Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Berbaclass

Fallen Muppet. Lest we never forget
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
39,579
Location
Cooper Station
So you haven’t. Good to know. Have a good day.
What an odd response. I stated you don't know the specifics of said option and you told me to go look up put and call :lol:

Someone else asked you the same question and you said you don't know :houllier:
 

Speedicut75

Full Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
805
Location
Greater Manchester.
Tend to agree. Don't think Jassim is rich enough. This Qatar business seems a bit sus tbh.
Maybe if he flexed the financial muscles of the state in the bidding process, and blew SJR away, people would immediately make comment about where exactly did the extra funds come from if he is after an independent business man.
 

mu4c_20le

Full Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
44,453
Granted I havent followed this closely as you guys, but am I the only one who is of the opinion Jassim's bid is not state backed? It's seeming to me he alone is not very wealthy compared to other football club owners and this is why Ratcliffe's bid hasnt simply been blown away.

I wouldn't give a feck about this Jassim buying another club tbh, there is no way a takeover by him would lead to having the funds clubs like PSG, City etc have. IMO of course
It's starting to feel exactly like how it was perceived from the start. Daddy doesn't really believe in the investment but is being pressured by his sons. I guess he's difficult to squeeze. It certainly doesn't feel like the takeover/ownership will be anywhere near as fun as City/PSG/Newcastle.
 

simmee

Full Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
940
No idea I’m not involved in the negotiations. Very slim chance the call option is less than the base price INEOS are offering for the 51%. If it was, that bid would be thrown out.
The call option is of course above, but that is on Ineos end. The put options that are the Glazer's insurance that they won't get stuck with their shares could very well be below what Ineos are offering for the 51%, or at least make the total package worth less than SJ's.
 

Rojofiam

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
3,588
If Ineos win and take over, can we have them sponsor our kits?

I'd guess yes, because Nice also have them.
 

MUFC OK

New Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
7,216
Have to admire some thinking this SJR deal is the better option of the two. “Qatar Using intermediaries” being a reason for that.

Give me some of what you’re smoking please. Already light years behind city which will only widen, Newcastle will leave us in their wake too.

We might actually be able to compete somewhat with transfers as we have at times with Glazers but you can wave goodbye to substantial infrastructure upgrades which are exempt from FFP. No way is SJR finding £1-£2bn for a new stadium and training ground with facilities etc.
 

Nick7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
19,337
Location
Ireland
The call option is of course above, but that is on Ineos end. The put options that are the Glazer's insurance that they won't get stuck with their shares could very well be below what Ineos are offering for the 51%, or at least make the total package worth less than SJ's.
You may be correct, but I’d be shocked if that’s the case. If there’s one thing the Glazers are good at it’s earning money. My main point was, the Glazers selling all their shares over a longer period of time isn’t automatically a worse deal than all at once. There’s potential for them to earn even more through that approach.
 

Rightnr

Wants players fined for winning away.
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
14,648
You may be correct, but I’d be shocked if that’s the case. If there’s one thing the Glazers are good at it’s earning money. My main point was, the Glazers selling all their shares over a longer period of time isn’t automatically a worse deal than all at once. There’s potential for them to earn even more through that approach.
What you're saying is that there's risk and a premium associated with that. Or they can bang the money in a savings account or even an index and still get the same money back guaranteed in a more liquid manner.

Not sure how you can go about tossing lack of information as the weak point of an opinion when you yourself know nothing more than them and are just speculating.
 

Nick7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
19,337
Location
Ireland
What you're saying is that there's risk and a premium associated with that. Or they can bang the money in a savings account or even an index and still get the same money back guaranteed in a more liquid manner.

Not sure how you can go about tossing lack of information as the weak point of an opinion when you yourself know nothing more than them and are just speculating.
Great so why haven’t the Glazers thrown out the 51% offer if it isn’t beneficial to them? INEOS also have an offer for the 69% on the table surely we’d have heard the 51% bid being laughed out of the room if you’re so sure it’s not worth all the money today?
 

Rojofiam

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
3,588
Just as long as we don't end up in the same calamitous situation as Nice, after Brexit Jim and the bike guy took over.
You don't have to answer with the same bullshit to every post, including ones that have 0 relevance to yours.
 

Infra-red

Full Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
13,442
Location
left wing
If Ineos win and take over, can we have them sponsor our kits?

I'd guess yes, because Nice also have them.
Yes. However, for the purposes of the FSR (FFP) calculation of football earnings, only the "fair value" of the sponsorship is relevant to the calculation (i.e. Ineos can sponsor United, but that sponsorship deal will need to be of a magnitude that would be deemed fair value - they can't sponsor us £300m per season for having their name on the shirt).
 

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
10,274
More of a risk therefore than a certainy?
Nice aren't exactly struggling to stay up. He also owns a very successful cycling team.

Like I said previously anyone will twist this the way they want it to go.

Ultimately he's had 5 bids now and he's still not offering the Glazers the best deal. What does that say about him and the Qatar backed deal?

He needs to put up now or shut up. Absolute embarrassment keep bidding slightly higher but not higher than the front runner. What's the point?
 

Nick7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
19,337
Location
Ireland
Yes. However, for the purposes of the FSR (FFP) calculation of football earnings, only the "fair value" of the sponsorship is relevant to the calculation (i.e. Ineos can sponsor United, but that sponsorship deal will need to be of a magnitude that would be deemed fair value - they can't sponsor us £300m per season for having their name on the shirt).
It is rather odd that a company that owns a club can sponsor them regardless of fair value.
 

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
10,274
Yes. However, for the purposes of the FSR (FFP) calculation of football earnings, only the "fair value" of the sponsorship is relevant to the calculation (i.e. Ineos can sponsor United, but that sponsorship deal will need to be of a magnitude that would be deemed fair value - they can't sponsor us £300m per season for having their name on the shirt).
We could do it and if the PL say anything then just say well you're doing nothing about City so we will do the same. Call their bluff.
 

Infra-red

Full Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
13,442
Location
left wing
It is rather odd that a company that owns a club can sponsor them regardless of fair value.
Indeed. UEFA seem less concerned with related-party transactions in the new FSR. They no longer care who is sponsoring a club, but rather they're concerned with the size of that sponsorship. I guess it got tiring trying to work out which of City & PSG's multiplicity of ME-based sponsors were or were not related parties - easier to just say, "you can keep Etihad on the shirt, but we're only counting £70m a season of the deal towards the financial calculations - the rest is excluded."
 

simmee

Full Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
940
You may be correct, but I’d be shocked if that’s the case. If there’s one thing the Glazers are good at it’s earning money. My main point was, the Glazers selling all their shares over a longer period of time isn’t automatically a worse deal than all at once. There’s potential for them to earn even more through that approach.
Obviously, otherwise they would have taken the Sheik's deal already. But there's both the time value of money to take in to account and the different probabilities of ending up in the put scenario or the call scenario. Ineos offer has both a downside cap and an upside cap so it's not like it can give the Glazer's some kind of outlandish return on their remaning shares.
 

al tuna

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 10, 2023
Messages
80
Location
United States
This entire process I've been under the impression that there is no way the Glazers insult and shun the Qatari's because of the absolute INSANE business opportunities they could explore in the middle east, with their help. No matter what the media say. But now I'm not so sure. I cannot figure this out to save my life. Clueless as to what they're doing.
 

Nick7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
19,337
Location
Ireland
Obviously, otherwise they would have taken the Sheik's deal already. But there's both the time value of money to take in to account and the different probabilities of ending up in the put scenario or the call scenario. Ineos offer has both a downside cap and an upside cap so it's not like it can give the Glazer's some kind of outlandish return on their remaning shares.
Agreed, yeah. But that upside cap is probably mighty enticing. I’m just trying to refute the insane notion that Jassim’s bid is obviously better because it’s all up front.
 

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
10,274
Even Jim must be thinking he's being messed about too.

It's been a bit of a car crash from all three parties and doesn't reflect well on any of them.
 

RedDevilQuebecois

New Member
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
8,256
The briefed plans from SJR did sound decent. Think he ear marked Paul Mitchell as a DoF capacity whilst SJ wanted ex players around the club.
Didn't Paul Mitchell get labeled as a fraud in Monaco? His stint over there has been a total failure.
 

Amir

Full Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2000
Messages
25,006
Location
Rehovot, Israel
Qatar needs to bid 10 billion and just blow SJR and his evil pro-Brexit machine out of the water. How do we contact Jassim to let him know he needs to do this? Does anyone have his email? Will I ask chatGPT? I heard SJR is only going to sign British players, and only ones who vote tory :'(
I hear that evil Jim has ruined Nice by making sure they only sign nice players, because he thought it's a great joke. Then he sat in his chair all season while laughing in a deep voice like a true old-style film villain. Horrible.
 

Nick7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
19,337
Location
Ireland
Didn't Paul Mitchell get labeled as a fraud in Monaco? His stint over there has been a total failure.
I’ve seen this written a few times and I’d love to know why. Most of their purchases under him have been relatively to very successful (hell, we’re linked to one at the moment in Disasi and heavily linked to another last year Vanderson). I’d also love to know why Monaco completely erases his good work elsewhere.

I genuinely don’t know by the way, I’ve not followed Monaco. Just looking on paper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.