They need to invest in a new medical team
Club Ownership | INEOS responsible for the football side
- Thread starter Solius
- Start date
- Status
I don't get it, so Sir Jim invests all this money into the club, and then the club value increases, so doesn't this mean he will have to pay more to buy the rest of the club off the Glazer's? Some one help me out with this.
Ah yes. Malcolm Glazer's offspring are business geniuses and are playing 4d chess to ultimatley sell thier shares to some phantom state bidder down the line. Whereas the ruthless, self-made billionaire cnut that is worth more than all of them combined is a moron and thrown a billion or two down the drain as part of the Glazers siblings masterplan to get [fill in blank] to buy them out.
Fair play to SJR he’s playing Footy Manager Billionaire Manchester United Edition. He’s 71 he’s not here to hang around. So far he’s showing he’s very clever and methodical in his approach. Come the summer I have no doubt he will be true to his word and every penny possible will be invested to put out a winning team. This is going to be fun for sure. At last exciting times and lots to look forward too.
I am only guessing, but I presume the terms of the contract he has with the Glazers (there's something about a potential buy out in 18 months, isn't there?) has an agreed share price if he buys.
It’s not 4d chess, it’s literally built into the docs, they’re available publicly to read. The Glazers are being advised by some of the best investment banks in the business, they don’t need to be geniuses.
He'll likely provide the funding for more shares. So he'll increase his equity that way rather than just giving the club money. It's already the case with the 300M he's investing this year that it raises his share percentage towards 29.9% I believe.
When's he going to come out with a full takeover statement? Seems like the Glazers have allowed him in the boost the value of the club and it doesn't cost them a cent. Wonder how they manage to perform such deals. Sir Jim's legacy should be buy the club outright and sell off half to the fans somehow, it'd make him a legend of the club. Oh to dream 
What's built into the documents that supports your theory? Radclife also has access to the same investment banks/advisers the Glazers have. Better quality ones most likely considering his wealth and connections.
There is zero reference to a limit on shares the club can generate in lieu of investment. The deal clearly states that the club will generate class A and B shares at $33 in the event of such investment.
Guys, I'm sure @redNATION is being objective here...
redNATION said:
redNATION said:
redNATION said:I just want us to be the dominant force in a way Real are, with 10 European cups at least, only Qatar can make it happen
redNATION said:It’s actually gas me up, as Qatar is gas rich not oil rich, but anyway
redNATION said:Here we go, Qatar flags at the ready boys
redNATION said:Can I finally hang my Qatar flags in the garden and on my windows? I’d be furious if they went to waste
redNATION said:
redNATION said:When can I unfurl my Qatar flag in my front garden? I’ve been waiting months for this moment
redNATION said:Especially for those of us that stocked up on Qatar flags
redNATION said:How much are second hand/ after market Qatar flags going for
redNATION said:
redNATION said:
They couldn't get anyone to buy them out for 5 billion. They're not going to get someone coming in with 7 or 8 or 9.
Plus even if they got someone to come in with a £100bn offer guess who is getting the biggest cut!
None of us know for sure but I think Ratcliffe is not taking a solely hard-nosed business approach to this as say he would buying a company to fit in with INEOS
He's not buying in to United with the aim of making tons of money, he seems to want a legacy of some sort, I suspect there's an element of truth in the giving the fans some stake in the club, probably in the form of a trust set up in such a way that fans have some say in the future when he dies
Anyone been keeping eye on the South East Diamond Castles , I asked you all to keep a close eye on it. Those who are watching will understand soon.
What’s this?
I agree, which is why it seems even less likely that he's being used as a patsy to instigate a takeover from a middle east sovereign wealth fund as @redNATION seems to think is going to happen.
More than likely Dougie Freedman from Palace.
South East Diamon Castles = Crystal Palace
Roy Hodgson will be our new manager
Ahhh I see. Which role is he getting?
Is that what they were called on pro Evo?
I'm not sure, @TrebleChamp99 might be able to shed some light.
I'm not sure, I can just remember someone from Palace heading over.
I assumed he meant Duncan Castles, the SE diamond that he is!
Damn you did him dirty
Thanks for those quotes, truly shows the state of some of our so called "fans" during the takeover.
And it also explains some of their posts even after the deal has been done. We can take their views with a pinch of salt due to the heavy bias.
There’s an 18 month lock in following which Glazers can sell to anyone and drag Ratcliffe along, for a limited time that sale must happen at $33 per share that Ratcliffe paid but after that it’s a clear market for Glazers. I don’t know any reason why the Glazers would negotiate such a provision if they weren’t interested in selling to a third party who still retains an interest, and it’s not unreasonable to conclude it’s a sovereign as no one else was willing to meet their price.
To issue shares a company normally needs at least an ordinary resolution of the shareholders. It would be highly unusual for a minority shareholder to be able to dilute a majority shareholder.
Surprised no one has responded to this
He has cherry picked those numbers because in 2019 our revenue was £627 million...
Along with my other point re: there being no 30% limit and the deal stating the club will generate shares as per investment at $33 a share you aren't really looking at it from a logical perspective.
This isn't something the Glazers can just put a block on. SJR is investing $300m at $33 dollars a share. By doing so it dilutes the Glazers control (I believe it is only a small amount per Glazer, the Swedish Rumble did a table with this information on posted earlier in the thread but it is what will happen).
Now if for example Ratcliffe decides to spend a further say $1b just to simplify, on a new stadium, he doesn't just pay for a new stadium out of the goodness of his heart, he gets shares in the business for putting money into an asset. The Glazers counter that in two ways, 1) the value of the shares they own will increase despite the dilution because you would be increasing the value of the club, they would lose percentages in the vote sure but they can counter that with 2) if they want to keep the club as opposed to sell up then they will have to also invest themselves to match Ratcliffes ambition.
Radciffe also gets first refusal to purchase any shares they are selling after that period, if he hasn't already bought them by that point. Assuming the Glazers act as a collective and only are willing to sell thier stake as a single unit, a potential bidder has to offer more than Radcliffe would to get their stake and control of the club. I doubt they'll act as a collective though and Jim will siphon off shares from the siblings that have no interest in football and make him majority shareholder.
"Too much smoke for this to be lies"
Most of our fanbase got played like fiddles in this whole saga. Thankfully most were also as wrong about Ratcliffe as they were sure of Jassim, and he looks like he means business and is willing to put his money where his mouth is.
As has already been pointed out, in such a situation, there’s a clause whereby Ratcliffe can say “you’ve accepted $xx per share offer? Fine, I’ll match it” and he gets first refusal.
Also, they can only use the drag along clause if they retain 50.1% of the shares.
Also, if someone buys the Glazers shares and Ratcliffe for some reason chooses NOT to match it, all of the rights and clauses he’s has got in the current contract, remain. Protective clause.
No one would want to buy some and have Ratcliffe (and his protected clauses) there, so they’d have to buy 100% AND pay such a price that Ratcliffe refuses to match it. That’s Ratcliffe who personally has 8Bn in liquid assets (per docs from the ‘fair and proper owner’ test)… Ratcliffe the United fan…. Ratcliffe who’s 71 and it’s quite clear this is his final big task.
So the Glazers just need someone to offer several billion for just their shares, who knows the bid can legally be gazumped by Ratcliffe and, if not gazumped, is fine to have Ratcliffe there with all his clauses protected.
Or they’re selling to Ratcliffe over the next 2-3 years. One or the other.
It is a possibility that somebody else (probably a state) will come in and buy us outright later on. But it's more likely that Ratcliffe will be the one doing it. It'll cost him less than it would any state. He'll already have at least 29% of the club, and chances are it'll be higher than that as the Glazers will likely issue further shares to him for further investment. They won't allow him majority control by doing that, but it's likely they'll happily let him increase it a fair bit more yet (bearing in mind that if his investments increase the value of the club, it'll be increasing the value of their shares).
As others have said, every other state has bought a smaller club and spent money to make them successful. It both works out cheaper that way and makes them more synonymous with that clubs brand. Using that same thinking now, it's more likely that a state would have preferred to buy us when we were down and then been the ones to turn us around, rather than just buying the finished product in the future. That's not to say it won't happen. Perhaps one of the states wants to do it differently this time. Perhaps the state wasn't in a position to buy now but will be in a few years. Things change. But based on what has happened before it is the lesser likelihood.
I'm pretty sure that redNation is actually right on this, and only the original 300m investment is guaranteed for that. It's then left open that future investment might be treated the same, but it would have to be agreed on by the Glazers in a separate discussion (and I presume it wouldn't necessarily be for $33 a share). What I'm not sure about is whether all the Glazers would have to agree, whether a majority of the Glazers would have to agree, or whether a majority of the owners (so Ratcliffe and two of the Glazers) would have to agree. I think it's either the first or second options, but not sure which.
Better to stay in this thread. Only sane thread on the Caf at the moment.
What's insane about wanting Erik sacked and Rashford fecked off to the french money grabbers
That’s only short term. Everything good will be long term. So I can’t see the point in going mad at this match or even this season.
Julian Ward in with Ashworth sounds crazy. They are both extremely talented in the game.
Can they work together?
Can they work together?
I like how the Ashworth stuff has gone relatively quiet, I'd like to think it's because we're sorting the deal out!
Not the best source regarding Ward.
Based on @TrebleChamp99 having knowledge and relaying things long ago that have come to fruition recently, as well as the media reporting it, I think it’ll be a certain Scot based in Croydon who gets the recruitment gig.
Based on @TrebleChamp99 having knowledge and relaying things long ago that have come to fruition recently, as well as the media reporting it, I think it’ll be a certain Scot based in Croydon who gets the recruitment gig.
- Status