When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die… Oh wait.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
We will be stuck on mediocrity as long as the Glazers are still here.
It will be Ineos buying the stake so whoever is running the company then. Valid point though.
No, it goes to the Glazer's directly, kinda like when you go to the supermarket to buy something, you give them money for it, same here, INEOS are buying shares off them, any dividends those generate would go to INEOS if they choose to take them
Maybe so but that's not the same as needing a state owner to not be mediocre
Depends who's calling the shots. If the Glazers are willing to take a back seat and stay out of decision making (very big if!) then it makes no difference if they are there or not. Until Radclife or someone else takes majority ownership then we'll never be sure.
It means we run the club they way we want to and you just take the money, the agreement is, as seems to be reported, is that this is step 1 that eventually will lead to a complete takeover.
The Glazer's think that the value of United will grow, so the deal is probably something along the lines of:
1. INEOS buy 25% pf Glazer's shares and assume control of the day=tp-day running of the club, Glazer's keep their dividends
2. in 2 years INEOS buy another 25% at the then market rate + 10% or today's marlet rate + 10%, whichever is highest
3. the same thing repeated until INEOS own the lot
This will be a legally binding contract, there's no way INEOS would go down this or a similar route otherwise
The independent board members will vote yes for this offer since there will be no damage to the interest of any shareholder. They are all appointed by the Glazers. The 69% didn't pull off simply because they feared they will get sued.
Even more shocking is how cock sure few are on how Qatar is going to punish ManUtd for this, ffs these guys are so shit that they can't even come up with a plan to beat their only competitor for the club.
The Glazers must be convinced the clubs value will increase over the next 5-10 years otherwise they'd have cashed out with the Qataris. If Jim is giving them the option to cash out later for a potentially bigger pile of cash whilst Ineos run the club for them, then you can see why thats the deal they went for. Potentially a similar (kind of) model to Spurs where Levy calls the shots despite being a minority stake holder in the company that owns Spurs.
Biggest question is how much control are Ineos going to have without a majority on the board? They'd be the largest individual shareholder, but the Glazer siblings would still have ~70% of the board votes. Ineos would be reliant on the Glazers abstaining from any decision making. Might be a condition of the deal. Not sure how that would work practically and would probably rely on some from some sort of gentlemen's agreement!
Mates, it’s been an epic ride the last 50 years I’ve supported United, but with this news the path forward for the club —- on the pitch, that is — appears grim until someone or something buys out the Ratcfliffe/Glazer ownership.
But I’m sure that track suits and all the other shit merch that gets pumped out and fills our inboxes every few days will look mint.
But I’m sure that track suits and all the other shit merch that gets pumped out and fills our inboxes every few days will look mint.
Skintflints. His cheapness with everything infected down to his own clothing.
That dog is better taken care of than our club.
I doubt Ineos will pump in 1.3B and base it on "gentleman's agreement" with these leeches. Whatever is decided will be set in stone with iron clad clauses. Anything less and the Glazers will have no issues backtracking if it gets them a penny more.
An absolute disaster to cap off what has been a horrid campaign so far. I really don't see a way out of this mess and the way forward looks incredibly bleak.
Could not agree more.
That is the worst outcome other than the Glazers staying!! Would have been fully happy if Jim bought the whole club, just worried if there will be a power struggle between Ineos and Glazers down the line that could screw up the whole club and get into legal battles, as having many greedy businessmen owning an entity like Manchester United will definitely not be a smooth ride!
feckers are so out of touch with reality. This is the same thing that supporters have been shouting at them for nearly 2 decades.
Why have a power struggle at all and go through a bunch of nonsense when terms can be agreed beforehand? How do you people come up with all these doomsday scenarios without the use of alcohol? It's fascinating.
The Glazers are the ones who put the club on the market, it isn't like Ratcliffe is forcing him to sell. I swear it's like people see a new tv show coming up and can't wait for all the drama.
You'd hope a mult-billion company wouldn't be doing deals with a wink and a nod. Trying to picture how it would work practically though. If you don't have the votes on a listed company you don't have control. Unless the deal involves a restructure of the share holdings and associated voting rights or something like that.
Has anyone checked on croadyman recently?
I don’t get that, rebuilt and expand Old Trafford, so are they rebuilding or are they expanding? 
they're not [/QUOTE]
They're not mutually exclusive.
they're not [/QUOTE]
They're not mutually exclusive.
I think someone poster earlier, Man Utd as a brand has many companies registered under it. Assuming that they are going to get control of the one which looks after football operations. Not sure if there are separate Board and the voting rights which Ineos will have on it, but think this can be done relatively simply.
Main concern is in terms of the split of what is going to be called the revenue for that company and how will that be carved out or identified. Hopefully we get a clearer picture in the coming week or two. Fans desperately need more details around this.
Only in Britain you can see someone buy something so shoddy, debt ridden and broken down for a huge sum BUT still dont own that thing. Very sad and somehow this man is knighted for his services, so called richest in Britain??, but is bloody poor in his economics and businesses decision.
Those against qatar (or whoever it is thats willing to come in with the money), YES success is not guaranteed but if we can live debt free, that in it self is a bliss and opens up to many new possibilities. Qatar's gone come circling to either Liverpool or Spurs soon and going to make them and their current owners rich and the club successful.
Playing to the local sentiment, alas sleeping with the enemy. Well here's to many years of wondering aimlessly in the void of being a mediocre club, no success and a huge debt which will be larger then life at some point. 10+ year as it stands now, probably will be another 20 years, bankruptcy or relegation which ever that comes first that will see us on the mend.
Those against qatar (or whoever it is thats willing to come in with the money), YES success is not guaranteed but if we can live debt free, that in it self is a bliss and opens up to many new possibilities. Qatar's gone come circling to either Liverpool or Spurs soon and going to make them and their current owners rich and the club successful.
Playing to the local sentiment, alas sleeping with the enemy. Well here's to many years of wondering aimlessly in the void of being a mediocre club, no success and a huge debt which will be larger then life at some point. 10+ year as it stands now, probably will be another 20 years, bankruptcy or relegation which ever that comes first that will see us on the mend.
He will have more B shares than anyone
Yes hopefully Jim will release substantial details after the ratification
Sir Jim Ratification
In terms of the 25% offer and the control of the sporting matters, firstly I wonder how the 25% number came from and how could these kind of control could be formalized. After I navigate the Class structure of Man Utd stocks, I think something creative may happend by issuing Preferred stares and removing the class A/B:
Original Structure
Structure after issuing Preferred stocks and removing class A/B
*Speculate number in order for INEOS to gain simple majority control after preferred stocks redemption
Preferred Shares could turn to common class A shares if callable option is placed upon issuing and voting right could be defined for certain matters (appointing First team manager, DOF, etc.) . This could explain how the 25% came from (24.71% of all original Class A shares) and how INEOS could gain simple majority voting right on certain matters.
Furthermore, based on the reported valuation, assume the tender offer price is $38
The fund generation by issuing preferred shares could directly go in to the balance sheet of the club which could be used to immediately wipe out the outstanding bond or other debt, which is appx. $600M. So there will be $1.4B left for other infra. investment. The total number which INEOS will be invested is appx $4B which is equal or getting near to the figure of 69% aquisation which is reported in JUNE.
Some of you maybe argue what is the incentive for the Glazers sibling since there is no money (they hold 2M of class A shares though) go into their pocket. I think the original idea for them especially for Joel and Avram was never going for full sale. They only want minority investment to inflate their holding and a future route to escape on a higher valuation. I think a call/put option arrangement will be placed on their class B shares base on certain condition, which is reported earlier by certain journalists.
Original Structure
| Class | Shares | Voting Rights |
| A | 54537360 | 4.72% |
| B | 164744973 | 95.28% |
Structure after issuing Preferred stocks and removing class A/B
| Class | Shares | Voting Rights | Voting Rights After Redemption or certain matters | |
| Original Class A | 54537360 | 33.1% | 24.71% | Acquired by INEOS after Tender offer |
| Preferred shares | 56000000* | 0* | 25.37%* | issue to INEOS |
| Original Class B now turn to Class A | 164744973 | 66.9% | 49.93% | hold by Glazers |
*Speculate number in order for INEOS to gain simple majority control after preferred stocks redemption
Preferred Shares could turn to common class A shares if callable option is placed upon issuing and voting right could be defined for certain matters (appointing First team manager, DOF, etc.) . This could explain how the 25% came from (24.71% of all original Class A shares) and how INEOS could gain simple majority voting right on certain matters.
Furthermore, based on the reported valuation, assume the tender offer price is $38
| Class | Shares | Valuation |
| Class A | 54537360 | $2,072,419,680 |
| Preferred shares | 56000000* | $2,128,000,000 |
The fund generation by issuing preferred shares could directly go in to the balance sheet of the club which could be used to immediately wipe out the outstanding bond or other debt, which is appx. $600M. So there will be $1.4B left for other infra. investment. The total number which INEOS will be invested is appx $4B which is equal or getting near to the figure of 69% aquisation which is reported in JUNE.
Some of you maybe argue what is the incentive for the Glazers sibling since there is no money (they hold 2M of class A shares though) go into their pocket. I think the original idea for them especially for Joel and Avram was never going for full sale. They only want minority investment to inflate their holding and a future route to escape on a higher valuation. I think a call/put option arrangement will be placed on their class B shares base on certain condition, which is reported earlier by certain journalists.
I was saving that for Thursday
It's a really bad joke tbfI was saving that for Thursday
I'm buzzing off the news. To think we could be not only no longer be controlled by the Glazers sporting wise in the immediate term, but potentially be rid of them long term by a local guy who made his millions by himself.... Yep, take that all day long.
Everyone else getting their knickers in a twist because they can't look past a big pot of money the guy is a meme. I'd rather be run like Brighton than PSG/Chelsea any day.
Everyone else getting their knickers in a twist because they can't look past a big pot of money
the guy is a meme. I'd rather be run like Brighton than PSG/Chelsea any day.To be fair, people wanted us to be run like City. And Ratcliffe will gain those people’s trust AFTER he shows he can get rid of the Glazers. Right now with only 25% shares, the Glazers can still veto him from big decisions.I'm buzzing off the news. To think we could be not only no longer be controlled by the Glazers sporting wise in the immediate term, but potentially be rid of them long term by a local guy who made his millions by himself.... Yep, take that all day long.
Everyone else getting their knickers in a twist because they can't look past a big pot of money
My guess is it will be more likely Spurs than Liverpool just simply it is located in London, and already has a new stadium and training facilities.
What exactly is nonsense about that post?
That depends on what he's contractually obliged to. If Jim doesn't have guarantees that he doesn't have the influence he needs, then he wouldn't have agreed to the deal.
And I don't see something called the 92 foundation buying Liverpool of all clubs
That’s the assumption. But if there’s one thing with Manchester United recently, it’s that things never move as we assume, no matter how logical it sounds.
1. I think everyone who has followed The Glazers for the last 18 years knows that their main or should I say only priority in everything they do is to protect and increase their own wealth. Keep that in mind whenever there's some uncertainty regarding what's included in the sale of their stocks.
2. When it comes to the relationship between a minority and a majority shareholder nothing is set in stone. Legally binding or not.
The majority owners can change any agreement, legally binding contract or whatever by restructuring, sale, loan or whatever that belongs to the company. We talk about for example naming rights, all sorts of assets, financial rights or obligations or whatever with worth. If there's a disagreement between the minority and the majority shareholders how to interpret so-called legally binding agreements, contracts, obligations or anything they may disagree on, the majority owner always has more power and more legal room for maneuver for changes. Doesn’t mean they will always win but a majority position definitely have more power.
3. If the value of the company will with time increase or decrease it can also create disagreements how to interpret these changes of value. That's why any deal that involves future transactions based on recent or future value is filled with risks, and the majority owner mostly has the upper hand in such a dispute.
Ratcliffe has this knowledge based on how himself sometimes do business. . From what I can read about him he has in the past not been shy of using his power when necessary if there has been a legal dispute or a financial disagreement. It's well documented that he or his companies without a doubt can act dishonest,or sometimes even lie, when it comes to promises, disputes or disagreements.
So we have two combatants with similar values.
2. When it comes to the relationship between a minority and a majority shareholder nothing is set in stone. Legally binding or not.
The majority owners can change any agreement, legally binding contract or whatever by restructuring, sale, loan or whatever that belongs to the company. We talk about for example naming rights, all sorts of assets, financial rights or obligations or whatever with worth. If there's a disagreement between the minority and the majority shareholders how to interpret so-called legally binding agreements, contracts, obligations or anything they may disagree on, the majority owner always has more power and more legal room for maneuver for changes. Doesn’t mean they will always win but a majority position definitely have more power.
3. If the value of the company will with time increase or decrease it can also create disagreements how to interpret these changes of value. That's why any deal that involves future transactions based on recent or future value is filled with risks, and the majority owner mostly has the upper hand in such a dispute.
Ratcliffe has this knowledge based on how himself sometimes do business. . From what I can read about him he has in the past not been shy of using his power when necessary if there has been a legal dispute or a financial disagreement. It's well documented that he or his companies without a doubt can act dishonest,or sometimes even lie, when it comes to promises, disputes or disagreements.
So we have two combatants with similar values.
The War Of The 5 Investors will soon be upon us...
- Status