I don't trust Ratcliffe even on his own.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I don't trust Ratcliffe even on his own.
As others have said, that's how shares work.
The guy who owns 90% of a listed company doesn't ask the guy who owns the rest to cover 10% of the bill when the first guy decides to repaint the office bathrooms.
Last edited:
small? they are 49%.. half the club.
Irrelevant if the model is re-structured (which it will be, there's no way Ratcliffe will let the Glazers have any say in how he runs the club once he's bought it): they won't be controlling the club, that's the point.
(The current model with Joel/Avram owning B shares with ten times the vote will cease to exist.)
Also: they wouldn't own 49% of the club under any circumstances, they would join the likes of Lindsell (or whatever they're called) as minority share holders with no say in how the club is run.
Last edited:
As an example of why it would be beneficial to invest in the club and based on the numerous attempted breakdowns of how Ratcliffes deal would be structured, if the club ended up worth £10bn in say 2030, theoretically Ratcliffe could buy the remaining Glazers shares for £1bn each to assume what would be about 70% of the club and still the same 100% control he already had, but for a total price of circa £5.5bn.
He could then revert those shares back to B voting shares.
Alternatively someone else could come along and buy the Glazers shares down the line. There is nothing stopping them selling to someone else, though they'd probably be subject to market value.
This is just looking at it from a purely business and profit POV. If Ratcliffes intentions are about footballing success rather than financial, then it also makes sense to invest heavily in the club to achieve it. As a by product, on field success would likely translate to business success.
Was hoping there may have been news on the what appears to be pending INEOS sale today.
When it comes to calling the shots, they are insignificant in the extreme.
Are you sure?
The only way SJR would go with this approach is to dilute or buy their 49% with a definite payout & timeline.
without that it will be a much bigger mess
Explained earlier, and it kinda makes sense.
It won’t be free money for all. Essentially, they can issue new shares, with the current shareowners being allowed (but not obligated) to buy the new shares proportional to their current shares. For example, they can issue shares worth 500m, and let’s say that represents 10% of the club. They can immediately buy 51% of them for 255m. The two remaining Glazers can buy 20% of them or so for 100m. The remaining shareholders can buy the remaining for 145m. If this happens, the ownership of the club remains the same, but the club now suddenly have 500m in cash.
Now of course, the other shareholders may refuse to buy these new shares. In that case, Ineos might buy them. This increases Ineos ownership in the club, while dilutes the others shares. But in any case the following equation holds:
Ineos_new_share_ownership_worth = Ineos_previous_share_ownership_worth + Ineos_money_spent.
Unless, of course, the Glazers manage to negotiate a clause that ensures their shares cannot be diluted. In which case, yes, whatever money Ineos puts, 20% of it goes to the parasites.
That's not half...
By that logic, why would any company invest money in it's business? They don't go around asking every shareholder to chip in a few quid. Companies WANT their stock prices to increase.
And, according to reports, the offer includes Ineos buying Joel and Avram's shares at a premium if they sell within 2 years. If they don't sell within 2 years, their stock will likely be worth what it's selling for on the NYSE, which is less than half of what Ineos is offering now.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...runch/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
Almost half of America’s 4,800 banks have already burned through their capital buffers. They may not have to mark all losses to market under US accounting rules but that does not make them solvent. Somebody will take those losses.
“It’s spooky. Thousands of banks are underwater,” said Professor Amit Seru, a banking expert at Stanford University. “Let’s not pretend that this is just about Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic. A lot of the US banking system is potentially insolvent.”
The full shock of monetary tightening by the Fed has yet to hit. A great edifice of debt faces a refinancing cliff-edge over the next six quarters. Only then will we learn whether the US financial system can safely deflate the excess leverage induced by extreme monetary stimulus during the pandemic.
Almost half of America’s 4,800 banks have already burned through their capital buffers. They may not have to mark all losses to market under US accounting rules but that does not make them solvent. Somebody will take those losses.
“It’s spooky. Thousands of banks are underwater,” said Professor Amit Seru, a banking expert at Stanford University. “Let’s not pretend that this is just about Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic. A lot of the US banking system is potentially insolvent.”
The full shock of monetary tightening by the Fed has yet to hit. A great edifice of debt faces a refinancing cliff-edge over the next six quarters. Only then will we learn whether the US financial system can safely deflate the excess leverage induced by extreme monetary stimulus during the pandemic.
If its a business and its worth is increased to such a way that the club's worth heavily overweight the money invested then it might make sense. I don't recall that INEOs had never done that at any of the other clubs despite owning them in full but ok. But if its truly a passion project then you have scroungers financially benefiting from something INEOS has no intention in selling
What? The Glazers would be left with ~19%.
Because it has been said the Glazers shares would convert to the non voting A shares.
Though if we take the example many fear, and the Glazer keep their voting rights, Ratcliffe and Ineos would have 2.5 times the voting power.
As for diluting the shares, that's one option. He could also target the current 31% of A share holders and convert those to B status once aquired, further marginalising the Glazers, whichever example above you choose.
The value is in not having to abide by financial reporting rules under Sarbanes Oxley. A massive red flag on how Qatar would run the club, imo.
According to a quick Google, Ineos paid €100m for Nice in 2017 and their market cap today is €234m.
Exactly. It's called a Rights Offering, or at least one particular way of doing it: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rightsoffering.asp
It’s not 49%, they don’t add up. It’s one lot of 20%, a separate lot of 16%, several separate lots of 2-5% etc…. Each owned by individual investors. And the whole point is INEOS would still have majority voting power and control.
Which interestingly is less than Landsell Train LLC, who nobody giveth a shite about. Should illustrate the diminished role the Glazers would be left with.
Landsell Train LLC out or we riot!
Also Jim could just buy the available 31% of shares from the market to further marginalised them so he'd own 80+%
If Sir Jim had deeper pockets you'd have a totally different opinion so please don't give me this BS.
You just want to be a sugar daddy club. At least have the balls to admit it.
I also assumed potential misplaced pride which is also a red flag. Based on how this round has been reported I prefer the way Ratcliffe and INEOS have done things, it's pragmatic and the most important thing for me in that process is to end up with sensible owners.
Given Glazers seems to like control i just don't see them allowing someone else to govern their money/investment
Funny and sad seeing posters lose their shite just because United may not end up as an oil club. I won't say it's necessarily glory hunting, but it's not a good look.
He could do that, but he wouldn't have to in order to fully control the club.
Yep as long as he is the largest shareholder it's his gig
On the flip side, its scary to think that we get a brit variant of Glazers which would seal out fate for next decade or so. And may be Super League question arrives again. With debt
Niiice!
There is no reason to think INEOS would be a variant of the Glazers. If you say that about them, you could say that about any potential owner.
The Glazers actually would be at a loss if they keep a minority shareholding in MUFC and let the new owner bring in money. The new owner can issue fresh shares to himself for investing in the club. This will in turn dilute the share holding of the minority shareholders further. Thus marginalizing the glazers further. Which is why i feel that the glazers will only be looking to sell their stake completely and that this is a tactic to squeeze every last penny from the new owners.
Doesn't really work when you have to fabricate a scenario in order to be concerned about something.
There seems a determination to paint Ratcliffe as a Glazer in order to justify their opposition.
It doesn't make any sense. It's baseless.
So where does that leave Erik in terms of getting at least 3 players this summer
Teaming up with Glazers makes him a Glazer
If he could afford it he would buy it on his own. His net worth is around 23 bil, buying United represents a quarter of his wealth. On paper my net worth would probably be over a million dollars, but it's all tied up in assets, that is not reflected by the $50 in my bank account, which would be the same with the Rat.
On top of that, he doesn't know the glazers from a hole in the ground. Yet he wants to own an asset worth 5 bil with these strangers, with no idea how they operate. Does that sound like an ideal situation, does it sound like something you would do if you could just afford to buy it?
He does have deeper pockets
- Status