Glazers selling a significant amount of shares

Adisa

likes to take afvanadva wothowi doubt
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
50,314
Location
Birmingham
Don't know why it needs to be stated the club won't get any of the proceeds.
 

Judas

Open to offers
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
35,964
Location
Where the grass is greener.
People thinking if you sell shares you should be giving money to the company? :lol: Yes I am going to buy shares in Apple and sell them, to give the money back to Apple.
 

welshwingwizard

Full Member
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
492
Location
London
Probably a combination of 2 things: not understanding financing as well & hating the Glazers for all the money they’ve taken out of the club. So combine a story of the Glazers selling their own shares and pocketing the proceeds = reason to have a go at them!
Yeh understandably its complex how you can take a loan out to buy something then sell it for profit without the obligation to pay back the initial loan. Which I think is the case. I'm guessing because of who the loan was taken against?
 

yumtum

DUX' bumchum
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
7,117
Location
Wales
Glazers controlling only 69% of the shares pretty much guarantees we won't be bought out by a nation state (thankfully) no?

I mean, why would they want to drop 2.5b and not own the whole thing?
 

Ish

Lights on for Luke
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
32,056
Location
Voted the best city in the world
Yeh understandably its complex how you can take a loan out to buy something then sell it for profit without the obligation to pay back the initial loan. Which I think is the case. I'm guessing because of who the loan was taken against?
Yeah, loan would have been taken against the club, and is repaid through income/profit from operations. Shares are owned by the Glazers, and when sold, money is theirs. Value of shares is obviously impacted by a lot of factors, including amount of debt the club has etc.
 

SonyaCross493

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 28, 2021
Messages
474
It's not significant but could be significant depending on who buys the shares if they have enough money to launch a formal offer for the rest. Exciting times for the club.

It's hope. And hope has been lacking from the club for awhile.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,301
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
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.
Good assessment. And while like many I would prefer Manchester United not to be owned by the way the current owners do, they may not be the worst type of owners.

Owning a football club is a strategic decision and only works well when success of the football club itself is the priority.

As has been reported, the revenues from this sale will not go to the football club. This will take their share ownership of United to 69%.

So maybe they will gradually go down to just over the 50% figure.
 

Flying high

Full Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
1,679
People thinking if you sell shares you should be giving money to the company? :lol: Yes I am going to buy shares in Apple and sell them, to give the money back to Apple.
While their debt is still on the club, yes, they should be putting something back in.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,419
Location
London
I’m confused, why do people think that selling shares would ever result in money going to the club?
Because people have not much idea on what shares are and how do they work. Otherwise they wouldn’t make such stupid comments.
 

Spoony

The People's President
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
63,107
Location
eerF Palestine.
Glazers controlling only 69% of the shares pretty much guarantees we won't be bought out by a nation state (thankfully) no?

I mean, why would they want to drop 2.5b and not own the whole thing?

So 31% is owned by others. I wonder how much they'd drop down to. Surely it makes more sense for them to sell the whole lot for far more than the share price.
 

Rood

nostradamus like gloater
Scout
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
21,232
Location
@United_Hour
So 31% is owned by others. I wonder how much they'd drop down to. Surely it makes more sense for them to sell the whole lot for far more than the share price.
They may have tried and failed to find a buyer at a higher price

Or more probable is that the Glazer spawn don't all agree so some are selling

Either way they still have nearly all the voting rights so retain complete control
 

hungrywing

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
10,225
Location
Your Left Ventricle
Do you Glazers are selling up?
Could be. Ariel passing notes to them in 0.1% circles, knowing that some of the Glazer spawn desperately want to cash in as been rumored.

Could be as Machiavellian as that, with Ariel trying to worsen whatever friction there may be between the Glazers.

One possibility is that somehow related to the fan-ownership thing.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
29,333
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
Probably a combination of 2 things: not understanding financing as well & hating the Glazers for all the money they’ve taken out of the club. So combine a story of the Glazers selling their own shares and pocketing the proceeds = reason to have a go at them!
It's more to do with the fact that again they are profiting from the club instead of servicing the debt, because they aren't liable for the debt due to the how-is-it-even-legal leveraged buy-out.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,542
Location
Sydney
Glazers controlling only 69% of the shares pretty much guarantees we won't be bought out by a nation state (thankfully) no?

I mean, why would they want to drop 2.5b and not own the whole thing?
I don't think this matters because they'd be buying it for control, not for profit

so as long as they have 51% and control of the board that would do

and of course, they can buy up the rest of the shares from the open market too
 

Redjazz

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
455
Location
Scattered
They may have tried and failed to find a buyer at a higher price

Or more probable is that the Glazer spawn don't all agree so some are selling

Either way they still have nearly all the voting rights so retain complete control
Yeah, about 95% post sale.
It's not really about agreeing\disagreeing, it's more about using a mechanism that gives some of the glazers the flexibility to sell a significant portion of their holding while ensuring that the remaining glazers retain overall control. The whole A\B share split was designed for this. Each glazer can act individually but the collective is protected.
The latest sale involved the conversion of 9.5 million B shares to A shares. That minimally increases the power of non glazer shareholders but significantly alters the power base within the family: Those with the most B shares (Joel and Avram) have more power.
 

We need an rvn

Full Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
3,867
Location
Down south...somewhere
People thinking if you sell shares you should be giving money to the company? :lol: Yes I am going to buy shares in Apple and sell them, to give the money back to Apple.
But...but, they placed a huge amount of debt against our club in a highly controversial purchase. Surely they have a moral obligation???

Joking aside as it's obvious they'll never put any of their own money into the club - do you think they would have been able to get away with this if they had purchased an NFL team in the same way? Absolutely not.
 

Robertd0803

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
6,530
So they have basically sold a certain amount of shares that doesnt really lessen their control in any way and made a fortune out of it.

Good day at the office if you can manage it I guess.

Who is buying the shares then? Are they only available in 1 block or can they be split by multiple buyers?
 

choccy77

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
6,059
Ariel is secretly owned by a Phil Jones / Fred partnership guaranteeing themselves playing contracts.
 

yumtum

DUX' bumchum
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
7,117
Location
Wales
I don't think this matters because they'd be buying it for control, not for profit

so as long as they have 51% and control of the board that would do

and of course, they can buy up the rest of the shares from the open market too
Well yeah, control in a company is everything, but I don't see guys from that part of the world laying down a couple of billion without being 100% the owner, its an ego thing.
 

WR10

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
5,644
Location
Dream
Something looked fishy on the chart last week when I sold at $20.

The glazers know Ole is not the one.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,542
Location
Sydney
Well yeah, control in a company is everything, but I don't see guys from that part of the world laying down a couple of billion without being 100% the owner, its an ego thing.
sure, but there are mechanisms in place to take a public company private again.. it varies by country/state so I don't know the rules, but it will be possible once they own a certain amount of shares
 

WR10

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
5,644
Location
Dream
I’m confused, why do people think that selling shares would ever result in money going to the club?
95% of this forum have absolutely no clue how a public companies finances work. Regardless - this is extremely bearish for United’s future. They sold at a ~13% discount to the market price. You don’t do that unless you’re projecting some very tough times ahead.
 

Ish

Lights on for Luke
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
32,056
Location
Voted the best city in the world
It's more to do with the fact that again they are profiting from the club instead of servicing the debt, because they aren't liable for the debt due to the how-is-it-even-legal leveraged buy-out.
Yeah I get the fury. They own the shares though, irrespective of how they acquired it, ergo, the money goes to them.
 

glazed

Eats diamonds to beat thermodynamics
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
7,526
It's possible they realise that without a long term investment plan their asset will begin to deterioriate in value no matter how much liquidity they pour in. The current strategy is reaching the point of diminishing returns (in English we can't even beat Everton at home.)
 
Last edited:

Rood

nostradamus like gloater
Scout
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
21,232
Location
@United_Hour
Yeah, about 95% post sale.
It's not really about agreeing\disagreeing, it's more about using a mechanism that gives some of the glazers the flexibility to sell a significant portion of their holding while ensuring that the remaining glazers retain overall control. The whole A\B share split was designed for this. Each glazer can act individually but the collective is protected.
The latest sale involved the conversion of 9.5 million B shares to A shares. That minimally increases the power of non glazer shareholders but significantly alters the power base within the family: Those with the most B shares (Joel and Avram) have more power.
I think there has always been signs that Joel and Avram had more interest in the club than the other siblings, although IIRC Bryan Glazer did show up at OT at some point - everytime the share price gets around $20 there is usually a big seller that sends the price down and it's likely the other Glazers
 

glazed

Eats diamonds to beat thermodynamics
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
7,526
My totally unsubstantiated conspiracy theory is that Avram Glazer realises that a top four spot just became a lot harder with the Saudi deal going through and that's why he sold his shares. The level of investment required to guarantee finishing above Liverpool, Newcastle, Chelsea and City is quite large.