This post had everything.More chance Keira Knightley buying us
Edit: his surname is Knighton
Michael Knighton preparing a hostile bid to remove the Glazers
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Rollercoaster ride of emotions as Ronan Keaton once said
I think something like 40 percent, maybe a bit more these days. Then there's the whole special class of shares the Glazers own that give them more voting rights than all the other shares combined.
I know very little about these things, but is a hostile takeover even possible with these Glazer specific shares?
More chance of Michael Kightly buying us.
Alright, with Knighton, Knightly, Keaton and Keating on board, that's $150m-ish secured. Just need the other 4.5 billion now.
I don't know to be honest. In essence the set up is pretty standard with class A and class B shares but to get a majority of the class b shares any buyer would probably need to offer triple the current share price and then even more for the Glazer's class a shares. You'd need 6-7 billion to pull off a hostile takeover of the club, maybe more.
Alright alright, I'll do it. But you pay for the next club were buying
Do the Glazers take out more dividends rach year than he has money? Ironic.Google says he’s worth 7m quid. Please tell me Google is wrong?
the repliesThis explains advertgate, @Niall is Knighton and he was having a last minute funding drive.
Erm don't forget my £50
If people think transfers are slow now, his attempts to buy United started 30 years ago, we'd have to sound out targets as they're being deposited inside their mums.
To quote the great man himself - “we have everything sorted - we just need Jim Ratcliffe on board” - I’m guessing he’s covering the other 99.9% of the funding. Everything else Knighton has sorted
Have I bumped my head and woken up in 1989.
Man's a space cadet
Man's a space cadet
I thought he was dead?
More chance of the Tories keeping a promise than this clown been able to write the amount, let alone muster it.
He’s probably in it for the 5% broker fee on the £4.6B valuation. I know I would be!To quote the great man himself - “we have everything sorted - we just need Jim Ratcliffe on board” - I’m guessing he’s covering the other 99.9% of the funding. Everything else Knighton has sorted
He tried to buy us when the price was 10 million came on to the pitch before a game scored a goal then we discovered he had no money
Is that picture real?Got to be more lucrative than his current grifting attempts:
Straight from his wikipedia page no less!Is that picture real?
More chance of the green Knight buying us
@Niall never responds to fair accusations.
You thought you nailed it, too. A tragedy but the heart was in the right place.
Legends never die.
The thought that counts surely?
There is a common misconception about fan owned clubs that it means random lunatics fans are making all the decisions, or that fans end up running the day to day business of the club.
In reality, a supporters group or trust would exist, containing it's own board members or trustees. These would be separate to club board members, as the supporters group/trust would be distinct from the club, in the same way that Manchester United football club is distinct from Manchester United limited. The club board would in turn contain a % of representation from the supporters group/trust, depending on ownership % the supporters group have (and/or any additional allocation of independent board members). Members would vote on candidates to the supporters group board, and the supporters group board then vote on which of its own should serve on the club board.
The club board then appoints football people to football positions who do the day to day running of the club (as they do now). The football people answer to the club board, who answer to the supports group board, who answer to fans (paid up, registered members, not loonies on RedCafe).
In practise it means people who have the interests of the club as a whole as their incentive end up on the board, as opposed to board members who make decisions based on their own financial interests (which of course are somewhat tied to the interests of the club, but as we know from the Glazers, not always the case).
It's more boring than people think really. But more effective, potentially.
As long as he brings KITT with him, loved that car as a child
Rupert Murdoch bid also incoming
I know that. I said crazy owner and fan owned. I don’t like either. Crazy owners for obvious reasons and fan owned because I don’t think that type of model is the best for growth. Owners with skin in the game is more powerful. That said, it can work much better than Barcelona tbf.
Always, I enjoyed it!
True, I'd rather have an owner who can invest heavily themselves and seeks to increase the success of the club. Downsides of that being with a club of United's size you're fairly limited to wealthy oligarchs who can afford that kind of investment. Even very wealthy businessmen tend to buy clubs, make big initial promises and investment, and then a few years down the line start trying to recoup their investment/losses. Given they're competing against oligarch clubs, it needs serious investment to compete. I'd be wary if I was a Chelsea fan about their new owners, especially when it's a consortium, as there will always be competing interests where some wish to invest, and others want to withdraw some funds.
The ideal owner would be an independent billionaire who can self fund, and isn't crazy. My second preference would be fan owned (the model I describe, others exist). Third preference a consortium of wealthy investors. Fourth preference, independent owners who try to balance the books but have some capability for investment. Fifth and final preference is what we have currently, owners who saddled the club with huge debt and take revenues out of the club.
United is so big, so well supported, and pre Glazers was debt free and generating huge revenues, if any club could be fan owned and compete with oligarchs and oil clubs it could/should have been us. What hurts is that we didn't even need big external investment, we just needed revenues to be invested back into the club. A fan ownership model could have overseen that.
Also, didnt mean to suggest you weren't aware of how club ownership model functions. I wasn't sure, but gave a generic explanation as it's also useful for other posters to read. I've seen a few posts before on here that associate fan ownership with fans voting on transfers and stuff over twitter.
Got more chance of Ghislaine Maxwell buying the club.
Jesus wept. As shit as the Glazers are, I'm glad that didn't happen.
Will he be our Knight-on shining armor?
United signing announcements would be interesting.
"Manchester United is happy to announce the sponsoring of a new immigrant.
Welcome Lisandro!."
This club will be sold one day but I can almost guarantee it won't be to this guy.
For those of us who were in the Stretty, August ‘89, cheering as he scored, I’ll never believe another word that falls out of his lug hole.