It's like the Frenkie de Jong summer transfer thread all over again
We've got the same posters making things up to feel better.Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
It's like the Frenkie de Jong summer transfer thread all over again
We've got the same posters making things up to feel better.Well, you definitely know more than me on this matter, but so does your debate partner. I thought I had an inkling, now I'm torn.
At least with Covid there was a general agreement among sane people.
...and who will pay the existing debt?
Like everyone else, I can only peddle in speculation.
My speculation is that the Ineos bid means less funding than the Qatari bid to be made available to the make the improvements to the club's operations and infrastructure that need to get made to enable to compete with City, Real and Barcelona. Perhaps that's an obvious statement and someone here can explain that "less" does not necessarily mean "inadequate" and that whatever we think of the Glazers still hanging on that the new principal owner of the club will ensure an adequate amount of funding will be made available to improve operations and infrastructure -- and that we will spend wisely the funds that we will have -- the Ineos partnership group still represents a significant step forward from the current ownership group.
If my speculation is about right -- and I'm not sure that it is -- the two apparent remaining bids indicate a no-lose scenario however this goes.
My speculation is that the Ineos bid means less funding than the Qatari bid to be made available to the make the improvements to the club's operations and infrastructure that need to get made to enable to compete with City, Real and Barcelona. Perhaps that's an obvious statement and someone here can explain that "less" does not necessarily mean "inadequate" and that whatever we think of the Glazers still hanging on that the new principal owner of the club will ensure an adequate amount of funding will be made available to improve operations and infrastructure -- and that we will spend wisely the funds that we will have -- the Ineos partnership group still represents a significant step forward from the current ownership group.
If my speculation is about right -- and I'm not sure that it is -- the two apparent remaining bids indicate a no-lose scenario however this goes.
Without looking, I'm pretty sure he's far more wealthy than Jassim. The obvious elephant in the room is that Jassim is probably just a puppet for the state.
Ratcliffe is paper rich. Not cash rich like Jassim/Qatar is.
@MTF made a great point this only work if you treat the glazers as a single entity, which I didn’t consider.
So currently the 51% offer would see 4 of the 6 glazers receive more money then the Qatari bid but 2 of them would receive less but have the opportunity to cash in their remaining chips at a later date
I think that’s right anyway.
Currently a lot big hedge funds are holding cash because of the anticipated recession in the US by the end of the year. Today FED is expected to hold meetings and raise the interest rate tomorrow by another 0.25%.
Make no mistake, Qatari's buying United is an investment so it will be treated as such. They do have the leverage to divert such amount considering the area they operate in and the volumes that are required to operate at.
Besides in terms of cash I mean liquid asset that can be converted straight away.
I think the majority understand pretty well with the basic info we have. It seems you are either the one that is confused, or are trying to create a fantasy situation where Jassim has offered £5b for the Glazer shares alone. This is likely not the case because the Glazers wanted less than that to begin with and Jassim has apparently said he won't be held to ransom, so it would look pretty weak of him to blow such an astronomical amount on the club.
The 51% offer is a bit of a grey area as we don't know how that money will be divided. But I suspect it is the least favourable offer to the Glazers as all those that want out won't be paid up.
We are not talking about a big hedge fund nor a bank, we are not even actually talking about a sovereign fund.
It would go to the 4 that want to sell based on how many shares each have, plus a little bit to Joel and Avram for a few of their shares, in order to bring the total to 51%. It would be all those that want out getting paid up because combined those 4 own less than 51% of the company. So they would all sell, and Joel and Avram would sell around 2-3%, I believe.
The price per share would be the same for each sibling.
It's all speculation anyways, but considering they want 100% and being state funded they can always leverage a buyout. From all accounts they want 100% of United so they will need to put up cash up front.
On other hand INEOS are looking from 50%+1 class B shares, so again to me they are looking for control first rather than full buyout, whilst with the Qatari's it's the other way around.
The absolute complete opposite.
The 4 that want out will get more money and the 2 that want to stay (Avram and Joel) will get their wish with the INEOS offer.
Huh?
It's definitely speculation and I get your general point about the structure of the offer. My only point of contention is with the statement that Jassim's offer is likely cash, it's not likely and it's rarely likely for anyone including organizations that have loads of cash.
And around here it's kind of important because people are very quick to claim that someone can't afford something because he isn't paying cash, there is an entire narrative among United fans about that which is fundamentally wrong.
We know from SJR that United weren't on sale in June. Things changed quickly few months later. The reason for that is pretty simple. Interest rates are sky high which is bad news for a debt ridden club whose losing money and whose infrastructure is mush.
Once on sale very few candidates were interested in buying us. There are 4 reasons for that.
a- our Greedy owners want a ridiculous sum of money for the club.
b- the Washington Commanders were on sale which kept potential buyers from the US busy.
c- United's sale took everyone by surprise. As said no one expected the club to be for sale
d- UEFA rules made it impossible for the likes of Qatar to buy the club directly.
Keep that in mind and let's switch on INEOS for a minute. They are officially shit in football. They don't invest enough to seriously compete in their respective leagues and they mismanage things up. They also never keep their promises. Nice were promised regular CL football. They are currently 9th place. They promised Lausanne a taste of European football. They got them relegated, twice. Some say that things will be different with United. I can't see how. First of all the EPL is the most competitive football in the world. If INEOS can't compete against the likes of Rennes and Clement Foot then how the hell are they going to compete against Abu Dhabi owned City or Saudi owned Newcastle? Secondly the club is mush on so many levels. The club is losing money, its infrastructure is crap, the football structure of the club is not very good, a lot of players need to be offloaded and are on silly salaries. We need people who can go in with load of money and the know how to tackle a wide spectrum of different huge problems at lightening speed. It took SJR 6 years to understand that he need an experienced football person to partner a cyclist guru and his own brother at the top of his football club pyramid. Jean Claude Blanc is meah according to my valuation but he's a mix of Napoleon Bonaparte, Sir Alex and Jesus compared to the likes of head of football Bob Ratcliffe whom I guess, reports to bicycle guy Dave Brailsford. On top of that the club will still remain in debt and while INEOS promised that no new debt will be added. It also promised NICE regular CL football as well so......
Anyway back to the Glazers. They need to sell. Maybe they can kick the can for a couple of months or a year or two in the unlikely event they manage to sell a minority stake to Elliott (I'll talk of that later) but all roads willl lead to that path. Which is good really as it will give potential buyers time to prepare. UEFA rule changes might allow the Emir of Qatar to go for the killing himself and US buyers will have time to build a proper bid (not all of them are bad. FSG for example are good and I heard very good things about Liberty Media). With debt piling in and the fans rioting then the Glazers will grow more desperate to sell as well which means that they will probably lower their bid. That plays to our advantage as well. Less money to the Glazers means more money for the club
Which leads us to Elliott. They are like the Tywin Lannister of football ie they are cynical, brutally effective and ruthless. However they will be on our side. At Milan they first screw the owners up, then they took a debt ridden Milan who was at the brink of bankruptcy to a Serie A title win. All that was achieved by doing things the proper way (focus on the academy, building a salary structure, hiring the right players etc. They even tried to build a new stadium. Unfortunately even Tywin Lannister can't beat the Thanos of real life ie Italian red tape. If Elliott comes in then rest assured that things will have to change. First of all the Glazers will be put on a tight rope in which they simply can't fall from. Secondly the club will be sold rather quickly. I'd rather have them to INEOS.
With only 51% ownership - what motivation do INEOS have to invest their own money into the club?
Surely if they say invest £500m into the club, they're giving the other 49% a free ride and benefit in terms of the increase in the clubs valuation it'll cause?
Surely if they say invest £500m into the club, they're giving the other 49% a free ride and benefit in terms of the increase in the clubs valuation it'll cause?
It is for us but not for the greedy Glazer siblings, it’s now pretty much confirmed SJR bid is $6.5bn(£5.21bn) which means he values their 69% voting rights at $4.48bn and has put a huge sweetener on this that he will only the buy 4 siblings 45% out plus a further 6% from Joel and Avram to take control. To be clear SJ bid is strongly rumoured to be £5bn or $6.25bn and he will only buy out 69% £4.31bn so the difference is about $150m in SJR favour.
If Qatar lose the club over $150m they don’t deserve to buy the club, they should go back and offer $7bn which is about £5.6bn, that wipes out SJR once and for all , I think $6.8bn wins this race and gets a full control as this gives the greedy goblins nearly $4.7bn.
Right now SJR would only pay $3bn for 45% of the four leaving siblings then he would buy 6% of the remaining 33% voting shares to convert and then convert all remaining shares to A shares where SJR owns 51%, Joel and Avram 18% and the rest are currently listed at 31%.
Incidentally SJR would pay $269m for the 6% and then promise them a similar premium in the first two years should they sell or have the opportunity to keep them for 7-10 years and reap the rewards if the club regained precious glories. Sir Jim takes control of the club for £2.623bn which Ineos can definitely finance.
My concern is the small print and what would happen if anything happened to SJR with the two parasites potentially having a chance to refinance and repurchase shares to retake control, that’s the fear.
this
if they invested and ran it successfully the share price would grow and everyone would be wealthier?
Just like every other business?
I was wondering the same thing, but according to few here, the other shares will be diluted, so they will not get a free ride.
But it does not work this way.
Yeah you could dilute the shares, and give the current shareholders an exclusive offering to retain their ownership stakes. But could you see the two glazers doing this?
Fair, so how does it work, care to enlighten/educate?
Oh thanks for proving my point by providing no evidence at all.
Don't hide behind this lame excuse. Just say I want that filthy oil money. I'd have more respect for you if you did. The fact you're not saying that to start with shows you know that above is simply not true.
this is business mate not a Kibbutz. Why should INEOS invest silly money which in turn would make the Glazers shares go up as well? After all INEOS would love to buy those shares in the end.
The owner is a fan?
Some news would be nice.
I don't disagree. I think there are lots of unknowns with INEOS (considerably more than with Qataris to be fair) which quite a lot of people choose to ignore just because they hate ME owners. Any of the Glazers remaining at the club, even with a minority share would have been seen as completely unacceptable before the sale process began. But we are where we are, I still believe it would not be worse than having the Glazers owning the club, obviously based on nothing but blind faith because Ratcliffe didn't really give us much to be excited about...
Well he gets to charge the club interest on paying back that 500m. As that’s paid back as a shareholder loan. The valuation increase does benefit the other party. But what choice does he have if the Glazers are saying they’ll only sell shares but retain ownership. SJR still gets to make a boat load of money when the club is valued at 3-5x as much 10-20 years from now.
Not sure if it's been asked already. Is there any value in any of the bidders buying the 31% in the stock market prior to 69%? Or does that only become valuable with the other 69%?
Well how does it work then, because in business you don’t stop investing in a business you control just because there is a small stakeholder?
What? what are you on about? this discussion has been discussed tens of times in the WC thread. I wrote 3 or 4 detailed posts on how the numbers are fake or/are misused. I have no time nor the energy to start this discussion again and in a different thread. If you are curious about the numbers, very easy, go to the WC thread and read the numbers.
this one of my multiple posts about the subject, go take a look if you like.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/boycott-the-qatar-world-cup.468222/page-45#post-29782226.
Dont throw numbers you can not back up. By the way, I dont give a penny if you have respect for me or not, your opinion about me is irrelevant. I am not brainwashed and repeat everything the western media tell me like a sheep.
And this concludes the summary for this entire thread up to this point.
Are we there yet?
Big day some day.
the thing is that the Glazers wouldn't be small stakeholders. Thus unless they pitch their own share then they will be freeloading
I am not an economist/businessman, so I can not enlighten you, when I asked the question to the people who know about business they said (if a partner/shareholder refuses to invest with the other partners, you even buy them out or dilute some of their shares to raise funds for the investment).
Cheers, at least your honest hard to learn anything in here without explicitly asking.
- Status