Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven’t seen that, I certainly haven’t said anything of the sort but if that’s the case then I apologise.
Clearly they are totally wrong. The leveraged debt should never have been allowed to happen, and has been a millstone around the clubs neck for almost 2 decades.
Never said you said so. However, for some bizarre reason, we have posters here saying debt of the type we have is not a bad thing. All because there are others worrying/questioning that the potential JR takeover could also be with debt laden on our books.
 
Just been listening to the BBC podcast (How to buy a football club) from today. Faisal Islam thinks we may get the Glazers turn this into an auction-type situation.

Simon Stone also states he has been told the Qatar bid is over £5 billion, unsure if with or without debt etc. (doesn't think so)

 
It's an idiotic point of view.

Our interest repayments during City's rise to dominance:

2008 £60 million
2009 £42 million
2010 £49 million
2011 £168 million
2012 £47 million
2013 £77 million
2014 £28 million
2015 £49 million

This was the time when City were signing the players that would form the basis of their dominance, players we didn't challenge for because 'there was no value in the market'. It was the time we sold Ronaldo and replaced him with Valencia, the time we had to bring Scholes out of retirement because we failed to sign a replacement for him

The Glazers have taken ~£1.5 billion out of united in interest and dividends, that is a new stadium and training ground or far more signings of a much higher calibre just when City were building their empire.

All true united fans totally agree with you, it’s not how badly we spent our own money under their guidance, it’s the fact that all they ever cared about was money and dividends, the current debt has never been paid off or significantly reduced yet they continued to milk the club until now where we are being much closely looked at by UEFA FFP new rules because of our debt and the risk to future amortised payments.

We could have rebuIlt a stadium over that period that dwarfed spurs and was 100,000 all seater state of the art stadium that would now be generating match-day revenues of nearly £150m per year instead of now being matched by spurs.at £105m we’ve just been so badly managed by owners who have had the unique opportunity to make serious money rather than continue to live off the clubs debt, the PL should never ever have allowed any leveraged buy out. It took these morons a decade to introduce a woman’s team and now they are trying to milk that too!
 

Quotes


Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos bid for a majority stake in Manchester United includes a demand for immediate control of transfers from the moment a potential deal is agreed in the coming weeks, Telegraph Sport understands.

Requests for complete control of the club prior to sale completion are unlikely to be accepted by the Glazers, but both leading bidders are understood to stipulate they want influence as soon as their offers get the green light.

While Ratcliffe is focused on immediate player dealings, Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani, leading the rival Qatari bid, wants even wider oversight of club affairs if his offer for a full buy-out for United is accepted.
 
Question from an ignorant fan. Is there a rule brought in by the powers that be. That who ever buy's united can not put debt on to the club. This is known as the Glazer rule I think. I thought I read about this during Chelsea's sale. If true any buyer should not be able to put extra debt while buying us.
Just a question from a very confused fan who can not work out how we could be allowed to be worse off in any type of sale.
The ‘anti-Glazer clause’ as it was christened by the tabloid media was specific to the Chelsea sale. There is no industry wide rule that states a leveraged buyout is not allowed. Burnley have just been purchased using such a mechanism.
 
When was this confirmed that the Qatar state are behind Jassim?
He’s just briefed that he has the approval of the Emir and PSG owner and they see this as one club in their multi club network
 
When was this confirmed that the Qatar state are behind Jassim?
In the absence of the state, which appears to be attempting to masquerade as private investors, confirming that they are in fact, a state investor, I see no other way to confirm that they are state investors.

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
 
I'm really not concerned about the debt, management etc. For me, the main difference is how the club is ultimately run, the ambitions.
I fear JR definition of success would be driving the club value up, leverage the enormous PR potential etc.
whereas, I believe Qatar wants to be the best, win it all, by all means. Which I think is a necessity to be a successful sports club. Do whatever it takes to get to the top, see City, Barca, Real, PSJ.

Not just about spending money, but how. Spending when you are ahead, not the billions Glazers spend when we were already buried down under.
Then you haven’t been paying attention.
 
Another Tele quote

On Friday, after the submission of third and final bids, it emerged that only Ratcliffe’s had valued United, of which the Glazers siblings own 69 per cent, above £5 billion. It had been anticipated that Sheikh Jassim would be the most likely winner although the picture is still unclear.
 
The shares are going down because people think Ratcliffe will win. He isn't concerned with the 31% so naturally the share price falls a little.
If the shares are going down, then J&A will be losing money if they hold their A shares. Interesting to see if they opt for that risk.
 
Joel and Darcie I think but yes good point.
I meant that there's talk that if JR takes over, the shares will be restructured to remove the A & B classing. That way if Joel and Avaram remain with 20% class A shares, then they can get squeezed out and also may lose a lot of money if the share value doesn't rise as they expect.
 
I meant that there's talk that if JR takes over, the shares will be restructured to remove the A & B classing. That way if Joel and Avaram remain with 20% class A shares, then they can get squeezed out and also may lose a lot of money if the share value doesn't rise as they expect.
I guess that JR will have to guarantee them a premium for them to agree to that deal.
 
I guess that JR will have to guarantee them a premium for them to agree to that deal.
That was also in the press that it will be a 2 year period during which they can sell it at a premium. Is that going to be worth it to risk all the cash now for something similar or less in 2 years?
 
That was also in the press that it will be a 2 year period during which they can sell it at a premium. Is that going to be worth it to risk all the cash now for something similar or less in 2 years?
Something they will have to weigh up I guess.
 
I meant that there's talk that if JR takes over, the shares will be restructured to remove the A & B classing. That way if Joel and Avaram remain with 20% class A shares, then they can get squeezed out and also may lose a lot of money if the share value doesn't rise as they expect.
But they have been offered a premium for the remaining 20% they would still hold ABOVE the offered price now, so if there shares are indeed falling the have a 2 year window where they can cash out and still win. It’s a clever offer.
 
So if Jim wins then Glazers will not just stay as minority owners, they will have a say about club's business too? :nervous:
 
A question to all of you who support SJR/Ineos.

What’s your fear regarding being owned by Ineos and the remaining Glazers siblings?
Are you 100% sure that in the future our current and new debts will not affect United’s finances in any way?
Do you honestly fully trust SJR and his intentions bearing in mind his previous track record as a businessman and political influencer?

My questions isn’t to be provocative or in bad faith but more so we can have a fruitful debate on pros and cons of both bidders. This isn’t a question about who’s better or worse. My interest is your general thoughts and fears about being owned by Sir Jim and Ineos. I don’t expect anyone giving black and white answers but it would broaden the debate to trying to view both bidders from to opposing perspective instead of just repeating same old arguments.
 
So if Jim wins then Glazers will not just stay as minority owners, they will have a say about club's business too? :nervous:
That's not what the article is suggesting, JR is wanting a say as soon as the sale is agreed. There will be weeks (possibly months) between an agreement and the completion of the deal. Ratcliffe wants power in that period.
 
I wonder if the Qataris underestimated JR and bid low thinking it would be enough. And if that’s true is there anything stopping them contacting the Glazers and saying right what’s he offered and upping their bid this week.
 
I wonder if the Qataris underestimated JR and bid low thinking it would be enough. And if that’s true is there anything stopping them contacting the Glazers and saying right what’s he offered and upping their bid this week.
I don't think so. Glazers are proabably hoping they will
 
That's not what the article is suggesting, JR is wanting a say as soon as the sale is agreed. There will be weeks (possibly months) between an agreement and the completion of the deal. Ratcliffe wants power in that period.
That’s understandable but I’m not sure the Glazers would allow that until completion. Both parties protecting their interests with the club caught in the middle.
 
But they have been offered a premium for the remaining 20% they would still hold ABOVE the offered price now, so if there shares are indeed falling the have a 2 year window where they can cash out and still win. It’s a clever offer.
Not sure about the above the current price, I read it was at a premium but nothing was mentioned a premium on what value.

Will be interesting to see how it unfolds, do they risk the cash on the table now for something in 2 years when JR could squeeze them out.
 
I wonder if the Qataris underestimated JR and bid low thinking it would be enough. And if that’s true is there anything stopping them contacting the Glazers and saying right what’s he offered and upping their bid this week.
I don’t think anybody would tell the bidders what the other bid is. That doesn’t seem a fair process?
 
I wonder if the Qataris underestimated JR and bid low thinking it would be enough. And if that’s true is there anything stopping them contacting the Glazers and saying right what’s he offered and upping their bid this week.

Its the final round of bids, but I dont think anyone is stopping a bidder offer more money.

Just like any private investor can still contact them and slump up half a billion more if they wanted.

This part is indicative of what they are willing to offer but its no means final.

Maybe they'll ask Jassim to change the structure or something, it's worth noting SJR just wants a controlling stake he might be offering below the asking price but more as a price per share, but Jassims total bid could be higher in total (just not per share) the Glazers including all family members might want a full exit so Jassim could still win anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.