Actually it does. But there again, there seem to be no red lines around Brexit Jim. He can buy us in debt, he can go in bed with Goldman Sachs and the Glazers, his previous football record is deemed unimportant, hell, he might sort the infrastructure issue with a lick of paint while at it. Sky (or the pits) is the limit with the guy.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
- Status
'It does' what? Whenever you argue yourself into a corner you just end up trotting out the same old tired lines: 'blah blah Brexit Jim. Blah blah in bed with the Glazers'. Have a day off...again, I honestly don't think I've ever seen a positive post from you. Why do you follow the club when doing so makes you so fecking miserable?
It seems that you have ran out of arguments and is now resorting to insults. That doesn't change the fact that yes Ratcliffe will be in bed with the Glazers and that his football record is underwhelming at best whether you like it or not.
Anyway have a nice day.
Putting all the financial figures and % to one side and judging Jim/Ineos on their work at Nice and it’s hardly exciting is it.
Mid table club in France after 4 years, good chance they’ll finish in the bottom half of the table this season in a farmers league
Mid table club in France after 4 years, good chance they’ll finish in the bottom half of the table this season in a farmers league
I suggest that you don't check about the other club.
They are left leaning the other members of the family especially Edward are Republicans.
Avram seems the more hardcore Democrat and Donates heavily to the Democrats.
Joel isn't as hardcore but it's Democrats too
It's pretty much the only likeable thing I can find about those two other than they do seem interested in United compared to their siblings
The Qataris have made a world record bid for the club, only the Glazers greed is getting in the way.
If they’re unwilling to sell then why did Qatar get through the bidding rounds? Qatar we’re never offering to keep them on board so it’s a fair assumption that a full sale is on the table (unless you have inside information which suggests they were taking Qatar for a ride the whole time?).
I’m still yet to see any economic rationale for Ratcliffes bid, you didn’t really address the other points I made which suggests Ratcliffe is getting a by here from some fans when we have every reason to be critical.
Stuff like this really makes me worried about Ratcliffe.
He talks a big game in regards to improving United(there was a video on here of his remarks a year ago), but why have Nice utterly failed under his stewardship?
Hopefully he proves me wrong, but I worry he'll have no ambition and be the Glazers 2.0
That's news. Come to think about it, it does make sense. During Covid, the Glazers kept paying our staff full pay which I found to be quite admirable from them. Hopefully they will teach some morals to SJR. See @Pickle85 that's an optimistic take on this take over
On a serious note thanks for the information.
I am a huge critic about INEOS and I can make you an endless list of what went wrong mainly on what I read (the real experts of French football are @JPRouve and @kouroux definitely not me). However to his credit INEOS seem to finally be pushing to the right direction now by hiring the likes of Jean Claude Blanc and Florent Ghisolfi. I am still uncomfortable seeing some cyclist guy and Bob Ratcliffe having way more say in football then they should.
Because it's a negotiation process. Maybe they thought they get Qatar to compromise on the full sale point or maybe they wanted to keep them in the running to drive the price up. Either way, the fact that they haven't accepted what sounds to be an astronomical offer from Qatar suggests they're unwilling to make a full sale for anything close to market value.
As for the other points, we really have no means of knowing but debt isn't necessarily a bad thing if it's arranged and manages sensibly. People seem to equate any level of debt with the unprecedented debt that we were saddled with by the Glazers, which was absurd. Even then, though, we still remained one of the top spenders in the transfer market so its not behind the realms of possibility that would continue and we'd be able to refurb the stadium on top, with a fresh cash injection.
That's news. Come to think about it, it does make sense. During Covid, the Glazers kept paying our staff full pay which I found to be quite admirable from them. Hopefully they will teach some morals to SJR. See @Pickle85 that's an optimistic take on this take over
On a serious note thanks for the information.
love to see it, more of this please!read the previous post mate
I am not anti Ratcliffe. I just try and give a balanced opinion and there's not much optimism about how he manage clubs. Its different when discussing his expertise though. I even compared him to the Bill Gates of petro chemical industry which kind of highlights how much I rate him in the sector
But they will have certain veto and approval rights. These are standard where there’s multiple shareholders - read up about shareholders agreements.
If I was the Glazers’ lawyers, and they stay as minority, I would be advising them to insist on certain key reserved matters (effectively veto rights) and potentially a board seat. This is standard stuff, but the shareholders agreement is private so we’ll never know what Ratcliffe has agreed with them.
Fact is, the glazers will not be silent partners, Ratcliffe will have to actively engage with them. That’s the deal he’s making with them, otherwise why would the glazers even entertain the offer?
The value of the club has not stagnated. We are about to be sold as the most expensive sports team on the planet, so that does not hold true. We have obviously regressed on field but it has supposedly not had a massive impact on the valuation.
Btw, no one here WANTS the Glazers to stay. However if the alternative to them staying in their current capacity is for two of them to stay on as minority stakeholders with almost no say in how the club is ran, everyone would be ready to accept that offer.
Nonsense. There's no chance that Ratcliffe would spend billions and let the glazers still have a significant say in things. It makes no sense and won't happen. As for why the Glazers would entertain the offer without decision making capability: they clearly believe the club's value will continue to grow (maybe because they think the ESL is still on the table in the future) and they want a piece of that. It's the same reason that people buy, say, Apple shares because they think they'll increase in value. But not all Apple shareholders are allowed power of veto over whether or not the iPhone has a headphone port.
With how the fanbase is towards their own favorite players, you think they will see eye to eye on any new owner regarding their performance?
I am sure many were fine with the Glazers too under SAF when he was winning even when he was spouting the "no value in the market" line.
Just hope whoever comes in, makes us competitive and well ran again. That's my only expectations from them.
How will he be in bed with them? It's more akin to him climbing in their bed and shoving them out the other side.
They become minority holders, like there is many more.
It means nothing and holds zero weight.
Must admit that when I read the stuff earlier this week about Ratcliffes "hidden clause" that could be triggered as early as 3 years, my immediate thought was it sounded like a bit of PR guff to sweeten United fans up for the fact that some (or all) of these Glazers are planning on staying at the club.
I'll be gutted if we dont get those leeches out by the summer.
I'll be gutted if we dont get those leeches out by the summer.
they will own United as well. I don't know why are you outraged by it. SJR praised the Glazers himself.
I agree with you that the Glazers may not have veto powers but to compare it to normal people buying Apple shares, I can only laugh. Why don't you buy 25% shares of Apple's market cap and then see if you have any say in how their business is run. You could make Tim Cook dance to your favorite rap on a live video conference if you had that much investment in Apple.
Well of course he did, why wouldn't he?
If you wanna buy something from someone you don't slag them beforehand do you? That's not business sense that's just common sense.
They won't own United anymore than if you went and bought a share, it's that simple.
There is a limit to have much you can pay for an asset which may not yield the required return. Very likely Jassim thinks it's now gone beyond what he thinks is a fair reflection of the value. I hope he pulls out of the deal and doesn't indulge in lining others' pockets.
Last edited:
Yeah, I was clearly being facetious, but the broader point was that just because shareholders have a stake in the company doesn't automatically give them decision making powers.
If you don't like them then you would say anything at all. I don't know you but I can't afford 20% of Manchester United which is pretty much what Avram/Joel will probably retain. That's a huge amount of shares mate and honestly if I was in their shoes, I would want to retain some say about them.
I am glad that you confirmed that Ratcliffe's word means nothing though.
Again, not necessarily true. They are ceding control but will still have a significant investment in United. They will be the single biggest individual investors (assuming it's Ineos buying us and not JR personally).
They will still have a say, most probably won't have veto powers but to assume they will have no say is a bit naive. You buy enough shares in any company and you will get your say even if you are the biggest investor on the Board.
Absolutely. The shares Glazers own have voting rights. I don't think they are stupid enough to leave their billion for Sir Jim to control without having a keen eye with some element of control. They will have some form of veto rights even if marginal.
I see three ways about it
a- they will have a say on how the club is run. Probably not about the day to day things but on major issues
b- they have a clause were they can pull out of the club and sell their shares to INEOS on a ridiculous premium
c- a mix of both
I think they could well have a say in whether we give out dividends, etc. Might as well put in a clause that their shares would not be diluted for a period of X years. When you have such clauses, even the majority shareholders will think twice before investing more money in the club as it will only weaken their position. That will directly have an impact on us.
Unfortunately we have no clarity on the structure of holding and power if they are staying but it's not even improbable that they will protect their interests which could have a direct impact on the club.
Yes and as I put in another post, we will not have clarity on the holding structure and power involved with that unless the deal is completely signed.
Glazers will most definitely have their interests protected one way or another if they are staying. Whether that directly or indirectly screws the club is yet unknown, which is the scary part of any partial takeover.
Well we do know how INEOS run Lausanne and Nice? And they do not know what they are doing.
Then that's too bad. That's why we need the Glazers gone completely and not lingering on in any capacity. Qatar all the way seems better then.
Imagine the pain if we are nearly closing the deal on the next young talent and the Glazers veto that because they want a more marketable player.
Why would they compromise though? They’ve offered a world record sum of money for a sports franchise, and want full ownership. Having the Glazers on board isn’t a good plan going forward for United or any potential investor. They’ll still want to take out dividends each year, keep the club saddled with debt resulting in a mediocre investment into improving the ground and facilities.
SJR teaming up with the Glazers is a recipe for disaster, the B shares they own gives them too much power. Like it or not but the Qatar bid is the best for the club that’s on the table.
Completely different from Apple, Utd would become a private entity with significant minority shareholders, it is absolutely standard to have a shareholders agreement in place that gives the minority some say in how the business is run. Do a bit of research on this, owning a share in Apple has nothing to do with this.
The Glazers will never have the leverage they have now, once they sell and become minority shareholders they lose their bargaining power. Like I said if I was advising them I would definitely advise them to insist on some approval/ veto rights, how much they can get is a matter of negotiation but they will get something.
Is it "they don't know what they're doing" or is it "more of the same as usual"? Just a quick search on Lausanne and it doesn't show any change from before takeover. More or less same as normal. Same with Nice. United is a completely different beast, different reasons for him taking over and different potentials, finances, etc. It's not really comparable.
I don't want the glazers to remain here but if the only options are that they stick around with a minority stake or retain full control then I'll take the former thanks.
As for the Qatar bid being the best on the table I think that very much depends on what you, as a fan, find important. I would find state ownership by far the worst of the two so to me it's far from the best bid.
I haven’t been following the specifics but would Jim eventually buyout the Glazers stake in a future deal or is it solely a Co-Ownership he is looking at?
Any fan wishing for state ownership is simply a hypocrite and their opinions are invalid.
As i said below, the Apple comparison was a facetious one designed to make the point that just because shareholders have a stake in a company doesn't mean they'll have significant decision making rights. Won't happen because Ratcliffe, a pretty shrewd businessman, wouldn't cede significant control of a company he's just spent billions on to its previous owners. That would make precisely zero sense. At the moment folks like you and the 'full sale or nothing' brigade are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If SJR is the way to make the glazers relinquish control of the club and keep it out of state ownership, I'm all in.
I think it's unknown at the mo but one would assume (I know what they say about assumptions!) that he'd look to buy them out eventually given that initially he was looking for a full sale too apparently. And totally agree re the final point.
A fan of a club whose previous owner is in the inner circle of Putin. Calls out others as hypocrites.
- Status