Club ownership | Senior management team talk

C'est Moi Cantona said:
Rashford and Antony weren't performing, and we needed to find a way of having a chance at been able to move them on in the summer.

I for one miss neither of them, no matter how crap we're playing.
Click to expand...
Completely agree.
Antony was contributing absolutely nothing for us, letting him leave didn't have any negative effect whatsoever.
Rashford probably would have scored some more goals. But I don't miss his miserable face and I think Amorim made the right call on him and the club needed to back him.
 
Reiver said:
Completely agree.
Antony was contributing absolutely nothing for us, letting him leave didn't have any negative effect whatsoever.
Rashford probably would have scored some more goals. But I don't miss his miserable face and I think Amorim made the right call on him and the club needed to back him.
Click to expand...
Again, the decision to get rid wasn't necessarily the wrong one.

As I said on another thread, by whatever low bar this is, Antony was deemed good enough to be on the bench a week before he left. Not replacing him was odd.
 
Gabriel Djemba-Bebe said:

What a thick twat this bloke is.
Click to expand...


I hate when opposition fans try this "the Glazers aren't that bad" shit. They bought the club with borrowed money, leached a billion and turned it from the world's biggest football club into a penniless shambles flirting with relegation.

If there's a worse run club in any sport, let alone football, I'd love to know.
 
JediSith said:
I think your opposing perspective is due to your pro INEOS bias and anti sheikh bias. It’s likely blinding you and forcing you to want to see Ratcliffe in the best light possible.
Click to expand...
And there I was thinking we were having a friendly conversation!

I genuinely don’t have a pro INEOS bias, I support Manchester United. I’m just not prepared to jump to conclusions and judgement when we are so new in the process. I want to see results first.
Also most of my posts on ineos are to correct or counter BS about them because the disinformation seems to spread like wildfire and the truth gets lost. It does my head in.
 
Adz_99 said:
I hate when opposition fans try this "the Glazers aren't that bad" shit. They bought the club with borrowed money, leached a billion and turned it from the world's biggest football club into a penniless shambles flirting with relegation.

If there's a worse run club in any sport, let alone football, I'd love to know.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The Glazers are just as bad as the Oystons. Worst owners in football.
 
Plant0x84 said:
And there I was thinking we were having a friendly conversation!

I genuinely don’t have a pro INEOS bias, I support Manchester United. I’m just not prepared to jump to conclusions and judgement when we are so new in the process. I want to see results first.
Also most of my posts on ineos are to correct or counter BS about them because the disinformation seems to spread like wildfire and the truth gets lost. It does my head in.
Click to expand...

It’s friendly to tell someone the truth. My reason for pointing out a bias was that you referred to a sheikh in the negative yet have not made any negative comments to a man/company who kept the glazers in power, and one year after supposedly taking over are one of the few new owners/investors from whom a major club have seen no improvement.

The only disinformation I see is unsubstantiated stuff that supports INEOS and then months years later gets proven to be lies.

Eg 1) “Ratcliffe has put/call option to buy the club and will buy 100% within 2 years”. Where did that nonsense even come from?

2)Now we’re getting the whole “Ratcliffe had no option, glazers never wanted to sell” really? Did they stick a gun to Ratcliffe head and force him to buy 20 whatever % and be an equity investor & a face of United?

Also never have I seen a company’s lack of football success at other clubs passed off as “ahh that’s Nice, he’ll care about United” really? It’s really like people are just ignoring all the red flags and fabricating positives for Ratcliffe and INEOS.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Definition of a hit piece.
Click to expand...
"an article, a documentary, etc. that deliberately tries to make somebody/something look bad by presenting information about them that appears to be true and accurate but actually is not"

So is that article factually incorrect and where? To be fair you dont need to make Ineos/Jimmy Brexit look bad, they have taken care of that themselves expertly so far.
 
JediSith said:
It’s friendly to tell someone the truth. My reason for pointing out a bias was that you referred to a sheikh in the negative yet have not made any negative comments to a man/company who kept the glazers in power, and one year after supposedly taking over are one of the few new owners/investors from whom a major club have seen no improvement.

The only disinformation I see is unsubstantiated stuff that supports INEOS and then months years later gets proven to be lies.

Eg 1) “Ratcliffe has put/call option to buy the club and will buy 100% within 2 years”. Where did that nonsense even come from?

2)Now we’re getting the whole “Ratcliffe had no option, glazers never wanted to sell” really? Did they stick a gun to Ratcliffe head and force him to buy 20 whatever % and be an equity investor & a face of United?

Also never have I seen a company’s lack of football success at other clubs passed off as “ahh that’s Nice, he’ll care about United” really? It’s really like people are just ignoring all the red flags and fabricating positives for Ratcliffe and INEOS.
Click to expand...
Yes, 1 never existed and 2 is also false.
Throughout the entire process, the Glazers pursued 2 options only; a primary investment or a full sale of the club. A handful of investors were considered via the primary investment route and only 2 investors (JR being one) were considered via the full sale route. Ultimately the Glazers preferred the full sale approach and both of the full sale investors were encouraged (at each stage) to submit bids for all of the shares in the club. JR never did. The most he was prepared to pay up front was about $2.2b dollars for 60% of the B shares. He simply didn't have, or was unwilling to commit, the funds for a full sale. The partial sale (25%) approach was his idea, and that plus a required primary investment of $300m became the basis for the final deal. How anyone can read the SEC material and conclude that "Ratcliffe had no option, glazers never wanted to sell" is frankly bizarre.
 
Redjazz said:
Yes, 1 never existed and 2 is also false.
Throughout the entire process, the Glazers pursued 2 options only; a primary investment or a full sale of the club. A handful of investors were considered via the primary investment route and only 2 investors (JR being one) were considered via the full sale route. Ultimately the Glazers preferred the full sale approach and both of the full sale investors were encouraged (at each stage) to submit bids for all of the shares in the club. JR never did. The most he was prepared to pay up front was about $2.2b dollars for 60% of the B shares. He simply didn't have, or was unwilling to commit, the funds for a full sale. The partial sale (25%) approach was his idea, and that plus a required primary investment of $300m became the basis for the final deal. How anyone can read the SEC material and conclude that "Ratcliffe had no option, glazers never wanted to sell" is frankly bizarre.
Click to expand...
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince people that they have been fooled”

Never have I seen this saying been more appropriate. That said. I do think all the pro Ratcliffe lies that keep giving people false hope are coming from somewhere and he, either through design or luck, clearly has Twitter channels that will peddle pro INEOS nonsense. Where else does “sheikh never existed” or “put/call option he’ll buy the club in 2 years” come from. Granted it does show how gullible people are to believe 1) someone who doesn’t exist can get to the final stages of a multibillion dollar deal 2) believe put/call options can work to buy unlisted shares, or any shares for that matter when a put call option is basically a hedge one expires worthless one makes money. But with options there’s a chance both can expire worthless even the one that “wins”.

Probably the most amazing thing to me. Is how Ineos failure at Nice & Lusane has been dismissed as “they don’t care about those clubs” in what world does that ever make sense. Bear in mind these are also the same people who then go on to say Qatar failed at PSG, the logic, double standards , brain fallacy is actually hilarious.
 
JediSith said:
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince people that they have been fooled”

Never have I seen this saying been more appropriate. That said. I do think all the pro Ratcliffe lies that keep giving people false hope are coming from somewhere and he, either through design or luck, clearly has Twitter channels that will peddle pro INEOS nonsense. Where else does “sheikh never existed” or “put/call option he’ll buy the club in 2 years” come from. Granted it does show how gullible people are to believe 1) someone who doesn’t exist can get to the final stages of a multibillion dollar deal 2) believe put/call options can work to buy unlisted shares, or any shares for that matter when a put call option is basically a hedge one expires worthless one makes money. But with options there’s a chance both can expire worthless even the one that “wins”.

Probably the most amazing thing to me. Is how Ineos failure at Nice & Lusane has been dismissed as “they don’t care about those clubs” in what world does that ever make sense. Bear in mind these are also the same people who then go on to say Qatar failed at PSG, the logic, double standards , brain fallacy is actually hilarious.
Click to expand...
The put and call option was only one bid but was widely reported at the time. It isn’t made up.
A quick Google search…
That report is by Mark Kleinmann, a business journalist who broke the strategic review story in the first place. It’s likely very well sourced.

Also I’d challenge you to prove Jassim does exist, if I gave a crap that is. Ancient history my friend, but keep flinging that shit in our faces. It’s not tired or old or boring at all. :boring:
 
JediSith said:
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince people that they have been fooled”

Never have I seen this saying been more appropriate. That said. I do think all the pro Ratcliffe lies that keep giving people false hope are coming from somewhere and he, either through design or luck, clearly has Twitter channels that will peddle pro INEOS nonsense. Where else does “sheikh never existed” or “put/call option he’ll buy the club in 2 years” come from. Granted it does show how gullible people are to believe 1) someone who doesn’t exist can get to the final stages of a multibillion dollar deal 2) believe put/call options can work to buy unlisted shares, or any shares for that matter when a put call option is basically a hedge one expires worthless one makes money. But with options there’s a chance both can expire worthless even the one that “wins”.

Probably the most amazing thing to me. Is how Ineos failure at Nice & Lusane has been dismissed as “they don’t care about those clubs” in what world does that ever make sense. Bear in mind these are also the same people who then go on to say Qatar failed at PSG, the logic, double standards , brain fallacy is actually hilarious.
Click to expand...
The call and put options were very real. They were part of the March 2023 offer, which was rejected, and didn't make it into the eventual winning offer.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
The call and put options were very real. They were part of the March 2023 offer, which was rejected, and didn't make it into the eventual winning offer.
Click to expand...
But not in the context of a full sale. They only applied to a certain percentage of the B shares (40%) and would\could be activated 3 to 5 years later. So JR owning 100% of the club within 2 years via call\put options was never a thing.
 
Redjazz said:
But not in the context of a full sale. They only applied to a certain percentage of the B shares (40%) and would\could be activated 3 to 5 years later. So JR owning 100% of the club within 2 years via call\put options was never a thing.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure Sir Jim ever wanted 100% - but he did make a couple of offers to buy out the Glazers 69% (at the time) majority shareholding. This is what the put and call applied to.
Obviously it later transpired that both he and the Glazers would get sued is the a-class shareholders were made an offer at the same price too which is where things got sketchy/murky.
 
Plant0x84 said:
I’m not sure Sir Jim ever wanted 100% - but he did make a couple of offers to buy out the Glazers 69% (at the time) majority shareholding. This is what the put and call applied to.
Obviously it later transpired that both he and the Glazers would get sued is the a-class shareholders were made an offer at the same price too which is where things got sketchy/murky.
Click to expand...
Yes, he wanted majority control through B shares. But all the bids he made speak to the level of funding he was bringing to the deal. The very first bid was for 100% of the B shares at $22 per share (around $2.4b)
And then there was a series of increasing bids (for the B shares only) splitting the acquisition of B shares to an upfront 60% followed by the capture of the remainder at a later date through a call\ put combo. The last unsuccessful bid had him paying $33 per share for 60% of the B shares upfront ($2.2b). He simply wasn't putting enough money on the table to get him to a majority position let alone a full sale scenario.
A and B shares have different voting rights but should carry equal economic rights- the dividend per share should be the same as should the price per share in a sale. The board have a duty to look after all shareholders and were probably advised by lawyers that any deal that didn't involve equal treatment of the A shareholders could invite lawsuits from the bigger A shareholders.
 
Redjazz said:
Yes, he wanted majority control through B shares. But all the bids he made speak to the level of funding he was bringing to the deal. The very first bid was for 100% of the B shares at $22 per share (around $2.4b)
And then there was a series of increasing bids (for the B shares only) splitting the acquisition of B shares to an upfront 60% followed by the capture of the remainder at a later date through a call\ put combo. The last unsuccessful bid had him paying $33 per share for 60% of the B shares upfront ($2.2b). He simply wasn't putting enough money on the table to get him to a majority position let alone a full sale scenario.
A and B shares have different voting rights but should carry equal economic rights- the dividend per share should be the same as should the price per share in a sale. The board have a duty to look after all shareholders and were probably advised by lawyers that any deal that didn't involve equal treatment of the A shareholders could invite lawsuits from the bigger A shareholders.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, some fascinating detail. You do have to wonder why his bids were relatively low when he was prepared to offer £4.25bn for Chelsea.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
The call and put options were very real. They were part of the March 2023 offer, which was rejected, and didn't make it into the eventual winning offer.
Click to expand...
So it didn’t happen was not part of equity investment that eventually went through, but still talked about as if it was part of the deal? A bit like talking about a player you have a bid rejected for as if he actually signed. I will from now on talk about Gaza as if he played for United.
 
Plant0x84 said:
The put and call option was only one bid but was widely reported at the time. It isn’t made up.
A quick Google search…
That report is by Mark Kleinmann, a business journalist who broke the strategic review story in the first place. It’s likely very well sourced.

Also I’d challenge you to prove Jassim does exist, if I gave a crap that is. Ancient history my friend, but keep flinging that shit in our faces. It’s not tired or old or boring at all. :boring:
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you. If it’s not part of the official agreement it’s not real. Doesn’t matter what was offered. In your world I can talk about every player United had a bid rejected for as if that player signed for United. That would be pretty delusional.
 
JediSith said:
I hate to break it to you. If it’s not part of the official agreement it’s not real. Doesn’t matter what was offered. In your world I can talk about every player United had a bid rejected for as if that player signed for United. That would be pretty delusional.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what the feck you are on about.
 
JediSith said:
So it didn’t happen was not part of equity investment that eventually went through, but still talked about as if it was part of the deal? A bit like talking about a player you have a bid rejected for as if he actually signed. I will from now on talk about Gaza as if he played for United.
Click to expand...
My point is that it's not something that was completely made up out of thin air.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
My point is that it's not something that was completely made up out of thin air.
Click to expand...
As was mine but this guy seems to be on another planet, or struggles with basic English.

I haven’t seen anyone claim it is part of the eventually accepted minority shareholding, and I certainly haven’t claimed that it is.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
My point is that it's not something that was completely made up out of thin air.
Click to expand...
It’s still false. If Man Utd sign Vinicius JR for £200m, we have our first £100m bid rejected can we once the deal is done for £200m put £100m on our financial statement or just transfer real £100m? No we can’t. The bid that got rejected got rejected. Literally it’s only for INEOS where I’ve heard a rejected bid get spoken about as if it was part of the official deal. This only ended in December when Jim himself said he had no need to buy the club.
 
Plant0x84 said:
As was mine but this guy seems to be on another planet, or struggles with basic English.

I haven’t seen anyone claim it is part of the eventually accepted minority shareholding, and I certainly haven’t claimed that it is.
Click to expand...
If that was the case why was it regularly spoken about after INEOS took over the club ? Do your search on here, you will see people after December 25th 2023 talk about INEOS option to buy within 2-3 years.

You can try to change history now. But im sure there are many on here who remember.
 
JediSith said:
Do your search on here, you will see people after December 25th 2023 talk about INEOS option to buy within 2-3 years.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t need to because I don’t care what clueless numpties on here think. I know there is no legally binding put and call option with the accepted offer because I followed the process closely. Thats good enough for me. If others think otherwise good luck to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.