Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
DomesticTadpole said:
So is Ratcliffe being blamed for Mercedes not winning, maybe it is Red Bull found a better driver, that Lewis Hamilton is still good but not as good as he was. Red Bull might have better engineers building their cars. There will be a lot of factors, but lets blame Sir Jim Ratcliffe.
Click to expand...

The problem is all the ignorant people in this thread who keep saying 'but look at the success he's achieved in other sports'.

He/Ineos are not responsible for any of Team Sky/Mercedes' past achievements.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
Some reports say full control as early as 2024 and existing debt stays where it is with a plan in place and new debt transferred to INEOS books.
Click to expand...
Don’t get why the glazers didn’t accept the Qatar offer and be done with it rather than another drawn out saga unless the INEOS offer to buy the rest of the shares is at an inflated price.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
Some reports say full control as early as 2024 and existing debt stays where it is with a plan in place and new debt transferred to INEOS books.
Click to expand...
Links to sources that say 2024? Or are you referring to the sporting control clause?
 
Mr Pigeon said:
We've got someone who is actually buying us, as opposed to SJ who talked a lot through the press and ultimately did bugger all.
Click to expand...

Yeah and if he's real he's clearly a bit thick. Because he could have easily given up on owning 100% and diluted the extra investment set aside to make sure the deal actually closed.

But the reason we only had a clown and a fraud bidding for us is because the Glazers are an especially deluded band of leeches.
 
Rojofiam said:
Can Ineos remove our debt and take it on for themselves?

If yes, would that ease our FFP restrictions and allow us to spend more than we would normally be able to otherwise?
Click to expand...

The debt isn't really a restriction for United from an FFP standpoint. So yes Ineos could take responsibility of the debt and no it would change very little from an FFP standpoint.
 
Rojofiam said:
Can Ineos remove our debt and take it on for themselves?

If yes, would that ease our FFP restrictions and allow us to spend more than we would normally be able to otherwise?
Click to expand...
The line was always "no new debt", right? I can't see them clearing it when only a minority stake.
MegadrivePerson said:
Nice bid £100 million plus Todibo for Maguire?
Click to expand...
Such corruption :drool:
 
Rojofiam said:
Can Ineos remove our debt and take it on for themselves?

If yes, would that ease our FFP restrictions and allow us to spend more than we would normally be able to otherwise?
Click to expand...

Yes, the one thing that made me revaluate The Rats Deal is that he’s now starting to mentioning paying of the debt in stages with an initially £150-200m being made immediately should he assume sone type of control, however there is no magic wand after that INEOS would expect the club to start to pay off considerable chunkson It’s own of a 3-5 year period. It’s a gamble but assume the club debt is currently £650, forget amortisation transfer debt and repaying the credit line. The historical debt is the one serviced with interest charges of probably £20-35m per year subject to monetary exchange rate.

By paying £200m this summer 2024, the debt reduces to say £450m and the interest payments to service the debt reduce to £14-23m then in 2025, the club makes a Huge profit of £150m, and they pay another £100m off the debt to £350m interest rate payments go down, this pattern continues 2028 and by the time Ratcliffe takes over 51% controlling stake the debt might be now under £150m and paying that off will seem insignificant compared to other costs.
 
hobbers said:
Yeah and if he's real he's clearly a bit thick. Because he could have easily given up on owning 100% and diluted the extra investment set aside to make sure the deal actually closed.
Click to expand...
Hes thick for not wanting to share ownership? (not just with the Glazers, but other investors)

On the contrary running a football club is difficult enough without having to justify return on investment for shareholders vs sporting decisions.

Alot of reason the club is the way it is right now is that return on investment for shareholders takes ultimate precedence over football.
 
JPRouve said:
The debt isn't really a restriction for United from an FFP standpoint. So yes Ineos could take responsibility of the debt and no it would change very little from an FFP standpoint.
Click to expand...
Providing the Directors use the £105m debt loophole clause from FFP which means they would have to put £30m from their own pockets into the club in each of the next three years.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
If he's so amazing then why does his company's new range of wines taste like shit?

582298011_0_640x640.jpg
Click to expand...

What an idiot, been washing my hands with this stuff :(
 
Woziak said:
Yes, the one thing that made me revaluate The Rats Deal is that he’s now starting to mentioning paying of the debt in stages with an initially £150-200m being made immediately should he assume sone type of control, however there is no magic wand after that INEOS would expect the club to start to pay off considerable chunkson It’s own of a 3-5 year period. It’s a gamble but assume the club debt is currently £650, forget amortisation transfer debt and repaying the credit line. The historical debt is the one serviced with interest charges of probably £20-35m per year subject to monetary exchange rate.

By paying £200m this summer 2024, the debt reduces to say £450m and the interest payments to service the debt reduce to £14-23m then in 2025, the club makes a Huge profit of £150m, and they pay another £100m off the debt to £350m interest rate payments go down, this pattern continues 2028 and by the time Ratcliffe takes over 51% controlling stake the debt might be now under £150m and paying that off will seem insignificant compared to other costs.
Click to expand...

JPRouve said:
The debt isn't really a restriction for United from an FFP standpoint. So yes Ineos could take responsibility of the debt and no it would change very little from an FFP standpoint.
Click to expand...

Thanks, hopefully we'll know more by the end of the week.

Ubik said:
The line was always "no new debt", right? I can't see them clearing it when only a minority stake.
Click to expand...

If there are contractual obligations for Ineos to eventually get full control over the club along with buying up 100% of the shares, there's no reason why they wouldn't start putting money in from day one.
 
That failed Ratcliffe 50.1% board bid tells us the club has been completely fractured for months with the board split and the two senior people in terms of football and CEO knowing they’re likely gone shortly - plus countless other staff. We’ve also had staff threatening to quit on mass over Greenwood - and a constant source of leaks against Arnold in recent weeks to the Athletic - plus the continual protests.This club is completely divided and it will take a huge miracle to get people United. Ratcliffe is being proper ballsy here. He’s investing money that will only allow him football control - he is now going to be the face of football decisions and their successes/failures. He’s also not getting the “benefits” - initially anyway - of controlling the business side. And he’s doing all this in the most competitive league around - against a backdrop of state powered behemoth City and future behemoth Newcastle. I mean I get the distrust and the fact he’s obviously a cnut politically - but this is a self-made billionaire from the area who supported United as a kid that has tried numerous ways to buy the club - and has now fought off a state to buy a 25% stake for a significant fee that enables him to only be in charge of the sporting decisions making him the face of everything because he thinks he’s the one to fix everything…it’s ballsy as feck even if it is potentially very stupid.
 
A good strong, British name is Jim. And a Sir too. We've truly hit the jackpot after all these years :devil:
 
BobFromParva said:
People keep quoting city because they serve as an outstanding example of excellent business, sporting and community success.
I’m not a city fan, just a lower league football supporter who takes an interest in the upper echelons of the game, and I can tell you with absolute conviction that it’s only fans of the clubs who rival city (the dippers with their empire built on earnings from the mystery of gambling especially), the supporters of those clubs who tried to keep new investment out of football to protect the dominance of their cartel, who see city as having broken any kind of moral code.
And anyhow, the billion charges (as ridiculous as they are) are still nothing but charges and the only conviction they ever received under ffp was for being slow to engage with a process that had changed some rules that had been complied with but were then changed after the fact.

In all fairness, the Utd fans who understand how the system works (the vast majority of them, which is what makes this forum such a joy) don’t engage on the topic in the poorly informed way that you have because clever people who live in glass houses are clued up enough to not throw stuff, it’s only the occasional duffer who spouts your line nowadays mate.
And outside of the supporters of the cartel clubs almost all supporters see ffp and unproven charges for exactly what they are.
Click to expand...

You are definitely a City fan, and that’s OK
 
Lyng said:
I bet you used something that is financed by Qatar in some way as well.
My whole point throughout this is precisely that there is no morally better option. They are both rotten one way or the other.
But given that Qatar has pulled out its a moot point anyway.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I have but I haven't said a word about the reasons for choosing one bid over or another, there's been a whole lot of hypocrisy in that debate where, according to some, INEOS are no better than Qatar because they are both involved in the fossil fuel business, yet they're quite happy to use the end products of both
 
Rojofiam said:
Thanks, hopefully we'll know more by the end of the week.



If there are contractual obligations for Ineos to eventually get full control over the club along with buying up 100% of the shares, there's no reason why they wouldn't start putting money in from day one.
Click to expand...
With regard to this, the answer must be yes as it’s a self fulfilling strategy, investment should lead to better team on and off the pitch, which means the club value only grows however poor investment and a poor management structure as we have seen in the last 10 years leads to mediocrity, vitriol from the fanbase and generally dark clouds around the club.

Ed Woodward was the chief architect of this current Man United financial disaster model, enabled by the Glazers.
 
Cassidy said:
Hes thick for not wanting to share ownership? (not just with the Glazers, but other investors)

On the contrary running a football club is difficult enough without having to justify return on investment for shareholders vs sporting decisions.

Alot of reason the club is the way it is right now is that return on investment for shareholders takes ultimate precedence over football.
Click to expand...

Yes he's thick for not planning a way to first wrestle the club from the Glazers as an opening move. Buying the rest of the shareholders could have come down the line, same with other planned investment.

By the way, the Glazers dont behave in the way they do because of our minority shareholders. They aren't the ones limiting us.
 
hobbers said:
Yes he's thick for not planning a way to first wrestle the club from the Glazers as an opening move. Buying the rest of the shareholders could have come down the line, same with other planned investment.

By the way, the Glazers dont behave in the way they do because of our minority shareholders. They aren't the ones limiting us.
Click to expand...

Think thats a silly take.
You are either interested in a full sale or not. Not wanting to take part as a minority shareholder even in the short term is not thick, that is just a difference in investment profile/requirements
 
Woziak said:
Initially yes the share price will drop, maybe as low as $16-17, however the INEOS board have promised somewhere in the range $41-43 per share to both Class A and Class B. They have suggested that because of the additional investment required on the playing and sporting side of the club, they can only afford to offer 25% as a windfall today.

Sir Jim is now starting to discuss a further £1 billion investment which will include stadium modernisation , minor improvements at carrington, £90m inclusive of Director investment for FFP and then potentially an additional £300m on new players added to an initial payment of £200m to be paid from the historical debt of £635m. This is probably, when all added up is the other £1.5 billion they had originally set aside to buy the club, they should be able to see huge improvements on the field and In the financial day to day running of the club. The Club and stadium investment pays for itself with a proposed increase of 15,000 seats to the stadiums capacity.

Hypothetically let’s say by some miracle ETH starts wining, more focused by knowing he has to prove himself to Sir Jim and by some miracle he ends up with 9 points in CL, qualifies for the round of 16, his team have moved up to say 6th in PL with 35 points at the New year point after 20 PL games and he’s 4 points off top 4, the share price will start to go up.

He has a successful winter transfer window and makes the top 5 this summer then in the following two years, he’s successful, coming 2nd and then 3rd again by wining a couple of cups along the way, maybe even making a CL Semi Final this will increase the share price exponentially.

If by 2027 the new stadium is ready and
New TV deals allow increased revenues of let’s £800m and even though though FSP is 70% which means the club can only spend £560m on wages, finances, net transfer fees, agent fees amortised transfer etc. It’s fair to assume that INEOS initial investment of £500m, forget the Stadium that would be separate line of investment (self funding and paid by sponsorship initiatives) could provide an improvement on the pitch but also during the period from 2024 to 2028, the debt could have been significantly reduced from £635m to £150-200m which is more easily managed by the increased revenues and profits.

At this point Share prices could reach $40-45 and therefore put and call clause’s automatically activated. It all still hypothetical and questions like ;

1. Where does the money come from that Ineos are proposing to invest and will it be repaid ?
2. How much money will be made available for the next three transfer windows?
3. How do they intend to modernise old Trafford into a 90,000 stadium when most fans know it needs major surgery and surely it would be easier to just build snotger
4. Will the existing debt be paid off in manageable chunks over a 3-4 year period
5. Will the Directors of the club invest the £30m necessary over the next three years to prevent FFP sanctions.
6. can the fans have a binding agreement in a manifesto that no fragging shall ever be done at any ground owned by the Club?
7. If Sir Jim Is becoming a co owner, can he state in this manifesto that should Nice and Man united both qualify for the same European competition that united would always play in the most prestigious and Nice relegated to Europa or Conference league football?

There are many more questions but these need to be answered before the vote on Thursday to the 12 board directors making the most important decision for the club this century

I’m gradually coming round to the view that INEOS will take over and the board will ratify this on Thursday. Even if we assume 4 members out of 12 vote against Ratcliffe’s proposal that simply won’t be enough to stop his minority buy in to the business.

I have always assumed that INEOS are buying 25% of the Class B shares which is 28.25m from the 113m and approximately 12.75m of the 51m Class A shares, giving them 41m of the 164m shares available which is exactly 25%.

I would presume that the INEOS lawyers have a ‘Co Ownership’ contract where there are numerous ‘put and call’ agreement clauses and the minimum value per share can be activated by either party in line with the original purchase and future increases.

The matter of the 28.25m class B voting shares which have 10 times the voting rights must have a special dispensation clause in the contract which is to be agreed under the new co ownership structure that these shares do not revert to class A when sold. INEOS are just too smart not to have these clauses in the ‘Buy In’ option they are trying to get board approval for.

Finally on the subject of his actually voting power after the initially 25% purchase you have to assume that 113m class b shares have 1.13 billion(Due to 10* Factor) plus the 51m class A shares would mean that INEOS now have 292.25m voting shares against a total of 1.181 billion so simple math you buy 25%, you own 25% you now have 25% voting power as well.

I say all of this based on speculation from the press with regard to actual numbers , INEOS 25% minority buy out has changed from $1.875bn to $1.75 billion to £1.5 billion to £1.3 billion to now more recently £1.4 billion.
Click to expand...


All good points mate.

Im a not sure we can rely on INEOS making any further investment beyond their purchase of 25%. Why would you pump in an extra cash when you only own 25% of the pie? Becasuse we assume The Glazers wouldnt match that investment.

Im looking at this from a Lindsell Train or Ariel Investments perspective, as we believe they have caused a stink previously. The Glazers had an offer from Qatar that would have bought all those class A shares are circa $40 a share. IPO price was $14 and the stock has fluctuated between $11 and $25. Regardless of when the bought in, and of course they could have bought/sold stock over time at different levels, they would have made a fantastic return on the Qatar deal.

Although we are not sure about how this 25% investment will be split, this INEOS deal may, at best, buy half the shares owned by Lindsell, Ariel etc. If I'm them, I'm furious. I want my $40 a share now for all of my shares, now. I don't want to be told that INEOS may do this, that or the other and that a new TV deal etc may come. On pitch performance is great, but it doesn't take my stock value from $17 to $40. Only thing that does that is a potential buy out and the current sale process has showed us there isnt anyone who can buy the whole club at the price The Glazers want.

If you are leaving me holding half of my stock, i want a guarantee that I am going to be made whole. Which just leads me to believe that there will be guarantees for those shareholders that they will be fully bought out by INEOS.
 
Cassidy said:
Think thats a silly take.
You are either interested in a full sale or not. Not wanting to take part as a minority shareholder even in the short term is not thick, that is just a difference in investment profile/requirements
Click to expand...

???

Who said anything about him being a minority investor? Obviously the point I made is he could have focused on buying out the Glazers 69% and left buying out minority investors for a later date.
 
hobbers said:
???

Who said anything about him being a minority investor? Obviously the point I made is he could have focused on buying out the Glazers 69% and left buying out minority investors for a later date.
Click to expand...

He only bid for the 69%, there was nothing else to purchase in this process. Only the Glazer shares were at play either entirely or partially.
 
Mickeza said:
That failed Ratcliffe 50.1% board bid tells us the club has been completely fractured for months with the board split and the two senior people in terms of football and CEO knowing they’re likely gone shortly - plus countless other staff. We’ve also had staff threatening to quit on mass over Greenwood - and a constant source of leaks against Arnold in recent weeks to the Athletic - plus the continual protests.This club is completely divided and it will take a huge miracle to get people United. Ratcliffe is being proper ballsy here. He’s investing money that will only allow him football control - he is now going to be the face of football decisions and their successes/failures. He’s also not getting the “benefits” - initially anyway - of controlling the business side. And he’s doing all this in the most competitive league around - against a backdrop of state powered behemoth City and future behemoth Newcastle. I mean I get the distrust and the fact he’s obviously a cnut politically - but this is a self-made billionaire from the area who supported United as a kid that has tried numerous ways to buy the club - and has now fought off a state to buy a 25% stake for a significant fee that enables him to only be in charge of the sporting decisions making him the face of everything because he thinks he’s the one to fix everything…it’s ballsy as feck even if it is potentially very stupid.
Click to expand...
Sir Jim likes to bend the rules and manipulate them to suit his agenda, however I’m willing to give him a chance to prove me wrong with UNITED.

I just have a feeling that Greenwood and Martial will both or either end up Nice with a £50m payment andUnited will but K Thurman and Todibo for £90m so £40m difference, would not be surprised that he is able to clear the path for both teams to qualify for CL by stating he is not the main owner of united, the Glazers are!

if overstretching was A hobby than Jimmy definitely the Man, who loves his fingers in every pie!
 
Last edited:
JPRouve said:
He only bid for the 69%, there was nothing else to purchase in this process. Only the Glazer shares were at play either entirely or partially.
Click to expand...

Jassim's bids were always for 100% of the club..?

Obviously had he not had owning the club out right immediately as a red line, he could have offered more for the Glazers' 69%.
 
hobbers said:
Jassim's bids were always for 100% of the club..?

Obviously had he not had owning the club out right immediately as a red line, he could have offered more for the Glazers' 69%.
Click to expand...

No. It was 100% of the Glazer's shares.
 
AbusementPark said:
Don’t get why the glazers didn’t accept the Qatar offer and be done with it rather than another drawn out saga unless the INEOS offer to buy the rest of the shares is at an inflated price.
Click to expand...

Because once the Premier League decide to release a streaming platform, stream all the games themselves and remove the 3pm blackout the club worth will probably skyrocket.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.