If true it does beg the question why not just forget about EV and owning 100% of the club. Give the Glazers a bit more and settle for 69% for the time being.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
If true it does beg the question why not just forget about EV and owning 100% of the club. Give the Glazers a bit more and settle for 69% for the time being.
Imagine after all this, none of the information leaked was legitimate and it was just the Glazers trying to divide the fanbase 
It's absolutely something they'd do. Not just as a final feck you to the fans but to also make life difficult for the new owner.
It's absolutely something they'd do. Not just as a final feck you to the fans but to also make life difficult for the new owner.
Not true, and shows you don't actually understand it at all, you don't even know what the full value would be in the second situation its all dependent on how much, if or when the glazers would sell the remaining stake.
I wouldn't expect you to admit it, this is the internet after all we never admit we are wrong!
Very good post, and bang on the money. Talk is cheap.
If Ratcliffe offer values the whole enterprise at $6.5bn, doesnt that mean the offer for the 69% of Glazer shares is only $4.5bn. Less than Jassim's assumed offer.
He can't even afford to buy the club, he can't afford to pay the debt off, he's taking on new debt, he has investors, where do you think he'll get the funds for his passion project?
The bids that are reported are all based on the valuation of the full club. That's how bids are done. So it's based on 100% valuation of the club, but it is not a bid FOR 100% of the shares, because the Glazers can't sell more than 69%. So whatever bid amount you see reported, the Glazers would get 69% of it in a full sale.
The other 31% would be a separate deal that Qatar would have to do that would go to the public shareholders. I believe there are rules and regulations for taking a NYSE traded company private. It would likely be a lot less per share than what they're paying the Glazers, so if Qatar wins the bid at a $6.2 valuation, they would likely pay less than that in order to acquire 100% of the shares.
Sorry, but you don't understand. @InfiniteBoredom is right. We don't have to guess what the future value of the remaining stake will end up being, for valuation purposes it is the same as the other shares that would sell right now, and that is more than the cash they would receive from selling to Qatar now.
Quite a bit more than Jassim's assume offer of $3.5bn though.
Isn't that what having an opinion is? Liking something and thinking it's good because it appeals to your own sensibilities? Weird point to make. Or do you fastidiously caveat all of your opinions with "in my opinion"?
He quite clearly makes the point that none of us know much about Jassim and that that is intentional. We've had literally thousands of comments on this very thread about the opaqueness of Jassim's bid. We've also had loads of people admit they aren't fussed about the associated human rights issues in the event that this is a state linked bid, so the punchline about Bellingham and Osimhen is accurate and hard to take umbrage with (he says a significant portion of United fans feel like this - not all of them). It makes sense to me - baffled as to why it doesn't make sense to you?
The issue is that we don’t know if the reported bids are correct. We’ll find out soon enough though
It’s up to them, the 4 not involved in the running of the club would receive more, if Joel/Avram want to roll the dice and end up receiving less years down the line, that’s the risk they would have to bear.
The class A shares on the NYSE trade at $19.61 today, they are worth less than the class B shares the Glazers hold. Collectively, at the current market cap, they are worth only around $1bn
Just to put it simply,
1) Qatari offer = $6.3bn, minus the class A shares, 6 Glazers receive $5.2-5.3bn
2) INEOS offer = $6.5bn, minus the class A shares, 6 Glazers receive $5.5bn
Of course, we are working from the assumptions that both valuations are correct and for 100% of the club. If it’s just for the 69% the Glazers hold, it would put the total valuation of the club above £6bn, then we wouldn’t be here arguing, since that’s apparently what they’ve wanted all along.
The whole point we have been trying to make is valuation does not equate to the money the glazers are getting.
Physically what would appear in your bank after the transaction is complete they would have more money from the Qatar bid.
This does not mean that if Jim won and it was all rosy and United went on to great things The glazers then sold the remaining stake and got better money is not possible because it is.
It has been reported (and that's all we have to go on, so it may or may not be true), that if Joel and Avram stay on at 18%, that they will be highly incentivized to sell within year 1, and a little less by 2 years. These reports say that SJR has offered them a premium beyond what they would make if they sell now, but would be closer to the price that they want (based on 6 billion pound EV).
No, in the 4 siblings' accounts there would be more money from SJR's bid, at current reported values. Your point only stands if you're considering as if all 6 siblings are a collective, which they are not.
Not really, I can admit something is great even if it doesn’t particularly cater to my sensibilities.
What doesn’t make sense to me is writing punchlines about something/someone I don’t know much about - in the eventuality of.
Especially because it read very “matter of factly” for me, but alas
Yeah I get that the class A shares will cost a potential buyer less per share to acquire. But aren't the shares principally the same value?
I’m doing them as a collective that’s a fair point and correct, no shame admitting that.
That is not correct. Both are bidding based on the Enterprising Value. $6.5bn from Ineos and $6.2bn from Qatar are both based on the EV. This is how M&A bids are typically done, according to more than one financial expert that I've seen mention it. If someone here has a background on large scale M&A that says otherwise, I'll happily be corrected.
They have the same economic value. In a full bid for a takeover (not the case here even with the Qatar offer, because that's not what the Glazers are looking for) at once they would all receive the same $ amount. In this case I don't know how it will end up working, but they shouldn't be worth a significant amount less.
His own personal wealth would be enough but he's not buying us in a personal capacity, he's using his company, which is more than capable of purchasing the club. In comparison we are small fry.
All of this has been explained numerous times by numerous posters. No point going over old ground anymore.
More over, Ineos itself has over £2.5bn in cash reserves.
The idea he or his company can't afford the club is quite simply, bizarre.
Yes, but they are worth only as much as what you are willing to pay for them. No one can force INEOS or Qatar to buy what’s floated, since for all intent and purpose, they are irrelevant to control of the club, so they can just establish the value of those shares at a fixed price with Raine then subtract them from the amount offered for the whole club, that’s why the share price has been falling since news of INEOS being likely surfaced.
Ok, yes. Less cash for the total of all 6 in SJR's current reported bid than Jassim's current reported bid.
But as mentioned here before, the split in what the siblings want to do, with Joel and Avram wanting to stay invested and the others wanting to sell, is the key thing driving SJR's reported bid structure. Put differently, if the current reported bids were final (I don't assume that they necessarily are), and they chose SJR's offer, that's Joel and Avram making a decision that they value their shares higher than the cash they would receive from Jassim.
Of the difference is a mere 300m them I can see the Glazers call for a next round of bidding
Same as selling a house isn't it. You don't care if one bidder is putting in a new kitchen and bathroom after the sale. If they offer you less than another party, you won't take that offer.
However, presumably some Glazers will carry more risk with SJR holding a majority ownership.
I agree with most of what you posted bar the bolded one.
As far as I know we only have the total valuation of the club (again assuming the reports are right). We don't know how those deals are structured or constructed.
Whether or not the Glazers will receive more money from either bidder is up for debate. First if INEOS are looking for controlling interest and buying 51% of Glazer's shares, leaving them as minority stockholder with some voting rights the latter might or might not receive better valuations of their stock in an year or two. It's not simplistic as it might sound without controlling rights you don't know whether or not you will get a better deal 2 years down the line. Qatari's/INEOS might raise the capital, etc..
If they are bought out they get to strike a deal (either stock or cash consideration) at the 6.3b valuation which they can put into another investment straight away.
We also don't know whether INEOS will invest through loan, installments, other conversions to buy controlling interest or cash. With the Qatari's it's most likely the latter as it's how they usually function and why most likely they will clear out the NYSE afterwards.
So whilst 6.5 vs 6.3 might look easy calculation unless we know how those bids are structured it's up for debate which would be more valuable.
That's actually very unlikely. QTA didn't purchase PSG cash even though PSG were incomparably cheaper. They also didn't finance PSG with cash from the investment funds but borrowings.
If I was to bet I would say that Jassim is getting the money from Bank of America and the Glazers won't be paid cash while Ineos are getting their money from Goldman and Sachs/JP Morgan.
The two who remain will, obviously, but that’s their choice. They have a two years window to sell their shares at a premium to what they siblings will receive anyway, so essentially that’s a 2nd chance.
INEOS also offer to buy them all out right now at that higher valuation, the 51% + minority investment is there if Joel/Avram are dead set against selling, in which case they have to bear the risk themselves.
Personally, and I’ve made this point a couple of times, I think if it’s only for money then the Glazers have invested poorly by holding on to us for so long, even if they have sold us for a ‘measly’ £2bn around 2010 during the height of the Green and Gold protest and all those rumors about Saudi at the time, the 11% annualized return by the average top 50 hedged fund would have more than tripled their money by now, without all the headaches.
He won't be worrying about short term return, but I personally feel like he will sell again down the line for profit.$6.5b committed to buying a club that will make him feck all return, yet we've got big football minds on Red Cafe claiming he's just another Glazer or can't afford to improve the squad/facilities
They must think Ratcliffe is an absolute dunce, rather than an incredibly wealthy and successful individual.
Think investment in the team and stadium could be relatively low until he sells again.
However I know nothing really, we all get influenced by the media reports, which are all probably total fabrication.
Media
Journalists
Fully admit its probably a web of lies, I'm just giving my take on it as that's all we have.
He’s 70. The risk is with his family selling up should he croaks (they are reportedly Chelsea fans, hence the season ticket). The line would’ve to be pretty long if he’s to realized any sizeable profit from a notoriously unprofitable business, through asset appreciation.
Anything to stop the Qatari's offering the Glazers more for their shares then what he offers for those on the stock exchange?
Both are shit options..
Your figures are correct. But Jassims offer is still less because he will pay 69% of $6.2bn (£5bn) which will total $4.2bn.
So just to be clear
INEOS EV = $6.5bn
INEOS 69% = $4.4bn
INEOS 50+1% = $3.3bn
(assuming the valuation is relevant to both offers)
Qatar EV = $6.2bn
Qatar 69% = $4.2bn
Why tomorrow?
Wrong, wrong and wrong again. You need to research more.
They are but surely it cannot be worse than it is now...
Both are shit options..
4th May
- Status