Adjacent to garbage is garbage.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
No, he doesn'tHe does have deeper pockets
I know. The mental gymnastics on display are fascinating, to say the least.
He's offered to buy them out in full as well as an alternative option where the two less enthusiastic Glazers get to keep a 20% non voting stake.
It keeps being missed that Ratcliffe has made two offers.
And yes, the majority of his wealth is tied up in assets and the biggest portion will be linked to Ineos. But that's the norm.
Um yes. He has a controlling stake in the club, he wouldn't be operating it with them. It's like any company or startup having investors that have no say in how the company is run. This is fairly common.
Smartest post on this thread...none of us are aware of the current status of any of the bids...people commenting with absolute certainty are dealing in conjecture.
What I don't understand is the Glazer's desire (well at least two of them) to retain their shares post-acquisition.
Their path to liquidity at a premium would require the new owners wanting to sell the club again (in which case the Glazers would tag along and participate pro rata with the majority owner).
If the majority owners do not want to sell, who will be paying a premium for these shares as there will not be a control premium like they have now along with their siblings?
In a sale of their 19% (or whatever they retain), the Glazer shares would likely convert to Class A shares and trade at the public price. It doesn't make sense for the two gits to hold their shares, they simply won't trade at a premium to the listed price absent a sale of control.
Their path to liquidity at a premium would require the new owners wanting to sell the club again (in which case the Glazers would tag along and participate pro rata with the majority owner).
If the majority owners do not want to sell, who will be paying a premium for these shares as there will not be a control premium like they have now along with their siblings?
In a sale of their 19% (or whatever they retain), the Glazer shares would likely convert to Class A shares and trade at the public price. It doesn't make sense for the two gits to hold their shares, they simply won't trade at a premium to the listed price absent a sale of control.
Pure ego is the only reason. They want to be top sports franchise businessmen.
They could get a far better return in an index fund but they have nothing better to blow their millions on than maintaining their ego.
So you’re content with all 6 of the Glazers staying? Great
I think those 2 think there's further upside to the investment. Maybe they think the Super League idea will come around again, or something like that. I'm not saying I agree, if I were them I'd definitely cash out and diversify.
It's interesting. Maybe the white Thobes that they bought aren't returnable?
I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't remember anti-Qatar people freaking out as much when Qatar were seen to be the front runners. Maybe sadness, and resigned to that fact, but seemed a much more subdued reaction than the pro-Qatar people have had to reports putting Ineos in the lead.
To be honest, I think the difference is that the pro-Qatar people are more in love with the idea of being owned by a rich Sheikh (or his government), where as the people more on the side of Ineos aren't as much pro-Ineos, as just seeing it as the lesser of three evils. Or maybe that's just me projecting my own feelings on what I read here and elsewhere on the interwebs.
No, I’m not happy with any option on the table. Glazers gone is number one though, might be the only aspect of this takeover that doesn’t turn my stomach
So someone comes with a plan to remove either all 6 of them, or 4…and you’re saying this makes him a Glazer. That makes sense alright.
This thread will be an epic read when an announcement is made.
If he’s working with the Glazers to keep two on then he’s a Glazer, he’s just buying up the Glazers that want to leave to keep Glazers at the club.
super sub Glazer. Ole Gunnar Glazer
Nope!
First part of the 50+1% bid is an offer the buy out the minority Glazers at a premium above the current offer ( I.e - closer still to their valuation) after year one and year two. So within 24months they could be gone completely. Obviously if the club is doing well and the share price is ticketing they might also stick around. I guess that depends on how attractive the premium is.
Secondly if they want out, they don’t have to sell only to the majority shareholder, they can put them on the stock market as they have before so we still have a minority but not Joel or Avram.
It’s genuinely a very clever offer as it does almost everything each party wants .
You love getting things arse about face.
INEOS is seeking to invest billions in the club because Ratcliffe et al don’t want the Glazers to leave
Nah, this is like a manager coming in and relegating the two players who have stunk up the place for years down to the reserves, they are still here but nowhere near the setup again and will eventually ride off into the sunset with little fanfare
Not paying off the Glazers debt.
Buying the club with more debt which, no matter whose books it sits on, the club will service/repay (implied by the sources quoted by numerous journalists saying any new debt from acquiring the club won't be loaded onto the club it will be kept on INEOS's books)
Not buying 100% of the club which, coupled with buying the club with new debt, means any infrastructure improvements either won't happen or will be paid for with more debt.
Possibly not even getting rid of the Glazers.
Looks like a British Glazer to me.
How?
For a week I read offering Glazers the chance to stay was a master stroke, it’s the only way to compete with oil money.
Now we find out Qatar haven’t even been out of line. Their offer is fairly reasonable so that excuse is out the window.
It’s just a way for Jim to avoid buying 69 percent and saving more money while aiming for 51.
Call it for what it is. It’s not the only way to buy the club, it’s Jim’s preferred way to buy it.
But that’s what you do, you jump in sniping at anybody going against Jim. This post is A typical
We’ve all financially supported the Glazers for 17 years buying tickets, shirts, merch and TV subscriptions to watch games. Are we all Glazers?
What a stupid narrow minded POV.
Couple of things to unpack here.
First, the path to liquidity doesn't require a sale if Ineos buys the shares. Some reports say that Ineos would offer Joel and Avram a premium on their share price if they leave in 1 year, and a little bit less of premium if they leave in 2 years. After 2 years, the premium goes away, and like you said, they would likely be at the public price. The current offers are more than double the public price per share, and the premium would be higher still.
Which leads in to the answer of your first question above. Joel and Avram value the club at 6 billion. Their portion being 4.14bn. That's almost 700m per Glazer on average (they each have different share amounts, so the exact amount varies, but for the sake of ease, let's talk in averages). But no one wants to pay based on a valuation of 6bn. But they are willing to pay on a valuation of a little over 5bn. So that comes out to almost 600m each. 4 of the Glazers want out now, and are happy to take the 600m each. Joel and Avram won't sell at that, and all need to agree, and get the same price per share if sold at the same time. What the deal that Ineos reportedly offered does is mean that Joel and Avram can get their 700m in year, while their siblings get 600m now. Basically it's an extra 100m bribe to Joel and Avram to agree to the sale. That's why they would do it.
The value of United won't keep going up without investment, and the siblings all in their 50s and 60s are probably happy to take 600m now, because it's not likely they'll get it again.
The glazers just want some equity to benefit from the upside resale value they believe will be there in a few years time. They don’t need the club to be sold again to benefit from it. They won’t have a controlling stake but they’ll have the ability to sell their shares to other parties or on the stock exchange. Ineos would always remain in control with a majority stake holding. The only reason Glazers would entertain this agreement is for more money down the line while banking good money for the club value right now. Best of both worlds. They’ve got no interest in Utd other than maximising their long term profits.
But that's such a simplistic view
Would you take 4 gone now, and 2 at some point in the future? Over all 6 staying.
It needs to be said that every single one of us would prefer a full sale, at least in terms of the 69% held by the Glazers. Where there is a significant divide, ignoring the preferred bidders, is whether we would accept a majority sale or as it appears to myself and others, keeping the Glazers until such a time a full sale is achieved.
I genuinely don't believe any United fan actually wants that, but that's the optics of the "full sale only" view point. And given Ratcliffes put his alternative offer forward, it does suggest that we are dealing with two very stubborn Glazers who if we are not careful, could cause any sale to fall through completely.
Then we are in trouble. We'd be stuck with owners who cannot afford to run the club, with a fanbase that would become almost unified in toxicity.
We are at a crossroads. Sure, a full sale would be the ideal situation. Not one fan would say otherwise. But a new controlling owner would also be a significant improvement on our current situation and to dismiss it as more of the same just seems short sighted.
If compromise is what removes the Glazer family making decisions that impact the club on and off the field, then we compromise.
The Glazer family and Raine group are pleased to announce, Vince McMahon has been granted exclusivity and will now move forward with the purchase of Manchester United.
Whether you (or I) think the Qatari offer is reasonable or not is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether the Glazers find it reasonable enough to accept.
You seem to be assuming that without INEOS in the bidding process, Qatar would’ve just waltzed into becoming the new owners. But that’s a false assumption. Indeed the presence of INEOS made the Qatari bid higher, and therefore closer to the Glazer’s long stated £6bn demand, than it would’ve been without them.
The fact that the INEOS bid contains an option for 2 of the Glazer’s to stay - just reflects the reality that those particular 2 are reluctant to sell. It’s not some ploy to keep them in situ.
I was under the impression SJR / INEOS were using using Goldman Sachs to fund this whole deal which means at some point in the future we will take the hit for it, doubt it will be Glazer level of piss taking but I reckon the amount of money they invest on the infrastructure and the squad will be impacted by the repayments. This is where the likes of Qatar, Saudi, Abu Dhabi etc.. start to become more appealing as they have got the financial power to buy us without having to take out a massive loan.
This is exactly the point I was trying to get across when the rumours broke.
Let’s say 2 of 6 Glazers want to stay, good luck doing it without a willing participant in SJR to facilitate it.
Absolutely shocking how many are peddling this nonsense simply cause they don’t like the other side for whatever reasons. Countless people have told me Ineos/SJR can easily afford the club, so buy it then.
They would become partners with the Glazers. Joint owners. Together. You don't get any more base than that.
Ghat's basically how Ratcliffe made his money, INEOS is basically owned by 3 people, SJR owns 2/3rds and the other 2 own a third, so what SJR says goes
Not really. Malcolm Glazers takeover was done is stages, acquiring ever increasing stakes in the club. He made his intentions clear when he held about 15% of the club, and then launched an aggressive, leveraged takeover.
Ratcliffes takeover would be nothing like that at all. He'd immediately purchase the controlling stake. How he would find it is little more than speculation but I think we can all agree it wouldn't be a cash purchase, simply because multibillion GBP/USD cash takeovers are rare. It's unlikely Qatar would make a cash purchase either.
If it is funded by debt, then it absolutely matters where the debt is secured. It would make zero sense to secure any debt, whether current or new against United. With the Glazers, United was the jewel in the crown, so they basically propped up their other businesses off the back of United. With Ratcliffe, United would be a small cog, in a business sense so securing any finance against United would be like taking a loan against you Vauxhall Vectra when you also owned a house worth a million quid.
Would they be partners with every stakeholder then? Bob Smith with his £1k of fan shares? They'd have as much control.
Some of you sound desperate for the two Glazers to get a payday. I'd rather either of the new owners keep that money and invest it into the club immediately, let the leeches sell on the market at a later date.
Yep, Ratcliffe pays out billions for get 51% and leaves the Glazer gremlins with 20% but they split the control 50/50
Or not...
Qatar will have to finance the deal as well. They don't have 6B sitting in some bank vault.
So you’re thinking they’re basically leaving their entire net worth in shares behind without any control or say?
We have no idea what deals on the table, why are we pretending we’ve seen all the details?
They would obviously intend to split the profits, which is what they're both after.
Anything interesting happen on tonight’s episode?
The Goldman Sachs and JPM finance is to cover the existing debt left by the Glazers. (Reported by Bloomberg)
Nothing has been said about how the acquisition will be financed unless you can link me to this information?
Football finance expert Kieran Maguire has a dog who can open doors using the handle.
Goldman Sachs being involved doesn't necessarily mean that. The Qataris have enlisted Bank of America to help them. Both are likely helping with the complicated details and rules and regulations of an M&A of a company that is (partially) publicly traded. Whether GS is also involved in financing, that could be, but from all reports it won't be leveraged on the club.
If Ineos takes on the debt, there is no indication that United would have to pay for it out of the club's coffers. Why would they do that, some have asked? Well, there are several reasons that could play into it:
- It's a vanity/legacy purchase for SJR, so he's making his company pay for it.
- It's the cost that Ineos wants to pay to use the club for greenwashing their image.
- They expect that, combined with additional investment spend, will raise the club's value beyond what they put in.
- Making the club pay to service it, would count against FFP, which is less that the club can spend on transfers, and thus make it more difficult to succeed. A successful club is needed for the other three points above.
Or it could quite simply be all (or some) of the above.
- Status