Glazers selling a significant amount of shares

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
10,274
I rest my case.
Rest your case all you want. When fans are allowed back in ground get a ticket in the Stretty and tell everyone how good our owners are. I wager you will get sparked out within 5 mins.

These owners have been disastrous. There's no debate to be had. It's just a stone cold hard fact.
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
34,337
Rest your case all you want. When fans are allowed back in ground get a ticket in the Stretty and tell everyone how good our owners are. I wager you will get sparked out within 5 mins.

These owners have been disastrous. There's no debate to be had. It's just a stone cold hard fact.
Yeah totally agree I would keep quiet about thinking our ownership is any good, think you will find the majority feel they are absolute scumbag yankee leeches who have done so much damage to this great club in the last 16 years
 

SinNombre

Full Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
2,626
People here don't seem to understand how different clubs operate

A. Owners who have put in a lot of their personal wealth into the club
Chelsea ( £1.3 billion put in by Abra as debt to a club owned by him)
City, PSG > 1B of money into the club
Villa > 250M of owner money in the club --> they are a club that are somehow flying under the radar and not receiving the same criticism City and PSG have.
Inter

B. Clubs that reinvest every dollar generated back in the club and borrow to do more
RM, Barca

C. Owners that actively take money out of the club and have not invested a single dollar/pound ever
United (>250M) and Spurs(>100M) are the worst here where owners are constantly taking money out of the club.


Glazers are not sustainable for long-term United success. They haven't been the worst owners, and have provided stable ownership, but the club cannot run as a profit-making enterprise and still compete with billionaire owners ploughing in their own money and clubs like RM/Barca who are happy to spend more than what they make.
 

Sassy Colin

Death or the gladioli!
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
70,761
Location
Aliens are in control of my tagline & location
Rest your case all you want. When fans are allowed back in ground get a ticket in the Stretty and tell everyone how good our owners are. I wager you will get sparked out within 5 mins.

These owners have been disastrous. There's no debate to be had. It's just a stone cold hard fact.
Have you got any idea what this thread is about or are you just having a general rant?

If you want to throw your toys out of the pram about the Glazers, there's plenty of threads to do that in.

Shareholder sells small parcel of shares which makes little difference to the club, in the great scheme of things. That's all, it's really no biggee.
 

Brad2020

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
91
The Glazer's are just cashing in to make a bit of profit. Stock prices have been riding high this month.

The offering is expected to close on the 16th (Next Tuesday) so you can look at the stock price than to calculate their surplus.

In has nothing to do with ownership, the sell off has only dropped their ownership share from 78% to around 75%.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/Man Utd/
 

Rampant Red Rodriguez

Scared of women, so hates them.
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
972
Here's a question: what if it's to boost our transfer kitty this summer?. Will we all love the ginger family again
 

stw2022

New Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
3,687
Glazer's aside I think I would rather have an ownership structure that sought to have the club reliant on itself to grow as opposed to reliant on the whims of a billionaire benefactor. Whatever else you can say about HOW the club was taken over and the morals of the current owners, the principle of the club growing because of finances the club can generate either through match day, television or commercial revenues is absolutely the more sustainable and viable long-term structure as opposed to 'let's hope for the next 20 years we're owed by someone with deep pockets'

If we were owned by someone from a family with appalling human rights record the odds are he won't, but there's a chance tomorrow he'll lose interest. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe next year. Maybe not next year maybe 10 years. Maybe 20. Maybe he never will but when he dies those who inherit the club as an 'asset', might be as interested in owning the club as Germaine Greer is in owning a chain of Hooters restaurants. Then who knows what happens?

For me ONE positive about the current structure - and much as been made about how little the owners have personally invested - is that the club relies on nobody else but the club for its financial security. I might want us to have different owners but I'd want the principle of the club being able to sustain itself independent of those owners to continue.
 

Prodigal7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
2,231
Location
Daenerys' pants
Can we change the thread name to “Glazers selling an insignificant amount of shares”? It’s about 5% of class A shares and therefore has no impact on their control of the club.
 

Lappen

Full Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Messages
332
Location
Sweden
Yea there's a difference between pumping money in and investing money that you'll take back at some point as you pointed out there :lol:
Yes they all probably call the "invesment" an investment, and they all believe it will pay of in the future.
Our owners don't do that. They don't invest there own money in Man Utd, they just take out what they have the right to call there money. (Other can do this asvell) Nothing wrong with that if you don't have any thought of being a good owner of a football club.
For me that is the problem. They don't want to be football club owners. I quite sure they would through away the football-part in this business if it was possible to make the same amount of money without it. They don't like the Manchester United football club. And I'm guessing they are a bit embarrassed about the United part as well.

To compare something ore someone there is a point in compare it with a possible comparable thing. Premierlaegue owner with other premierleague owners. And its quite obvious from the list I mentioned that there are other owners that have the willingness to support the club they own, a lot more compered to what ours wants to do.

I'm not saying they can't do worse! Of course they can! They can do a hell of a lott better as well. At least in a supporting way of looking at it.
 

Josep Dowling

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
7,622
Glazers are not sustainable for long-term United success. They haven't been the worst owners, and have provided stable ownership, but the club cannot run as a profit-making enterprise and still compete with billionaire owners ploughing in their own money and clubs like RM/Barca who are happy to spend more than what they make.
In some respects I disagree with this. Shouldn’t all club be run as successful businesses making profits? After all many clubs are push to their limit with finances to achieve success which has caused the downfall of clubs like Bolton and Bury.

Your argument is that the only way to improve United’s success is for some form of ultra rich family like the Saudi Royal family purchase the club. Then you have exactly the same arguments when it comes to City’s success.

We could have much better owners for sure. The way they took over the club shouldn’t be legal, I think most of us can agree on that. But ultimately the club has still spent millions more than most Premier League clubs in recent years. I believe we are second in transfer spend in England for the last 10 years, only behind City. Net spent wise we fair far worse because we are terrible at selling players. The club has massively underperformed with what has been provided. We should be doing much better without buying a £100m player every single summer.
 

Aouer-United

Full Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
270
I don't understand how A and B shares work. At the moment, the Glazers family's share in the club is at 78% assuming that sales haven't gone through but if they reduced it down to 10%, they probably would be the majority owner because of B shares votes right? Or they'll be forced out by the shareholders to give up shares?
 

ATXRedDevil

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
1,051
Location
The Live Music Capital of the World
I don't understand how A and B shares work. At the moment, the Glazers family's share in the club is at 78% assuming that sales haven't gone through but if they reduced it down to 10%, they probably would be the majority owner because of B shares votes right? Or they'll be forced out by the shareholders to give up shares?
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001549107/000110465921035115/tm219125-2_424b7.htm#tDOSC

the offering prospectus has a description of share capital section. You canread about it there.

there’s a difference between voting control and economic ownership, though. Bs have 10 votes and As have one. If there were 100 shares outstanding, 90 As and 10 Bs, the 90 As would be entitled to 90% of the dividends but only 90/190 votes.
However, “At any time that the holders of the Class B ordinary shares together hold Class B ordinary shares representing at least 10% of the total number of Class A and Class B ordinary shares outstanding, the voting power permitted to be exercised by the holders of the Class B shares will be weighted such that the Class B shares shall represent, in the aggregate, 67% of the voting power of all shareholders entitled to receive notice of, attend and vote at any meeting convened to consider a special resolution.”

so basically as long as 10% of all shares are Class B shares,all Class B shares aggregated represents 67% of the voting power, so as long as they all vote together they can pass anything (I’m not a Cayman lawyer, but I don’t think there’s anything in the Cayman Islands Companies Law that requires greater than a 662/3% vote to pass, and certainly won’t be in the company’s organizational documents).
 

DanClancy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,360
I'm aware these Class A shares have 10% of the voting rights that the shares the Glazer family own but is their a limit on how many these Class A shares they can offer? It will be just over 25% if Avram Glazers issue is taken up

Anyone know?
 

DoomSlayer

New Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
4,875
Location
Bulgaria
In some respects I disagree with this. Shouldn’t all club be run as successful businesses making profits? After all many clubs are push to their limit with finances to achieve success which has caused the downfall of clubs like Bolton and Bury.

Your argument is that the only way to improve United’s success is for some form of ultra rich family like the Saudi Royal family purchase the club. Then you have exactly the same arguments when it comes to City’s success.

We could have much better owners for sure. The way they took over the club shouldn’t be legal, I think most of us can agree on that. But ultimately the club has still spent millions more than most Premier League clubs in recent years. I believe we are second in transfer spend in England for the last 10 years, only behind City. Net spent wise we fair far worse because we are terrible at selling players. The club has massively underperformed with what has been provided. We should be doing much better without buying a £100m player every single summer.
If you gave your child 100 pounds/dollars/euro or the equivalent of it in the currency you use, and your child goes and spends it all on fresh cow turd manure instead of buying groceries for the family, whose fault is that?
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
9,871
No - we generate our own revenue - we just need someone who’s not going to bleed the club dry and spend the revenue we generate on the club. When we can match the spending of the oil clubs - the Citys, the Chelseas, the Liverpools, then we can start matching them in competition
In reality anybody who buys us, unless a die hard very rich fan, will want to run it as a business and take dividends out.
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
9,871
Do you know what the best thing to happen would be?
FFP is scrapped. Short term this would work against the glazers as Utd would be competing against the financial might of City Chelsea Leicester and all the other billionaire owners of football teams, being able to bring in who they want. Once Utd couldnt afford the best players and kids and started to not qualify for the Champions League for a few seasons, they would soon sell up. Harsh medicine for fans I know, but thats the only way I can see them leaving.
 

Water Melon

Guest
Do you know what the best thing to happen would be?
FFP is scrapped. Short term this would work against the glazers as Utd would be competing against the financial might of City Chelsea Leicester and all the other billionaire owners of football teams, being able to bring in who they want. Once Utd couldnt afford the best players and kids and started to not qualify for the Champions League for a few seasons, they would soon sell up. Harsh medicine for fans I know, but thats the only way I can see them leaving.
Unfortunately, I agree with this. I doubt Glazers are willing to invest any of non-club-generated money in the club. We are saddled with debt, we are servicing this debt, we still pay out our dividends. The more United stay out of CL the more the leeches will think of selling their asset. You can not milk a cow forever, if you do not take care of it properly.
 

ROFLUTION

Full Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
7,547
Location
Denmark
Do you know what the best thing to happen would be?
FFP is scrapped. Short term this would work against the glazers as Utd would be competing against the financial might of City Chelsea Leicester and all the other billionaire owners of football teams, being able to bring in who they want. Once Utd couldnt afford the best players and kids and started to not qualify for the Champions League for a few seasons, they would soon sell up. Harsh medicine for fans I know, but thats the only way I can see them leaving.
If their hen lays eggs, why would they sell? These type of "idealistic" scenarios never pan out as you imagine. Lot of democratic poeple thought Trump was a good thing too, as everything could burn to the ground and then be rebuild and Sanders then take over. Not a direct comparison, but just to say that these supporter doomsday scenarios rarely actually go the wishful way as theyre driven by egocentric incentives i.e making consistent money over the next 50 years. Arsenal still have Koenke and are satisfied with current spending - Glazers might as well be too.
 

fezzerUTD

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
1,331
If you gave your child 100 pounds/dollars/euro or the equivalent of it in the currency you use, and your child goes and spends it all on fresh cow turd manure instead of buying groceries for the family, whose fault is that?
The parent for not raising their child properly.
 

Tom Cato

Godt nyttår!
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
7,565
Guys, this is an underwritten secondary offering done as a block trade/bought deal. JPM is the underwriter and will buy the shares and turn around and sell them. He’s not selling to a single investor with long term ownership aspirations. This is a standard way that significant stockholders of public companies sell equity to raise capital. Sometimes it’s because they’re exiting the business, sometimes it’s because the stock appreciated and they want some cash. This is the latter.

for those interested, here’s the offering prospectus. I draft these for a living (and am actually drafting one right now for another public company) and can tell you this means nothing for long term ownership.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001549107/000110465921035115/tm219125-2_424b7.htm#sSESH
Consindering the ownership structure of the club, I don't see any situation in which the Glazers sell any percentage of shares that relinquishes control without a full buyout by a very wealthy investor or investorgroup.

The investment into Manchester United have been an absolute dream for the Glazer family. They have no reason whatsoever to sell.

It's been more than 15 years now, they are not going anywhere. They and their enormous leveraged loan the club gets to (never) pay off by itself is here to stay. Loans for companies in most cases are great, it's what makes them tick, but for Manchester United it's nothing more than an outright disaster that will forever affect the clubs ability to "go big", until Daddy Jeff comes and swipes the Amazon creditcard.
 

Roboc7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
6,562
Do you know what the best thing to happen would be?
FFP is scrapped. Short term this would work against the glazers as Utd would be competing against the financial might of City Chelsea Leicester and all the other billionaire owners of football teams, being able to bring in who they want. Once Utd couldnt afford the best players and kids and started to not qualify for the Champions League for a few seasons, they would soon sell up. Harsh medicine for fans I know, but thats the only way I can see them leaving.
We haven’t been that far away from that happening over last 8 years and haven’t even competed for title or made any impression in Champions League post SAF. What difference has it made to Glazers position, I’d say pretty much zero.

If fans could suck up another season of not going to any games that would finish them off. Imagine being only team where fans refused to go back post COVID. But those type of actions don’t happen which is one of reasons why buying a Premier League team is so attractive, fans will keep coming back for more.
 

Redjazz

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
455
Location
Scattered
Anyone know?
I'm aware these Class A shares have 10% of the voting rights that the shares the Glazer family own but is their a limit on how many these Class A shares they can offer? It will be just over 25% if Avram Glazers issue is taken up
All the Glazers, through trusts, own mainly B shares (10 votes per share). Each started out with some A shares as well.
Previous transactions involved the sale of A shares only. The latest transaction saw the conversion of about 4.3m B shares to A shares which were combined with 0.7m A shares owned by the selling shareholder (to make up the 5m shares sold).
B shares convert to A shares automatically on sale, so each Glazer can sell as many A shares as they have B shares.
In terms of decision making, the reduction in B shares will see non-Glazer shareholders gain only a minimal increase in voting power; the bigger impact will be on the distribution of power within the Glazer clan.
 

Rado_N

Yaaas Broncos!
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
110,913
Location
Manchester
Those Ducker tweets are hilariously stupid.

I just sold some shares in Apple, and Apple didn’t get any of the money! Another two fingers up to @SirAF.
 

DanClancy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,360
All the Glazers, through trusts, own mainly B shares (10 votes per share). Each started out with some A shares as well.
Previous transactions involved the sale of A shares only. The latest transaction saw the conversion of about 4.3m B shares to A shares which were combined with 0.7m A shares owned by the selling shareholder (to make up the 5m shares sold).
B shares convert to A shares automatically on sale, so each Glazer can sell as many A shares as they have B shares.
In terms of decision making, the reduction in B shares will see non-Glazer shareholders gain only a minimal increase in voting power; the bigger impact will be on the distribution of power within the Glazer clan.
What's the thinking on that? Remember reading a few years ago there is a split in the family.
 

Adnan

Talent Spotter
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
29,865
Location
England
His father is valued at $28b. I'm guessing we will slowly get new people to invest in the club.
His father is valued at $28b but he's heir to the throne. He also owns a team in Malaysia that has won 7 league titles in a row. There's also a story from 2018 (link below) about how he and his Wife went to a shopping mall and treated the customers with $159k in free grocery shopping.

https://www.businessinsider.my/joho...n-groceries-shopping-frenzy-aeon-tebrau-city/
 
Last edited:

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
7,657
His father is valued at $28b but he's heir to the throne. He also owns a team in Malaysia that has won 7 league titles in a row. There's also a story from 2018 (link below) about how he and his Wife, went to a shopping mall and treated the customers with $159k in free grocery shopping.

https://www.businessinsider.my/joho...n-groceries-shopping-frenzy-aeon-tebrau-city/
Seems like a nice guy?

I personally think a takeover will happen eventually. When that is? No idea. But he sounds like he has some kind of credence in football...even if it is in a smaller country.
 

Coops73

Full Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,334
Anyone know how much will 3-5% cost this fella and is this to do with Avram selling his shares or something separate?
 

KiD MoYeS

Good Craig got his c'nuppins
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
32,863
Location
Love is Blind
Sneaky little cash in the night before Ronaldo's return. They know what they're doing, the scumbags.
 

FujiVice

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
7,224
George Lucas' wife runs Ariel Investments. They arent some Ronnie and Reggie bullshit.