Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot is pointing towards this process reaching its climax in the coming week or two. A few thoughts.

What is happening in the process?
Overall, evaluating the value of MUFC is not hard, nor does it require a due diligence from a broader point of view. The Manchester United plc reports using the IFRS standard which is established by the EU for all companies listed on a regulated market. Besides, financing agreements have also been made available. While a bidder of course will want to perform its due diligence and verify key aspects of the club as well as taking part of the latest up to date financials -- both Ineos and the Qataris have for a long time been able to evaluate the target of this process.

The Raine Group has performed three rounds of bidding, first the indicative bid and then two de facto bids. These bids are made for the Glazers' shares of the club (more on that later). All -- three -- parties are advised by top advisers and are more or less on equal footing in these negotiations. There have been talks about the Glazers playing the bidders, threatening keep the club, and what not. Those aspects should perhaps not totally be disregarded -- but not far from it. If you engage JPM or Goldman Sachs or players like that for a multi-billion transaction -- you won't be pushed around in the negotiations. What is the point of a third (fourth) round of bidding? The next point is probably pointing at the highest bidder, and telling the other side that they will be out of the running in 24h if they do not counter that offer. After that, you should have a preferred bidder.

What remains after a preferred bidder is appointed?
Whomever buys the club needs to be approved by the PL. That process can be started before a takeover is executed.
0E0YIIJ.png


Ultimately, buying the Glazers' shares can be done through a simple transaction note. There will be no meaningful reps and warranties given that it is a public transaction. The buyer will undertake to replace the Glazer siblings on the board, not much more. Hence, the club could potentially have a new owner within weeks.

But what about the remaining 31%? Well, it is here it gets a bit tricky -- and this is a topic that ultimately will depend on Cayman Island cooperate law. First of all, must you buy those shares if you buy the Glazers shares? No. In the UK and all of the EU, anyone acquiring more than 30% of the votes in a company must make a so called mandatory bid for the remaining shares. The reason for this is that anyone buying a share in a listed company should be able to assume that the company will be run in a way that is best for all shareholders. If someone comes in and buy a controlling share, the minority owners must be given an opportunity to exit their investment in light of the new circumstances. This is -- not -- the case on the Cayman Islands.

So why buy the remaining shares of Manchester United plc -- if you don't have to, and since you would controll the club anyway by just buying the Glazers' shares? That is a good question. There are no guarantee that Ineos for example would want to buy those shares. Why not invest that money into the club instead? There is however one big advantage of buying the minorities' shares. If you own all shares of a company, you can wheel 'nd deal with it anyway you want. Lets say you want to lift land owned by the club out of the club and develop it in a separate entity -- its just a little paper work if you own all shares. If there are 150,000 minority shareholders, you better make darn sure that you pay market value for any asset you transfer from the club to another company. And even if you do all you can -- you could still see some litigation. It is impossible to know how the parties would act, but from my view point it is natural to assume that the Qataris would want 100% of the shares while I don't quite see the upside for anyone with Ineos sucking up the shares listed at NYSE.

But anyway -- if you want to buy the minority shares listed at the NYSE -- how is it done? Well you cannot get each and every 150,000 (just picking a random number) minority owner to sell their shares to you. Hence there are mechanisms in place to enable taking a company private. As I understand it, we could either see (a) a public tender offer to the minority (someone sends out a press release and say 'If you want to sell your MUFC plc shares, fill out this form, and we will buy them'), and if bidder owns 90% of the shares after the tender offer, it gets the right to redeem the outstanding shares, or (b) through a take private merger. Given how majority owner friendly Cayman Island law is, I think (b) would be the method used. Ineos or the Qataris create a BidCo (Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)). That BidCo proposes to merge with Manchester United plc. In the merger, the owner of the BidCo gets 100% of the shares in Manchester United plc and the current shareholders of MU plc gets 100% cash. Takes say a month or two to execute. If a minority shareholder in the club thinks the terms of the merger were worthless -- they can take it to court and ask for more pay. Some surely would. If you want to acquire 100% of the shares -- is it better to first acquire Glazers's 69% and then merge or does it make more sense to also acquire the Glazers' shares through a merger? This could impact the arguments of the minority owners going to court asking for more pay. I can't provide any input on if it would matter, but I would bet on that given how flexible Cayman Law is, it doesn't.

What happens to the debt?
As soon as someone takes control of the Glazers' shares of the club -- it will trigger the so called Change of control-clauses of the plc's debt agreements. This means that within stipulated time frames, that debt becomes immediately repayable. So in terms of the actual debt agreements, the Glazers debt will not survive a takeover. The buyer can either (a) pay back the debt, (b) refinance the debt in the name of the club, or (c) refinance the debt in a company higher up in the buyers' group. When Ineos say that they won't put any new debt on the Manchester United plc -- I think it would sound odd that they would engage JPM and GS to issue a bunch of new bonds in Manchester United plc. I think they would do that higher up in the Ineos group. But there is some uncertainty there.

The Qatari would probably cash the debt. I think the talk about Qataris only using "cash" is a bit irrelevant. Qatar's GDP to debt ratio is 40% which is low for a country. Ineos' debt ratio is probably a few times its turnover, which is normal/on the higher side for the average company, but not high for a company with a M&A strategy.

Who will win the bidding?
I want to add one word of caution here, if anyone is absolutely convinced that the Qataris will win the bidding. A group of people in Qatar is driving this project. Right? No matter what anyone says, its common sense that they don't have £5bn burning a hole in their wallet. The bid will be financed with funds which the royal family controls. Hence, someone is setting a budget for the bid. We don't know what that budget is. It could be 10bn. It could be 5bn. I don't think its far fetched to speculate on that someone gave the green light to the entire project -- as long as the price wasn't crazy. You can have 8bn, 5bn for the club and 3bn for the work after getting it. If they want 100% of the shares, and Ineos would settle for 69% -- Ineos wouldn't have to pay absurd money.

I have said from day 1 that the Qataris are the favorites. I would still bet on them if I had to bet, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

What about Zilliacus?
The only way he has a shot is if he is fronting the Saudis.

Thank you for taking the time and effort for this!
 
Qatari bid is better for the club overall. Say for example we build a new stadium that has a capacity of 100k, that will also need huge investment into the local infrastructure to handle an extra 25k fans on matchday (25k stadiums all over the country cause chaos in terms of people management and traffic), and this will be 25k on top of the record number of people we have at OT every week.

I can't see a businessman man like Ratcliffe bankrolling the local infrastructure spend around OT so that it could handle that sort of throughout. It's feck all for the Qataris as long as they can stick their name on these local projects.

Objection.

Sustained. Please don't use baseless nonsense as fact.
 
Watching this and SUCCESSION unfold might be too much for my brain. I could go full SCANNERS.
 
Two years is a long time contract wise and Madrid tried to change his mind before accepting the deal. Nobody else was in because he wanted to come here.
So, here is the bad news - we don’t want you anymore.
Now the good news, we’ve found somebody who will pay you £10k a week more.
Pull?
In truth we’ve not had the same pull since SAF left. It’s true we do have a lot of pull still as an elite club, but not as much as we used to - any pull is mainly down to money we pay and contacts we offer now.
 
But you haven’t mentioned anybody we missed out on because they wanted to move to London. You even gave the reason why Hazard turned us down.
Plus Chelsea is a weird club to pick anyway, we literally signed 3 childhood Chelsea fans over them in the last 8 years.
Edit you brought it up!
I brought it up not just because of your post but also because of other posts such as Nesta moving when we bought Rio, etc. Not everytime we miss out on a player is in our control I was saying as if the player does not want to move to a club or country then no one can do anything about it.
And Chelsea is (well at least was under Roman) a very attractive club. London, money, guaranteed success because Roman kept investing and firing managers if they weren’t winning.
 
Thread has grown about 10 pages, is there any actual news?
No. Apart from if United as a bigger pull than other clubs I also spotted a couple of posts regarding Zlatan and his religion. That’s it.
 
Thread has grown about 10 pages, is there any actual news?

No. And that's a bad sign.

The Glazers aren't going to announce they're staying all of a sudden because that could trigger large and viscous protests. So if they now intend to stay, they will slow the 'sale process' down (less news and updates) and gradually brief that they're quite likely to stay. Then, when a point is reached where people expect them to stay, they'll announce it. There'll still be protests etc. but just not as badly if they made an abrupt announcement.
 
The allure of a club depends on what the club can offer a player both financially and winning trophies. Right now Man City has a bigger pull than us due to their project and due to their money, hence a player like Haaland joined them over us.

It's about creating a attractive project with a head coach who believes in implementing a proactive attacking play style which will create the appeal for prospective new recruits. The money wlll be there but it's important to create the appeal by implementing a attractive play style which will then attract the players who will want to join a team on the up.
 
No. And that's a bad sign.

The Glazers aren't going to announce they're staying all of a sudden because that could trigger large and viscous protests. So if they now intend to stay, they will slow the 'sale process' down (less news and updates) and gradually brief that they're quite likely to stay. Then, when a point is reached where people expect them to stay, they'll announce it. There'll still be protests etc. but just not as badly if they made an abrupt announcement.

Relax, there will be a sale.
 
It may be overrated to you but not to rich people. And without thinking for more than 3 seconds Hazard transfer in 2012 comes to mind.
Now it is well reported that Fergie/United didn’t want to pay the agent fee, but bottom line is we missed out on a great player.

For all the talk of London and the agents fee (bit of a Caf myth). The biggest reason we lost out on Hazard was the fact Chelsea agreed to pay a 21 year old £180k per week. Pretty much double what United were offering.
 
No. And that's a bad sign.

The Glazers aren't going to announce they're staying all of a sudden because that could trigger large and viscous protests. So if they now intend to stay, they will slow the 'sale process' down (less news and updates) and gradually brief that they're quite likely to stay. Then, when a point is reached where people expect them to stay, they'll announce it. There'll still be protests etc. but just not as badly if they made an abrupt announcement.
Thick and gloopy?! The mind boggles at what that might entail! :lol:
 
The allure of a club depends on what the club can offer a player both financially and winning trophies. Right now Man City has a bigger pull than us due to their project and due to their money, hence a player like Haaland joined them over us.

It's about creating a attractive project with a head coach who believes in implementing a proactive attacking play style which will create the appeal for prospective new recruits. The money wlll be there but it's important to create the appeal by implementing a attractive play style which will then attract the players who will want to join a team on the up.
That’s only true in some cases. At United under SAF of course there was a guarantee for players that SAF would be there, they would play under him and be successful.
Pep and Klopp are also long term managers.
But at Chelsea, Madrid, Barca, Bayern most players don’t necessarily join because of a coach as the coach could be gone before the player has even properly settled in.
 
I’m getting really stressed about this can’t sleep and just refreshing this thread twitter and going over all YouTube channels obsessing over every detail and yet there’s no news.

It’s vital we get an update tomorrow otherwise I will be furious and ready to explode with rage.
 
The allure of a club depends on what the club can offer a player both financially and winning trophies. Right now Man City has a bigger pull than us due to their project and due to their money, hence a player like Haaland joined them over us.

It's about creating a attractive project with a head coach who believes in implementing a proactive attacking play style which will create the appeal for prospective new recruits. The money wlll be there but it's important to create the appeal by implementing a attractive play style which will then attract the players who will want to join a team on the up.

The initial point wasn't even about that but Haaland is an example. Red Bull have a potential plan for their players, they can be purchased by any of their three clubs and move to an other if it suits them. It's something that we saw with Upamecano, Szoboszlai or Naby Keita. But then there are players like Haaland, Adeyemi or Aaronson that decide that they won't go the Leipzig way.

The point was that players choose where they go and how they plan or not plan their future moves. Which is why Castle's theory is dubious.
 
Last edited:
I’m getting really stressed about this can’t sleep and just refreshing this thread twitter and going over all YouTube channels obsessing over every detail and yet there’s no news.

It’s vital we get an update tomorrow otherwise I will be furious and ready to explode with rage.

Blimey. This could go on for months. I hope you'll make it.
 
I’m getting really stressed about this can’t sleep and just refreshing this thread twitter and going over all YouTube channels obsessing over every detail and yet there’s no news.

It’s vital we get an update tomorrow otherwise I will be furious and ready to explode with rage.
Take a step back dude, turn the computer off!
 
The initial point wasn't even about that but Haaland is an example. Red Bull have a potential plan for their players, they can be purchased by any of their three clubs and move to an other if it suits them. It something that we saw with Upamecano, Szoboszlai or Naby Keita. But then there are players like Haaland, Adeyemi or Aaronson that decide that they won't go the Leipzig way.

The point was that players choose where they go and how they plan or not plan their future moves. Which is why Castle's theory is dubious.
I agree. It's about what's best for the player.
 
The allure of a club depends on what the club can offer a player both financially and winning trophies. Right now Man City has a bigger pull than us due to their project and due to their money, hence a player like Haaland joined them over us.

It's about creating a attractive project with a head coach who believes in implementing a proactive attacking play style which will create the appeal for prospective new recruits. The money wlll be there but it's important to create the appeal by implementing a attractive play style which will then attract the players who will want to join a team on the up.
City were signing big players long before they became a winning machine and even then we have beaten them to quite a few players over the last 4/5 years.
If what Castles says is true then the owners won’t be planting players at PSG to funnel up to United against their will nor will it be 2023 forever and forever. PSG as a single entity being built for success will be gone, it’ll all be about what makes United better. No player who wants to join City, Liverpool etc would ever join PSG in that scenario.
With that backing, with United being up there competing for every CL and league title it means players won’t be just coming to us for our name or the status of the club but to compete at the very highest level.
 
I don't care about how the rest of the world see things if said world decide to ignore the majority of what has happened. How you see something isn't important, what is important is what actually happened. In what type of world does this starting team from 2013 isn't balanced:

--------------Ibrahimovic
Lavezzi---------------------Menez
----------Matuidi--Verratti
---------------- Motta
Maxwell--Silva--Alex-Jallet
-----------------Sirigu

The next version of that team was:

-----------------Ibrahimovic
Cavani---------------------------Moura
----------Matuidi----Verratti
------------------Motta
Maxwell-Thiago-Marquinhos-Jallet
-------------------GK

Neither of these teams are unbalanced, the backbone of these teams lasted the better part of 10 years with the inclusion of homegrown players like Rabiot or Kimpembe. The issue for PSG is that in 2016 and 2017 they lost key players that they failed to replace, those players were leaders in and out of the field, I'm talking about the likes of Thiago Motta, Matuidi, Maxwell and Ibrahimovic. Instead of focusing on replacing these key players the newly appointed DOF, Antero Enrique, decided to put everything on two players and he failed which is why he was sidelined after two years.

In reality there is nothing special about PSG, this type of things happen to all clubs, they build a solid core and then fail to have one ready to replace it. Since then PSG have improved the balance of the team but the hole that Antero dug was pretty deep.

Also an other mistake made in the quote that you shared is that PSG plans have always been the DOF's plan, that's why you can see a big difference between what Leonardo did when he joined in 2012 and what Antero Henrique or now Campos are doing, it's a fallacy to talk about PSG as if they were following an single overarching plan. In fact the biggest criticism of QSI is that they let DOFs and managers do what they want and if they fail they sack or don't extend them. In several cases it would have been better if they were like Bayern or Real Madrid's board and had a more hands-on approach, they will criticize the manager or DOF but not impose a direction.
It seems odd to have to argue that PSG are a mess by saying anything more than: 'look'.

Nobody in the article suggested there was a grand plan beyond 'make us the most respected club in the world'. The suggestion that a DOF could act with impunity, given the sums of money involved, is so outlandish that it requires a little more proof than, we were doing OK for a bit. I accept that players needed to be bought, but the players, transfer fees and contracts all follow a pattern.

I don't think there is any doubt anywhere that PSG are a sportwashing project for the Qatari state is there?
 
Still 4 days left to meet the original deadline. Not likely but not impossible
 
I’m getting really stressed about this can’t sleep and just refreshing this thread twitter and going over all YouTube channels obsessing over every detail and yet there’s no news.

It’s vital we get an update tomorrow otherwise I will be furious and ready to explode with rage.

:lol:

Everyone needs to relax
 
That’s only true in some cases. At United under SAF of course there was a guarantee for players that SAF would be there, they would play under him and be successful.
Pep and Klopp are also long term managers.
But at Chelsea, Madrid, Barca, Bayern most players don’t necessarily join because of a coach as the coach could be gone before the player has even properly settled in.
Players join Madrid due to them being in a unique position where they can attract most players in the world and offer the opportunity of winning trophies. Chelsea under Ambramovich also became a team with the best setup throughout the club from the first team down to their youth teams where they have been very dominant.

Barca and Bayern are both huge clubs and follow the positional play principles which makes both clubs even more attractive to join. And those principles are implemented by a number of head coaches. It's the idea of creating a winning team by dominating the opponent which players want to be part of. It also helps that Barcelona is a lovely place to live.
 
Great piece, so we are all to assume that the current bids of the rumoured £5bn is only for the 69.0% of The Glaziers sibling shares and Ed Woodward 0.50% and by conclusion does not necessarily include the £620m debt which would have to be paid if and when the new owners took control ?

The Athletic are adamant that the figures mentioned for the Ineos and Qatar bids are the valuation of the entire club including the debt.

So, assuming they have each bid £5bn, the Glazers would be getting (5bn - net debt)*69% = c. £2.9bn directly to the Glazers for all their Class B shares (or about £500m each).
 
Last edited:
You are the one who argued about a general point, with your "United has a huge pull"
Edit I’ll make this simpler.
I was not making a general point, I made a point specific to Man United. Man United have a huge pull the same way if I were talking about Madrid or Barca or Bayern in isolated examples. All have huge pulls. No club will ever sign a player who doesn’t want to join but these clubs have more players wanting to join them than others.
it’s ok to misread a post but to continually misrepresent it seems to be A typical from you.
 
Last edited:
Castles is a total bullshit merchant, Braga aren't about to become our feeder club ffs. That would make it obvious that we're owned by the same cnuts who own PSG and they're supposed to be pretending they're a separate group.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.