Club Sale | It’s done!

[Tarrou]

The problem with having an anti-leveraged buyout clause is you instantly make every club realistically less valuable as the cost of most of these 'assets' now are at a level where they're realistically only affordable by borrowing. State ownership aside. Outside of that even people with on paper net worths the far exceed the valuation of a football club, will not actually have the money to pay for the club outright.

Even Musk has never had £5bn sitting around in the bank.

I don’t think there is such a clause though?

 

[devilish]

I've yet to feel remotely excited with INEOS. Its a company who has a horrible football record, who isn't exactly known in investing huge money in it either and who will keep both the debt and the Glazers. I understand that some people don't want state ownership. In that case then Elliott would be a far better option. At least they did things properly at AC Milan and were far more successful then INEOs

 

[NWRed]

There seems little point engaging with you at this point. You’ve obviously made up your own mind and far be it from me to be the one to change it.
I don’t believe there will be a huge amount of debt (if any at all) associated with the INEOS bid, I have seen nothing to suggest that there will.

Despite the numerous reports and carefully worded statements indicating there will be. Keep sticking your head in the sand, I'm sure it'll all be fine in the end.

 

[HarryP]

That doesn't matter if facts on the ground change drastically, they are journalists not oracles after all. So if tomorrow morning SJ rocks up with 6b bid to blow SJR out of the water it doesn't mean they didn't have integrity on Saturday, it simply means facts changed which they can given that the Glazers have one objective - make the most money out of the sale.

If another investor comes with 6b pound bid tomorrow, having watched SJ and SJR slug it out he will become the preferred bidder and the Glazers won't shut him out. Rained, for their own credibility, will simply brief that he has been the silent bidder all along and no one can do anything about it if they can't bid more.

The news that came out on Saturday could very well be the actual state of play but it's also likely that it was a brief to extract a reaction from the Qatari camp and the noises on Monday suggest it was successful.

I don't disagree but it's all irrelevant to the point I'm making.

@Berbaclass was claiming there's a conspiracy to invent a particular narrative between the media outlets in order to generate clicks.

I pointed out that this is tinfoil hat stuff - that's it.

 

[JagUTD]

They will probably continue to pocket the 10m per glazer kid in dividends and 1m+ / year in comp for being on the board.

Just thinking about it makes me angry.

Man without a clue drives himself into a frenzy

 

[cyberman]

Does the banking crisis now play into this?

 

[Micky Targaryen]

I feel like the pro-Ineos posters in this thread are pro-Ineos just because they are anti-Qatar or anti-State backed bids. Claiming that our club would be a play thing, citing examples like Malaga or PSG, without acknowledging the fact that Malaga and PSG were a nothing club, before they hit the jackpot. Lazy comparisons all around. They will not even entertain the potential idea that our juggernaut of a football club can be ran successfully under a state backed regime.

I have not seen any pro-Ineos posters actually stating any belief in Ratcliffe's ability in running a football club, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that our club will still be debt ridden and Glazers will still be in the club during a Ratcliffe era.

It's like they've been pro-Ineos for 1000+ pages in this thread, so they might as well die on this hill. Regardless of whatever negative info pops up with Ratcliffe.

 

[Kinsella]

I feel like the pro-Ineos posters in this thread are pro-Ineos just because they are anti-Qatar or anti-State backed bids. Claiming that our club would be a play thing, citing examples like Malaga or PSG, without acknowledging the fact that Malaga and PSG were a nothing club, before they hit the jackpot. Lazy comparisons all around. They will not even entertain the potential idea that our juggernaut of a football club can be ran successfully under a state backed regime.

I have not seen any pro-Ineos posters actually stating any belief in Ratcliffe's ability in running a football club, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that our club will still be debt ridden and Glazers will still be in the club during a Ratcliffe era.

It's like they've been pro-Ineos for 1000+ pages in this thread, so they might as well die on this hill. Regardless of whatever negative info pops up with Ratcliffe.

I don’t think that’s the case at all. Money is after all the main determinant of success on the pitch.

The reason why so many are against state ownership on principle is because it’s the model that affects what it means to be a fan the most. In other words their essential feeling towards the club and its future success will be changed by it.

 

[pocco]

Do your research then. I have.

You will find that neither Carlyle or Elliott are currently an option.

Ok then...

https://www.skysports.com/football/...d-offers-glazers-chance-to-keep-stake-in-club

 

[Cassidy]

I don’t think that’s the case at all. Money is after all the main determinant of success on the pitch.

The reason why so many are against state ownership on principle is because it’s the model that affects what it means to be a fan the most. In other words their essential feeling towards the club and its future success will be changed by it.

So exactly what the op said. Pro Ineos because they are anti Qatar and not because Ineos would be good for the club

 

[Telsim]

Think "The Telegraph" article said bidders don't expect this to be done before 10th of June? Looks like we will once again spend the summer twiddling our thumbs, then have to panic buy within the last month.

 

[Pickle85]

So exactly what the op said. Pro Ineos because they are anti Qatar and not because Ineos would be good for the club

But people seem to be implying that being against the Qatari bid because one is against state backing in sport as a whole isn't a good enough reason. It absolutely is.

 

[justsomebloke]

So exactly what the op said. Pro Ineos because they are anti Qatar and not because Ineos would be good for the club

No shit? In other words, people make a choice between the available options? How galling.

 

[Kinsella]

So exactly what the op said. Pro Ineos because they are anti Qatar and not because Ineos would be good for the club

A person’s feelings and emotions about a club strike at the core of what means to be a fan. So it’s only natural that there will be strong sentiments against state ownership, and that this will play a part in any preference for a bidder.

However…that doesn’t mean that INEOS won’t be good for the club.

 

[Berbaclass]

Ok then...

https://www.skysports.com/football/...d-offers-glazers-chance-to-keep-stake-in-club

So even ignoring the financial misconduct investigation Elliott are under and the potential conflicts of interest between Qatar and Carlyle.
There are two factors that make minority investment pretty much impossible.

The first being there are two actual offers on the table for full control, both coming with massive premiums on top of the share price. Why on earth would the Glazer siblings contemplate taking less money?

There is also a bylaw which states that any class B shares being sold has to be agreed upon by all Glazers.

Secondly the siblings want to sell, the money would not go into the club as an actual investment rather into the pockets of the Glazer four siblings. Giving that type of investment little appeal to a company such as Elliott as the problem of debt and needed infrastructural investment still remains.

As soon as Ratcliffe or Jassim made a bid it effectively rendered minority investment irrelevant.

 

[Cassidy]

But people seem to be implying that being against the Qatari bid because one is against state backing in sport as a whole isn't a good enough reason. It absolutely is.

Im not saying it isn’t by the way
Also its no reason to pretend the Ineos bid is any good

 

[Cassidy]

A person’s feelings and emotions about a club strike at the core of what means to be a fan. So it’s only natural that there will be strong sentiments against state ownership, and that this will play a part in any preferable for a bidder.

However…that doesn’t mean that INEOS won’t be good for the club.

Ineos won’t be good for the club in my opinion.

Big issues with both bids.

 

[Kinsella]

As soon as Ratcliffe or Jassim made a bid it effectively rendered minority investment irrelevant.

It didn’t, because neither bid has met the Glazer’s long stated £6bn demand.

 

[Kinsella]

Ineos won’t be good for the club in my opinion.

Big issues with both bids.

Yeah, and it will be good for the club in the opinion of others.

It will certainly be better than the current ownership in any case.

 

[redcucumber]

Thanks for your reply!

You make valid arguments and your “fears” about “be the plaything or a political tool” are perfectly understandable.

Maybe I’m cynical but I have already given up about judging motives and who’s better or worse from a moral standpoint. Cultural, religious or political backgrounds are probably different but in the end they’re (SJR and SJ) both humans probably with similar personal motives. Make us better. What’s coming with it like goodwill (sports washing/greenwashing) is only achievable if we’re being successful so in the end it’s like choosing between two intentional (or unintentional) unwelcome agendas.

Unfortunately I think we have to accept that if we want to long term competing at the highest level probably requires “unlimited’ funds. That’s why I judge the bidders only from a financial perspective without taking into consideration moral issues and similar.

Being able to compete at the highest level absolutely doesn't require "unlimited" funds. We've spent practically more than any other club in the last decade and we are the least successful big club in football. We generate an absolute feck load - it's how we spend our money that determines our success.

 

[Berbaclass]

It didn’t, because neither bid has met the Glazer’s long stated £6bn demand.

That’s irrelevant. The money on offer is still greater than a minority investment would be.

They’ve tried to get it for years and no one was stupid enough.

 

[pocco]

So even ignoring the financial misconduct investigation Elliott are under and the potential conflicts of interest between Qatar and Carlyle.
There are two factors that make minority investment pretty much impossible.

The first being there are two actual offers on the table for full control, both coming with massive premiums on top of the share price. Why on earth would the Glazer siblings contemplate taking less money?

There is also a bylaw which states that any class B shares being sold has to be agreed upon by all Glazers.

Secondly the siblings want to sell, the money would not go into the club as an actual investment rather into the pockets of the Glazer four siblings. Giving that type of investment little appeal to a company such as Elliott as the problem of debt and needed infrastructural investment still remains.

As soon as Ratcliffe or Jassim made a bid it effectively rendered minority investment irrelevant.

So you're back tracking from saying there are no offers for minority investment? Ok. The fact they didn't set a deadline for that type of investment means that they probably want to keep that option open should the full takeover offers fall short, which is what I said originally. You're the only one talking about the investigation of Elliott and the conflict of interest for Carlyle being a problem.

 

[Cassidy]

It didn’t, because neither bid has met the Glazer’s long stated £6bn demand.

The bid amounts are not all known. We’ll find out soon enough I guess. Lots of speculation in the press but I wouldn’t jump the gun

 

[pocco]

That’s irrelevant. The money on offer is still greater than a minority investment would be.

They’ve tried to get it for years and no one was stupid enough.

See, you're back to making assumptions. Unless you know the Glazers, don't try to tell people they're wrong based on your own assumptions on what another set of people want, who you have never even met. There is a reason they kept the minority investment option open, whether they go that route or not. But as far as we know, it is an option.

 

[Kinsella]

That’s irrelevant. The money on offer is still greater than a minority investment would be.

They’ve tried to get it for years and no one was stupid enough.

It’s not irrelevant because of the reason already stated and for the long rumoured reluctance that 2 of the Glazer siblings have towards selling the club. A rumour which now has significant substance to it.

 

[Berbaclass]

So you're back tracking from saying there are no offers for minority investment? Ok. The fact they didn't set a deadline for that type of investment means that they probably want to keep that option open should the full takeover offers fall short, which is what I said originally. You're the only one talking about the investigation of Elliott and the conflict of interest for Carlyle being a problem.

I said off the table not that there were no offers I believe. If I did then I misspoke, it was pretty late last night.

It doesn’t make any sense, especially with the rumour that Ratcliffe intends to buy out the siblings shares and leave Joel and Avram in. The siblings have a concrete offer on the table for much better value than PE would offer them. Both Ratcliffe and Jassim value the club for a lot more than it’s actually worth don’t forget.

The Glazers have to sell, it will be one of those two.

 

[Berbaclass]

See, you're back to making assumptions. Unless you know the Glazers, don't try to tell people they're wrong based on your own assumptions on what another set of people want, who you have never even met. There is a reason they kept the minority investment option open, whether they go that route or not. But as far as we know, it is an option.

I’m not inside the process all any of can make is assumptions or educated guesses. Don’t be argumentative just for the sake of it.

 

[JagUTD]

I feel like the pro-Ineos posters in this thread are pro-Ineos just because they are anti-Qatar or anti-State backed bids. Claiming that our club would be a play thing, citing examples like Malaga or PSG, without acknowledging the fact that Malaga and PSG were a nothing club, before they hit the jackpot. Lazy comparisons all around. They will not even entertain the potential idea that our juggernaut of a football club can be ran successfully under a state backed regime.

I have not seen any pro-Ineos posters actually stating any belief in Ratcliffe's ability in running a football club, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that our club will still be debt ridden and Glazers will still be in the club during a Ratcliffe era.

It's like they've been pro-Ineos for 1000+ pages in this thread, so they might as well die on this hill. Regardless of whatever negative info pops up with Ratcliffe.

Or, we actually care about football beyond the end of our own noses and know full well what a disease State ownership is.

And when there's a valid alternative offering a way out of the mess we are in, then I'll take that every day.

The irrational views of some frankly mean nothing to me personally. People are entitled to it of course.

 

[Berbaclass]

It’s not irrelevant because of the reason already stated and for the long rumoured reluctance that 2 of the Glazer siblings have towards selling the club. A rumour which now has significant substance to it.

Doesn’t matter now the siblings have a concrete offer (a very good one) on the table.

 

[Kinsella]

Doesn’t matter now the siblings have a concrete offer (a very good one) on the table.

All that matters here is what the Glazers think is a good offer.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

There is also a bylaw which states that any class B shares being sold has to be agreed upon by all Glazers.

But nobody's claiming that Avram and Joel are dead set against selling all their shares.

It's just that they're also open to other outcomes (unlike the other four, we presume, who want out here and now).

 

[Berbaclass]

All that matters here is what the Glazers think is a good offer.

Likelihood is that the siblings would take this offer IMO.

I think J+A are pushing to get their valuation met then sell up.

 

[Kinsella]

Likelihood is that the siblings would take this offer IMO.

I think J+A are pushing to get their valuation met then sell up.

It may be more likely than not, but it’s not certain.

The only thing we can be almost fully certain about is that neither bid has met the long stated £6bn demand, as a sale would’ve already been agreed and announced otherwise.

 

[pascell]

Thought he wanted to bring in Mitchell or was that flattened straight away and I missed it

Think I read somewhere he's heading to Liverpool in summer.

 

[Pexbo]

It didn’t, because neither bid has met the Glazer’s long stated £6bn demand.

£6bn isn’t a RRP. It’s the Glazer’s negotiation position. You’ve got to be very naive to think that they wouldn’t accept lower.

Would they accept £5,999,999,999? Of course they would. Then they would accept below £6bn. Would they accept £5.75bn? I’m 99.99% sure they would if it was the best offer on the table, £5.6bn? more than likely. £5.4bn? Now we’re negotiating and the “£6bn” is nothing more than a nice big round number they’d love to have gotten.

 

[Kinsella]

£6bn isn’t a RRP. It’s the Glazer’s negotiation position. You’ve got to be very naive to think that they wouldn’t accept lower.

Would they accept £5,999,999,999? Of course they would. Then they would accept below £6bn. Would they accept £5.75bn? I’m 99.99% sure they would if it was the best offer on the table, £5.6bn? more than likely. £5.4bn? Now we’re negotiating and the “£6bn” is nothing more than a nice big round number they’d love to have gotten.

Well obviously. That’s pretty standard stuff.

Neither bid has been close enough to end the bidding process early though. I think we can say that for certain at this point.

 

[Berbaclass]

But nobody's claiming that Avram and Joel are dead set against selling all their shares.

It's just that they're also open to other outcomes (unlike the other four, we presume, who want out here and now).

That’s why I referenced the bylaw. If the two brothers decided to go with minority investment then the other four have the power to veto and they probably would since they currently have a much better deal on the table.

 

[Berbaclass]

Well obviously. That’s pretty standard stuff.

Neither bid has been close enough to end the bidding process early though. I think we can say that for certain at this point.

It’s likely that is the case. Impossible to know until the latest numbers are confirmed if they ever are.

I think we will see two preferred bidders chosen for the full stake and Qatar will eventually outbid Ratcliffe. I’d be pleasantly surprised if I’m wrong.

 

[MegadrivePerson]

Think "The Telegraph" article said bidders don't expect this to be done before 10th of June? Looks like we will once again spend the summer twiddling our thumbs, then have to panic buy within the last month.

The 10th of June is very very optimistic. If it is a full sale it's unlikely to be completed before the start of next season.

 

[AlexUTD]

City, Newcastle, Chelsea and many other teams get bought they are debt free but when United are bought we first get saddled with debt for 18 years while stadium crumbles. Then to get sold to keep current debt?

I mean where is the FA and the PL in all of this, im pretty sure i read somewhere about that new owners of a PL club cant buy a club and put debt on it? Lke "The Glazer clause"? (i guess now everyone will say they are nott adding on to it)