Club Sale | It’s done!

[Adnan]

People are constantly overlooking the other siblings, they could easily decide whether to go for Ratcliff or Jassim's bids. If Jassim's bid is larger, why on earth would they get 10s of millions less money from Ratcliff's bid just to appease Joel and Avram wanting to stay on?

Agreed.

I think the (other) four siblings will opt to take the Jassim offer if it is the highest. And if it's true that the offer from the Jassim camp is at $7bn, then I believe Jassim will take ownership of the club and the four siblings in question will benefit more from a sale to Jassim.

Ratcliffe it seems like is trying to find a compromise where he can somehow try and get his foot through the door because he can't compete with Jassim's offer, which is for total ownership, debt free and significant funds being made available for infrastructure and transfers.

 

[Rightnr]

You do know that the company charter can be modified with a 2/3 majority. If the 4 want to screw over Joel and Avram, there are plenty of ways to do so.

Don't bother with this guy. He's almost certainyl an oppo WUM.

 

[NK86]

The Glazers' class B shares represent 95% of the total voting power, so I think the four siblings together would fall just under the 67% threshold.

It's the Board's prerogative to modify it and not all shareholders. So they would still command the majority needed.

 

[NK86]

Don't bother with this guy. He's almost certainyl an oppo WUM.

I do avoid him but it's nonstop. One big advantage of this takeover would be him vanishing from here hopefully.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

It's the Board's prerogative to modify it and not all shareholders. So they would still command the majority needed.

In that case you also need to consider the three executives on the board (Arnold, Baty, and Stewart) and the three independent directors (Leitao, Sawhney, and Hooks), no? Unclear where they stand on this...

 

[OneUnited24]

People are constantly overlooking the other siblings, they could easily decide whether to go for Ratcliff or Jassim's bids. If Jassim's bid is larger, why on earth would they get 10s of millions less money from Ratcliff's bid just to appease Joel and Avram wanting to stay on?

Don’t forget Joel and Avram want to stay on as they feel United will be worth more in the future. Why would the other siblings agree to take less for them to have a bigger pay day? You could argue that there may be a willingness to share future profits but that in its own right isn’t assured. Just because they think it will be worth more doesn’t mean it will

 

[McTerminator]

The other four don't have power. Joel and Avram hold all the cards precisely because they want to stay. This isn't something most people have been able to grasp since the beginning.

If Joel and Avram refuse to sell their shares and the other 4 sibblings do sell, those shares that are sold outside the Glazers family will retain only 10% of their voting rights, which would leave Joel and Avram in full control.

So the other 4 sibblings won't get a good price for their shares unless Avram and Joel sell theirs with them at the same time.

In short, the other 4 sibblings have got to dance to the tune of Avram and Joel. And they want remain at the club.

Its almost guaranteed that there are some sort of drag rights in place and/or Avram and Joel are not as opposed to a sale as people think.

This process would not be happening otherwise.

 

[MiamiSpartan]

I don't think they would be able to. They would be able to have a maximum of 9% each as if they have 10% or more their class B shares would still be active and they would hold the majority of the voting power still.

This would only be the case if the shares bought converted to A shares. No buyer would make that deal. If someone is going to buy 51% of the club, you can guarantee that the deal would remove that conversion clause and they would buy all class B shares and therefore have full control.

 

[cyberman]

The other four don't have power. Joel and Avram hold all the cards precisely because they want to stay. This isn't something most people have been able to grasp since the beginning.

If Joel and Avram refuse to sell their shares and the other 4 sibblings do sell, those shares that are sold outside the Glazers family will retain only 10% of their voting rights, which would leave Joel and Avram in full control.

So the other 4 sibblings won't get a good price for their shares unless Avram and Joel sell theirs with them at the same time.

In short, the other 4 sibblings have got to dance to the tune of Avram and Joel. And they want remain at the club.

No it’s not. That’s clearly what the short window to repay the 800m debt is there for, to stop this nonsense. The other siblings hold the power

 

[NK86]

In that case you also need to consider the three executives on the board (Arnold, Baty, and Stewart) and the three independent directors (Leitao, Sawhney, and Hooks), no? Unclear where they stand on this...

I am not very sure of the make up of the Board, but if they are also there with voting rights then they too have to align themselves. I am sure though that it can easily be done if 4 major shareholders call for it.

 

[croadyman]

The audaciousness of this prediction; its by any means necessary to create reasons for no Qatari take over.

Cheers Chris for lifting morale

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I’ve been on the fence about the two potential bidders but honestly at this stage it has to be about the good of the football club. Jassims bid aims at undoing all the off field damage that the Glazers have inflicted on the club over the past 18 years on account of the ludacrous debt and lack of investment in the infrastructure.

I find it very hard to justify wanting Sir Jim’s bid even though it seems to attract less moral discourse / criticism. The club that earned its way to the top has been consistently ruined by the parasites and it feels like little shifts here and there won’t make up for that at all. You cannot catch City who are always making big strides forward when you’ve had an ownwes constantly stabbing your toes and pushing you over. In an ideal world we would not need a helping hand to fix us but because of the Glazers, we do.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

The audaciousness of this prediction; its by any means necessary to create reasons for no Qatari take over.

I’d happily take a season of transition and patience if it means a better long term future for the football club. Next season isn’t any do or die one but one of progress anyway.

Either way this journo should try less hard to shit stir.

 

[sglowrider]

The Rat Pack.

 

[croadyman]

Won't ever reach £6bn let alone 7

 

[devilish]

Dude, no one will put billions in the club and still allow control to Glazers. Best case for Glazers would be for them to have shares that have the same power as INEOS, but with INEOS having 50%+, INEOS will have total control.

Why Ineos should invest money while Glazers (and co.) own shares? If they invest money, they will organize it essentially as buying shares. Essentially, if they put 1B there, let’s assume that is 1/5th of the club’s value, then 20% new stocks are issued with all shareholders being offered the chance to buy new shares (proportional to their holdings). If no one buys them, then Ineos buys. If someone buys some of them (for example 200m worth of shares), while Ineos the others, then they put 800m of their own, instead of 1B. Obviously, the shares get diluted, which means that Ineos ownership of United increases. This type of financing is completely doable and legal. We can expect either of Ineos/Qatar doing so as long as there are other shareholders.

It would be ridiculous to think that INEOS won't be the major shareholder with the biggest say. However its equally ridiculous to believe that Avram/Joel will have a huge chunk of their wealth tied into something that they have zero say in. Thus to the very least Joel/Avram would have a clause in the deal were they can sell those shares to INEOS on a premium price whenever they want.

 

[jimmyb2000]

I disagree, United doesn’t and never has needed a sugar daddy owner. That’s the distinction. With both Busby and Ferguson our greatness was the result of a legendary manager building brilliant team after brilliant team to dominate our opponents on a level playing field.
ETH could be the next legendary manager but it won’t be quite the same if our future dominance is as a result of simply out-muscling our opponents financially.

I understand your viewpoint and agree with your assessment but let me expand a bit on my original post. Yes, we have had 3 great managers in the past and they have delivered 95% of the trophies that are in our cabinet. Those 3 managers were, in a way, bigger than the club. They delivered success in spite of the owners not because of them.

Imagine now what those 3 managers could have delivered with a zillionaire owner who loves United.

In my opinion, a club our size with our stature needs to be delivering trophies on a Real Madrid scale - year after year with the Champions League coming home to us at least 2 to 3 times a decade.To achieve this we need that sugar daddy.....or even a sugar mummy.

 

[Telsim]

Qatar will buy another club in the following years and turn them into a juggernaut, eventually making the league a three-horse race. Meanwhile, we will have the Local Lad traitor and his rat friends pulling the club further into the swamp. Feck Ratcliffe and the Glazers, man.

 

[TrebleChamp99]

Neymar at La Theatre ?

 

[SmallCaine]

It would be ridiculous to think that INEOS won't be the major shareholder with the biggest say. However its equally ridiculous to believe that Avram/Joel will have a huge chunk of their wealth tied into something that they have zero say in. Thus to the very least Joel/Avram would have a clause in the deal were they can sell those shares to INEOS on a premium price whenever they want.

As of now they have about 34% voting power, no way anyone buying is going to let them increase it.

 

[SmallCaine]

I disagree, United doesn’t and never has needed a sugar daddy owner. That’s the distinction. With both Busby and Ferguson our greatness was the result of a legendary manager building brilliant team after brilliant team to dominate our opponents on a level playing field.
ETH could be the next legendary manager but it won’t be quite the same if our future dominance is as a result of simply out-muscling our opponents financially.

Weren't united outspending most of the pl in Fergie days? The brilliant teams were built on back of ability to spend big money most other teams couldn't match.

 

[Edwards6]

Weren't united outspending most of the pl in Fergie days? The brilliant teams were built on back of ability to spend big money most other teams couldn't match.

That's the myth but United were the biggest spenders only twice when Sir Alex was manager, we were being outspent by Newcastle, Blackburn, Liverpool even before Chelsea and City were created

 

[Mockney]

Weren't united outspending most of the pl in Fergie days? The brilliant teams were built on back of ability to spend big money most other teams couldn't match.

Actually United have only been the biggest spenders 5 times since 1992 & only twice did it result in winning the league. Also the majority of our success under Fergie was built on the back of an incredible academy midfield, augmented by the occasional record signing (paid for by our own success)

https://www.football365.com/news/bi...ue-season-chelsea-manchester-united-liverpool

 

[AbusementPark]

Even if the Glazers accept SJR deal in the thinking that the club will be more valuable in the future doesn’t mean they will be allowed to sell it on to avail of that profit. Also the protests will continue and possibly ramp up if they do remain at the club, continuing tomorrow.

How much dividends can they withdraw from the club over the next few years that will reach what Jassim is offering now as a payout. It’s the best offer for them to walk away clean with around $1bn each, gives us everything we need as a club to bring it back to being the best in the world.

 

[SmallCaine]

Actually United have only been the biggest spenders 5 times since 1992 & only twice did it result in winning the league. Also the majority of our success under Fergie was built on the back of an incredible academy midfield, augmented by the occasional record signing (paid for by our own success)

https://www.football365.com/news/bi...ue-season-chelsea-manchester-united-liverpool

I said most not that all. The link you sent says clearly under Fergie we broke the transfer record 7 times, even in last 10 years we have spent billion pounds, the problem is we have spent it like Newcastle did in 90's rather than utd did.

Also my point wasn't about us just spending money, it was about complaints that Qatar buying us will make us hollow somehow, when the fact of the matter is united's ability to spend big money has been a key part of it's success just like it has been for likes of Madrid or barca, our problem right now is there are a lot of teams now willing to spend unlike earlier which means it's not just about spending money it's about spending it well.

 

[Smores]

Actually United have only been the biggest spenders 5 times since 1992 & only twice did it result in winning the league. Also the majority of our success under Fergie was built on the back of an incredible academy midfield, augmented by the occasional record signing (paid for by our own success)

https://www.football365.com/news/bi...ue-season-chelsea-manchester-united-liverpool

That's a bit of an odd way to cherry pick the data to come to a desired conclusion though. Individual summers don't really matter one bit, 5 year periods would be a better way and I reckon we'd top most if not all of them.

We earned a lot and we spent a lot nothing to really be ashamed about. Well at least until our new sugar daddy era anyway. Now we're just someones plaything, we'll get a new stadium we won't own and our spending will increase beyond our true capability to fund it.

At least we'll get lots of new glory seeker fans though. Fun times for the caf.

 

[MancunianAngels]

Qatar will buy another club in the following years and turn them into a juggernaut, eventually making the league a three-horse race. Meanwhile, we will have the Local Lad traitor and his rat friends pulling the club further into the swamp. Feck Ratcliffe and the Glazers, man.

There is still value in supporting a football club for what it is and what its always meant; your birthright, a strong community, culture and identity, a shared experience amongst like minded people. Celebrating those moments of sheer bliss like it's the world cup final and Champions League final rolled into one. If we're outmuscled occasionally by a rich person's plaything or sportwashing project, who cares? A good manager will always find a way. Fergie saw them all off. Chelsea seemed unstoppable in 2006.

And in addition, Chelsea (who can still get relegated this season and City (currently facing 100 plus financial charges and breaches) are hardly adverts for that type of model. Sure, City, in this case might beat those charges but their title will be forever tainted. Even if they win the Treble, they'll never do it like we did.

United fans actively wanting Qatar in makes me feel really uneasy. Aside from the obvious social and political ramifications, we still have no idea what their intentions are.

 

[NWRed]

Weren't united outspending most of the pl in Fergie days? The brilliant teams were built on back of ability to spend big money most other teams couldn't match.

Obviously we outspent teams like Everton, but we were never the biggest spenders.

90's:

Pre Abramovich:

Sir Alex:

All PL:

 

[dove]

There is still value in supporting a football club for what it is and what its always meant; your birthright, a strong community, culture and identity, a shared experience amongst like minded people. Celebrating those moments of sheer bliss like it's the world cup final and Champions League final rolled into one. If we're outmuscled occasionally by a rich person's plaything or sportwashing project, who cares? A good manager will always find a way. Fergie saw them all off. Chelsea seemed unstoppable in 2006.

And in addition, Chelsea (who can still get relegated this season and City (currently facing 100 plus financial charges and breaches) are hardly adverts for that type of model. Sure, City, in this case might beat those charges but their title will be forever tainted. Even if they win the Treble, they'll never do it like we did.

United fans actively wanting Qatar in makes me feel really uneasy. Aside from the obvious social and political ramifications, we still have no idea what their intentions are.

This is what we United fans keep saying in order to make ourselves feel better but the reality is, they would go into history books just like we did. They will not have any asterisks or whatever near their trophies.

 

[devilish]

As of now they have about 34% voting power, no way anyone buying is going to let them increase it.

We tend to see things from INEOS perspective. But think about how Avram/Joel would see things. The family is worth around 5B dollars. They are asset rich and those assets would usually be sold at a premium. Thus it would be logical to say that Avram and Joel are worth around 1b-1.5b dollars each. Jassim is said to have offered 6.5b-7b dollars for United. Assuming that Joel/Avram opts for SJR offer which then most of Avram/Joel personal wealth will be tied up into Manchester United thus its fortune. Do you really believe that they would accept that without having a say on how things are run whatsoever? To the very least they would ask for a mechanism were they can sell those shares at a premium price to INEOS whenever they want.

 

[Appletonred]

This is pretty much done, the Glazers will not turn down a world record fee and risk alienating a very powerful and influential nation like Qatar.

 

[Member 125398]

There is still value in supporting a football club for what it is and what its always meant; your birthright, a strong community, culture and identity, a shared experience amongst like minded people. Celebrating those moments of sheer bliss like it's the world cup final and Champions League final rolled into one. If we're outmuscled occasionally by a rich person's plaything or sportwashing project, who cares? A good manager will always find a way. Fergie saw them all off. Chelsea seemed unstoppable in 2006.

And in addition, Chelsea (who can still get relegated this season and City (currently facing 100 plus financial charges and breaches) are hardly adverts for that type of model. Sure, City, in this case might beat those charges but their title will be forever tainted. Even if they win the Treble, they'll never do it like we did.

United fans actively wanting Qatar in makes me feel really uneasy. Aside from the obvious social and political ramifications, we still have no idea what their intentions are.

This thread moves fast, I hope everyone gets to see this post.

 

[devilish]

This thread moves fast, I hope everyone gets to see this post.

I did and I can't stop laughing about it

 

[Member 125398]

I did and I can't stop laughing about it

No value in supporting a football club for what it is and what its always meant; your birthright, a strong community, culture and identity, a shared experience amongst like minded people for you then?

 

[devilish]

No value in supporting a football club for what it is and what its always meant; your birthright, a strong community, culture and identity, a shared experience amongst like minded people for you then?

First of all if fans want to be insular then Manchester United is not the club for them. The club's policy since Sir Matt was always outward looking and determined to have as many fans outside Manchester as possible. United wouldn't be anywhere near to what it is today if it was for its global brand and tbh I can't see Manchester attracting so many tourists if it wasn't for Manchester United. I went there a couple of times and its one of the dulliest European cities I've ever visited.

Secondly as Dove said they won't be any asterix around City's achievements. Trophies and honours are trophies and honours irrespective of how they are won. No one gives a feck that most of AC Milan CL's glories were won with a crooked owner at the helm or Chelsea won its 2 CL with an oligarch as their boss or Real Madrid had always been Spain's government darling (including the fascist one). They say that Italy's WC win in 1934 was crooked as hell. Does anyone mention that? Of course not. No one gives a feck.

Finally if we're going to the morality route then maybe we should opt for a better owner to a Tory Brexiteer/tax evader whose wealth is tied in polluting the planet and who like to give top jobs to racists and people with chequered reputation.

 

[Giggsyking]

There is still value in supporting a football club for what it is and what its always meant; your birthright, a strong community, culture and identity, a shared experience amongst like minded people. Celebrating those moments of sheer bliss like it's the world cup final and Champions League final rolled into one. If we're outmuscled occasionally by a rich person's plaything or sportwashing project, who cares? A good manager will always find a way. Fergie saw them all off. Chelsea seemed unstoppable in 2006.

And in addition, Chelsea (who can still get relegated this season and City (currently facing 100 plus financial charges and breaches) are hardly adverts for that type of model. Sure, City, in this case might beat those charges but their title will be forever tainted. Even if they win the Treble, they'll never do it like we did.

United fans actively wanting Qatar in makes me feel really uneasy. Aside from the obvious social and political ramifications, we still have no idea what their intentions are.

Birthright, culture and community. Man, these people still lives in the thirties. Manchester united is not Burnley ffs, it stopped being a local football club in the sixties. You cant turn the behemoth united is to a small cat.

 

[Member 125398]

First of all if fans want to be insular then Manchester United is not the club for them. The club's policy since Sir Matt was always outward looking and determined to have as many fans outside Manchester as possible.

Secondly as Dove said they won't be any asterix around City's achievements. Trophies and honours are trophies and honours irrespective of how they are won. No one gives a feck that most of AC Milan CL's glories were won with a crooked owner at the helm or Chelsea won its 2 CL with an oligarch as their boss or Real Madrid had always been Spain's government darling (including the fascist one). They say that Italy's WC win in 1934 was crooked as hell. Does anyone mention that? Of course not. No one gives a feck.

Finally if we're going to the morality route then maybe we should opt for a better owner to a Tory Brexiteer/tax evader whose wealth is tied in polluting the planet and who like to give top jobs to racists and people with chequered reputation.

On your first point you are correct, the United community is outward looking and welcomes all to be part of that community.

Genuine question, why not support City? They offer everthing you're looking for. What's different about United for you?

 

[devilish]

On your first point you are correct, the United community is outward looking and welcomes all to be part of that community.

Genuine question, why not support City? They offer everthing you're looking for. What's different about United for you?

I am a third generation United supporter which trace its origins before the Munich tragedy. I also don't switch my support because others are doing better then we do. Believe it or not you can be foreigner and not be a glory hunter. That doesn't mean that I would go to the sentimental BS though. I would still call a spade for what it is.

 

[SmallCaine]

We tend to see things from INEOS perspective. But think about how Avram/Joel would see things. The family is worth around 5B dollars. They are asset rich and those assets would usually be sold at a premium. Thus it would be logical to say that Avram and Joel are worth around 1b-1.5b dollars each. Jassim is said to have offered 6.5b-7b dollars for United. Assuming that Joel/Avram opts for SJR offer which then most of Avram/Joel personal wealth will be tied up into Manchester United thus its fortune. Do you really believe that they would accept that without having a say on how things are run whatsoever? To the very least they would ask for a mechanism were they can sell those shares at a premium price to INEOS whenever they want.

Which is why i beleive it is not a realistic plan, no way would Ratcliffe or anyone else spend around 3-4bn that would be needed to buy out the other glazer siblings and then hand any control over to these 2 dimwits. They tried this pie in the sky bs with PE funds for minority interest, who laughed them out of their offices, this bid from SJR is basically a way for him to try and cover the financial deficit between him and Qatar but even he isn't going to offer something that stupid to these 2.

 

[Yakuza_devils]

I did and I can't stop laughing about it

Me too. These people are still stuck in stone age.