Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.

lostcauz

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
598
A 3 man committee where Ratcliffe is one, his most loyal and trusted advisor is another and Joel Glazer is a third? Doesn't that essentially mean that Ratcliffe controls the committee? What am I missing here?
Who controls the money?
 

ShinjiNinja26

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
11,181
Location
Location, Location
Joel Glazer won’t be on any committee just to fill a seat. He’s going to have a serious input on any matter. There’s no way he’ll let himself be outnumbered 2 to 1 every time there’s a difference of opinion.
 

Rojofiam

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
3,442
Which means it can't have been a state backed bid. Which narrative you going to run with? State backed or Jassim couldn't afford the price?
Jassim couldn't, but the state could. The money for the bid couldn't have been his own money, it was most likely his father's + assurances and/or further funding from the state
 

Sparky Rhiwabon

New Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
16,946
Obviously as a 25% shareholder, Sir Jim will have some influence but ultimately the Glazers just want his money. For a start they’ll be able to resume dividend payments
 

Seveneric

Full Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
5,951
Location
Sh*t creek
It is definitely the feature of a basic brain to adjust expectations as more information becomes available.

Thank you for the lesson, master thinker
You're welcome my dude. Although, I'm not a miracle worker, I hope I've helped a bit with rescuing your brain from the swamp of despair it seems to consistently reside.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
31,658
Possibly not. 2/3 in personnel not necessarily voting right.
The same sources saying that Joel Glazer is on the committee is saying Ratcliffe will get footballing control.

And Ratcliffe isn't some mug. He wants the footballing control, this has been stated 1000 times, it's astounding why people bury their heads in the sand.
 

RedDevilUnited369

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,274
Jassim couldn't, but the state could. The money for the bid couldn't have been his own money, it was most likely his father's + assurances and/or further funding from the state
Your essentially saying that the state of Qatar could not afford to buy our club. I know you don’t believe this.

It can’t be both, either it’s a state backed bid or it’s not.
 

buchansleftleg

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
3,723
Location
Dublin, formerly Manchester
Brailsford will get the club relegated...possibly in a number of different ways. For legal reasons I won't outline them here....but just having a low points total is the least likely route to relegation.

If he has any say in the club, other than a fleeting visit for PR purposes we are doomed.

I suspect his first visit will happen just around the time the Glazers get a Dividend payment.
 

MDFC Manager

Full Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
24,307
Your essentially saying that the state of Qatar could not afford to buy our club. I know you don’t believe this.

It can’t be both, either it’s a state backed bid or it’s not.
I think what's actually happened is the glazers heavily preferred a minority investment. They may have sold the whole thing, but only for an outlandish valuation.

I think now we'll end up with INEOS as the first of a few more minority investors. No single entity is ever going to buy the whole club anymore.
 

RedDevilUnited369

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,274
The same sources saying that Joel Glazer is on the committee is saying Ratcliffe will get footballing control.

And Ratcliffe isn't some mug. He wants the footballing control, this has been stated 1000 times, it's astounding why people bury their heads in the sand.
It’s also astounding that people think a minority holder can dictate to majority owners what he can and will control.

He is playing his hand by overpaying for 25%. Glazers still have to agree to it. Given he is seriously overpaying it’s likely a deal can be struck. But it’s not a given.

Like I said, let’s wait and see.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
31,658
It’s also astounding that people think a minority holder can dictate to majority owners what he can and will control.

He is playing his hand by overpaying for 25%. Glazers still have to agree to it. Given he is seriously overpaying it’s likely a deal can be struck. But it’s not a given.

Like I said, let’s wait and see.
25% ownership can be enough to have sporting control if the shares are restructured accordingly. Voting rights isn't one to one, you know this, or at least you should.

As for the "Glazers still have to agree to it", you are correct. But the fact that every credible outlet has confirmed this is the direction of travel I have no idea why you are resting your rebuttal on "let's wait and see".

If that's the case just turn off and come back when you know more? Don't punt on the less likely scenarios and post like they would be the outcomes over what has actually been briefed.
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,735
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
25% ownership can be enough to have sporting control if the shares are restructured accordingly. Voting rights isn't one to one, you know this, or at least you should.

As for the "Glazers still have to agree to it", you are correct. But the fact that every credible outlet has confirmed this is the direction of travel I have no idea why you are resting your rebuttal on "let's wait and see".

If that's the case just turn off and come back when you know more? Don't punt on the less likely scenarios and post like they would be the outcomes over what has actually been briefed.
What do you even mean by this?
 

hobbers

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
28,336
Some fan you are, hoping your own team fails!
If it gets rid of the Glazers it obviously wouldnt be failure. How is that hard to grasp?

Any fan should be willing to sacrifice a few years out of European competition if it meant we got competent and invested owners at the end of it.

The only way to peel the leeches off is if the club starts losing market value.
 

RedDevilUnited369

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,274
25% ownership can be enough to have sporting control if the shares are restructured accordingly. Voting rights isn't one to one, you know this, or at least you should.

As for the "Glazers still have to agree to it", you are correct. But the fact that every credible outlet has confirmed this is the direction of travel I have no idea why you are resting your rebuttal on "let's wait and see".

If that's the case just turn off and come back when you know more? Don't punt on the less likely scenarios and post like they would be the outcomes over what has actually been briefed.
Credible media outlets told us we would be sold by March this year....yet here we are at the end of October "waiting to see".
 

George The Best

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
2,079
Location
Nut Megging
25% ownership can be enough to have sporting control if the shares are restructured accordingly. Voting rights isn't one to one, you know this, or at least you should.

As for the "Glazers still have to agree to it", you are correct. But the fact that every credible outlet has confirmed this is the direction of travel I have no idea why you are resting your rebuttal on "let's wait and see".

If that's the case just turn off and come back when you know more? Don't punt on the less likely scenarios and post like they would be the outcomes over what has actually been briefed.
He’s right though. We have to wait and see. It’s clear that nothing definitive has been agreed at this stage, hence the discussion has even been pulled from today’s board meeting. All we are hearing is INEOS PR - there is no indication, so far, that the Glazer’s are anywhere near agreeing to it.
 

Garethw

scored 25-30 goals a season as a right footed RW
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
17,007
Location
England:
He still gets control with a 2/3rds majority on the committee.
That’s not going to happen ffs. Final decision will sit with Joel. If SJR wants final decision he will need to fully buy out the Glazers. Until that day comes (and I don’t think it will) Mr 25% is not in charge.
 

Garethw

scored 25-30 goals a season as a right footed RW
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
17,007
Location
England:
Joel Glazer won’t be on any committee just to fill a seat. He’s going to have a serious input on any matter. There’s no way he’ll let himself be outnumbered 2 to 1 every time there’s a difference of opinion.
Exactly! It’s bonkers to think otherwise.
 

LordSpud

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
2,429
Jim's the latest to be played here isn't he?

Fair play to the Glazers though, they've absolutely knocked it out of the park with the way they've got the investment for a small chunk.
 

The Hilton

Full Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
4,160
Joel Glazer won’t be on any committee just to fill a seat. He’s going to have a serious input on any matter. There’s no way he’ll let himself be outnumbered 2 to 1 every time there’s a difference of opinion.
Even if he gets outvoted every time, it's by people equally unqualified to have a say in football matters. Nobody that's earmarked for that committee should be anywhere near making decisions on the footballing side of things.
 

RedDevilUnited369

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,274
I think what's actually happened is the glazers heavily preferred a minority investment. They may have sold the whole thing, but only for an outlandish valuation.

I think now we'll end up with INEOS as the first of a few more minority investors. No single entity is ever going to buy the whole club anymore.
I'm inclined to agree, the only way for a full takeover will be in stages similar to how Malcom Glazer got the club. This is my only hope for Jimmy Glazer, if he buys up all the A class shares first and eventually buys out the Glazers. But given his valuation, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
 

Laurencio

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2017
Messages
3,157
You’re assuming a decision doesn’t need unanimous agreement.
Fair enough.

In the event that it is a comittee that requires unanimous agreement I think it's important to note that we don't know what they are deciding on. It doesn't seem likely that they are a transfer comittee, because they are reportedly hiring a new DOF - and he isn't on this comittee. So likely it is a strategical comittee that works on overal strategy and larger decisions than day to day operations? Ratcliffe is a minority owner, so perhaps this is a way to safeguard from a minority owner making decisions that will decrease the value of the club?

Who controls the money?
I would assume the comittee does? It has all the necessary people to make big financial decisions.
 

jasT1981

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2014
Messages
1,396
Location
Northern Ireland
So, a Glazer goes from having very little to do with the footballing side, to being one of 3 on a committee over-seeing football affairs. Lets be honest, they may own the club but never had any interest in the football side, it is a money maker to them.

This gets worse and worse. Hopefully he gets out-voted 2-1 every time IF he can make a decision in less than 2 weeks.

I'll wait for the fine print, something terrible tells me Joel Glazer will have a veto (as majority owner) even if outvoted.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
You’re assuming a decision doesn’t need unanimous agreement.
Yep. The fact people think a committee could overrule the biggest (?) shareholder at the club is insane. The man is obviously there to ok everything
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,881
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
If it gets rid of the Glazers it obviously wouldnt be failure. How is that hard to grasp?

Any fan should be willing to sacrifice a few years out of European competition if it meant we got competent and invested owners at the end of it.

The only way to peel the leeches off is if the club starts losing market value.
You think that the Glazer's will leave because United have a bad season or two, how quaint, in case you haven't noticed the team has been having bad seasons most of the last decade.

They don't give a crap about the football, they just want the income it brings and that's not going to drop, indeed the upcoming PL rights deal will likely earn them even more
 

lex talionis

Full Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
14,053
You could say the same about Sheikh Jassim.
A very valid point. Neither of these prospective owners has a scintilla of shred of accomplishment in the sporting realm.

Hope is our crutch, and what choice do we have but to cling to hope, but United are truly and thoroughly fukked as an organization that purports to put a competitive squad on the pitch and there’s nothing about the Sir Jim gambit that will change that. But we can hope that luck will be on our side in the future that we can at least compete for a top four spot on an annual basis.
 

Rood

nostradamus like gloater
Scout
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
21,339
Location
@United_Hour
Yes, I know it has been "reported".

I have never seen a single credible source for it.

Regardless, what we are talking about here is a very specific scenario, namely one in which a new owner (Jim/INEOS) comes in under a particular premise: they buy 25% of Glazer shares and effectively gain control over the "football side" of Manchester United.

The question is whether Joel (or any other Glazer) is likely to interfere with whatever decisions the new party makes on the football side. To me, that likelihood is zero. For two reasons:

1) He (or any other Glazer) doesn't actually give a shit/do not consider themselves football experts.

2) The new party obviously wouldn't enter into any sort of partnership like this without ironclad conditions being in place, i.e. regardless of what the Glazers think of their football expertise, they simply won't have any say in the matter.
There are solid sources for Joel's involvement - from articles in The Athletic to mentions from the likes of Evra and Ole at various points in recent years. Plus he did speak on behalf of the Glazers after the ESL fiasco so he's clearly the one at the forefront with Avram popping up now and again too.
Obviously we will never know exactly how much influence he currently has on decisions at the club but it is clear that it's a lot more than the days when Fergie/Gill more or less ran the entire operation.

I think the whole idea that the Glazers are going to give up control of the footballing side for just 25% are fanciful at best. Yes Jim will surely get a seat on the board but I do not believe he will be given full control, this idea comes only from media rumours.

It's pretty clear by now that any agreement between Jim & Joel is far from done and probably the negotiation is only just starting on the fine details of how exactly this minority investment deal will work.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,881
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
A very valid point. Neither of these prospective owners has a scintilla of shred of accomplishment in the sporting realm.

Hope is our crutch, and what choice do we have but to cling to hope, but United are truly and thoroughly fukked as an organization that purports to put a competitive squad on the pitch and there’s nothing about the Sir Jim gambit that will change that. But we can hope that luck will be on our side in the future that we can at least compete for a top four spot on an annual basis.
You won't find many owners who have
 

spwd

likes: servals, breasts, rylan clark and zooey
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
8,740
Location
Lyecestershyre
If an ultra wealthy middle eastern state won't pay more than £5 Billion for United now. Why would they want to pay £8+ Billion a few years from now?

You'd think they'd be falling over themselves to pay £6B now and save themselves a few quid.
So who will then? Nobody else can afford us now or want to pay way over the odds for the mess unless the cnuts stay and end up selling us for £50 when we're relegated.
 

Castia

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
18,411
That's a bit of a knee jerk reaction considering nobody knows the structure of any deal, and we're just taking the news that it's all signed from people who have spent the last year getting things completely wrong.
Yeah we dont know for sure my my gut reaction thinks this whole deal stinks. Lets wait and see but I just feel everyone is happy. Glazers get to stay, Jim gets a slice and sporting control for peanuts ( in relation to the 6B it would cost to buy 100%)

They'll have clauses to appease the incoming backlash but they wont be triggered you can see the plan from a mile away, it's just a load of scumbags running the club for personal profit. The Glazers were on their knees and they've been given a lifeline to stay.

I mean even the 'leaks' dont get me excited. Brailsford in a top position who's known for cycling and a rumoured Paul Mitchell DoF role, the club is about 5 years behind the curve as usual he's done a crap job at Monaco but here we are.
 
Last edited:

hobbers

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
28,336
You think that the Glazer's will leave because United have a bad season or two, how quaint, in case you haven't noticed the team has been having bad seasons most of the last decade.

They don't give a crap about the football, they just want the income it brings and that's not going to drop, indeed the upcoming PL rights deal will likely earn them even more
Yes and all those bad seasons coupled with covid pushed the Glazers to the point of this strategic review in the first place. And if it weren't for Rat offering to prop them up they'd be forced to lower their deranged valuation.

Being consistently out of Europe would make their financial position even more untenable.
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,735
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
Fecking hell :mad:

Have you read the point I’ve actually been making?

It’s exactly this scenario:

Ratcliffe installs an entirely new footballing structure at the club. Murtough and all his staff gone.

Next summer they want to sign a player and he’s going to cost £100m.

That is still going to land on Joel’s desk as he is co-chairman (not a footballing position) Joel is still going to do his due diligence before signing off on it. That is still going to make us cumbersome in the transfer market.

The idea that the Glazers would totally relinquish 100% control of the purse strings for 25% of the company is beyond naive.

Waving.gif

I mean my posts in here this week could easily be their source.
 

VP89

Pogba's biggest fan
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Messages
31,658
Credible media outlets told us we would be sold by March this year....yet here we are at the end of October "waiting to see".
No, they said Raine were TARGETTING March this year, and then they said it was pushed back.

You are basically saying that against every reliable journalist out there and Ratcliffe's own business acumen, that he'd spunk a minority investment from which he has nothing to gain from a footballing perspective.

I get you want to wait and see, but don't assume the most far fetched scenarios in the meantime.
He’s right though. We have to wait and see. It’s clear that nothing definitive has been agreed at this stage, hence the discussion has even been pulled from today’s board meeting. All we are hearing is INEOS PR - there is no indication, so far, that the Glazer’s are anywhere near agreeing to it.
I think the fact that Ratcliffe's proposal is heading toward a board vote means they have an agreement on the direction. Just because the board vote hasn't yet taken place, doesn't mean we can't insinuate the very evident direction of travel.

That’s not going to happen ffs. Final decision will sit with Joel. If Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE wants final decision he will need to fully buy out the Glazers. Until that day comes (and I don’t think it will) Mr 25% is not in charge.
What do you mean it's not going to happen? Every credible journalist has said it, and the Glazers are in it more for commercials than to play fantasy football. You can't just bury your head in the sand, the Mr 25% isn't getting you anywhere. That's a huge amount if the 25% consists of the high power voting rights.
Yeah Joel may be on the board, yeah hel have a say, but his influence is severely lowered if the other 2 are INEOS.
 

Teja

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
5,855
Why do they do the things that they do? Can't they just take their billions and feck off?

Every single transfer saga we had had leaks around the Glazers being a bottle neck for decision making. You could see their decision making ability plain and clear during the club sale process. It took flipping one whole year for them to make up their mind.

They're just spoilt rich brats who never had to make a hard decision in their life. Seriously look at the Wikipedia page for what Joel achieved after existing for 50 odd years on this planet.
 

George The Best

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
2,079
Location
Nut Megging
None of all this crap about minority ownership and who does what, answers the basic strategic review question - where does the new investment for Man Utd come from? I’ve seen comments that even if INEOS are successful in their 25% bid we will still be seeking external investment to fund the club. What in the hell have they been doing this past year!
 

Andy_Cole

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
7,975
Location
Manchester
The same sources saying that Joel Glazer is on the committee is saying Ratcliffe will get footballing control.

And Ratcliffe isn't some mug. He wants the footballing control, this has been stated 1000 times, it's astounding why people bury their heads in the sand.
He wants it doesn’t mean he will get. It also seems that the most important thing for Jim is getting his foot in the door.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
Fecking hell :mad:

Always the fecking way. Glazers didn’t get the PR memo from Jim and here we are.
Jim is a minority shareholder, not even investor. All of this was to deepen Glazers pockets, well done everyone.
Still waiting in this agreed pathway to full ownership details that will drop anytime soon…anytime at all
 

Castia

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
18,411
None of all this crap about minority ownership and who does what, answers the basic strategic review question - where does the new investment for Man Utd come from? I’ve seen comments that even if INEOS are successful in their 25% bid we will still be seeking external investment to fund the club. What in the hell have they been doing this past year!
That's going straight in to the Glazers pocket, they've never put anything into the club it wont start now when they need to pay of their Hills have Eyes looking siblings

So when this deal goes through the club will have the current debt (700m?) and probably a billion of Jims debt which is apparently going to be serviced by Ineos but one way or another United will pay for that even if it doesn't directly come from our accounts in terms of less funding towards the club
 
Status
Not open for further replies.