All change of ownership and Red Knights related posts here please
- Thread starter Gunnar
- Start date
If I'm not wrong, that's their plan b, to buy the debts and just wait until the glazers can't pay off any longer. that way, all debt money will stay within united (eventually).
Little article on O'Neill potential having to choose between RKs and his job:
Jim O'Neill faces red card from Goldman Sachs | Business | guardian.co.uk
Interesting snippet from it:
If thats true then the Glazers really disgust me. Whilst there would obviously be no legal implications if the Glazers withdrew from Sachs, I would see it as pretty immoral to be almost blackmailing/coercing the company into trying to get O'neill to resign or quit the Red Knights.
Jim O'Neill faces red card from Goldman Sachs | Business | guardian.co.uk
Interesting snippet from it:
If thats true then the Glazers really disgust me. Whilst there would obviously be no legal implications if the Glazers withdrew from Sachs, I would see it as pretty immoral to be almost blackmailing/coercing the company into trying to get O'neill to resign or quit the Red Knights.
I thought the phrase was 'given leave', which, whilst it could mean 'allowed time off', also just means 'given permission'.
Which brings us to another lesson we can learn from that - it's really easy to make very 'fan-friendly' noises in the early days - but that may not indicate a later reality.
Talk is cheap (except, in a sense, when it comes from an expensive public relations company).
Jeeeeez! At times I'm embarrassed by some of the comments here. Why are you disgusted by the Glazer's actions? What's morals got to do with it?
Their actions are correct and proper in a business environment. They're hard-nosed businessmen and we've got to play by their rules (which is whatever it takes). You think the likes of O'Neill (and the other Red Knights) are any different from the Glazers?
You think it is correct and proper that as clients of Goldman Sachs, the Glazers are entitled to demand that O'Neill quits the RK campaign (or loses his job) or the Glazers withdraw - even though Goldman Sachs as a company have nothing to do with the Red Knights or Manchester United? Personally I dont - O'Neill isnt acting in the name of the company or anything, but as an individual as part of the Red Knights, the Glazers are bringing his company into the argument to try to get leverage and could well end up costing the guy his job even though that has nothing to do with the RKs.
Or, if Liverpool FC were a client of the company you work for and they demanded that you give up your Man United season ticket be fired, or they would withdraw their funds/whatever - would that be correct and proper practice as well?
That is a great lineThat would be illegal and is not a good comparable.
There is clearly a conflict of interest developing in the Goldman Sachs/O'Neill situation - I'm not suprised at all that the Glazers are kicking up a fuss about it.
That was funny. I had just finished reading the Times article then came on here. Opened this thread, read your post and thought "feck me, that sounds a bit familiar".
Whilst I have no time for the Glazers, they are business men and full within their rights to act like that. Its a conflict of interests from O'Neill and the bank wouldn't be the first employer to give an "them or us" ultimatum
1.5 billion... christ, thats alot of 1p's.
So many uneducated people who have no clue about Business or the corporate world on this forum.
50 owners is fine. They act like share-holders. Have a single vote each. Elect a board, CEO etc to run the club.
feck me, its like saying dictatorships are better than democracy.
50 owners is fine. They act like share-holders. Have a single vote each. Elect a board, CEO etc to run the club.
feck me, its like saying dictatorships are better than democracy.
A partnership of two, e.g. Gillet and Hicks, is far, far more likely to cause problems than a large group of shareholders.
O'Neill has been given leave to pursue this.
If I can find the link again I'll edit this.
If I can find the link again I'll edit this.
Yes.
So what?
If the Glazers think they can get rid of an enemy by pressurizing O'Neill's employers then the balls in Goldman Sachs court, so to speak. If O'Neill can't defend himself in this situation then I wouldn't want him leading United anyway.
Again, what's right and wrong got to do with it? It's up to my employers to make a choice. If they think they can sack me and not face any legal repercussions then thats that. I'm worth a wage-packet to them. The Glazers are worth millions to them.
Thing is, getting rid of O'Neill isn't going to solve much for them. It's not as if he's alone. Even if O'Neill goes, the others will still be there. So I don't really know why they bother, if they really don't want to sell and feel their position is strong. Having said that, if they WANT to sell, why alienate a potential buyer...
I understand football. It's the football world I don't get anymore.
Why has noone questioned the fact that the Glazers don't hold the power to hold the biggest bank in the world to ransom? They simply cannot afford to push a bank around, it's almost laughable that it would be their doing that he'd have to step down, he's their Chief Economist FFS, banks would be queueing to have him at the top of their company.
If anyone is questioning him, it'll be his bosses. It's obviously a conflict of interest, but the compensation the bank would have to pay and just the fact that they can't afford to sack him because they'd lose him to a rival shows that he's been given leave to pursue this.
If anyone is questioning him, it'll be his bosses. It's obviously a conflict of interest, but the compensation the bank would have to pay and just the fact that they can't afford to sack him because they'd lose him to a rival shows that he's been given leave to pursue this.
It really isn't, a Glazer employee saying an asset is not for sale in order to increase the price they'll get for it. Everything is for sale for the correct price, saying it isn't for sale increases that price.
Dictatorships are a hell of a lot more efficient to be fair.
It stinks when people say this when it suits an agenda they're interested in. Every other time it would be deemed completely unacceptable.
Not quite how investment banks work though. Goldman are getting a pretty penny from helping the Glazers do their financial magic. It will come down to the expendability of O'Neill.
It's going to be interesting because he's Head of Global Economic Research at Goldman and has a really good reputation in the financial world as one of the best. He's not expendable like a single employee.
But the Glazers can simply leave for another investment bank and Goldman will be wary of that.
What agenda do you think I have? I think the Glazers are bad for the club, and that the Red Knights could well be better owners, but the idea they will be better in every respect is very optimistic. Its true that dictatorships are more efficient than democracies, decisions can be made much faster, and with more concern for long term benefits. Compare the efficiency of a UK Government after a big election win, often considered an 'elective dictatorship' to a US Government. The former can pass virtually anything it likes, the latter has to jump through hoops to get anything done, has to offer concessions to legislators in order to get them to vote with them etc. Dictatorships are more effficient, there's no doubt about it.
Would another investment bank be interested with this smell of revolution in the air? Even with my very limited knowledge of finance, I'd be skeptical.
I wasn't saying you had an agenda, it was for want of a better word, really.
Dictatorships are wrong regardless of how efficient they are. Democracy is absolutely necessary and a 'dictatorship' shouldn't even be considered as far as I'm concerned.
Okay, so as opposed to being a pompous cnut, enlighten us oh holy finance man
The bank itself stands to lose little anyway. It simply provides a financial service and advice to the Glazers. It's not like the bank is stuffing its own money into various places. They provide a service and the Glazers pay for it.
A bank will always be interested in an investor who has substantial assets such as Malcolm Glazer as a result. They can do business with him and make money as well as expand their contacts list.
On the level of a nation I'd agree with you that some level of democracy, probably what we have in the UK now would be about right, is necessary, but the fact that I don't think a dictatorship is a good way to run a country doesn't mean there aren't any benefits to that system. On the level of a Billion pound business, there is no problem with a dictatorship so long as they work in the interests of the company; I believe Ferguson and Gill when they says that it's a lot easier to make transfers now.
ONDON (Reuters) - A group of wealthy supporters looking into a possible bid for football club Manchester United said they would not overpay, and dismissed financial numbers circulating in the media as purely speculative.
The Times reported on Friday that 60 investors have pledged up to 1.5 billion pounds in their bid to seize control of the club. A spokesman for the group said they had received a very good level of interest.
The "Red Knights," a collection of City figures including former Football League chairman Keith Harris and Goldman Sachs Chief Economist Jim O'Neill, have said they are looking at the feasibility of putting together a bid for the world's third-richest football club.
"No specific discussions have been held in relation to the value of Manchester United," the group said in a statement. "People are talking about putting their own money in and are only going to do so if it's at a fair and reasonable price.
"Every penny over a fair price that goes to the Glazers in profit is less money that could be spent on putting the club on a sound financial footing after any takeover."
The group said the talks were at an early stage. The Glazer family, who also own the Tampa Bay Buccaneers American football team, have said the club is not for sale.
The Glazer family bought Manchester United in 2005 for about 790 million pounds against a wave of opposition from fans who feared they were loading it up with too much debt.
The club raised a 500 million pound bond in January to refinance its debts. The latest accounts show the club owed 507 million pounds at December 31 2009.
The Times reported on Friday that 60 investors have pledged up to 1.5 billion pounds in their bid to seize control of the club. A spokesman for the group said they had received a very good level of interest.
The "Red Knights," a collection of City figures including former Football League chairman Keith Harris and Goldman Sachs Chief Economist Jim O'Neill, have said they are looking at the feasibility of putting together a bid for the world's third-richest football club.
"No specific discussions have been held in relation to the value of Manchester United," the group said in a statement. "People are talking about putting their own money in and are only going to do so if it's at a fair and reasonable price.
"Every penny over a fair price that goes to the Glazers in profit is less money that could be spent on putting the club on a sound financial footing after any takeover."
The group said the talks were at an early stage. The Glazer family, who also own the Tampa Bay Buccaneers American football team, have said the club is not for sale.
The Glazer family bought Manchester United in 2005 for about 790 million pounds against a wave of opposition from fans who feared they were loading it up with too much debt.
The club raised a 500 million pound bond in January to refinance its debts. The latest accounts show the club owed 507 million pounds at December 31 2009.
The RK's will go down in history if they pull this off...
Fingers crossed. It's all been overwhelmingly positive so far, but we still don't know much...
What I am confident about, is that the Glazer's will sell for the right price - and I don't think that figure will much more than 1.2 bil (including all debt)
Fingers crossed. It's all been overwhelmingly positive so far, but we still don't know much...
What I am confident about, is that the Glazer's will sell for the right price - and I don't think that figure will much more than 1.2 bil (including all debt)
Point being that we've seen them use the media as a negotiation tool to firmly deny any interest to sell. The comparison is in the tactics, not the "product" being sold.
£ 1.5 bn is way over the odds. But it's probably the type of number which could persuade the Glazers to sell. The Red Knights and their backers are hopefully gathering in number - 60 was the last reported figure. They also have some heavyweight City advisers (also United supporters) lined up. Here's holding thumbs.
But we know that, i'm not fecking blind... My point is why would you say such a daft thing and back it up with common sense, yet claim there's nothing but a load of idiots on here?
Ok, pardon my ignorance, but what happens if the Red Knights are successful in buying out the glazers? Will United be owned by these 60+ people? Or United be back as a PLC?
It will remain a private company owned principally by the corsortium but also, hopefully a share allocation made available to fans in general - 25% has been mentioned for the latter.
Doesnt sound too bad, plus, they are all supposed to be United fans. Which means they hopefully dont see it as an investment or wont take money out of the club for their own wealth as the Glazers do (which I find absolutely disgusting!)
Owners of business want to profit from it shocker! Do you really think all the RKs will be putting up many millions and not expect any ROI besides some free match tickets?
All I want is United to get debt situation sorted out. But you're not going to get a bunch of people putting up 1.5b as an act of charity. Despite what you think it has to be an investment.
Of course they want a return but hopefully it will be a predominantly cash investment (with very manageable debt) and not the sort of unmanageable, highly leveraged set up the Glazers have brought upon the club. It's all about the debt and the saving in interest, some of which can go straight into the club instead of the current heavy interest payments to financial institutions and fees for advisers etc.
Sir alex is starting to change his tune a little...
As sources for the consortium confirmed that they had received indicative pledges of financial support totalling £1.5 billion, Ferguson declined to attack their plans, saying they were entitled to protest against the Glazers.
“I’ve no issue with the Red Knights. I know some of them, I’m quite friendly with a couple of them, and I don’t deny them their right to protest,” Ferguson said. “If they want to try to buy the club, it’s entirely up to them.”
The Knights remain some way from formulating a firm offer to the Glazers and insist they will only pay a fair price for the club. They have approached investment banker Guy Dawson to assist with putting an offer together.
Red Knights' plan to buy Manchester United receives Ferguson boost - Telegraph
As sources for the consortium confirmed that they had received indicative pledges of financial support totalling £1.5 billion, Ferguson declined to attack their plans, saying they were entitled to protest against the Glazers.
“I’ve no issue with the Red Knights. I know some of them, I’m quite friendly with a couple of them, and I don’t deny them their right to protest,” Ferguson said. “If they want to try to buy the club, it’s entirely up to them.”
The Knights remain some way from formulating a firm offer to the Glazers and insist they will only pay a fair price for the club. They have approached investment banker Guy Dawson to assist with putting an offer together.
Red Knights' plan to buy Manchester United receives Ferguson boost - Telegraph
Well, we dont know that yet, do we? So far, we know that they want to take over, get rid of the debt and make the club financial healthy again. That doesnt sound like they will be pumping money out of the club and I am sure even if they want a ROI, its not as bad as the Glazers