Thank you for taking the time and effort for this!A lot is pointing towards this process reaching its climax in the coming week or two. A few thoughts.
What is happening in the process?
Overall, evaluating the value of MUFC is not hard, nor does it require a due diligence from a broader point of view. The Manchester United plc reports using the IFRS standard which is established by the EU for all companies listed on a regulated market. Besides, financing agreements have also been made available. While a bidder of course will want to perform its due diligence and verify key aspects of the club as well as taking part of the latest up to date financials -- both Ineos and the Qataris have for a long time been able to evaluate the target of this process.
The Raine Group has performed three rounds of bidding, first the indicative bid and then two de facto bids. These bids are made for the Glazers' shares of the club (more on that later). All -- three -- parties are advised by top advisers and are more or less on equal footing in these negotiations. There have been talks about the Glazers playing the bidders, threatening keep the club, and what not. Those aspects should perhaps not totally be disregarded -- but not far from it. If you engage JPM or Goldman Sachs or players like that for a multi-billion transaction -- you won't be pushed around in the negotiations. What is the point of a third (fourth) round of bidding? The next point is probably pointing at the highest bidder, and telling the other side that they will be out of the running in 24h if they do not counter that offer. After that, you should have a preferred bidder.
What remains after a preferred bidder is appointed?
Whomever buys the club needs to be approved by the PL. That process can be started before a takeover is executed.
Ultimately, buying the Glazers' shares can be done through a simple transaction note. There will be no meaningful reps and warranties given that it is a public transaction. The buyer will undertake to replace the Glazer siblings on the board, not much more. Hence, the club could potentially have a new owner within weeks.
But what about the remaining 31%? Well, it is here it gets a bit tricky -- and this is a topic that ultimately will depend on Cayman Island cooperate law. First of all, must you buy those shares if you buy the Glazers shares? No. In the UK and all of the EU, anyone acquiring more than 30% of the votes in a company must make a so called mandatory bid for the remaining shares. The reason for this is that anyone buying a share in a listed company should be able to assume that the company will be run in a way that is best for all shareholders. If someone comes in and buy a controlling share, the minority owners must be given an opportunity to exit their investment in light of the new circumstances. This is -- not -- the case on the Cayman Islands.
So why buy the remaining shares of Manchester United plc -- if you don't have to, and since you would controll the club anyway by just buying the Glazers' shares? That is a good question. There are no guarantee that Ineos for example would want to buy those shares. Why not invest that money into the club instead? There is however one big advantage of buying the minorities' shares. If you own all shares of a company, you can wheel 'nd deal with it anyway you want. Lets say you want to lift land owned by the club out of the club and develop it in a separate entity -- its just a little paper work if you own all shares. If there are 150,000 minority shareholders, you better make darn sure that you pay market value for any asset you transfer from the club to another company. And even if you do all you can -- you could still see some litigation. It is impossible to know how the parties would act, but from my view point it is natural to assume that the Qataris would want 100% of the shares while I don't quite see the upside for anyone with Ineos sucking up the shares listed at NYSE.
But anyway -- if you want to buy the minority shares listed at the NYSE -- how is it done? Well you cannot get each and every 150,000 (just picking a random number) minority owner to sell their shares to you. Hence there are mechanisms in place to enable taking a company private. As I understand it, we could either see (a) a public tender offer to the minority (someone sends out a press release and say 'If you want to sell your MUFC plc shares, fill out this form, and we will buy them'), and if bidder owns 90% of the shares after the tender offer, it gets the right to redeem the outstanding shares, or (b) through a take private merger. Given how majority owner friendly Cayman Island law is, I think (b) would be the method used. Ineos or the Qataris create a BidCo (Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)). That BidCo proposes to merge with Manchester United plc. In the merger, the owner of the BidCo gets 100% of the shares in Manchester United plc and the current shareholders of MU plc gets 100% cash. Takes say a month or two to execute. If a minority shareholder in the club thinks the terms of the merger were worthless -- they can take it to court and ask for more pay. Some surely would. If you want to acquire 100% of the shares -- is it better to first acquire Glazers's 69% and then merge or does it make more sense to also acquire the Glazers' shares through a merger? This could impact the arguments of the minority owners going to court asking for more pay. I can't provide any input on if it would matter, but I would bet on that given how flexible Cayman Law is, it doesn't.
What happens to the debt?
As soon as someone takes control of the Glazers' shares of the club -- it will trigger the so called Change of control-clauses of the plc's debt agreements. This means that within stipulated time frames, that debt becomes immediately repayable. So in terms of the actual debt agreements, the Glazers debt will not survive a takeover. The buyer can either (a) pay back the debt, (b) refinance the debt in the name of the club, or (c) refinance the debt in a company higher up in the buyers' group. When Ineos say that they won't put any new debt on the Manchester United plc -- I think it would sound odd that they would engage JPM and GS to issue a bunch of new bonds in Manchester United plc. I think they would do that higher up in the Ineos group. But there is some uncertainty there.
The Qatari would probably cash the debt. I think the talk about Qataris only using "cash" is a bit irrelevant. Qatar's GDP to debt ratio is 40% which is low for a country. Ineos' debt ratio is probably a few times its turnover, which is normal/on the higher side for the average company, but not high for a company with a M&A strategy.
Who will win the bidding?
I want to add one word of caution here, if anyone is absolutely convinced that the Qataris will win the bidding. A group of people in Qatar is driving this project. Right? No matter what anyone says, its common sense that they don't have £5bn burning a hole in their wallet. The bid will be financed with funds which the royal family controls. Hence, someone is setting a budget for the bid. We don't know what that budget is. It could be 10bn. It could be 5bn. I don't think its far fetched to speculate on that someone gave the green light to the entire project -- as long as the price wasn't crazy. You can have 8bn, 5bn for the club and 3bn for the work after getting it. If they want 100% of the shares, and Ineos would settle for 69% -- Ineos wouldn't have to pay absurd money.
I have said from day 1 that the Qataris are the favorites. I would still bet on them if I had to bet, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.
What about Zilliacus?
The only way he has a shot is if he is fronting the Saudis.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Wow, this thread is really starting to send folk round the twist!! We need news already! 
Hopefully. Doesn't seem to have any utterly ridiculous ideas like the Qatari stooge which can only be seen as a positive.
What I'd give for a semi competent owner.
Thread has grown about 10 pages, is there any actual news?
Still no. Just bickering.
What do you think? xD
Cheers mate.
Watching this and SUCCESSION unfold might be too much for my brain. I could go full SCANNERS.
You certainly seem to have gone full TABLOID. Making things more EXCITING by bolding key words to drive clicks.
NEVER go full tabloid!
Oh dear. Talking to oneself is a bad sign…..
Oh dear. Talking to oneself is a bad sign…..
Got to prepare myself for the 7 hour drive from Rochdale to Plymouth in an hour somehow
So, here is the bad news - we don’t want you anymore.
Now the good news, we’ve found somebody who will pay you £10k a week more.
Pull?
In truth we’ve not had the same pull since SAF left. It’s true we do have a lot of pull still as an elite club, but not as much as we used to - any pull is mainly down to money we pay and contacts we offer now.
I brought it up not just because of your post but also because of other posts such as Nesta moving when we bought Rio, etc. Not everytime we miss out on a player is in our control I was saying as if the player does not want to move to a club or country then no one can do anything about it.
And Chelsea is (well at least was under Roman) a very attractive club. London, money, guaranteed success because Roman kept investing and firing managers if they weren’t winning.
No. Apart from if United as a bigger pull than other clubs I also spotted a couple of posts regarding Zlatan and his religion. That’s it.
Oh man, you have my pity!
Got to prepare myself for the 7 hour drive from Rochdale to Plymouth in an hour somehow
No. And that's a bad sign.
The Glazers aren't going to announce they're staying all of a sudden because that could trigger large and viscous protests. So if they now intend to stay, they will slow the 'sale process' down (less news and updates) and gradually brief that they're quite likely to stay. Then, when a point is reached where people expect them to stay, they'll announce it. There'll still be protests etc. but just not as badly if they made an abrupt announcement.
The allure of a club depends on what the club can offer a player both financially and winning trophies. Right now Man City has a bigger pull than us due to their project and due to their money, hence a player like Haaland joined them over us.
It's about creating a attractive project with a head coach who believes in implementing a proactive attacking play style which will create the appeal for prospective new recruits. The money wlll be there but it's important to create the appeal by implementing a attractive play style which will then attract the players who will want to join a team on the up.
It's about creating a attractive project with a head coach who believes in implementing a proactive attacking play style which will create the appeal for prospective new recruits. The money wlll be there but it's important to create the appeal by implementing a attractive play style which will then attract the players who will want to join a team on the up.
Relax, there will be a sale.
For all the talk of London and the agents fee (bit of a Caf myth). The biggest reason we lost out on Hazard was the fact Chelsea agreed to pay a 21 year old £180k per week. Pretty much double what United were offering.
Thick and gloopy?! The mind boggles at what that might entail!
That’s only true in some cases. At United under SAF of course there was a guarantee for players that SAF would be there, they would play under him and be successful.
Pep and Klopp are also long term managers.
But at Chelsea, Madrid, Barca, Bayern most players don’t necessarily join because of a coach as the coach could be gone before the player has even properly settled in.
I’m getting really stressed about this can’t sleep and just refreshing this thread twitter and going over all YouTube channels obsessing over every detail and yet there’s no news.
It’s vital we get an update tomorrow otherwise I will be furious and ready to explode with rage.
It’s vital we get an update tomorrow otherwise I will be furious and ready to explode with rage.
The initial point wasn't even about that but Haaland is an example. Red Bull have a potential plan for their players, they can be purchased by any of their three clubs and move to an other if it suits them. It's something that we saw with Upamecano, Szoboszlai or Naby Keita. But then there are players like Haaland, Adeyemi or Aaronson that decide that they won't go the Leipzig way.
The point was that players choose where they go and how they plan or not plan their future moves. Which is why Castle's theory is dubious.
Last edited:
Blimey. This could go on for months. I hope you'll make it.
As long as they leave the egg trees.
Take a step back dude, turn the computer off!
I agree. It's about what's best for the player.
Mass wet biscuit protests would be unique and could possibly tip the scale.Thick and gloopy?! The mind boggles at what that might entail!
City were signing big players long before they became a winning machine and even then we have beaten them to quite a few players over the last 4/5 years.
If what Castles says is true then the owners won’t be planting players at PSG to funnel up to United against their will nor will it be 2023 forever and forever. PSG as a single entity being built for success will be gone, it’ll all be about what makes United better. No player who wants to join City, Liverpool etc would ever join PSG in that scenario.
With that backing, with United being up there competing for every CL and league title it means players won’t be just coming to us for our name or the status of the club but to compete at the very highest level.
It seems odd to have to argue that PSG are a mess by saying anything more than: 'look'.
Nobody in the article suggested there was a grand plan beyond 'make us the most respected club in the world'. The suggestion that a DOF could act with impunity, given the sums of money involved, is so outlandish that it requires a little more proof than, we were doing OK for a bit. I accept that players needed to be bought, but the players, transfer fees and contracts all follow a pattern.
I don't think there is any doubt anywhere that PSG are a sportwashing project for the Qatari state is there?
Still 4 days left to meet the original deadline. Not likely but not impossible
Players join Madrid due to them being in a unique position where they can attract most players in the world and offer the opportunity of winning trophies. Chelsea under Ambramovich also became a team with the best setup throughout the club from the first team down to their youth teams where they have been very dominant.
Barca and Bayern are both huge clubs and follow the positional play principles which makes both clubs even more attractive to join. And those principles are implemented by a number of head coaches. It's the idea of creating a winning team by dominating the opponent which players want to be part of. It also helps that Barcelona is a lovely place to live.
Feck off with that!
The Athletic are adamant that the figures mentioned for the Ineos and Qatar bids are the valuation of the entire club including the debt.
So, assuming they have each bid £5bn, the Glazers would be getting (5bn - net debt)*69% = c. £2.9bn directly to the Glazers for all their Class B shares (or about £500m each).
Last edited:
Edit I’ll make this simpler.
I was not making a general point, I made a point specific to Man United. Man United have a huge pull the same way if I were talking about Madrid or Barca or Bayern in isolated examples. All have huge pulls. No club will ever sign a player who doesn’t want to join but these clubs have more players wanting to join them than others.
it’s ok to misread a post but to continually misrepresent it seems to be A typical from you.
Last edited:
Castles is a total bullshit merchant, Braga aren't about to become our feeder club ffs. That would make it obvious that we're owned by the same cnuts who own PSG and they're supposed to be pretending they're a separate group.
- Status