The media can't resist the name drop. Just seems like Ineos said NZ rugger breached the contract so walked away and NZ rugger want to try and get the missed payment. Honestly is pathetic seeing the how desperate Sky and similar, the Rashford article based off a sub appearance just sums it up.Don't know if it's already been put on here, Ineos being taken to court by the All Blacks, New Zealand Rugby for dropping sponsorship with 3 years left apparently, don't know full ins and outs, could this affect Man Utd at all?
Don't look good for Ineos and there professionalism in the way there going about things .
I was just basing it on this, -“By the end of 2003, Glazer had increased his shareholding from 3.17% to around 15%, which he almost doubled in the year up to October 2004. His acquisition of John Magnier and McManus’s 28.7% stake in May 2005 pushed his own up to around 57%, well over the 30% threshold that would force him to launch a takeover bid”.Why?
It would be nice to know what the timeline is for Ineos to purchase the remainder of the shares required to become majority owner. If that even still is in play.
Ratclif himself said he was not going to buy the remianing shares.
Since we are on a public stock exchange he can't publicly state that he in the future intends to buy any shares, because that would illegally manipulate the price. (Price going up because they are expecting Ratcliffe to buy them.) He would risk fines and maybe more.So what does he intend to do? Help Build up “the brand” and sell it on?
United were a PLC in those days and those were the rules of the stock marketI was just basing it on this, -“By the end of 2003, Glazer had increased his shareholding from 3.17% to around 15%, which he almost doubled in the year up to October 2004. His acquisition of John Magnier and McManus’s 28.7% stake in May 2005 pushed his own up to around 57%, well over the 30% threshold that would force him to launch a takeover bid”.
I'm not 100% sure if the club as a company is governed by UK or US laws (considering US majority owners and on the NY stock exchange). But they are listed as a plc on the stock exchange, so I think it's still has to follow UK laws and thus make a mandatory takeover offer once they cross the 30% threshold (of voting power). Of course no one is obligated to accept if the offer isn't high enough for their liking. If so they have to make another offer everytime they acquire more than 1% more within 12 months while owning between 30-50%.I was just basing it on this, -“By the end of 2003, Glazer had increased his shareholding from 3.17% to around 15%, which he almost doubled in the year up to October 2004. His acquisition of John Magnier and McManus’s 28.7% stake in May 2005 pushed his own up to around 57%, well over the 30% threshold that would force him to launch a takeover bid”.
Ok cheers, so united being shit at the minute could actually work in Ratcliffes favour in term of the club’s valuation. Build this stadium and start winning trophies, qualify for CL and we’re worth more…end up closer to the relegation zone, no stadium investment and no CL then that works in Ratcliffes favour? Of course this has to bear out over the next few months to make an impact on the valuation I’m guessing?Since we are on a public stock exchange he can't publicly state that he in the future intends to buy any shares, because that would illegally manipulate the price. (Price going up because they are expecting Ratcliffe to buy them.) He would risk fines and maybe more.
What's most likely is there's probably a gentleman's agreement that within a set time Ratcliffe will make the Glazers an offer for their remaining shares (or at least majority), with final price depending on certain factors, likely because they couldn't agree on future valuation at the time INEOS became minority owners. (Glazers thinking it will be worth more because of some reasons, and Ratcliffe thinking it should be lower than that and would prove it over time.)
And at the same time this happens we might also see an offer to buy the Class A shares on the stock exchange, but then that price is set at that specific time, and won't fluctuate from speculation because Ratcliffe at some point told the media that he will buy everything.
If they still can't agree on the final price then the Glazers don't have to sell to Ratcliffe, and they are protected by including the right to sell with drag along (forcing Ratcliffe to sell his shares) to others after 18 months if they want to sell their shares but Ratcliffe doesn't bid as high as others would.
But it wouldn't have made any sense for either party to enter into such an agreement if they didn't both believe a future full/majority sale would happen.
Nice one.No. Different team called Nice.
To some extent maybe, but performance on the field is less likely to affect our value significantly. At least not enough to make it worth it to intentionally sabotage us to perform worse. We have signed our most lucrative deals in history in the time after SAF retired and we've mostly played like shit. The club has become more valuable in that time. Us losing out on Champions League money is bad, but it's mainly bad for just one season, as next season we could qualify again. (Even if repeatedly could affect sponsordeals and longterm revenue potential to not fall behind our competitors.)Ok cheers, so united being shit at the minute could actually work in Ratcliffes favour in term of the club’s valuation. Build this stadium and start winning trophies, qualify for CL and we’re worth more…end up closer to the relegation zone, no stadium investment and no CL then that works in Ratcliffes favour? Of course this has to bear out over the next few months to make an impact on the valuation I’m guessing?
A lot of deals like these have break clauses etc so it could be something along those lines, but notice does have to be given, they can't just walk away.
Who gives a feck about these sports? Its another weight to manage a gigantic football club with hundreds of millions of followers.Thats actually incorrect. They have multiple sport ventures, cycling, rowing, F1.. they have done well in some of them too.
Why would it not?As if saving 4-7m a year will be a tremendous impact on the first team. What the hell?
We will sack 200 employees who each earn a million or more a year. Simple.As if saving 4-7m a year will be a tremendous impact on the first team. What the hell?
Shall we pretend we don't need to do this?Yet more terrible optics. Deary me.
The club has to cut costs it’s as simple that
And to do that on any consistent basis we need better players than we have, which costs money which we don't haveNot if it increased revenue by winning matches and being in the Champions League, the actual very point of being Manchester United.
Not if it increased revenue by winning matches and being in the Champions League, the actual very point of being Manchester United.
