Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
But that doesn't have any relevance to the current sale process. The Glazers don't care about that (other than a very small handful of Class A shares that some have), and it's not part of the same transaction. Qatar can't take any steps toward that unless/until they finalize control of the club.

I have assumed it’s the price per share that’s relevant. Provided I am right, if the club has a 100 shares Glazers will receive the total price / 100 * 69.
 
I have assumed it’s the price per share that’s relevant. Provided I am right, if the club has a 100 shares Glazers will receive the total price / 100 * 69.
Right, but it's not relevant to the Glazers or their sales process whether Qatar or anyone wants to buy the extra 31%. And they wouldn't buy that additional 31% as part of the same transacation. That would have to be done later. The current sales process is only for the 69% that the Glazers own.
 
Sheikh Jassim is going to sneak in at the back post on the stroke of the full time whistle. SJR will be holding his arm up in the hope of a late offside flag which won’t come. :drool:
 
They will not be forced to sell. The winning party, whoever they are, will be required to make a public offering for the remaining shares. The 31% do not need to accept if they think the offer is not good enough. If Qatar win they will need to bid around $30 per share to have a chance. INEOS don’t want 100% so they will probably lowball as they don’t care.

I have assumed that there is a drag-along clause for in the articles of association. I am not 100% how it works in listed companies but there Is no way this would be handled in a non listed company.
 
Except that it wasn't a world record bid, so he wasn't correct. They were outbid by Ineos, so it makes it pretty obvious where the line about "Jassim's world record bid" that he and several other journalists touted, came from.

And before anyone jumps in and says that Qatar offered 100%, so they offered more than Ineos. No, no they didn't. The Glazers don't have 100% to sell, nor can they negotiate on behalf of the public shareholders, so no one bid on 100%. Qatar and Ineos each made an offer to buy 69%, and Ineos made a separate offer for 51%. Only once a party acquires control can they then make offers for the other 31% to the public shareholders.
How did the Twitter purchase go? Wasn’t it once the deal is agreed to take the company private. Then all other shareholders are bought out at the agreed value per share. Regardless of whether or not they agree.

It’s possible Jassim’s bid is for 100% while Ratcliffe is for just a controlling stake.
 
Right, but it's not relevant to the Glazers or their sales process whether Qatar or anyone wants to buy the extra 31%. And they wouldn't buy that additional 31% as part of the same transacation. That would have to be done later. The current sales process is only for the 69% that the Glazers own.

I have also assumed that whatever Qatar offers is for 100% and that the Glazers will receive 69% of that.
 
Sheikh Jassim is going to sneak in at the back post on the stroke of the full time whistle. SJR will be holding his arm up in the hope of a late offside flag which won’t come. :drool:
Does Sheikh know United communicate via Fax? He might need to buy one. Hope he's prepared.
 
Let's be honest, no journalists really know anything, people will go back and forth based on articles and tweets, but everyone is under an NDA and nothing is really that likely yo leak until the Glazers announce who the preferred bidder is, the rest is guesswork
 
It's been pretty widely reported, it's just less sensationalistic than saying that the Glazers are staying on. I'm not going to look it up now, so if you choose to think I'm making it up, fine.

I was asking genuinely, never said you was making anything up.

Relax my friend.
 
Let's be honest, no journalists really know anything, people will go back and forth based on articles and tweets, but everyone is under an NDA and nothing is really that likely yo leak until the Glazers announce who the preferred bidder is, the rest is guesswork

Its pretty ridiculous isn't it. These football "ITK" journalists now all of a sudden trying to take a stab at a multi billion dollar financial deal!
 
Its pretty ridiculous isn't it. These football "ITK" journalists now all of a sudden trying to take a stab at a multi billion dollar financial deal!

The idea that Jim or jassim's team would be leaking to journalists and potentially endangering the deal is utterly fanciful
 
How did the Twitter purchase go? Wasn’t it once the deal is agreed to take the company private. Then all other shareholders are bought out at the agreed value per share. Regardless of whether or not they agree.

It’s possible Jassim’s bid is for 100% while Ratcliffe is for just a controlling stake.
I didn't really follow the Twitter takeover, so I don't know how big of a percentage the board that Musk negotiated with had. However, it's my understanding that different countries have different laws relating to this kind of thing. United is registered in the Cayman Islands, but of course the publicly traded stock is on the New York Stock Exchange, so I believe that the rules for taking a company private would be subject to Cayman laws, in addition to US laws. But exactly what those laws are, I don't know.

I do remember that when the Glazers did their hostile takeover of United, that once they owned a certain percentage, they could (or maybe even were required to) buy out the remaining shares, and there was nothing us PLC shareholders could do to stop it. I remember a big campaign by IMUSA/MUST to get fans to buy up shares to reach enough of a percentage that the Glazers couldn't force that purchase on us. But not enough people cared and that never came even close to happening. The US SEC laws probably have something similar, but I don't know what the percentage is.
 
Brailsford is in charge of INEOS sporting interests. He’ll be involved for sure but not employed directly by the club.

Not doing a good job is he. One side got relegated the other is on course to finish bottom half of the table in France
 
I didn't really follow the Twitter takeover, so I don't know how big of a percentage the board that Musk negotiated with had. However, it's my understanding that different countries have different laws relating to this kind of thing. United is registered in the Cayman Islands, but of course the publicly traded stock is on the New York Stock Exchange, so I believe that the rules for taking a company private would be subject to Cayman laws, in addition to US laws. But exactly what those laws are, I don't know.

I do remember that when the Glazers did their hostile takeover of United, that once they owned a certain percentage, they could (or maybe even were required to) buy out the remaining shares, and there was nothing us PLC shareholders could do to stop it. I remember a big campaign by IMUSA/MUST to get fans to buy up shares to reach enough of a percentage that the Glazers couldn't force that purchase on us. But not enough people cared and that never came even close to happening. The US SEC laws probably have something similar, but I don't know what the percentage is.
I agree. like you I don’t know the exact details. But I think there’s definitely something that means ‘minor’ shareholders get bought out at the agreed price if a full sale is agreed with the majority shareholder in this case the Glazers.
 
I didn't really follow the Twitter takeover, so I don't know how big of a percentage the board that Musk negotiated with had. However, it's my understanding that different countries have different laws relating to this kind of thing. United is registered in the Cayman Islands, but of course the publicly traded stock is on the New York Stock Exchange, so I believe that the rules for taking a company private would be subject to Cayman laws, in addition to US laws. But exactly what those laws are, I don't know.

I do remember that when the Glazers did their hostile takeover of United, that once they owned a certain percentage, they could (or maybe even were required to) buy out the remaining shares, and there was nothing us PLC shareholders could do to stop it. I remember a big campaign by IMUSA/MUST to get fans to buy up shares to reach enough of a percentage that the Glazers couldn't force that purchase on us. But not enough people cared and that never came even close to happening. The US SEC laws probably have something similar, but I don't know what the percentage is.

I believe its the Cayman Islands laws that apply in this case meaning there is no obligation to buy all of the shares and there is no obligation to pay an equal price for each share.

The thinking for a while has been that Ratcliffe will just ignore the 31% causing the share price to plummet and then pick them up far cheaper at a later date if he feels that way inclined.

The Qatari’s on the other hand need 100% of the shares to take the company private as being on the NY stock exchange opens them up to discovery by the US which is something they don’t want.

For the person that said the £5bn is just for the Glazers 69% thats incorrect. That would value the club close to 8bn which is nonsense.

This thread below does a better job of explaining the Cayman Island laws than I have.
 
I believe its the Cayman Islands laws that apply in this case meaning there is no obligation to buy all of the shares and there is no obligation to pay an equal price for each share.

The thinking for a while has been that Ratcliffe will just ignore the 31% causing the share price to plummet and then pick them up far cheaper at a later date if he feels that way inclined.

The Qatari’s on the other hand need 100% of the shares to take the company private as being on the NY stock exchange opens them up to discovery by the US which is something they don’t want.

For the person that said the £5bn is just for the Glazers 69% thats incorrect. That would value the club close to 8bn which is nonsense.

This thread below does a better job of explaining the Cayman Island laws than I have.

You can’t value class A shares the same as class B shares.

If you were to float 31% of the shares with class B voting rights on the stock exchange they would go for way way more than $20 each. The idea you can take the value of the class A shares and infer the price of the class B shares is pure nonsense.
 
A very rich man staying in Claridge’s while in London? Yes, he MUST be selling Manchester United to the owner of Claridge’s.
 
I’m clearly saying Ratcliffe doesn’t intend to purchase 69%. I think his current intention is to do the deal for 51% to gain control and to gain the upper hand has made his valuation higher because his upfront cost is significantly less than the Qatar bid.

If Qatar takes control of the club they will literally have put £5 billion on the table for both the Glazer and publicly traded shares.

If Ratcliffe wins he is paying roughly half that and then a premium of some kind 2-3 years down the line. IMO this is the only way he can gain control. If you disagree then fine but I fully understand the situation. My take is that 51% is the only chance Ratcliffe has.
Qatar cannot bid for publicly traded shares in this offer. The bid is for Glazer’s shares only - we need to understand what is on the table here!
 
Qatar cannot bid for publicly traded shares in this offer. The bid is for Glazer’s shares only - we need to understand what is on the table here!
Nowhere have I stated the contrary

The process requires the bidders to value the whole club in terms of a share price, with the Glazers then receiving 69% of that valuation or 51% depending on who wins etc
 
You can’t value class A shares the same as class B shares.

If you were to float 31% of the shares with class B voting rights on the stock exchange they would go for way way more than $20 each. The idea you can take the value of the class A shares and infer the price of the class B shares is pure nonsense.

You might be correct and £8bn therefore would be the incorrect figure, but the point about both headline bids being based on the valuation of the whole club rather than the Glazers 69% is still true. Nobody is paying the Glazers £5.5bn and then paying more on top no matter how much cheaper than £2.5bn it is.
 
Mark Goldbridge (yes that moron) has said repeatedly this past week that we can't compete with City unless we are 100% owned.

It should come as great surprise to him then that City's owner has sold 23% of the club.

This is the issue with this whole process and debate. Everyone is emotional, which I totally get, but a lot of people just don't have anything like the full facts or knowledge of what's going on. Goldbridge least of all.
 
Why not? It's an historical club, in a large french city that has very recent infrastructures.

It’s 350k? Small fan base. If you gonna spend the massive amount of money it takes to build a top club in European football you don’t buy Nice in the french league.

I just see very little basis for criticizing Ratcliffe for Nice. Why?
-An owners job is to get competent people to run a club and provide the club with enough resources. Sure an owner can get some of it if the club does extremely poor or well — but an owner can only do so much.
-There is no indication that Ratcliffe genuinely have tried to challenge PSG and co. Just look at the squads, sounds comical.
-Ratcliffe bought two clubs, Nice and Lausanne, and said that they see it as a way to learn to own football clubs. Is there any reason to doubt that?
 
It’s 350k? Small fan base. If you gonna spend the massive amount of money it takes to build a top club in European football you don’t buy Nice in the french league.

I just see very little basis for criticizing Ratcliffe for Nice. Why?
-An owners job is to get competent people to run a club and provide the club with enough resources. Sure an owner can get some of it if the club does extremely poor or well — but an owner can only do so much.
-There is no indication that Ratcliffe genuinely have tried to challenge PSG and co. Just look at the squads, sounds comical.
-Ratcliffe bought two clubs, Nice and Lausanne, and said that they see it as a way to learn to own football clubs. Is there any reason to doubt that?

It's around a 1 million. And your question was about french football. If you have to buy a club to compete with PSG, Nice will be one of the most realistic option with Marseille, Lille and Lyon.

Your answer seem to indicate that you either didn't want anyone to answer or you don't think that Ratcliffe should have bought any club.
 
It's around a 1 million. And your question was about french football. If you have to buy a club to compete with PSG, Nice will be one of the most realistic option with Marseille, Lille and Lyon.

Your answer seem to indicate that you either didn't want anyone to answer or you don't think that Ratcliffe should have bought any club.

Internet says 343,727. ;)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice
 
@JPRouve I am just calling it like I see it. Not sure what you mean with the last para?

What is the basis for ‘Ratcliffe is a bad owner, look at Nice!’? Very modest sums of money has been invested into that team. And it’s of course a given that Nice is a worthless option if you want to build a power house in European football, I mean seriously?
 
Mark Goldbridge (yes that moron) has said repeatedly this past week that we can't compete with City unless we are 100% owned.

It should come as great surprise to him then that City's owner has sold 23% of the club.

This is the issue with this whole process and debate. Everyone is emotional, which I totally get, but a lot of people just don't have anything like the full facts or knowledge of what's going on. Goldbridge least of all.
That reminds me of that Regulus Black guy that used to come in here and get really emotional, shout at people and then leave
 
A very rich man staying in Claridge’s while in London? Yes, he MUST be selling Manchester United to the owner of Claridge’s.

Mad coincidence tbh considering how many other hotels he could have stayed at instead plus the rat usually returns back to Florida pronto, not stick around London
 
They will buy 100%. The remaining minority shareholders will be forced to sell for a price that is considered good.
"The remaining minority shareholders will be forced to sell" - that is not necessarily correct, it depends on the how the company is set up, United are quoted on the NYSE which has different rules to the UKSE
 
@JPRouve I am just calling it like I see it. Not sure what you mean with the last para?

What is the basis for ‘Ratcliffe is a bad owner, look at Nice!’? Very modest sums of money has been invested into that team. And it’s of course a given that Nice is a worthless option if you want to build a power house in European football, I mean seriously?

You aren't, you clearly have no clue about the topic, to the point that you don't even know what to look for. And I didn't make an statemtnt about Raticliffe in that post outside of saying that in french football Nice would be one of the clubs that you would purchase if you wanted to compete with PSG and I said why.

You asked about french Football, you got an answer.
 
So you think Nice is a good club to buy if you want to build a top European football club?
I think Nice metropolitan area (French: aire d'attraction de Nice) as defined by INSEE in 2021 is the functional urban area or commuting zone of the city of Nice, southeastern France. It covers 100 communes, has 1,103,527 inhabitants (2021) and an area of 2,073 km2.[1][2] It partly overlaps with the urban unit (contiguously built-up area) of Nice, which covers some cities, e.g. Antibes, Grasse and Cannes, that are part of the functional area Cannes-Antibes.[3]

Beyond that, I don't recall offering an opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.