You’re right in a way, when there is millions / billions involved, there will always be disagreements. But the likely reason they looked at a full sale AND “strategic investment” is that there was an unresolved disagreement between the Glazers kids on when to sell, what the valuation should be etc. Either those kids that wanted to sell exited completely or all of the Glazers were diluted equally.
My point is that they looked at the investment required to compete, to rebuild the stadium and realized they had to invest real money or they were faced with a declining asset. In their mind, they are keeping their stake but ceding control in order to boost dividends and club value so they can sell at a higher valuation.
For dividends, those are distributed to shareholders as earnings from operating profit. Unless the board votes to reinvest all dividends back into the company, those are separate from capital injection for asset investment. In other words, you can still distribute dividends AND raise capital for a new stadium.
Look, it’s entirely possible that Sir Jim is worse at management than the Glazers, but I find that unlikely given his track record with INEOS. Glazers inherited their wealth.
