Yeh that’s not right the times haven’t released any such article, they just went with the headline that Jim was pricing the shares at a higher value which is standard business practice for a smaller percentage.
Eve IF Ratcliffe manages to roll the debt burden of both entities into one, what do you think the odds of Ineos paying interest repayments that a few years ago were £300m a year just with their own debt burden, and we'll be allowed to build a new stadium and spunk £125m on a world class striker?
Being owned by Ratcliffe will see our spending restrictions where everyone scaremonged they were under the Glazers, but never actually were.
Eve IF Ratcliffe manages to roll the debt burden of both entities into one, what do you think the odds of Ineos paying interest repayments that a few years ago were £300m a year just with their own debt burden, and we'll be allowed to build a new stadium and spunk £125m on a world class striker?
Being owned by Ratcliffe will see our spending restrictions where everyone scaremonged they were under the Glazers, but never actually were.
Long post – apologies
The game I see is that the incumbents (4 Glazers - goers + 2 Glazers - stayers) may sell the club or at least a controlling portion of it to JR or SJ. Clearly they will decide who wins purely on their perceived money values of offers and nothing else. Someone had put some figures to this and come up with the goers getting £575m each and that the stayers will get £700m each. This is a useful exercise to give us some idea. If I was in goers group I’d say Yeah, right - think again guys. We'll soon see that the arrangement needs to be such that they all get the same price per share, the goers and the stayers. So they need to pool the loot in some appropriate manner. They all need to be happy.
Now the stayers are to be in a position where they will have a minority (10% each is bandied about) with special sweet deals if selling at a prearranged price within a stipulated time. If the goers see any inequity in this part of the transaction, they will want a slice of that loot too from the stayers.
From where JR is sitting we could assume that he sees something like the £575m and £750m given to each one of the 2 groups. He sees that as - once the goers are paid up (£575m each) the stayers remain and they need a higher share price as they hold the balance of power hence the £750m. It is the balance of power that holders have that decide the true value – not the average share price. Someone out there has already stated it that partial offers have to be at a premium to the whole in terms of share price. That price is at a maximum when the stake is 50%+ . Each additional share adds diminishing value to the buyer.
For example – 2 sets of people – A holds 49%, B holds 51%
If B’s holding is valued at £51m, would people value A’s portion at £49m or in another way how much would B offer for A’s portion or any part of it?
Another case: A 49%, B 49%, C 2% if A & B valued at £49m each, is C only worth £2m? I do realise that if A & B merge, C's position won’t look so pretty – but it will be worth well north of the £2m if A or B might want it.
You cant proportion out a share price and apply that to every scenario - makes no sense of the dynamics that will exist.
In the first scenario B can feck A up with everything legal he can and then frustrate him in every possible way so that he will accept a much lower price. I don’t know the current minority interests’ protection laws as my last knowledge of that stuff goes back to 1979 when I left for a different field - no use whatsoever.
Not too sure if any of the posters here or journalists know any exacts in relation to the offers and how they are framed. SJ may up the bid yet, he may not but he seems happy with his position. Only the Glazers & Raine know and the rest can guestimate. We are in the dark in more ways than one is my opinion.
The Glazers aren’t dumb. The stayers will be very wary of accepting any deal with JR where they are in the minority (20%) and that is why
perhaps they will take SJ’s offer. When Malcolm Glazer started this shitty period, Utd was a nice juicy and very easy target. None of the Glazers show any appetite for gambling with their own money. That is my last crumb of comfort. JR (if I believe a recent post that researched it) has already shown how he is rather adept at screwing minorities to the wall. He has every incentive to give us another 5 years of mediocrity and achieve his own goals. Help me out - give me some pointers as to why I’m wrong.
