Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nogbadthebad

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
5,525
Location
Wolverhampton
Most sources say that Jim has a net worth of between 15 and 20 billion pounds. Wealth is not the issue here.

He actually has exceeded the Qatar bid in terms of valuation of the club.
'Jim' is not buying United. Not even 25% of it.

Ineos is, and it is borrowing money to do it.

Given they need a loan to buy 25%, how do they buy the entire club in 3 years.

Or spend 2 billion on infrastructure?
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
32,410
I could be wrong. Source?
BEN JACOBS.

I remember reading his tweet before the video aired. You can dig out all correspondence and video appearances yourself, but United mupeteers don't know shit.

Also without sounding condescending, a 14 year old with half a business brain could tell you 25% stakes aren't thrown in for shits and giggles without a route to full ownership. Most business acquisitions are done this way. Mupeteers nor Ben Jacob's said anything ground breaking.
 

JagUTD

Full Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2022
Messages
3,235
Also. 25% isn't the random figure some think it is.

It puts Ratcliffe in a strong position from the start. Able to block special resolutios, challenge the the variation of share classes in court and is also just below the threshold for mandatory takeovers.

With United, 25% of the club would be around 40% of the voting rights, so again, hardly a position of weakness.
 

Thom Merrilin

Full Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
798
Hey mate, best way to the reports about the structure? I must have missed and rather not dig through the morass.
There's the Athletic article and there's been several tweets in this thread about it. There's also a video from someone who claims to have a source inside Ineos but that could be unreliable, I'm n
BEN JACOBS.

I remember reading his tweet before the video aired. You can dig out all correspondence and video appearances yourself, but United mupeteers don't know shit.

Also without sounding condescending, a 14 year old with half a business brain could tell you 25% stakes aren't thrown in for shits and giggles without a route to full ownership. Most business acquisitions are done this way. Mupeteers nor Ben Jacob's said anything ground breaking.
Yeah I know it's Ben Jacob's. I went through his Twitter and couldn't find anything. I'm asking you to provide me the tweet.
 

Berbaclass

Fallen Muppet. Lest we never forget
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
40,047
Location
Cooper Station
BEN JACOBS.

I remember reading his tweet before the video aired. You can dig out all correspondence and video appearances yourself, but United mupeteers don't know shit.

Also without sounding condescending, a 14 year old with half a business brain could tell you 25% stakes aren't thrown in for shits and giggles without a route to full ownership. Most business acquisitions are done this way. Mupeteers nor Ben Jacob's said anything ground breaking.
You can't find it then.
 

The Hilton

Full Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
4,271
My point was that he is clearly willing to spend a huge amount of money on Manchester United. He's worth between 15 and 20 billion pounds, I don't think he's too poor to afford a full takeover.
Let's assume for a second that he can afford it (although I seriously doubt it, most of his worth is tied up in his ownership of INEOS) - as you said he wasn't willing to spend enough to match the Glazers valuation, so what's going to change? If their valuation goes down, then it's almost certainly terrible news for the club, as something would have to have gone wrong. If it doesn't go down then it's the same amount he wasn't willing to pay before, what could change to make him willing this time around?
 

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,413
'Jim' is not buying United. Not even 25% of it.

Ineos is, and it is borrowing money to do it.

Given they need a loan to buy 25%, how do they buy the entire club in 3 years.

Or spend 2 billion on infrastructure?
INEOS don't need a loan to do anything, they just make more money having £1.5bn in active assets than it costs them to borrow £1.5m.
 

Garethw

scored 25-30 goals a season as a right footed RW
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
17,061
Location
England:
Have you read the reports? Ineos will assume full sporting control. Also, there is a route to 100% ownership, that much is totally clear. It's yet to be seen if Ineos will be compelled to take that route or not. We really have to wait for the full plan to be made public but all the signs are positive imo.
We’ll see mate. I really hope you are right. At the moment I’m feeling pretty dejected at the thought of the Glazers staying around in any Capacity.
 

Nogbadthebad

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
5,525
Location
Wolverhampton
Have you seen the board structure of INEOS? it's basically Jim and his two mates :lol:
You misunderstand.

Ineos is a legal entity, and it is Ineos buying the club.

Jim Ratcliffe is as likely to dip into his personal wealth as the glazers. So it is completely irrelevant.

Our owners will be either the glazers or Ineos. Ineos cannot buy the club and pay for infrsatsructure over th enext few years. And they need a billion just to clear our debts.
 

Gandalf Greyhame

If in doubt, follow your nose!
Scout
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
7,474
Location
Red Card for Casemiro!
Glad we are not being sold to Qatar, because that would have been the end of the road for me.

But reading these early reports, it seems like this was the next worst outcome that could have happened. Just off the top of my head, we don't know the following:

- what sporting control INEOS would have with only a 25% financial stake,
- what the timeline is for a full takeover, and whether it is proposed or guaranteed
- what this means for infra investment, FFP, and transfer budget
- what this means for the current debt of the club
- the source of current and future capital for majority takeover, and whether that saddles the club with more debt

We'll have to wait and see what the answers are to assess whether this was good for the club, but knowing the Glazers, the answers won't be made available any time soon, or be something the fans would like.

I feel for ETH and some of our players, another manager and group of players who have been set up to fail.
 

Thom Merrilin

Full Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
798
We’ll see mate. I really hope you are right. At the moment I’m feeling pretty dejected at the thought of the Glazers staying around in any Capacity.
Yeah I totally get it. I'm optimistic but ultimately we have to wait and see.
 

Garethw

scored 25-30 goals a season as a right footed RW
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
17,061
Location
England:
Let's assume for a second that he can afford it (although I seriously doubt it, most of his worth is tied up in his ownership of INEOS) - as you said he wasn't willing to spend enough to match the Glazers valuation, so what's going to change? If their valuation goes down, then it's almost certainly terrible news for the club, as something would have to have gone wrong. If it doesn't go down then it's the same amount he wasn't willing to pay before, what could change to make him willing this time around?
This is my worry. If he isn’t willing to pay now, why will he be willing in the future when the figure could potentially be even higher for a full buy out?
 

The Hilton

Full Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
4,271
BEN JACOBS.

I remember reading his tweet before the video aired. You can dig out all correspondence and video appearances yourself, but United mupeteers don't know shit.

Also without sounding condescending, a 14 year old with half a business brain could tell you 25% stakes aren't thrown in for shits and giggles without a route to full ownership. Most business acquisitions are done this way. Mupeteers nor Ben Jacob's said anything ground breaking.
I may be missing some context in this conversation, but your final statement is a little crazy. Minority investment happens all the time, the idea that it's only a vehicle for full ownership just isn't true. I'm sure Ratcliffe wants a path to full ownership, but he can't afford it outright and so isn't in a particularly strong position to demand as such.
 

Yorke to Cole

Full Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
924
I don't believe David Beckham has any links to Sheikh Jassim - it was just media speculation after questions around his documentary

I don't think Jassim has changed anything in his bid for several months, it's just taken the Glazers this ridiculous amount of time to come to a consensus decision

I think you a right that at least 2 of the Glazers decided they didn't want to sell at this price ages ago
Sheikh Jassim reportedly put a 6th bid "double the market value" so around $7.2-7.4 billion which is around £6 billion. The Athletic reported they wanted £6.4 billion. We know the 2 that did not want to sell.

I was just wondering if David Beckham may have been aware that Jassim/92 Foundation were going to prepare another offer.

It did feel that something was going to come fruition after bloomberg's report.

I wanted a clean break but I hope this offer is what it says, a road to kicking all them out.
 

Matriac

Full Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
1,504
It would just be nice to hear what the hell the plan Jim has for the club, because so far there's very little to be hopeful about.


Jim won't announce his plans after midnight on the weekend, so we might as well all take a break from this topic for the time being.

What happened now is the club informed Jassim that they intend to go with Jim, allowing Jassim to graciously withdraw his offer instead of technically losing out. Then the bid from Jim needs to be ratified in a board meeting before Jim can even consider speaking publicly about his plans for the club.

Even then I bet he will hold a lot of cards close to his chest, plans with Ineos towards Glazers that either can't be made public due to NDA's or doesn't make sense to make public before they are actioned on.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
32,410
Yeah I know it's Ben Jacob's. I went through his Twitter and couldn't find anything. I'm asking you to provide me the tweet.

Ben Jacob's say the bid was high enough to get their foot in the door for full control down the line. The next day some mupeteers tit comes out and says Ratcliffe's bid has a route to full control.

The show says NOTHING of inside information. It's rehashed bullshit, and it makes tits out of people dumb enough to believe it.
You can't find it then.
Not can't. Just didn't think it was worth my time. You're lucky I gave two minutes, the shite of United mupeteers isn't worth that. Can't believe they actually fool people :lol:
 

DownRiver

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 5, 2018
Messages
775
Can someone explain to me one thing that I can’t wrap my head around, if Man Utd needs money to stay afloat and Ratcliff is buying shares, how is Man Utd benefiting if the money to buy the shares goes to individual glazer siblings for the 25%, how is the money going to help reduce the debt and rebuild infrastructure?

Ratcliff won’t invest anything until he is majority owner, so how is this helping the balance sheet of Man Utd?
 

The Hilton

Full Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
4,271
This is my worry. If he isn’t willing to pay now, why will he be willing in the future when the figure could potentially be even higher for a full buy out?
I don't think it's anything to do with willing, personally, and more that he simply can't afford it. If he could, he'd have bid enough. This is a vanity project for him, as we aren't a good business proposition - struggling under the weight of our debt, decades behind in terms of infrastructure, competitors with bottomless pits of cash and no desire or need to balance the books. I just struggle to see how any of that changes given these developments.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
32,410
I may be missing some context in this conversation, but your final statement is a little crazy. Minority investment happens all the time, the idea that it's only a vehicle for full ownership just isn't true. I'm sure Ratcliffe wants a path to full ownership, but he can't afford it outright and so isn't in a particularly strong position to demand as such.
Minority investment happens all the time but acquirers looking for control often start with a minority state to get their foot through the door. That practise is very common.

Ratcliffe's minority stake could easily have been assumed as such by anyone with a remote understanding in finance.
 

ArjenIsM3

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
5,653
Location
Netherlands
Can someone explain to me one thing that I can’t wrap my head around, if Man Utd needs money to stay afloat and Ratcliff is buying shares, how is Man Utd benefiting if the money to buy the shares goes to individual glazer siblings for the 25%, how is the money going to help reduce the debt and rebuild infrastructure?

Ratcliff won’t invest anything until he is majority owner, so how is this helping the balance sheet of Man Utd?
It isn't. We're probably fecked for several more years. That is unless he has some great plan we don't yet know about. But I doubt it.
 

Rhyme Animal

Thinks Di Zerbi is better than Pep.
Joined
Sep 3, 2015
Messages
11,193
Location
Nonchalantly scoring the winner...
Stadium redevelopment.
Debt status
These 2 questions need to be answered properly by Ratcliffe.
Not answered - sorted, and completely.

It’s a ‘yes or no’ situation.

We’ve just lost a real deal bidder that publicly pledged to completely and immediately clear the debt and sort the stadium.

Absolutely no less should be expected from Brexit Jim. Not one iota less is acceptable.

‘Will you clear the debt with immediate effect?’ - it’s yes or no.

‘Will the stadium be sorted immediately?’ - again, it’s simply yes or no.

Nothing less than that should be accepted by fans given what was offered to our club by Jassim.

Don’t let your standards be slowly lowered again.
 

Rood

nostradamus like gloater
Scout
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
21,419
Location
@United_Hour
Sheikh Jassim reportedly put a 6th bid "double the market value" so around $7.2-7.4 billion which is around £6 billion. The Athletic reported they wanted £6.4 billion. We know the 2 that did not want to sell.

I was just wondering if David Beckham may have been aware that Jassim/92 Foundation were going to prepare another offer.

It did feel that something was going to come fruition after bloomberg's report.

I wanted a clean break but I hope this offer is what it says, a road to kicking all them out.
Very difficult to get excited about a minority stake deal but if it brings any kind of change then I suppose it's better than nothing

Big thing for me is, where is the money going to come from for a stadium refurb ?
 

Thom Merrilin

Full Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
798

Ben Jacob's say the bid was high enough to get their foot in the door for full control down the line. The next day some mupeteers tit comes out and says Ratcliffe's bid has a route to full control.

The show says NOTHING of inside information. It's rehashed bullshit, and it makes tits out of people dumb enough to believe it.

Not can't. Just didn't think it was worth my time. You're lucky I gave two minutes, the shite of United mupeteers isn't worth that. Can't believe they actually fool people :lol:
Fair enough. I won't reference that channel again unless they are proven correct about the timeline.

Edit: to be fair they did kinda double down on what Jacob's seemed unwilling to confirm. Whether that's just them grifting or actually having some info remains to be seen.
 

Dixieland Delight

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 3, 2023
Messages
38
Location
God's Country
Hardly inspiring, but it is what is is, so I wish our new overlords every success. They look suspiciously like the old ones, but maybe this time it'll be different :lol:
 

Someone

Something
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
8,004
Location
Somewhere
Sporting control means nothing when a minority shareholder doesn't control the finances. Who is foolish enough to fall for such a cheap trick?

We still have 1B in debt and the interest has to be paid by the clubs own money. If none of the minority owners (all of the siblings including the Rat are minority shareholders, just a reminder) don't inject a significant amount of own capital into the club to pay of the existing debts our transfer spendings will be heavily restricted for years. Where should the money to upgrade the stadium and Carrington come from? Outside investments come with financial obligations. So far the Glazershaven't invest one penny of their own money into the club, so why would that change now? Once again don't be fooled by meaningless promises.

A 25% minority owning is by far the worst possible that could happened. A existing minority shareholder will never jeopardize their investment with a deal with a new investor that makes them powerless until they got fully paid. Wake up! It's the Glazers we're talking about.

The roadmap for INEOS to own 100% of the club in 3-6 years comes with financial commitments. If INEOS only have funds to buy 25% then ask yourself how they're going to finance the rest of the billions they have to pay the Glazers and the rest of the shareholders on NYSE

For my own well being I now have to disconnect my emotions from this club and horrible ownership. No more money from me.

I'm only baffled how naive some are. Ratcliffe's history as a business man is filled with broken promises, lies and mismanagement of fundamental environmental principles. How anyone still have trust in his words when he he’s a proven lier, that don’t hesitate being dirty to get his way, is beyond my understanding.
Spot on. Don't know what people are smoking. I don't really care about the Qataris, but this 25% shit achieves nothing. The debt remains and so do the Glazers. Horrible for the club.
 

Chairman Steve

Full Member
Joined
May 9, 2018
Messages
7,186
The pro to INEOS owning a significant share is I think they’ll give much more of a shit than the Glazers. INEOS pin a lot of their global appeal and reach through sporting excellence (a la Red Bull) so they won’t tolerate being associated with some fecking circus team especially one that has such an intense limelight on it, unlike the Glazers who don’t give a feck as long as dividends are rolling in.

This will be their jewel in the crown for their sporting portfolio so I hope they‘ve got an arrangement to have significant decision making in the day to day running of the on-pitch stuff.

They better come out with statements of their intentions, especially since the Glazers have put the fans on the ‘pay no mind’ list for almost two decades.
 

SAFMUTD

New Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
11,787
It would just be nice to hear what the hell the plan Jim has for the club, because so far there's very little to be hopeful about.
What plan does he have? Who cares he made a deal with the Glazers which save them to keep the club.

As far as I'm concerned Jim is a complete enemy of this club. He just gave the Glazers s lifeline.

Feck the glazers and feck a thousand times Jim Radcliffe.
 

The Hilton

Full Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
4,271
Minority investment happens all the time but acquirers looking for control often start with a minority state to get their foot through the door. That practise is very common.

Ratcliffe's minority stake could easily have been assumed as such by anyone with a remote understanding in finance.
It's clear what Ratcliffe's aim is, yes, but what isn't clear is how this smaller investment leads to him buying us out. He can't afford to buy the Glazers out at their current valuation, hence this minority stake. This means that the Glazers' valuation would need to decrease. The latter would only happen if the club is struggling (worse than we have been) on the sporting or commercial side, which isn't good news. It's also actively a deterrent against Ratcliffe investing directly in the club, as that'll increase our value and therefore make his takeover more difficult.

Don't get me wrong, given that he's the only option I'd love for this to have a direct path to him ridding us of the Glazers altogether, I just can't see how it would happen given how if he could afford to buy them out he would be doing so.
 

Garethw

scored 25-30 goals a season as a right footed RW
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
17,061
Location
England:
I don't think it's anything to do with willing, personally, and more that he simply can't afford it. If he could, he'd have bid enough. This is a vanity project for him, as we aren't a good business proposition - struggling under the weight of our debt, decades behind in terms of infrastructure, competitors with bottomless pits of cash and no desire or need to balance the books. I just struggle to see how any of that changes given these developments.
That’s my worry too mate. I was pro Qatar because they were going to remove all of our debt. A debt free Manchester United can financially compete with any club on earth.

Factor in a state of the art stadium and training ground and we would have been financially secure without the need for sugar daddy cash injections.

I don’t see anything changing under Ineos and that’s assuming they even obtain 100% of the club. Personally I don’t believe they will.

It’s a fecking shit show. I’d personally rather see the whole thing fall through and in a year or two a buyer come forward that can genuinely afford the club.
feck the Glazers.
 

Matriac

Full Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
1,504
I may be missing some context in this conversation, but your final statement is a little crazy. Minority investment happens all the time, the idea that it's only a vehicle for full ownership just isn't true. I'm sure Ratcliffe wants a path to full ownership, but he can't afford it outright and so isn't in a particularly strong position to demand as such.
If Jim and the Glazers have a difference in opinion on what the club is actually worth then a deal like this makes sense. (The following is mainly my thinking.)

The club absolutely needs investment now, so him buying a sizable minority share, with provisions of sporting control, and I'm certain that any further possible investment will have provisions that Ineos investment increases the value of the club, thus that should be offset in the final purchase price later. Or some sort of arrangement like that.

But back to the difference in opinion of total value. Glazers believe the club will be worth more than it currently is in 2-3 years if certain things pan out (some sort of super champions league with saudi teams, some catalyst that makes the sport much more popular in the US or whatever). They don't want to sell it all now cause they think they're right around the corner from a bigger payday.

Jim doesn't agree with them that the value will increase as much as they think, so he isn't willing to pay their premium price now. But he does want to own the club, and is willing to buy a stake that will let him get control of what matters to him, control of sporting decisions and a vehicle for further control through investments. Then in a few years they'll see who is right, if Glazers are right then Ineos will need to pay more than planned to own everything. If Jim is right then they pay closer to the valuation he thought it would be.

But ultimately the club is better off due to some investment likely happening now. It's a happy middle of the road solution where hopefully the short term problems are taken care of, while long term estimations can play out.
 

fallengt

Full Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
5,617
Microsoft just bought Activision with a plan to control market but here buying 25% is a "good first step"

Feel bad for anyone emotionally invested in this whole "takeover". Glazers dont want to sell, its been clear for months.
Now we watch Jassim buy another club to rock it in our faces.
 

littlepeasoup

Full Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
5,365
Location
Give peas a chance.
But ultimately the club is better off due to some investment likely happening now. It's a happy middle of the road solution where hopefully the short term problems are taken care of, while long term estimations can play out.
What investment though? Surely that entire 25% stake will go straight into the Glazers pockets?
 

RedChrome

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 5, 2023
Messages
34
To me this just means more years of uncertainty for Utd fans. More years of owners that can't compete in the new reality the is the Premier League today.
 

El Zoido

Full Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
12,453
Location
UK
Sheikh Jassim reportedly put a 6th bid "double the market value" so around $7.2-7.4 billion which is around £6 billion. The Athletic reported they wanted £6.4 billion. We know the 2 that did not want to sell.

I was just wondering if David Beckham may have been aware that Jassim/92 Foundation were going to prepare another offer.

It did feel that something was going to come fruition after bloomberg's report.

I wanted a clean break but I hope this offer is what it says, a road to kicking all them out.
Don’t want a “road” to kicking them out, I’ll be in my fecking box by the time they’re gone at this rate. We have another decade of this shit ahead of us. Jim is taking us all for fools.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.