Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.

McGrathsipan

Dawn’s less famous husband
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
24,746
Location
Dublin
Someone should make a list of all the Twitter liars from the past 12 months and blacklist them
 

Jed I. Knight

The Mos Eisley Hillbilly
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
3,626
Location
Tatooine
Ratcliffe at the moment is essentially Viagra for the Glazers to enable them to keep fecking the club. He's just given them no reason to leave. They're having their cake and eating it.
Yup.
In all honesty.....and hear me out here....why does Ratcliffe need FULL control if the Footballing matters are in his control?

The footballing matters is what us fans care about the most. It's clear the Glazers know what they;'re doing with the commercial side.

Arguably the footballing side of the football club is worth a lot more than just 25%, not sure what else he needs to control?
Because there’s no such thing as “control of footballing matters” without majority ownership. It’s only “control of footballing matters at the mercy of the majority owner” as of now. Which is to say, the running of the club in all manners is still wholly in the hand of the Glazers.
 

Nogho

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
386
Location
Left this forum.
Over the moon this is finally done.

Sporting control has been wrested from the Glazers, at long last.

And we haven't become a pointless, soulless sportswashing club like Newcastle/Man City.

Here's to Sir Jim.
This - best Christmas present in a long while!

Cheers to Jimmy!
 

kerrygold

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
69
Supports
united
Someone paying @ 1.6 b for control of football operations, if you’ve watched even just this year, totally worth it as a fan. Have at it Jim. You literally cannot do any worse.
 

DownRiver

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 5, 2018
Messages
769
Questions:

1) Although INEOS will run football operations, they need to allocate money for transfers. It will be up to the Glazers to allocate how much money is put into the bucket for spending?

2) If INEOS run football operations, this means that if Glazers do ever sell their part of the club, no one would want to buy their stake (unless you are a hedge fund/private equity) as they will have zero say on footballing matters. This means we will not got a Qatar or Saudi Arabia etc, just money hungry investors in the future. Our only hope is the Glazers to sell their remaining stake to INEOS.
 

Rojofiam

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
3,574
No idea. Offering the Glazers their own oil refinery?

I don't think it will happen, I'm just being amused at the thought of it.
Ratcliffe will have a "first refusal" option if the Glazers are going to sell further shares. Also, the only reason he amended his initial offers for a full takeover back around April is because the Glazers asked for it. I don't see how he wouldn't just buy the whole club outright if it was an option.
 

DownRiver

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 5, 2018
Messages
769
For me, I would like to give a question about the stadium, and what plans they have.
 

hobbers

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
28,714
Scroll back a few pages, it’s literally in the last few tweets! :houllier:
I dont really care about what some nobody from 90min football is saying about it. Actual confirmation by the club or Ineos or at least something on Sky or BBC.
 

spiriticon

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
7,523
Ratcliffe will have a "first refusal" option if the Glazers are going to sell further shares. Also, the only reason he amended his initial offers for a full takeover back around April is because the Glazers asked for it. I don't see how he wouldn't just buy the whole club outright if it was an option.
I have no problem with Sir Jim buying the club outright if he has the dosh. I also don't have a problem with the Sheikh if he wants to come in and conduct joint business with the Glazers and Sir Jim.

Anything is possible and I have no clue how this will turn out.

Edit: The more players we have in the game, the more we move back to a PLC-like share structure like we had before and maybe that's a good thing.
 
Last edited:

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
58,156
Location
Canada
He's a minority share holder, how exactly do you think it works?

I'm no expert but in the UK special resolutions, i.e. stopping fundamental changes to the company like changing it's name or using company cash to buy shares, require a 75%+ vote, but most decisions require a 50%+ vote.

It's likely that all this delay has been because both sides needed to define exactly how these things would work and what kind of decisions would require whose approval but there's no way the Glazers have just handed over control of the football team to a minority share holder in perpetuity with no way to regain control if it all goes (even more) pear shaped.
The Glazers didn't own 100% of the club. Ratcliffe will have the highest proportion of shares now at the club, individually.

They didn't hand over control for nothing. Ratcliffe paid them 1 billion quid to take control. He now owns the football side, not with caveats, he just owns it as he partially owns the club just like Avram Glazer partially owns the club and Joel Glazer partially owns the club. They can't just vote him out, that's not how it works. It's contractually stipulated that he owns the football operations now. He's not 2nd in command to the Glazers, he doesn't report to them. He's just in charge of that stuff, that's it.

There is a similar deal in basketball where Mark Cuban sold a large percentage of the Dallas Mavericks but retained control of basketball operations. Levy doesn't own Spurs, but he does control the footballing side.

Besides, this is an easy win for the Glazers. They get 1 billion to split amongst them, and they don't have to be responsible for or worry about the most important part of the business which also happens to be the hardest part to get right with a ton of variables which they clearly were never bothered to actually put much energy in. They can now just sit back and take their money, see the asset rise in value as somebody else does the work and takes the flak.
 

Amarsdd

Full Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
3,299
I dont really care about what some nobody from 90min football is saying about it. Actual confirmation by the club or Ineos or at least something on Sky or BBC.
What would an actual confirmation from the club would look like other than "INEOS delegated responsibility for management of football operations"? I don't think the club will come out and say Joel has been shit and will have no say at the footballing decisions
 

Giggsyking

Full Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
8,593
What a sad day in the history of the club. The day that the Glazers secure their place here for the rest of the clubs history.
 

Giggsyking

Full Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
8,593
The Glazers not only staying indefinitely, but also have someone to blame from now on if anything footballing wise go south. The made the perfect deal for them.
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,806
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
What an absolutely fantastic deal for the Glazers and nobody else
 

NWRed

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
1,180
The Glazers didn't own 100% of the club. Ratcliffe will have the highest proportion of shares now at the club, individually.

They didn't hand over control for nothing. Ratcliffe paid them 1 billion quid to take control. He now owns the football side, not with caveats, he just owns it as he partially owns the club just like Avram Glazer partially owns the club and Joel Glazer partially owns the club. They can't just vote him out, that's not how it works. It's contractually stipulated that he owns the football operations now. He's not 2nd in command to the Glazers, he doesn't report to them. He's just in charge of that stuff, that's it.

There is a similar deal in basketball where Mark Cuban sold a large percentage of the Dallas Mavericks but retained control of basketball operations. Levy doesn't own Spurs, but he does control the footballing side.

Besides, this is an easy win for the Glazers. They get 1 billion to split amongst them, and they don't have to be responsible for or worry about the most important part of the business which also happens to be the hardest part to get right with a ton of variables which they clearly were never bothered to actually put much energy in. They can now just sit back and take their money, see the asset rise in value as somebody else does the work and takes the flak.
After this deal the Glazers will, collectively, still own 51.75% of the shares, all (or virtually all) class B shares. They vote and behave as a collective unit and Ratcliffe is in the minority. Believing anything else is simply deluding yourself.

Where is this contract that stipulates that Ratcliffe now 'owns' the football side? And how did you get your hands on it?

The wording in the statement was as follows


I know this deal is sweet for the Glazers, that's what's making my blood boil.
 

Munkehboi

Full Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
1,092
Location
Luke Shaw's bum
At least we have some expertise in the footballing side of the business. In reality this may be the best outcome. Guess we were a bit naive thinking the leeches would leave. At least they will relinquish the footballing side to Sir Jim's team. On paper they all look very promising. Had a read up on some and Jean Claude Blanc stands out. Plus he looks way more handsome and smoother than Richard Arnold!
 

hobbers

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
28,714
What would an actual confirmation from the club would look like other than "INEOS delegated responsibility for management of football operations"? I don't think the club will come out and say Joel has been shit and will have no say at the footballing decisions
i mean the deal that’s been announced explains it?
'Ineos running the football side' and 'The glazers have no power or veto over any football decision' are two very different things.
 

Big Ben Foster

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
13,040
Location
BR -> MI -> TX
Supports
Also support Vasco da Gama
After this deal the Glazers will, collectively, still own 51.75% of the shares, all (or virtually all) class B shares. They vote and behave as a collective unit and Ratcliffe is in the minority. Believing anything else is simply deluding yourself.

Where is this contract that stipulates that Ratcliffe now 'owns' the football side? And how did you get your hands on it?

The wording in the statement was as follows


I know this deal is sweet for the Glazers, that's what's making my blood boil.
They don't though, hence this entire process taking such a long time. J&A have different interests vs the other four siblings.
 

Amarsdd

Full Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
3,299
'Ineos running the football side' and 'The glazers have no power or veto over any football decision' are two very different things.
So again, I'm asking you what would a club statement regarding that would look like?
 

JediSith

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 13, 2023
Messages
980
You were guessing just like everyone else. No pat on the back for you.
Not really. There was no factual or logical reason for anyone to believe that Jim put an obligation to buy clause. Also anyone who was using that as a justification for supporting Jim’s bid should really now reassess . But as the saying goes “it’s easier to con someone then it is to convince someone they’ve been conned “
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
3,816
It is just factually incorrect. It's like saying a cat is a dog.
No, it's not. If you buy a share of Apple from some other random person, then you are investing in Apple even though no money goes to the company. This is extremely basic terminology. It is not inaccurate, it is not confusing, it is not ambiguous in any way.
 

NWRed

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
1,180
They don't though, hence this entire process taking such a long time. J&A have different interests vs the other four siblings.
We don't actually know what happened to cause the process to take such a long time. For the Glazers it actually pretty quick. It took them 2.5 years to appoint a sporting director and according to the Athletic only pulled the trigger because Murtough was about to walk.
 

CallyRed

Full Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
11,226
Atleast now if we are shit on the pitch the Glazers can say thats nothing to do with us r kid
 
Status
Not open for further replies.