Yep. Raine have been instructed by the club to carry out a strategic review on behalf of the Board. United are paying Raine for their strategic advice.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
So is this the Glazer’s money being paid to Raine… or… the club’s?
Essentially, is it costing Man Utd money for the Glazers to dither around? And if so, how much is costing Man Utd?
That is wonderfully on brand for them you have to say.
Anything to stop you shouting Dracarys
Unbelievable, if true. So Raine are hosting the auction on behalf of the Glazer’s - whilst advising the United Board = the Glazer’s, at the same time
Why Jassim
1)No debt
2)Will pay off debt
3)Investment in stadium, training ground.
4)Investment in men’s and women’s team
Could be just a dreamer or in over his head. Money alone does not being success. But nothing to point to either direction. Logically he’ll have his father making sure he don’t feck it up.
Why not Ratcliffe / INEOS
1)Will not pay off existing debt
2)Will buy using debt from people who’ll want to profit
3)Will keep the Glazers.
4)No commitment to investing in stadium / training ground
5)No commitment to investing in men’s / women team. Although most likely first year or two will see big money spent.
6) Very poor track record at clubs they already own. Have not improved their clubs in leagues that really they should be second & 1st if we judge on money alone, yet alone strategy and good management.
Glazers have done so much damage that I wish their entire enterprise lose all of its value within next 10 years. long shot.
Bucs, cricket franchise, already hearing rumbles about the collapse in their commercial investment.
Glazers, you destroyed the most storied club in the sports world for 20 years, just feck off.
Bucs, cricket franchise, already hearing rumbles about the collapse in their commercial investment.
Glazers, you destroyed the most storied club in the sports world for 20 years, just feck off.
i just can’t imagine a situation where if the Glazers are staying they’ll pass all voting rights to Ratcliffe. I had my doubts over Qatar and super wealth never really appealed, but it’s the only way to go it seems.
After all, Ratcliffe is attempting to cut a deal with the people we’ve wanted out for years.
After all, Ratcliffe is attempting to cut a deal with the people we’ve wanted out for years.
With Jassim you missed out - GLAZERS GONE FOR GOOD.
I refuse to add that. Because in November “Full sale” being the only acceptable deal was the one thing everyone agreed on. It’s only after Ratcliffe got into bed with the glazers that some started doing mental gymnastics to justify the glazers staying and glazers leaving became something others had to argue as a positive
To try to clear up another misconception, Raine are the advisors to Manchester United plc in their exploration of strategic alternatives/investment. Since Joel and Avram are the co-chairmen, the Glazers have most of the shares and full control over company votes, this often gets aggregated by football reporters as if Raine are working for the Glazers in a personal capacity.
Yeah if the journo's are to be believe, 4 want to sell, the other 2 don't.
Given the share structure i don't think some can feasibly sell without the others selling. From what i read, if the 4 sell there shares without the other 2, those shares convert to the class A shares, which really have no power in the share structure.
Great stuff, I also think we can assume that all figures are EV. But I do think 30 USD per share is a little low since that would mean a market cap of 4bn USD/3.2bn pound which is what, an EV of app. 4 bn sterling?
My point is just — and please correct me if you think I am wrong — if there were any credible information on “Wall Street” that a deal was “done”, I think it clearly and immediately would be reflected in the share price. Right?
As a rule of thumb, about 50% of all takeovers leak before they even are announced in any way, shape or form the first time and significantly erases any deal premium. Doesn’t that indicate some form or insider trading or at least illegal disclosure of insider information? More or less, yes. But this as a rule doesn’t stop the trades from taking place right in front of the eyes of the authorities and the stock exchange.
I am not an expert on the NYSE, but unless I am corrected, I would assume that nothing is “known” by any deal blog or whatever in the US — that anyone attach any credibility too — without it showing in the share price.
The stock market is the best at valuating a share and right now — it seems like the stock market is leaning towards Ineos but haven’t ruled out 9-2. Do you agree?
Exactly right
There's no guarantee or evidence that any of the above will or won't happen. Literally none.
There's no guarantee that glazers will even sell, yet here we are.
But Jassims "no debt" promise would be included in the final contract? At least that one would tick one of the boxes?
I just think it'll be really weird to go from protests outraged for fifteen years at a leveraged buyout and debt to a leveraged buyout and debt with everyone pretending that scenario represents a brave, new world
There still seems a misapprehension that people need to be aware of here in that speculated net worth isn't actually money someone has.
Ratcliffe isn't selling a significant chunk of Ineos and he doesn't have £4bn stuffed down the sofa. We've gone from 'debt is the road to ruin' to 'debt might be okay without neckbeards'
But sure, he runs Ineos with a substantial debt, but he'll clear ours, right? He'll bundle the entirety debt burden on his more lucrative, valuable business and let us spend like Phillip Schofield's lawyers encouraging parents of 13 year old boys to sign NDAs.
Anyone who claims to have an objection to the Glazer ownership who will rejoice at Ratcliffe is either a hypocrite or an idiot. Because the only difference is believing 'net worth' articles are currency.
There still seems a misapprehension that people need to be aware of here in that speculated net worth isn't actually money someone has.
Ratcliffe isn't selling a significant chunk of Ineos and he doesn't have £4bn stuffed down the sofa. We've gone from 'debt is the road to ruin' to 'debt might be okay without neckbeards'
But sure, he runs Ineos with a substantial debt, but he'll clear ours, right? He'll bundle the entirety debt burden on his more lucrative, valuable business and let us spend like Phillip Schofield's lawyers encouraging parents of 13 year old boys to sign NDAs.
Anyone who claims to have an objection to the Glazer ownership who will rejoice at Ratcliffe is either a hypocrite or an idiot. Because the only difference is believing 'net worth' articles are currency.
Last edited:
Human rights.
Qatar buying the champions league for United, catching up with citynewcastle and 'investing' in a training facility is nowhere near as important.
I'd say no to both Glazer and Ratcliffe, too, but I'd take either over Qatar's state bid.
I'll be okay watching United in League Two.
Need this wrapped up as soon as possible. Longer it goes, will affect our transfer business. New ownership will also want to make some statement signings and can affect our window greatly.
Never known such a drawn out process - Its got the Glazers stamp all over it. Sewer Rats of the highest order!
Enlighten me, where did you get this info?
From the 2 or 3 tweets that were done? By journalists that are guessing as much as the next person? We know nothing about the intentions of both parties and it surely isn't helping this debate with made up facts.
That's been the general consensus but looking at how we seem to be about to sign Mount, it appears perhaps the two things might not be as linked as previously thought. If anything this is a massive improvement in terms of how long it usually takes us to conduct business.
Well the information is out there with the pledges given by Jassim and the ninetwo foundation. INEOS and Ratcliffe havent given any pledges just a weak statement.
diversionary tactics won’t deter from facts v
We can only go off of the bid statement.
The Glazer family appointed the Raine Group as the club's exclusive financial advisers, who have been tasked with helping United find a buyer. I am still unclear as to who picks up the bill if the Glazers stay I can't see why it would Glazers personally.
But this isn't a 'debate' this is merely a chat room/open forum. The guys entitled to his opinion.
Where do you get your info that his info is wrong? You know 100% he's wrong do you? Where are your sources?
The whole purpose of this thread is to literally vent while we all wait for concrete information.
In the meantime it's fine for anyone to come at it from any angle they want. That's how open forums work. Give the guy some slack eh.
There are around 163,000,000 shares outstanding (public float + privately held Class B). $30-35 share price means a market cap of around $4.9-$5.7B USD, or around £4-£4.6B. I have seen debt reported anywhere between £600M-£1B, but haven't cared enough to really dig into that. If media reports are to be trusted, a successful Qatari bid may be closer to $35 per share territory. $40 per share just on speculation (not even the takeover price) is not in line with the reported figures. This is all just one guy's opinion and not meant to be a recommendation or advice.
I strongly disagree that the share price reflects the odds of who wins the bid. In my view, all that is reflected there is the risk/reward profile of the market from a potential takeover, based on written confirmation from the Company that they are reviewing strategic alternatives.
The float is so low that it does not take much to get it moving based on speculation from football journalists (including disreputable ones) or even random Twitter rumours. To demonstrate this with a recent example, that QatariFC guy posted something yesterday at 3 pm, and look at what happened to the share price. The daily swings are primarily a function of speculation. The shares are still trading at a hefty premium compared to pre-Raine news, and were holding at $20+ for most of it. I am of the opinion that the action in the last few weeks is just a function of the uncertain timeline compared to what was previously reported, Ratcliffe repeatedly being billed as the favourite by the press, and the absence of news like in the winter that suggested the Qataris were just going to blow everyone away with an aggressive bid (by all accounts in the press, that does not appear to be the case).
Regarding "50% of takeovers are leaked" (based on trading activity before a public announcement), I can only speak from my experience, but that looks way off.
All I am personally taking from the share price is this: the market is still expecting there to be a transaction of some kind, but the market hates uncertainty and this process dragging out past what the media predicted + a lack of recent news on the Sheikh's bid have weighed it down. That combined with the pro-Ratcliffe news cycles. In my opinion, for reasons I outlined before, the activity is fueled entirely by speculation over whether there is a full takeover or not and should not be read as gospel to gauge which outcome is more likely.
The debt is on Manchester United. A new owner could pay it off (Qataris) or move it onto a different entity (INEOS), but it is not staying with the Glazers.
Raine was appointed by Manchester United plc, not the Glazers in a personal capacity. Football journalists are horrible at reporting on finance and aggregate it as, "Raine are working for the Glazers" because the Glazers control the Board, hold ~69% of shares, and control all company votes.
Interesting. It's a fact that all 3 religions relate to Abraham's God. So I find the dichotomy between religions somewhat surpassing. I'm Christian myself and I find certain Muslim countries (like Jordan) a place where i could easily fit in.
One of my first thought -collector's item.
I've read that story and the whole take is stupid beyond belief. I was worried though that the club may want to simplify the crest, just like Juve did few years back.
they are the best though, value form money-wise. Get discounted quickly
Thank you, I was wanting clarity as not a business person. I wanted clarification if Glazers are libel for anything which your statement states they are not, so I see they have no financial liability to pull the plug and stay if they so desire other than us hating them more than we already do, which of course they don't give a hoot. This I see is certainly an option that can't be discounted,
As I understand it Jamie, Joel was seen leaving SJ Dad’s hotel 2 weeks ago after discussing the new offer which surprisingly was made public in the next couple of days.
Wasn't it Avram who left the hotel?
You don't understand what a leveraged buyout is - Ratcliffe's offer is not a leveraged buyout. The Glazers used Utd as collateral in order to borrow the money they needed to buy the club, with the debt then immediately sitting on the club's books. Ratcliffe may use loans as part of the finance, but he has other assets to borrow against, unlike Malcolm Glazer.
Honestly, the rest of your post - comparing the Ratcliffe bid to Schofield??? - is just arrant nonsense and honestly, you should be embarrassed.
Yep I get confused by the two all the time !
You constructed an entire narrative based on two PR statements. That's impressive.
So no information at all, except for a "pledge" from one of the interested parties.
How can you honestly go and compare both bids then, stating facts?
Exactly. It might all be true in the end, but nobody knows shit at the moment.
And Qatar can promise all they want in a couple of tweets, we've seen these how these promises work from the Glazers in the last decade. Not saying it will happen again, but I'll judge when investment actually happens.
I don't, but I'm also not pushing my opinion based on guesses. All I'm saying is that a narrative is being pushed based on 2 lousy tweets, come on.
- Status