Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Infra-red

Full Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
13,555
Location
left wing
Keegan has said it’s those two plus an unnamed US bid. Saudis haven’t bid.
Not sure Kegan would actually really know. It is also still possible for bidders to come forward (Friday's deadline was not absolute and there's no way Raine will turn away interested parties with proof of funds).
 

Amarsdd

Full Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
3,347
There is no guarantee we would turn into a circus like PSG,just remember we have a manager more in control than them. Presumably you are very much backing Ratcliffe from that first paragraph then. He still hasn't made me sit up and take notice with his statements like Qatar did. Have heard nothing at all about investment in redevelopment either so far.
If the Qatary owners or SJR or hell even Glazers want to bring in a shiny toy, don't think the manager will have any control over that. Fearfully, in case of the Qatary owners, the evidence we have i.e. PSG, that they like their shiny toys, and pretty sure none of the managers had any say in that.
 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
16,388
The Glazers are absolutely shameless :lol:

I wouldn’t even be surprised if they end up selling to their American banker mates as one final feck you to the fans.
The lack of any credible news from that direction certainly has me concerned this may well be how this goes.
 

Ubik

Nothing happens until something moves!
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
19,085
How much worse do the Glazers think their reputation can actually get?
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
51,612
Location
Manchester
There are two types of shares. The class A shares are the ones floating on the market. The class B shares are the one held largely by the Glazers (woody has 0.5%). The latter has 10 times the controlling power then the former

Therefore even though the Glazers hold just 67% in reality they hold like 99% of power. Those are the shares that count. Buying the A class shares would be insanely expensive with no real benefits. Its like losing out on a central london penthouse because you insisted that the former owner leaves his favourite chair in it
Thanks
 

Nogbadthebad

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
5,560
Location
Wolverhampton
Regarding the 'majority share' vs 100% ownership of the two public bids.

It suggests that ineos are happy to leave public ownership on non voting shares, which makes some sense, it will not affect their management of the club at all.

But the qataris seem to be suggesting that once they have ownership they'll make an offer for the rest and take the whole thing into private ownership.

For us as supporters, and the team itself, I don't think it would make much difference either way.
 

Giggsy13

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
4,426
Location
Toronto
It, at least had some ideas of what the Qataris would do. Ineos' statement was xenphobic nonsense, what does "put Manchester back into Manchester United" mean? Do they not realise there are millions of non British supporters?
Don’t bother debating them, it’s all nonsense at this stage. The irony is that the Qatar bid through the 92 foundation has put forward more of a plan to redevelop locally and commit to youth than Ineos has stated. There’s one problem though: Sheikh Jassim is brown and from the Middle East so clearly can never understand the club’s true values.

Again if you compare both bids without knowing who it came from, the Qatari bid is superior on all levels and not even close tbh. It’s just the wrong nationality and faces behind it.
 

Blood Mage

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
6,320
Why would the Glazers even bother briefing that? Unless they're going to start making excuses to sell to their American hedge fund buddies.
 

Valencia Shin Crosses

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2015
Messages
7,240
Location
"Martial...He's isolated Skrtel here..."
If the Qatary owners or SJR or hell even Glazers want to bring in a shiny toy, don't think the manager will have any control over that. Fearfully, in case of the Qatary owners, the evidence we have i.e. PSG, that they like their shiny toys, and pretty sure none of the managers had any say in that.
PSG only did the “shiny new toy” thing with bringing in Messi. Mbappe and Neymar were both fantastic signings that anyone in the world would have like for their own club at the time if they could have afforded it.

Seriously people act like PSG has just gone and bought the World XI every year
 

Posh Red

Full Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
3,568
Location
Peterborough, England
Don’t bother debating them, it’s all nonsense at this stage. The irony is that the Qatar bid through the 92 foundation has put forward more of a plan to redevelop locally and commit to youth than Ineos has stated. There’s one problem though: Sheikh Jassim is brown and from the Middle East so clearly can never understand the club’s true values.

Again if you compare both bids without knowing who it came from, the Qatari bid is superior on all levels and not even close tbh. It’s just the wrong nationality and faces behind it.
I don’t think skin colour is relevant here at all, for most opposed to the Qatari takeover at least. Seems an unfair allegation to level to be honest.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,995
Location
London
Sure but

A- raine has zero jurisdiction on the A class shares

B - A class shares are expensive with little benefits in holding them

It's like being a whisker away from buying a penthouse only to bail out because the owner refuse to leave his favourite chair there
As said 10 times already, the board (which are the Glazers) can decide to put in voting selling all shares, and then can vote for that to happen. It is what happened when Glazers took a majority control at United, then they forced the minority shareholders to sell and Glazers owned at some stage 100% of the shares and made the club private. Then later sold some shares and made it public again.

There are many advantages for the new owner to buy all the shares: a) they might believe that the club will be worth more in the future; b) they might plan on investing their own money in the club (stadium, clearing the debt) so why the other shareholders would benefit from them while being free riders; c) they might want to take the club private so they don’t need to publish the financial records every 6 months. And that is just out of the top of my head.
 

Peelhead

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 25, 2022
Messages
96
I don't think so. I think it's indicating their offer would value the club at 5 billion if they bought the whole thing.
That's my understanding of it, usually in corporate finance they cite the cost as it would value the entire business, but they will be wanting 100% of the share capital I'm sure so there will be a mechanism to force any hold-outs to sell and get the cash.

Unless Michael Knighton pops up for a quick demo of mad skillz!
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
35,454
If the Qatary owners or SJR or hell even Glazers want to bring in a shiny toy, don't think the manager will have any control over that. Fearfully, in case of the Qatary owners, the evidence we have i.e. PSG, that they like their shiny toys, and pretty sure none of the managers had any say in that.
Well this will show whether or not sheikh Jassim has a real affinity to this club,because anyone that does won't make decisions over Erik's head
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,937
The Qatari/Ratcliffe should agree that the last contract is signed at OT just after the game. Let the Glazers face the fans afterwards
 

Moriarty

Full Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
19,196
Location
Reichenbach Falls
Don’t bother debating them, it’s all nonsense at this stage. The irony is that the Qatar bid through the 92 foundation has put forward more of a plan to redevelop locally and commit to youth than Ineos has stated. There’s one problem though: Sheikh Jassim is brown and from the Middle East so clearly can never understand the club’s true values.

Again if you compare both bids without knowing who it came from, the Qatari bid is superior on all levels and not even close tbh. It’s just the wrong nationality and faces behind it.
I hope this is tongue in cheek. I've been involved in business deals with Qataris in the past and my own experience is that they mean what they say and their word can be trusted. British businessmen with Sir in front of their names, maybe not so much,
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,937
As said 10 times already, the board (which are the Glazers) can decide to put in voting selling all shares, and then can vote for that to happen. It is what happened when Glazers took a majority control at United, then they forced the minority shareholders to sell and Glazers owned at some stage 100% of the shares and made the club private. Then later sold some shares and made it public again.

There are many advantages for the new owner to buy all the shares: a) they might believe that the club will be worth more in the future; b) they might plan on investing their own money in the club (stadium, clearing the debt) so why the other shareholders would benefit from them while being free riders; c) they might want to take the club private so they don’t need to publish the financial records every 6 months. And that is just out of the top of my head.
Is it worth losing united for that?
 

Verminator

Full Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
8,158
Location
N3404 The Island of Manchester United
Don’t bother debating them, it’s all nonsense at this stage. The irony is that the Qatar bid through the 92 foundation has put forward more of a plan to redevelop locally and commit to youth than Ineos has stated. There’s one problem though: Sheikh Jassim is brown and from the Middle East so clearly can never understand the club’s true values.

Again if you compare both bids without knowing who it came from, the Qatari bid is superior on all levels and not even close tbh. It’s just the wrong nationality and faces behind it.
I have seen nothing to suggest that.
Human rights and state ownership is all I've seen being called out.

INEOS have pushed the local lad, British owner angle as a means of manipulation. Some of it seems to have stuck with some, but I don't see much in the way of racism.
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
35,454
Regarding the 'majority share' vs 100% ownership of the two public bids.

It suggests that ineos are happy to leave public ownership on non voting shares, which makes some sense, it will not affect their management of the club at all.

But the qataris seem to be suggesting that once they have ownership they'll make an offer for the rest and take the whole thing into private ownership.

For us as supporters, and the team itself, I don't think it would make much difference either way.
Don't mind if they make it private ownership because will know what to do with the club better than most supporters
 

DomesticTadpole

Doom-monger obsessed with Herrera & the M.E.N.
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
101,963
Location
Barrow In Furness
This is just not true, I imagine. The Glazers haven't cared how people have perceived them for 17 years, why would they start now?

The British press really don't want another oil-rich club in the Prem
Yet they praise the food at the Etihad and how lucky Newcastle were to get bought by the Saudi's. Let's get it right they don't want Manchester United being bought by an oil rich owner. We are doing well at the moment and it's terrifies them how good we could become.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,937
I do not understand.
If the Qatari are aiming to buy all of United with 5b then their offer will be inferior to that of Ratcliffe. Which means that the qatari will lose out on United. Now I ask are theA class shares worth all that?
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,995
Location
London
If the Qatari are aiming to buy all of United with 5b then their offer will be inferior to that of Ratcliffe. Which means that the qatari will lose out on United. Now I ask are theA class shares worth all that?
We really don’t know what is in the offer, how it is structured and this is just an opening offer.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
66,681
Location
France
The 100 and 69 percent were a bit weird at first but it's worth remembering that these preliminary bids include minority stakes. So it does make sense that Ineos precised that it was for 69% of the club and the qataris mentioned 100% of the shared owned by the Glazer family.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,937
We really don’t know what is in the offer, how it is structured and this is just an opening offer.
I think that the Manchester united muppetiers video make sense. They are both aiming for the same thing ie those 67%. The raine group had been tasked to sell those
 

Nogbadthebad

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
5,560
Location
Wolverhampton
If the Qatari are aiming to buy all of United with 5b then their offer will be inferior to that of Ratcliffe. Which means that the qatari will lose out on United. Now I ask are theA class shares worth all that?
The offer to the glazers has nothing to do with the non-voting shares which the glazers do not own. It would be an additional cost. Which is, presumably, why Ineos are happy not to bother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.