined in the Jumpstart our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. An emerging growth company may take advantage of specified reduced reporting and other burdens that are otherwise applicable generally to public companies. These provisions include:

• a requirement to have only two years of audited financial statements and only two years of related Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations disclosure; and

• an exemption from the auditor attestation requirement in the assessment of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We may take advantage of these provisions for up to five years or such earlier time that we are no longer an emerging growth company. We would cease to be an emerging growth company if we have more than $1.0 billion in annual revenue, have more than $700 million in market value of our ordinary shares held by non-affiliates, or issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period. We may choose to take advantage of some but not all of these reduced burdens. We have not taken advantage of any of these reduced reporting burdens in this prospectus, although we may choose to do so in future filings and if we do, the information that we provide shareholders may be different than you might get from other public companies in which you hold equity.

The JOBS Act permits an "emerging growth company" like us to take advantage of an extended transition period to comply with new or revised accounting standards applicable to public companies. We are choosing to "opt out" of this provision and, as a result, we will comply with new or revised accounting standards as required when they are adopted. This decision to opt out of the extended transition period is irrevocable.

Nice post steersy. I guess you are a member of the triumvirate as well? Any guesses who the third member might be?

Its only a guess but Manoob?

That definitely calls for a PMSL. Give yourself a pat on the back. I got to go change my trousers.

Hhmmmm ..... just listing what one can or can't, or will, or might do at a later date under the S.Ups Act 2012 is a little pointless really. Buy hey,... pat on the back .... change trousers...PMSL ..... Have a beer and a lie down!

It will hugely interesting to see what turns up the next three months, as time and room to play 'pass the parcel' with debt and interest is running down very quickly.

Bevninja, calm down. We all want the same thing. You have your opinion others have there opinion. All people like Lee, Pele, Matt and myself are trying to do is make sure people look at things in a objective manner.

My point for putting the section from the prospectus was one of two things, firstly so other posters/readers could see what we was talking about and secondly to highlight parts of it,

Those parts are:

'We have not taken advantage of any of these reduced reporting burdens in this prospectus'

'We are choosing to "opt out" of this provision and, as a result, we will comply with new or revised accounting standards as required when they are adopted.'

Now if I am reading that wrong then tell me and I will happily put my hands up, thank you for educating me some more and I will know the answer in the future.

bevninja:

Not sure I agree with you at all that the system isn't wrong. The very fact that any company is able to do this is the very reason why every company filing should be scrutinized in detail and the governing regulations do need to be properly looked at.

Being able to disguise the business (Glencore) to appear to be in much better health than it really is going into an IPO, is definitely not the way forward, it's this area that needs some urgent repair.

The fact that, their subsequent IPO was a failure, or indeed a success isn't relevant, that they were able to get to the IPO this way in the first place, is.

Think that the way it now appears the extent of the 'pass the parcel' is coming to light, that the PIKs, bonds etc, loans to and from the 'different' family members, umbrella companies is still a definite cause for concern.

pele 10:

bevninja:

.

pele 10:

bevninja:

Still find it interesting that all the Clubs' financial statement figures quoted in the listing to the SEC from around the middle 2011 to 31st March 2012 are all summary figures and not audited ones. The most recent audited figures being quoted that are in there come from June 2011.

It could be claimed I suppose that they had not had time to have an audit (although that really doesn't stand up to too much scrutiny) it would have been fairly simple to have this done while they have been taking this protracted time to look at where to fire off the IPO.

Normally a 12 month rule for non-audited would be in place in the UK and Europe to prevent any possible messing around with the figures. In the states there can be some leeway given which would amount to 15 months. Some recent previous IPO's in the States have used summary but stale out of date figures that were not audited, have after the IPO subsequently presented with disappointing financial statements.

I believe you are referring to the article by Owen Wild trying to insinuate the Glazers are up to something underhanded when really they are within the rules.

I think the IPO you are referring to that had problems and investors lost money was Glencore.

Wondered out of the 'third' triumvirate who would pick up the baton first

No Glencore was mentioned because they had used summary figures not audited ones in their registration to disguise the fact that the company had made a large loss and didn't want to declare it, so going into the IPO it wasn't as profitable or healthy as the summary figures had deemed to show.

As for Owen, the IFR, an industry staple not a 'red top looking circulation', has been around for over 35 years and is well respected for it's analysis as is Rueters, the figures used in there, are the ones I used which we both got from source in the registration doc to the SEC.

Nothing I see in that article however has been used to insinuate anything I wouldn't have said, informed comment and just asking the relevant maybe difficult questions that should be asked, because of how the IPO and things leading to the IPO have been set up

My Professor always stressed 'best practice offers best results' a good tenet to keep in mind especially if you want to attract business investment in an IPO, muddy the waters too much and less toes will be prepared to step in.

Probably then not a good idea to register by taking advantage of America's Jumpstart our Business Startups Act (2012) to list as 'a lightly regulated emerging growth company' just so you don't have to legally disclose as much.

Another question is, and rightly so, should a 134 year old giant of a football Club really be registered as a "start up", probably not what the was in the mind of the law makers in the way that it should be used, but loopholes leading to more muddied waters and controversy again not what you need to attract investors.

The very major problem continuing to operate like this gives you is, whether there is anything to hide or not, it will eventually undermine the trust of the very investors you need to attract.

In all a very difficult climate even before the 'sweetheart' deals.

...... and PIKs that haven't actually disappeared yet!

PS. Stale is just an industry term for using figures over 135 days old.

I realize stale is just an industry term. So because Glencore did something underhanded you feel every company filing this way should be scrutinized? As I said one IPO registered this way that fails doesn´t in anyway prove that the system is wrong. It means in one instance a mistake was made.

The PIKs have actually disappeared but they exist in the form of shares. For all we know the shareholders could be Glazers other companies that he took equity out of around the time of the PIK payoff?

As far as muddying the waters as you put it you could be right, or not. Based on the way Green Bay Packer share sales go everytime there is an offering based on what the shareholder receives for his money, Manchester United shares may sell like hotcakes.

All either of us are doing is speculating. We don´t even know the price of shares or how many are on offer yet?

Only in America.

Don´t take offence what I said about the article was only my perception. I hate articles where they are implying the dark or shady side of something using an anonymous source. It always sends up a red flag for me but that is just me being skeptical.

The thing is though the way the financial climate is these days no matter how much research you do the possibility is there to fail or succeed? There are no guarantees in themarket these days and no matter how educated one is they can make a mistake. If all of these financial people know what they are talking about how did we get here?

pele 10:

That is exactly what United does bring in the missing ingredient as needed. You don´t have to re-invent the wheel everytime you have to replace a spoke? We have a good nucleus, we have good young players in the squad and we have some potentially good players at the academy just waiting for thee chance. So SAF and United will do as they always have spend on the areas deemed necassary.

So what is it I need to think about?

"spend on the areas deemed necessary"

last season if it wasnt for a 38 old coming out of retirement, we might be looking at europa league football next year.

The "we dont need to spend" BS is just fergie defending the glazers to stop a mass mutiny from fans. He s been going on about it for so long you d think most fans with a brain would have figured that out by now.

pele 10:

bevninja:

Hhmmmm ..... just listing what one can or can't, or will, or might do at a later date under the S.Ups Act 2012 is a little pointless really. Buy hey,... pat on the back .... change trousers...PMSL ..... Have a beer and a lie down!

It will hugely interesting to see what turns up the next three months, as time and room to play 'pass the parcel' with debt and interest is running down very quickly

Who taught you about `pass the parcel` your college professor?

All any of us can do is speculate(you, steersy, LEE, the journos, the pundits, the Bloggers, other posters, the college professor and me). You are right should be interesting to watch it play out though.

No did a ' PTP course' a long time before I went to University.

Discussion and the rigors of investigation certainly help define the various speculations around, some however are less open minded, and have a more 'black and white' and defensive approach which isn't that helpful. (This observation not aimed at you)

wliucci:

pele 10:

If you believe Barca is where they are because of what they have spent guess again. There success is down to the club maturing, some excellent young talents coming through the acadeny, a system that complimented the talent available and most important of all team chemistry. Kind of reminds you of the success United had with the class of 92.

I think United is close to the start of there next show of dominance depending how fast some of the young lads find there form and if the club can stay healthy.

what I would do is to suggest that you look at Barcelona's recent transfers from 2003 onwards. Look at the quality of players they were signing. Yes, the current nucleus of Barca is homegrown. But I would bet my life that players like Messi Iniesta Pedro Busquets would not be anywhere near as good as they are now if it werent for expensive signings likes of Ronaldinho Etoo, Giuly, Henry, Toure, Villa, Thuram, Dani Alves, senior players with quality and experience, who improved the youngsters by training alongside them and who allowed the likes of Rijkaard and Guardiola to introduce youngsters into the team without fear about results, and allow for the proper development of those players.

do have a think for that

That is exactly what United does bring in the missing ingredient as needed. You don´t have to re-invent the wheel everytime you have to replace a spoke? We have a good nucleus, we have good young players in the squad and we have some potentially good players at the academy just waiting for there chance. So SAF and United will do as they always have spend on the areas deemed necassary.

So what is it I need to think about?

Lee, my point is not about whether we had a choice or not about the debt. My point is on the consequences of this debt, the restricted spending, on which there is no argument about mate. I will point this out again. Net spending since Glazer era, 7th in premier league. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.