We goooooo for it!!
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Yes he will. As majority shareholder it is effectively his club to do with as he pleases. He will invest because it benefits the club and that is part of his plan.
Nobody is getting a free ride because all the shareholders have paid to own the shares. (And I know it wasn’t the Glazers money to begin with but such is the situation that the bastards profit whatever happens and there’s nothing we can do about that)
Yeah that was the point where the Qatar bid wasn't talking with the same bravado as earlier
They've already established POF at this stage I believe. I doubt they would be allowed to make a bid without it.
When they did due diligence on the club Raine also did due diligence on the bidders, which once a preferred bidder is named will speed things up a lot. They should already know who they want to the board and things like that and they should know that they can pass the owners test.
Qatar isn’t necessarily the better option. Endless spending isn’t necessarily going to solve all our issues.Luckily I was a named driver for a few years before the purchase, and got some NCB's.
But to the posters point, you may want one thing originally, but if something better comes along, you won't look over the "better" option.
Agreed but it's not a recent Bloomberg article, it's a footnote to an interview from 3 months ago that hasn't been corroborated anywhere subsequently.
How does the current Glazer ownership affect you?
One of the many phrases that accompanied GlazersOut was leeches, people aren’t/weren’t just annoyed by the piss poor way the club was run but the fact they’ve leeched off the club for years. Why would them continuing to do so in a limited capacity suddenly become so acceptable to certain fans? If once someone else owns 50.1% their shares are meaningless then they should have no issue selling the remaining shares then.
They may ‘lose’ control when someone owns more of the club then they do but they’ll still profit further in the future. If it were the only option then fine but it isn’t is the point people have.
I guess it's not great PR and marketing to be seen to be getting into bed with the Glazer's (even if in reality this is just a pragmatic solution to the fact that 2 brothers are seemingly less sure about selling right now). Being the ones to fully remove them from the club must be an appealing part of the plan.
In fairness they needn't bother buying the club, most people on here and social media are treating the state of Qatar as being the morally virtuous bidder who have been screwed over by a sneaky offer by INEOS (Glazer's 2.0) so they've achieved their goal despite doing nothing.
I’d like to think both bids will eventually but it doesn’t seem like the INEOS bid has any intention to buy the remaining 31%. For me that’s a mark against.
Hacked?
What the feck is an E-red?
I’ll have you know I am very fair and reasonable. (When I want to be I will admit I have been backing Jassim most of the way,however there are concerns of their ability to provide proof of funds (as I mentioned earlier)
I quite like this post. Analysis is correct that it makes no sense for them to stay on in normal circumstances. You've only failed to mention dividends. There can be guaranteed dividends to them paid anually, or even a vehicle for Ratcliffe to pay less upfront by staggering payment through special dividend classes until the glazers decide to sell. There are ways that Ratcliffe can make it quite attractive to them. None of which benefit the club, but could benefit him.
I hope that whoever comes in, doesn't do a boehly, and spunk a shit load up the wall. The right purchases with input from ten hag etc. We dont have to spend ridiculous money to improve.
The benefit to the club is having them out of control and eventually gone.
We will thrive once more as soon as they are. It’s never been about money, it’s about competency and care and the Glazers have never had either.
Agreed.
Yeah I agree with you on that
Assuming they have a minority share and aren't able to get their dividends anymore, they aren't able to profit from the club at all.
Granted when they sell their stake, whether it's now or in a few years time, they will get a payout, but that won't be from the club. That will be however decides to buy their shares. So there will be no more leeching from the club.
Agree. I'm more interested in seeing them be ambitious in terms of investing money in club infrastructure than splurging like crazy in the transfer market. Sensible, high-end team building is what we need on the transfer front.
They'll likely have dividend demands in the sale agreement. Special class of shares entitling them to x a year. As @Roboc7 pointed out, there's no point in them staying otherwise because they'll likely never get more of a premium than currently offered.
It makes sense for Ratcliffe too, because he can essentially load debt onto the club without actually doing so in order to pay less.
Saw a tweet saying the Glazer’s tenure will be bookended by some fans forming FC United and others throwing a massive baby strop at the club only being bought by a billionaire and not an oil state.
A humbling state of affairs that only reflects horribly on football (and us)
This is true. Now, just let me know which other country is currently bidding for United? Because I'd like to go on record as being against that bid, too, whether it be the US, the UK, Zimbabwe, or anyone else.
I've just changed train at junction 3 and am fully onboard the Rat Express now.
Amazing how hard this concept is to grasp for some
If there was an O in your username you'd be a perfect fit.
Absolutely. We have seen the state of chelsea and what can happen, and we have wasted alot of money ourselves on players who were past it, or didnt give a shit. Fergie use to question character, and wanted players with fire. We should be doing the same during our next recruitment phase. The right players, right ambitions., and i feel ten hag will do that .
Surely either offer is roughly 50% more than the shares are actually worth at the moment? So if they don't sell now it won't be offered again until the club is actually worth what's being offered now. So I think they must want a total sale more than anything because they'll have to wait many years just to get the equivalent of what they're being offered now never mind a bigger pay out so I believe them supposedly wanting to stay is just them trying to squeeze every last drop out of it.
One thing I was thinking about yesterday.
Everyone's going about VR, clubs getting their streaming rights and other such innovations. This is all correct but the real big money maker is actually something else.
It is the women's team and the huge untapped potential there. I read a short headline about Arsenal playing Wolfsburg in the Women's CL 10 years in front of a couple of cats and a dog. Yesterday the same fixture attracted 60k fans.
If the Glazers were so on point and smart businessment, they'd be leading the charge in women's football (I know we're leading the league there but certainly not because of cutting-edge facilities). That's where the big money is for me because you can essentially 2x your revenue in the coming 20 years.
And having a huge women's team might spill into the men's side growth where there's only so many male United fans you can have (I'm aware there's female fans of the men's team but surely there's huge space for growth).
Everyone's going about VR, clubs getting their streaming rights and other such innovations. This is all correct but the real big money maker is actually something else.
It is the women's team and the huge untapped potential there. I read a short headline about Arsenal playing Wolfsburg in the Women's CL 10 years in front of a couple of cats and a dog. Yesterday the same fixture attracted 60k fans.
If the Glazers were so on point and smart businessment, they'd be leading the charge in women's football (I know we're leading the league there but certainly not because of cutting-edge facilities). That's where the big money is for me because you can essentially 2x your revenue in the coming 20 years.
And having a huge women's team might spill into the men's side growth where there's only so many male United fans you can have (I'm aware there's female fans of the men's team but surely there's huge space for growth).
If a couple years ago we knew the Glazers would not have control of the club any more, I would have cut off my pinkie toe for it. I'll take anything where they can't make decisions ever again.
Glazers having just 20% would mean they still have control based on their class B shares unless the clause they had inserted pre-floating on stock exchange was removed or
Changed. SJR would be stupid to still proceed without addressing that clause.
@711 you've had an absolute mare in here tonight. You entered the thread with condescending replies to others, as though they were wrong, and then proceeded to show that, in fact, you don't have a scooby about anything that's going on.
If Glazers only own 20% surely he cant control decisions within the club? 80% VS 20%, and thats probably in the form of lower tier share than the owners?
Never changed my stance, just want the best for the club regardless who the owners are since they all have their bad sides.
Never changed my stance, just want the best for the club regardless who the owners are since they all have their bad sides.
I know he’s being a bit of a melt in responding but yes they would be joint owners. Any person who holds any amount of stake in the asset is a joint owner. However, that doesn’t mean all co-owners get the same profit split as that’s dictated by share holding.
At this moment in time, Glazers would still control the club even with 20% share holding because of the specific clause that they had put in before they floated the company which meant any class B shares held 10x voting power to class A shares. So even 6% class B shares would give them control.
However, Ineos/SJR would really have to be incompetent or have some wild faith in the Glazers by not having that clause removed or changed. Any deal most likely would address that clause.
Its not that they don't get it, they don't wanna get it.
Everyone, including Ineos and Qatar are well aware of that clause. The Glazers are not going to hoodwink anyone into buying the club without that being removed. It only exists so that one or two Glazers can't independently give an outsider power. Since they're all on board with selling (even Joel and Avram would have to agree to sell a few of their shares to get Ineos to 51%), it is an easy thing to change it. I believe that Kieran Maguire suggested on his Stretford Paddock interview today that the Glazers can simply vote to allow a non-Glazer to buy Class B shares without them converting to Class A.
In other words, this is a non-issue.
Even 1 share owned by a Glazer goblin keeps the Glazers curse alive! Get rid of them all, completely.
They will unless downgraded to class A shares
And how are you going to achieve that, when the club is still their property? The protests have done a stellar job so far.
Take the little wins life give you. In this case, it’s not even little.
- Status