josfen01:

Captain Marvel No.7........your sentiments are my sentiments and other more thousands of fans likewise. This highly lucrative "2012 Equity Incentive Award Plan", as it is described in the Initial Public Offering (IPO) prospectus released on Monday, has raised questions among some United fans as to whether Sir Alex Ferguson, the manager, and David Gill, the chief executive, will stand to personally profit from the Glazers' decision to list the club on the New York stock exchange. With United refusing to comment on the situation. "Under the regulations of the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission], we are not permitted to disclose the contents of the document," said a United spokesman. Only nine days ago, Ferguson described the Glazers as "great" and suggested that "the majority of real fans will look at it realistically and say it's not affecting the team". Those remarks went down badly with some supporters. Look at this IPO, it was promised to pay down the debt. It's now making hardly any impact – it's the owners taking money out and leaving the club in debt. Being concerned about that is perfectly legitimate. And then for Sir Alex to say that you're not a real fan if you are concerned … well, that's quite staggering disgusting to say the least.

My point is that nobodies knows the end game. Do we know that SAF was privy to this information? I doubt it very much. Do we know if the Glazers plan on floating more shares in the future? Will a full flotation happen as a result of this initial IPO?

Everybody is jumping on the bandwagon without looking at the bigger picture.

Captain Marvel No.7........your sentiments are my sentiments and other more thousands of fans likewise. This highly lucrative "2012 Equity Incentive Award Plan", as it is described in the Initial Public Offering (IPO) prospectus released on Monday, has raised questions among some United fans as to whether Sir Alex Ferguson, the manager, and David Gill, the chief executive, will stand to personally profit from the Glazers' decision to list the club on the New York stock exchange. With United refusing to comment on the situation. "Under the regulations of the SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission], we are not permitted to disclose the contents of the document," said a United spokesman. Only nine days ago, Ferguson described the Glazers as "great" and suggested that "the majority of real fans will look at it realistically and say it's not affecting the team". Those remarks went down badly with some supporters. Look at this IPO, it was promised to pay down the debt. It's now making hardly any impact – it's the owners taking money out and leaving the club in debt. Being concerned about that is perfectly legitimate. And then for Sir Alex to say that you're not a real fan if you are concerned … well, that's quite staggering disgusting to say the least.

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

89cruefan2:

Bevninja: I am not saying the PIKs werent paid off, I am saying they were paid off but using money from the Bucaneers, hence why they were so secretive about it. It would make sense.

Hi 89crue, no think you may have misunderstood me: I still think (unlike Steers) that there is still something fishy, undeclared about the Payment in Kind notes. Even if you go through the SEC document it's still impossible to trace where the monies that paid the PIKs came from, in so much as where did the monies originate from before it went into the holding company that was formed that then is listed as having paid these debts back?

Somebody invested in the Holding companies basically becoming a shareholder. Whats the conspiracy in that? Why do you need to know where the money came from?

Think the very fact that all you can label it is as 'somebody' who invested in a holding company is in itself a core issue. Who was that somebody? was the money borrowed? was the somebody a member of the Glazer family? Was the somebody a Glazer business associate/s? that in turn will need paying back. You talk about wanting transparency etc, but are quite prepared to gloss over it when it suits you're point of view, it would seem?

They have become a shareholder in the holding company so are investors. It is not a loan so was not borrowed money. Why do you need to know?

The transparency I was refering to was the information supporters post on here or give to fellow supporters rather than using media bull .

Shareholder in a holding company, really. Must all be alright then.

What is the problem with that? Somebody invests in a company that owns the biggest sports club in the world. Tell me then what you are worried about.

You are assuming it's an independent shareholder when there is no evidence of this? I just can't share your optimism that everything in the business garden is perfectly okay, when there has been so much trouble taken to disguise the normal business routes and practices, (holding companies set up to pay debt etc) I just don't have your uncritical acceptance.

You are missing the point, what does it matter who the shareholder is be it a one person or not? The secrecy is just the Glazers as they have always been way before they purchased us. Please do not think I am uncritical or accepting of the situation but not understanding it and throwing around rubbish is worse than just moaning/whinging for the sake of it.

You still haven't answered the question, what is the problem?

I have answered it you can't see it though, the debt could still be there, given what's disclosed (even in the SEC) it's impossible to say that's it not, but from your view point you are not seeing it all: If the 'throwing rubbish' "just moaning/whinging" point is aimed at me that's really pretty poor.

You have not answered why you need to know who the shareholder is? What does it change to know that fact?

I have, but you have missed it completely, if that shareholder/s are a member or members of the Glazer family it matters a great deal.

I apologise if I missed that but still why is it important, how does it change things? What would people be able to do with the information?

Captain Marvel No.7:

steersyutd:

Captain Marvel No.7:

How anybody can defend the Glazers and what they represent is beyond me. This club has been r.aped and pillaged of hundreds of millions of pounds during their tenure and enough is enough. Its costing the club a reported £7.7m to carry out this IPO, hardly chicken feed when United, and in particular Ferguson, are constantly spouting about value. Where's the value in that piece of business I ask?

They are taking the p1ss out of United fans, that we have known for a long time. The dynasty that Fergie and Sir Matt before him built is being milked to the very core by a disgusting breed of human being who go by the name of the Glazer family. 7 years of ticket price hikes, bonds, buy backs, PIK's, interest, loans, repayments, re-financing, IPO's, value, no value, resale value etc. Its r.ape, and pillaging of this football club of the highest order.

Sir Alex is without doubt the greatest manager that has ever graced the club but his public backing the Glazers is sickening beyond belief. He cries of no value when he looks to improve the team yet applauds the very reason why United are now looking for value. He makes it clear that he won't sign players who are just thinking about lining their pockets and yet the owners who he says 'real fans' understand are doing exactly that. Lining their own pockets.

The 'real fans' remark was pathetic in itself, I lost a whole heap of respect for the manager when he said that. So people who work hard all week, sacrifice loads to pay for season tickets, follow the team home and away come rain or shine aren't 'real fans' because they dare to speak out against the Glazers? Its funny, comical infact.

The Glazers are the worst thing to have happened to this football club since the Munich air disaster. Fergie has brainwashed so many supporters with his backing of the owners. They think because he knows what he's talking about as a football manager that he knows what he's talking about in the world of business... If he says the Glazers are great owners, they have to be, right?.. WRONG!!

Love United, Hate Glazer.

I don't think anybody thinks the Glazers have been great owners but again the bigger picture needs to be looked at. What SAF has said is that he has never not been given the money he requires for purchasing the players he wants. Nobody can prove either way if that is true or not so I will personally back and support the managers words.

Our Club has been on the brink of bankruptcy and been in the second tier of football before so saying what you have said is well just stupid and has nothing to back it up.

If the Glazers had only wanted to line there pockets do you not think they would not have already have done that?

Steersy, we all know your a Glazer fan boy and that's your call but don't call other people's posts 'stupid' because you don't agree with them. It wasn't stupid, I believe in every word of my post. I don't need to back anything up that I've said either. They are my beliefs, what I believe is happening etc and unlike you I don't take Fergie's word as gospel, irrespective of his achievements as a manager.

If the Glazers aren't milking the club for their own gain, they are milking it to repay the banks for the obscene amounts they have borrowed. Would you like me to prove that and all or are you not aware they've taken half a billion out of the club to pay interest on the sums borrowed?

I am far from a Glazer Fan boy as you could ever imagine. The fact I chose to educate myself in the clubs finances and not believe just the media rubbish posted is hardly a indication that I support the Glazers,

You post is passionate but does nothing other than fulfill what the media wants you too. Try educating yourself and having a strong debatable argument behind you as at the moment you are just a sheep following the media bandwagon. I have never taken SAF words as gospel as he has been the master of mirrors and slight of hand.

If you want feel free to prove to me they have taken personally half a billion out of the club? I look forward to it.

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

89cruefan2:

Bevninja: I am not saying the PIKs werent paid off, I am saying they were paid off but using money from the Bucaneers, hence why they were so secretive about it. It would make sense.

Hi 89crue, no think you may have misunderstood me: I still think (unlike Steers) that there is still something fishy, undeclared about the Payment in Kind notes. Even if you go through the SEC document it's still impossible to trace where the monies that paid the PIKs came from, in so much as where did the monies originate from before it went into the holding company that was formed that then is listed as having paid these debts back?

Somebody invested in the Holding companies basically becoming a shareholder. Whats the conspiracy in that? Why do you need to know where the money came from?

Think the very fact that all you can label it is as 'somebody' who invested in a holding company is in itself a core issue. Who was that somebody? was the money borrowed? was the somebody a member of the Glazer family? Was the somebody a Glazer business associate/s? that in turn will need paying back. You talk about wanting transparency etc, but are quite prepared to gloss over it when it suits you're point of view, it would seem?

They have become a shareholder in the holding company so are investors. It is not a loan so was not borrowed money. Why do you need to know?

The transparency I was refering to was the information supporters post on here or give to fellow supporters rather than using media bull .

Shareholder in a holding company, really. Must all be alright then.

What is the problem with that? Somebody invests in a company that owns the biggest sports club in the world. Tell me then what you are worried about.

You are assuming it's an independent shareholder when there is no evidence of this? I just can't share your optimism that everything in the business garden is perfectly okay, when there has been so much trouble taken to disguise the normal business routes and practices, (holding companies set up to pay debt etc) I just don't have your uncritical acceptance.

You are missing the point, what does it matter who the shareholder is be it a one person or not? The secrecy is just the Glazers as they have always been way before they purchased us. Please do not think I am uncritical or accepting of the situation but not understanding it and throwing around rubbish is worse than just moaning/whinging for the sake of it.

You still haven't answered the question, what is the problem?

I have answered it you can't see it though, the debt could still be there, given what's disclosed (even in the SEC) it's impossible to say that's it not, but from your view point you are not seeing it all: If the 'throwing rubbish' "just moaning/whinging" point is aimed at me that's really pretty poor.

You have not answered why you need to know who the shareholder is? What does it change to know that fact?

I have, but you have missed it completely, if that shareholder/s are a member or members of the Glazer family it matters a great deal.

steersyutd:

Captain Marvel No.7:

How anybody can defend the Glazers and what they represent is beyond me. This club has been r.aped and pillaged of hundreds of millions of pounds during their tenure and enough is enough. Its costing the club a reported £7.7m to carry out this IPO, hardly chicken feed when United, and in particular Ferguson, are constantly spouting about value. Where's the value in that piece of business I ask?

They are taking the p1ss out of United fans, that we have known for a long time. The dynasty that Fergie and Sir Matt before him built is being milked to the very core by a disgusting breed of human being who go by the name of the Glazer family. 7 years of ticket price hikes, bonds, buy backs, PIK's, interest, loans, repayments, re-financing, IPO's, value, no value, resale value etc. Its r.ape, and pillaging of this football club of the highest order.

Sir Alex is without doubt the greatest manager that has ever graced the club but his public backing the Glazers is sickening beyond belief. He cries of no value when he looks to improve the team yet applauds the very reason why United are now looking for value. He makes it clear that he won't sign players who are just thinking about lining their pockets and yet the owners who he says 'real fans' understand are doing exactly that. Lining their own pockets.

The 'real fans' remark was pathetic in itself, I lost a whole heap of respect for the manager when he said that. So people who work hard all week, sacrifice loads to pay for season tickets, follow the team home and away come rain or shine aren't 'real fans' because they dare to speak out against the Glazers? Its funny, comical infact.

The Glazers are the worst thing to have happened to this football club since the Munich air disaster. Fergie has brainwashed so many supporters with his backing of the owners. They think because he knows what he's talking about as a football manager that he knows what he's talking about in the world of business... If he says the Glazers are great owners, they have to be, right?.. WRONG!!

Love United, Hate Glazer.

I don't think anybody thinks the Glazers have been great owners but again the bigger picture needs to be looked at. What SAF has said is that he has never not been given the money he requires for purchasing the players he wants. Nobody can prove either way if that is true or not so I will personally back and support the managers words.

Our Club has been on the brink of bankruptcy and been in the second tier of football before so saying what you have said is well just stupid and has nothing to back it up.

If the Glazers had only wanted to line there pockets do you not think they would not have already have done that?

Steersy, we all know your a Glazer fan boy and that's your call but don't call other people's posts 'stupid' because you don't agree with them. It wasn't stupid, I believe in every word of my post. I don't need to back anything up that I've said either. They are my beliefs, what I believe is happening etc and unlike you I don't take Fergie's word as gospel, irrespective of his achievements as a manager.

If the Glazers aren't milking the club for their own gain, they are milking it to repay the banks for the obscene amounts they have borrowed. Would you like me to prove that and all or are you not aware they've taken half a billion out of the club to pay interest on the sums borrowed?

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

89cruefan2:

Bevninja: I am not saying the PIKs werent paid off, I am saying they were paid off but using money from the Bucaneers, hence why they were so secretive about it. It would make sense.

Hi 89crue, no think you may have misunderstood me: I still think (unlike Steers) that there is still something fishy, undeclared about the Payment in Kind notes. Even if you go through the SEC document it's still impossible to trace where the monies that paid the PIKs came from, in so much as where did the monies originate from before it went into the holding company that was formed that then is listed as having paid these debts back?

Somebody invested in the Holding companies basically becoming a shareholder. Whats the conspiracy in that? Why do you need to know where the money came from?

Think the very fact that all you can label it is as 'somebody' who invested in a holding company is in itself a core issue. Who was that somebody? was the money borrowed? was the somebody a member of the Glazer family? Was the somebody a Glazer business associate/s? that in turn will need paying back. You talk about wanting transparency etc, but are quite prepared to gloss over it when it suits you're point of view, it would seem?

They have become a shareholder in the holding company so are investors. It is not a loan so was not borrowed money. Why do you need to know?

The transparency I was refering to was the information supporters post on here or give to fellow supporters rather than using media bull .

Shareholder in a holding company, really. Must all be alright then.

What is the problem with that? Somebody invests in a company that owns the biggest sports club in the world. Tell me then what you are worried about.

You are assuming it's an independent shareholder when there is no evidence of this? I just can't share your optimism that everything in the business garden is perfectly okay, when there has been so much trouble taken to disguise the normal business routes and practices, (holding companies set up to pay debt etc) I just don't have your uncritical acceptance.

You are missing the point, what does it matter who the shareholder is be it a one person or not? The secrecy is just the Glazers as they have always been way before they purchased us. Please do not think I am uncritical or accepting of the situation but not understanding it and throwing around rubbish is worse than just moaning/whinging for the sake of it.

You still haven't answered the question, what is the problem?

I have answered it you can't see it though, the debt could still be there, given what's disclosed (even in the SEC) it's impossible to say that's it not, but from your view point you are not seeing it all: If the 'throwing rubbish' "just moaning/whinging" point is aimed at me that's really pretty poor.

You have not answered why you need to know who the shareholder is? What does it change to know that fact?

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

89cruefan2:

Bevninja: I am not saying the PIKs werent paid off, I am saying they were paid off but using money from the Bucaneers, hence why they were so secretive about it. It would make sense.

Hi 89crue, no think you may have misunderstood me: I still think (unlike Steers) that there is still something fishy, undeclared about the Payment in Kind notes. Even if you go through the SEC document it's still impossible to trace where the monies that paid the PIKs came from, in so much as where did the monies originate from before it went into the holding company that was formed that then is listed as having paid these debts back?

Somebody invested in the Holding companies basically becoming a shareholder. Whats the conspiracy in that? Why do you need to know where the money came from?

Think the very fact that all you can label it is as 'somebody' who invested in a holding company is in itself a core issue. Who was that somebody? was the money borrowed? was the somebody a member of the Glazer family? Was the somebody a Glazer business associate/s? that in turn will need paying back. You talk about wanting transparency etc, but are quite prepared to gloss over it when it suits you're point of view, it would seem?

They have become a shareholder in the holding company so are investors. It is not a loan so was not borrowed money. Why do you need to know?

The transparency I was refering to was the information supporters post on here or give to fellow supporters rather than using media bull .

Shareholder in a holding company, really. Must all be alright then.

What is the problem with that? Somebody invests in a company that owns the biggest sports club in the world. Tell me then what you are worried about.

You are assuming it's an independent shareholder when there is no evidence of this? I just can't share your optimism that everything in the business garden is perfectly okay, when there has been so much trouble taken to disguise the normal business routes and practices, (holding companies set up to pay debt etc) I just don't have your uncritical acceptance.

You are missing the point, what does it matter who the shareholder is be it a one person or not? The secrecy is just the Glazers as they have always been way before they purchased us. Please do not think I am uncritical or accepting of the situation but not understanding it and throwing around rubbish is worse than just moaning/whinging for the sake of it.

You still haven't answered the question, what is the problem?

I have answered it you can't see it though, the debt could still be there, given what's disclosed (even in the SEC) it's impossible to say that's it not, but from your view point you are not seeing it all:

It matters greatly for instance if the shareholders are members of the family. If the 'throwing rubbish' "just moaning/whinging" point is aimed at me that's really pretty poor.

This has maybe been asked somewhere on the thread, but could someone please try and explain how this will play out over the next months/years, the way I see it if these shares are successful then we will owe £350 million this as far as I know has to be paid back within the next 5 years, how is this going to happen? The Glazers would have to take £70 million from our profits every year for the next 5, this obviously isn't viable, this surely means they will either sell loads more shares, or sell up? Or are there other options open to them?

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

89cruefan2:

Bevninja: I am not saying the PIKs werent paid off, I am saying they were paid off but using money from the Bucaneers, hence why they were so secretive about it. It would make sense.

Hi 89crue, no think you may have misunderstood me: I still think (unlike Steers) that there is still something fishy, undeclared about the Payment in Kind notes. Even if you go through the SEC document it's still impossible to trace where the monies that paid the PIKs came from, in so much as where did the monies originate from before it went into the holding company that was formed that then is listed as having paid these debts back?

Somebody invested in the Holding companies basically becoming a shareholder. Whats the conspiracy in that? Why do you need to know where the money came from?

Think the very fact that all you can label it is as 'somebody' who invested in a holding company is in itself a core issue. Who was that somebody? was the money borrowed? was the somebody a member of the Glazer family? Was the somebody a Glazer business associate/s? that in turn will need paying back. You talk about wanting transparency etc, but are quite prepared to gloss over it when it suits you're point of view, it would seem?

They have become a shareholder in the holding company so are investors. It is not a loan so was not borrowed money. Why do you need to know?

The transparency I was refering to was the information supporters post on here or give to fellow supporters rather than using media bull .

Shareholder in a holding company, really. Must all be alright then.

What is the problem with that? Somebody invests in a company that owns the biggest sports club in the world. Tell me then what you are worried about.

You are assuming it's an independent shareholder when there is no evidence of this? I just can't share your optimism that everything in the business garden is perfectly okay, when there has been so much trouble taken to disguise the normal business routes and practices, (holding companies set up to pay debt etc) I just don't have your uncritical acceptance.

You are missing the point, what does it matter who the shareholder is be it a one person or not? The secrecy is just the Glazers as they have always been way before they purchased us. Please do not think I am uncritical or accepting of the situation but not understanding it and throwing around rubbish is worse than just moaning/whinging for the sake of it.

You still haven't answered the question, what is the problem?

Captain Marvel No.7:

How anybody can defend the Glazers and what they represent is beyond me. This club has been r.aped and pillaged of hundreds of millions of pounds during their tenure and enough is enough. Its costing the club a reported £7.7m to carry out this IPO, hardly chicken feed when United, and in particular Ferguson, are constantly spouting about value. Where's the value in that piece of business I ask?

They are taking the p1ss out of United fans, that we have known for a long time. The dynasty that Fergie and Sir Matt before him built is being milked to the very core by a disgusting breed of human being who go by the name of the Glazer family. 7 years of ticket price hikes, bonds, buy backs, PIK's, interest, loans, repayments, re-financing, IPO's, value, no value, resale value etc. Its r.ape, and pillaging of this football club of the highest order.

Sir Alex is without doubt the greatest manager that has ever graced the club but his public backing the Glazers is sickening beyond belief. He cries of no value when he looks to improve the team yet applauds the very reason why United are now looking for value. He makes it clear that he won't sign players who are just thinking about lining their pockets and yet the owners who he says 'real fans' understand are doing exactly that. Lining their own pockets.

The 'real fans' remark was pathetic in itself, I lost a whole heap of respect for the manager when he said that. So people who work hard all week, sacrifice loads to pay for season tickets, follow the team home and away come rain or shine aren't 'real fans' because they dare to speak out against the Glazers? Its funny, comical infact.

The Glazers are the worst thing to have happened to this football club since the Munich air disaster. Fergie has brainwashed so many supporters with his backing of the owners. They think because he knows what he's talking about as a football manager that he knows what he's talking about in the world of business... If he says the Glazers are great owners, they have to be, right?.. WRONG!!

Love United, Hate Glazer.

I don't think anybody thinks the Glazers have been great owners but again the bigger picture needs to be looked at. What SAF has said is that he has never not been given the money he requires for purchasing the players he wants. Nobody can prove either way if that is true or not so I will personally back and support the managers words.

Our Club has been on the brink of bankruptcy and been in the second tier of football before so saying what you have said is well just stupid and has nothing to back it up.

If the Glazers had only wanted to line there pockets do you not think they would not have already have done that?

madhouse:

On the increased revenue, I am not even going to argue that. It's a fool's belief that without the Glazers the revenues wouldn't have increased in the same proportion.

No one knows.

But the deal with DHL, our previous deals with AON and AIG, our new deal with Chevvy is all stuff done by the Glazers. I am not saying without them we wouldnt have made good deals. I think we could have done good deals fine, However I dont think we could have achieved as many good business dealings as we have done.

If anything the way they have helped United grow and increase as a business and their ability to let SAF do what he wants is a positive... although it does just about equal with the negatives

Captain Marvel No.7:

How anybody can defend the Glazers and what they represent is beyond me. This club has been r.aped and pillaged of hundreds of millions of pounds during their tenure and enough is enough. Its costing the club a reported £7.7m to carry out this IPO, hardly chicken feed when United, and in particular Ferguson, are constantly spouting about value. Where's the value in that piece of business I ask?

They are taking the p1ss out of United fans, that we have known for a long time. The dynasty that Fergie and Sir Matt before him built is being milked to the very core by a disgusting breed of human being who go by the name of the Glazer family. 7 years of ticket price hikes, bonds, buy backs, PIK's, interest, loans, repayments, re-financing, IPO's, value, no value, resale value etc. Its r.ape, and pillaging of this football club of the highest order.

Sir Alex is without doubt the greatest manager that has ever graced the club but his public backing the Glazers is sickening beyond belief. He cries of no value when he looks to improve the team yet applauds the very reason why United are now looking for value. He makes it clear that he won't sign players who are just thinking about lining their pockets and yet the owners who he says 'real fans' understand are doing exactly that. Lining their own pockets.

The 'real fans' remark was pathetic in itself, I lost a whole heap of respect for the manager when he said that. So people who work hard all week, sacrifice loads to pay for season tickets, follow the team home and away come rain or shine aren't 'real fans' because they dare to speak out against the Glazers? Its funny, comical infact.

The Glazers are the worst thing to have happened to this football club since the Munich air disaster. Fergie has brainwashed so many supporters with his backing of the owners. They think because he knows what he's talking about as a football manager that he knows what he's talking about in the world of business... If he says the Glazers are great owners, they have to be, right?.. WRONG!!

Love United, Hate Glazer.

This post is spot on 110% SAF saying what he said *** me off but this latest issue with the Glazers is pathetic, were basically floating United on the market so they can treat themselves to a what ever it is they don't need! It's disgusting!

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

steersyutd:

bevninja:

89cruefan2:

Bevninja: I am not saying the PIKs werent paid off, I am saying they were paid off but using money from the Bucaneers, hence why they were so secretive about it. It would make sense.

Hi 89crue, no think you may have misunderstood me: I still think (unlike Steers) that there is still something fishy, undeclared about the Payment in Kind notes. Even if you go through the SEC document it's still impossible to trace where the monies that paid the PIKs came from, in so much as where did the monies originate from before it went into the holding company that was formed that then is listed as having paid these debts back?

Somebody invested in the Holding companies basically becoming a shareholder. Whats the conspiracy in that? Why do you need to know where the money came from?

Think the very fact that all you can label it is as 'somebody' who invested in a holding company is in itself a core issue. Who was that somebody? was the money borrowed? was the somebody a member of the Glazer family? Was the somebody a Glazer business associate/s? that in turn will need paying back. You talk about wanting transparency etc, but are quite prepared to gloss over it when it suits you're point of view, it would seem?

They have become a shareholder in the holding company so are investors. It is not a loan so was not borrowed money. Why do you need to know?

The transparency I was refering to was the information supporters post on here or give to fellow supporters rather than using media bull .

Shareholder in a holding company, really. Must all be alright then.

What is the problem with that? Somebody invests in a company that owns the biggest sports club in the world. Tell me then what you are worried about.

You are assuming it's an independent shareholder when there is no evidence of this? I just can't share your optimism that everything in the business garden is perfectly okay, when there has been so much trouble taken to disguise the normal business routes and practices, (holding companies set up to pay debt etc) I just don't have your uncritical acceptance.

How anybody can defend the Glazers and what they represent is beyond me. This club has been r.aped and pillaged of hundreds of millions of pounds during their tenure and enough is enough. Its costing the club a reported £7.7m to carry out this IPO, hardly chicken feed when United, and in particular Ferguson, are constantly spouting about value. Where's the value in that piece of business I ask?

They are taking the p1ss out of United fans, that we have known for a long time. The dynasty that Fergie and Sir Matt before him built is being milked to the very core by a disgusting breed of human being who go by the name of the Glazer family. 7 years of ticket price hikes, bonds, buy backs, PIK's, interest, loans, repayments, re-financing, IPO's, value, no value, resale value etc. Its r.ape, and pillaging of this football club of the highest order.

Sir Alex is without doubt the greatest manager that has ever graced the club but his public backing the Glazers is sickening beyond belief. He cries of no value when he looks to improve the team yet applauds the very reason why United are now looking for value. He makes it clear that he won't sign players who are just thinking about lining their pockets and yet the owners who he says 'real fans' understand are doing exactly that. Lining their own pockets.

The 'real fans' remark was pathetic in itself, I lost a whole heap of respect for the manager when he said that. So people who work hard all week, sacrifice loads to pay for season tickets, follow the team home and away come rain or shine aren't 'real fans' because they dare to speak out against the Glazers? Its funny, comical infact.

The Glazers are the worst thing to have happened to this football club since the Munich air disaster. Fergie has brainwashed so many supporters with his backing of the owners. They think because he knows what he's talking about as a football manager that he knows what he's talking about in the world of business... If he says the Glazers are great owners, they have to be, right?.. WRONG!!

Love United, Hate Glazer.