Club Sale | It’s done!

[NWRed]

The problem with the maths is you are working on the basis that anyone buying out the Glazers shares would do so without insisting they retain their B status.

The key phrase in Ratcliffes alternative bid, which tells us that the shares would retain B status and/or that the Glazers would be converted to A status, is "controlling stake"

I'm not working on any 'basis', I'm explaining why what you said:

They've offered to do so. An offer for all 6 Glazers shares is on the table.

They've also offered an alternative option. Given this offer came at the final stage, it's likely they sensed hesitation from 2 of the 6 and acted swiftly.

Nobody is peddling anything either. Some fans are being more flexible and open-minded over ridding the club of the Glazers control and influence. 2 Glazers with no input, which is what they would have, even if they kept the B status of their shares, Ratcliffes majority would be so significant that they wouldn't be able to influence anything, is better than 6 Glazers with 100% control.

How people don't get this genuinely blows my mind.

is nonsense.

It is written into the terms of the class B shares that upon sale they convert to class A shares, so if the Glazers kept their shares as class B shares they would be able to outvote shares not held by a Glazer even if they had just 9.1%.

What Ratcliffe would insist on if the Glazers stay is converting their shares to class A so they have the same voting rights as everyone elses.

 

[ForeverRed1]

After going through the long Twitter read in the Jimmy Murphy statue thread…coming back here to read about the prospect of state ownership makes me want to puke.

I hear you, however, if we want to compete again we got to move with the times. Our history is beautiful and it will always be that way, it’s what sets us apart from the likes of city.. but the way footie is now, we can’t afford to sink any further. The clubs needs investment that SJR can’t afford. We need a complete overhaul and it’s looking more like Qatar are the only option of really giving us that. Sad as it is, it’s time to move on from the past and build a new future. Our history can’t be touched and if Qatar does get it, I’m hoping he understands the importance of it and honour it. This club will always be special.

 

[Dan]

Joined Oct 28, 2021
Last seen 1 minute ago · Viewing thread FAO Tottenham Hotspur | Fighting Cock Goes Into Meltdown | Glast...gone

We got him!

 

[Plant0x84]

I hear you, however, if we want to compete again we got to move with the times. Our history is beautiful and it will always be that way, it’s what sets us apart from the likes of city.. but the way footie is now, we can’t afford to sink any further. The clubs needs investment that SJR can’t afford. We need a complete overhaul and it’s looking more like Qatar are the only option of really giving us that. Sad as it is, it’s time to move on from the past and build a new future. Our history can’t be touched and if Qatar does get it, I’m hoping he understands the importance of it and honour it. This club will always be special.

Nope, nope again and thrice No.

 

[MiamiSpartan]

Jesus, the misplaced confidence with which people who have no clue what they're taking about make pronouncements like this.

It's a very simple calculation, class B shares have 10 times the voting rights of class A shares, if the glazers own x% of shares then everyone else owns 100% - x%, so equality of voting is reached when 10x = 100-x, solving for x gives x = 9 1/11, so the glazers need greater than 9 1/11% of class B shares to be able to out vote all the other class A shares.

Understand now?

Bro, do you really think that this is something super secret clause that Ineos aren't aware of and/or that it is something that is set firm by government law, and the Glazers are such masterminds that they are hoodwinking far more successful businessmen into a trap where they pay for 51% and only get 5.1% of the voting rights? That clause would be wiped out in any deal.

Did you also miss the part about it being a controlling stake?

 

[Chief123]

I don't want Mbappe, because it will interfere with Elanga's development.....

 

[NWRed]

Bro, do you really think that this is something super secret clause that Ineos aren't aware of and/or that it is something that is set firm by government law, and the Glazers are such masterminds that they are hoodwinking far more successful businessmen into a trap where they pay for 51% and only get 5.1% of the voting rights? That clause would be wiped out in any deal.

Did you also miss the part about it being a controlling stake?

No, I'm not taking about a scenario I believe is probable or even possible, I'm talking to one poster about some nonsense they posted.

 

[MiamiSpartan]

I'm not working on any 'basis', I'm explaining why what you said:



is nonsense.

It is written into the terms of the class B shares that upon sale they convert to class A shares, so if the Glazers kept their shares as class B shares they would be able to outvote shares not held by a Glazer even if they had just 9.1%.

What Ratcliffe would insist on if the Glazers stay is converting their shares to class A so they have the same voting rights as everyone elses.

1) The Glazers can vote to remove the clause, which would be part of any deal.

2) According to Kieran Maguire, the fine print says that the Glazers can vote to give a non-Glazer class B shares (in case they don't want to do away with the clause entirely).

 

[Adnan]

Tweet from February

 

[Brophs]

Can the pope shit in the woods?

 

[7even]

Bro, do you really think that this is something super secret clause that Ineos aren't aware of and/or that it is something that is set firm by government law, and the Glazers are such masterminds that they are hoodwinking far more successful businessmen into a trap where they pay for 51% and only get 5.1% of the voting rights? That clause would be wiped out in any deal.

Did you also miss the part about it being a controlling stake?

Show me the money

 

[Plant0x84]

Whatever the mods decide to be honest. I have no power, for now...

Good lord, can you imagine……

 

[United Hobbit]

I hear you, however, if we want to compete again we got to move with the times. Our history is beautiful and it will always be that way, it’s what sets us apart from the likes of city.. but the way footie is now, we can’t afford to sink any further. The clubs needs investment that SJR can’t afford. We need a complete overhaul and it’s looking more like Qatar are the only option of really giving us that. Sad as it is, it’s time to move on from the past and build a new future. Our history can’t be touched and if Qatar does get it, I’m hoping he understands the importance of it and honour it. This club will always be special.

That's exactly why I'm wanting Qatar - if you can't beat them, join them. Our history is so good and deep, it will never be obliterated

The fact he's said theres money set aside for the stadium and players hopefully suggests he's mindful of what we need - I don't want OT lost but investment is needed - can Sir Jim afford that, and players? Plus Sheikh Jassim is going to clear the debt isn't he? Another stumbling block cleared

We have the manager who I think can take us to the next level and finally get us back where we want, but he needs the financial backing. We've come unstuck so many times because the squad depth is cack. Imagine if we had near to the depth City had. Would we be scraping the barrel and grimacing as the likes of WW come on?

Imagine he doesn't get us and Liverpool get all this investment, or Tottenham

I hope his bid is successful.

 

[JagUTD]

I'm not working on any 'basis', I'm explaining why what you said:



is nonsense.

It is written into the terms of the class B shares that upon sale they convert to class A shares, so if the Glazers kept their shares as class B shares they would be able to outvote shares not held by a Glazer even if they had just 9.1%.

What Ratcliffe would insist on if the Glazers stay is converting their shares to class A so they have the same voting rights as everyone elses.

In any scenario, Ratcliffe would be purchasing B shares, so whether the Glazers convert to A, or remain as B, Ratcliffe would have an overwhelming majority, this the Glazers would have no input.

 

[JagUTD]

Would you look at the time

 

[Berbaclass]

Would you look at the time

I know. 24-48 hours away

Exciting

 

[NWRed]

1) The Glazers can vote to remove the clause, which would be part of any deal.

2) According to Kieran Maguire, the fine print says that the Glazers can vote to give a non-Glazer class B shares (in case they don't want to do away with the clause entirely).

Ah, so for the post not to be complete nonsense there has to be a huge unspoken hypothetical backstory. Well I take it all back, the guy is obviously a genius.

 

[NWRed]

In any scenario, Ratcliffe would be purchasing B shares, so whether the Glazers convert to A, or remain as B, Ratcliffe would have an overwhelming majority, this the Glazers would have no input.

Do you read posts before replying?

It is written into the terms of the class B shares that upon sale they convert to class A shares, so if the Glazers kept their shares as class B shares they would be able to outvote shares not held by a Glazer even if they had just 9.1%.

 

[jm99]

Do you read posts before replying?

I'm pretty sure theres no way Ratcliffe is buying 51% and not having control, they clearly will change the share structure to enable a takeover, if they try to keep it as is, Ratcliffe won't go for it and he'll insist on a full takeover or nothing. If he's OK with Joel and avi staying on clearly they will restructure it so either class B shares can be sold on or to remove the class A/B differentiation altogether

 

[JagUTD]

Do you read posts before replying?

I'm going to stop reading your posts if nothing else.

 

[Kinsella]

I hear you, however, if we want to compete again we got to move with the times. Our history is beautiful and it will always be that way, it’s what sets us apart from the likes of city.. but the way footie is now, we can’t afford to sink any further. The clubs needs investment that SJR can’t afford. We need a complete overhaul and it’s looking more like Qatar are the only option of really giving us that. Sad as it is, it’s time to move on from the past and build a new future. Our history can’t be touched and if Qatar does get it, I’m hoping he understands the importance of it and honour it.

I strongly disagree. That beautiful history is what made Manchester United. It gave it its identity and soul.

In my view it will become a relic under state ownership. The two are incompatible

This club will always be special.

I can only speak for myself but it will become much less special to me if it happens.

 

[George The Best]

did you not understand the maths?

There is no way in hell that the Ineos offer lets the Glazers keep class B shares whilst Sir Jim only gets A class shares. Sir Jim’s offer is obviously conditional on a restructuring of the company shares!

 

[7even]

There is no way in hell that the Ineos offer lets the Glazers keep class B shares whilst Sir Jim only gets A class shares. Sir Jim’s offer is obviously conditional on a restructuring of the company shares!

… and vice verse

 

[jm99]

… and vice verse

Vice versa wouldn't matter, Jim will have majority control if they're all class A shares, so he wouldn't need extra voting power in his shares

 

[Herschel Krustofsky]

I'm pretty sure theres no way Ratcliffe is buying 51% and not having control

Would be strategically ‘innovative’!

 

[Roboc7]

… and vice verse

The voting rights are what makes the Glazer shares more valuable, if they are selling shares with no voting rights they are just the same as those on the Stock Exchange and this whole process would have ground to a halt a long time ago.

 

[Adnan]

 

[Plant0x84]

Green and gold?

 

[Berbaclass]

Green and gold?

 

[Brophs]

Hair

 

[owlo]

Yes some sort of guaranteed dividend is a possibility, but how much could INEOS afford to give them financially and more importantly from a PR perspective.

I think Joel and Avram believe that the ESL falling apart means they are leaving money on the table and their hand is being somewhat forced by circumstance like COVID costs (it’s mostly their incompetence of course).

I feel like they are looking for some form of compensation for that but it’s hard to see how they really get it by staying on for a few years as minority shareholders, it still seems like more of a threat/bluff to drive the price up.

I suspect it's Ratcliffes smart way of doing a leveraged buyout. Instead of buying the glazers stocks, he leaves with with 23% or whatever, and slowly pays them in dividends from the clubs earnings until they mature for him to buy cheap. From a PR perspective I'm sure he'd sugar coat it under british local blabla something.

It becomes cheaper for him, and more profitable for the Glazers.

I do agree with your main point though; i think it's unlikely they want to stay and are just trying to hustle Jassim to pay the maximum possible, [though Ratcliffe could be giving them a very nice profit this way to try and sway them]. Said this some days ago, but its all speculative.

If I was one of the other buying parties involved in the sale, we'd have slapped a hard deadline on it by now attached to our final offer and the consequences of an attempted hustle. It's almost playground tactics, but if one of the buyers is stooping to the sellers level, it complicates matters.

 

[Rightnr]

This was just obvious. And even if he meant something by it, he's smart to publicly deny

 

[Plant0x84]

I suspect it's Ratcliffes smart way of doing a leveraged buyout. Instead of buying the glazers stocks, he leaves with with 23% or whatever, and slowly pays them in dividends from the clubs earnings until they mature for him to buy cheap. From a PR perspective I'm sure he'd sugar coat it under british local blabla something.

It becomes cheaper for him, and more profitable for the Glazers.

I do agree with your main point though; i think it's unlikely they want to stay and are just trying to hustle Jassim to pay the maximum possible, [though Ratcliffe could be giving them a very nice profit this way to try and sway them]. Said this some days ago, but its all speculative.

If I was one of the other buying parties involved in the sale, we'd have slapped a hard deadline on it by now attached to our final offer and the consequences of an attempted hustle. It's almost playground tactics, but if one of the buyers is stooping to the sellers level, it complicates matters.

Oh goody, another INEOS conspiracy theory.

 

[Member 125398]

Our history is beautiful

 

[Plant0x84]

 

[owlo]

It is written into the terms of the class B shares that upon sale they convert to class A shares, so if the Glazers kept their shares as class B shares they would be able to outvote shares not held by a Glazer even if they had just 9.1%.

What Ratcliffe would insist on if the Glazers stay is converting their shares to class A so they have the same voting rights as everyone elses.

I've posted rebuttals to this nonsense a few times. Once you have 15% you can sue for variation and inevitably almost always win. With 51% it's a total non issue. You can't be outvoted when you hold 51% due to variation.

 

[DRJosh]

Quite clear to me ETH is implicitly rallying for new owners to come in. The Green and Gold scarf incident wasn't planned but it was significant. He knew what he was doing.

We should be planning our transfer business now and the longer this ownership issue drags on and the less certainty over how much transfer funds will be available, the less prepared we will be to get the players we want.

 

[owlo]

Oh goody, another INEOS conspiracy theory.

There's not many other reasons the glazers would agree to hold 23% of the club and give up on a huge premium. The post wasn't aimed at you though.

 

[Plant0x84]

There's not many other reasons the glazers would agree to hold 23% of the club and give up on a huge premium. The post wasn't aimed at you though.

I know, and I appreciate that. But your post is inaccurate. The Glazers would have 18%. Also if reports are correct they wouldn’t be giving up a huge premium - because they have been offered a price above the current offer in a year or two, and if they choose not to sell then you’d have to assume the share price was booming again. Either way they are not out of pocket.

 

[owlo]

I know, and I appreciate that. But your post is inaccurate. The Glazers would have 18%. Also if reports are correct they wouldn’t be giving up a huge premium - because they have been offered a price above the current offer in a year or two, and if they choose not to sell then you’d have to assume the share price was booming again. Either way they are not out of pocket.

There's no way they wouldn't be out of pocket if they held onto 18%. The only reason to do so is if Ratcliffe incentivises it. And the only reason for him to incentivise it is because he wants to save money.