Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Plant0x84 said:
Nope, nope again and thrice No.
Click to expand...

our history does set us apart. We have the fanbase we do because of it. We are the size we are because of it. This club has been through more than most and won more than anyone.. but at some point in time we got to move on from the past and move with the game. Unfortunately the only way we compete well and truly is with mass investment.

Kinsella said:
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


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

I couldn’t agree more about the history, that was my point.. I just don’t see us competing with the likes of city without the kind of money Qatar are offering. It will not erase the history. We don’t even know how Qatar would manage it, if it’s true he is a massive United fan, he will want to keep its history and heritage. He could get it for all we know. Just because he is from Qatar doesn’t mean he won’t understand the culture of this football club or want to immerse himself in it. We just don’t know.
 
Here's part of the issue with some journo's who are dead against any Qatari bid for United



Liew has stilled pinned the United article in his twitter, despite the more recent wankfest over Haaland and Guardiola
 
owlo said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not what a leveraged buyout is.
 
ABU media in being terrified by a competitive Manchester United shocker.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Here's part of the issue with some journo's who are dead against any Qatari bid for United



Liew has stilled pinned the United article in his twitter, despite the more recent wankfest over Haaland and Guardiola
Click to expand...


It’s amazing how it’s different it is when it’s man United. People are so so scared of how powerful we could be with that level of wealth. No debt. New stadium and facilities. You got news of people trying to block anymore state backed ownerships but surely it’s abit late when you already have city and Newcastle? It’s purely one rule for them and another for us, because we’re man United. Ridiculous hypocrisy.
 
ForeverRed1 said:
our history does set us apart. We have the fanbase we do because of it. We are the size we are because of it. This club has been through more than most and won more than anyone.. but at some point in time we got to move on from the past and move with the game. Unfortunately the only way we compete well and truly is with mass investment.

I couldn’t agree more about the history, that was my point.. I just don’t see us competing with the likes of city without the kind of money Qatar are offering. It will not erase the history. We don’t even know how Qatar would manage it, if it’s true he is a massive United fan, he will want to keep its history and heritage. He could get it for all we know. Just because he is from Qatar doesn’t mean he won’t understand the culture of this football club or want to immerse himself in it. We just don’t know.
Click to expand...

No, once bought by Qatar, or any other nation state, they become part of our history - and it's a dirty, squalid, nasty part of our history. Built upon exploitation of migrant workers, and repression and denial of human rights. I don't care if we can't compete with City, I'd rather we finish mid-table than sell our soul. Besides, you say we can't compete with City without state investment - but City haven't won a CL yet - constantly defeated by non-state owned clubs. PSG haven't won a CL, and are an absolute shambles of a club. There are plenty of ways to be well run and competitive without state investment.
 
jm99 said:
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
Click to expand...
Nobody in their right mind would give up a majority control involving approximately $1B for each individual against a minority ownership with such unstable security. Zero chance.

That’s why a scenario with a passive minority owner isn’t a option for any involved parties.No promises in the world, bulletproof contracts or whatever would change that. Being extremely greedy or a shady businessmen is one thing but flat out stupid….. Ask yourself. Would you accept such an offer instead of pure cash in your pocket?

The only reasonable option for both bidders is to buy all shares from the six Glazer siblings in one installment. 69%. What the potential buyers can do is to offer other outside business deals or joint venture projects but only as some sort of sweetener to make their bid more competitive.

I think the key aspect in the selling process is who has the ability to pay everything right away when the deal is done. The bidder who can do so is probably also the preferred buyer who get a period of exclusivity to close the deal.

That’s my take on the subject of the willingness to be a minority owner.
 
7even said:
Nobody in their right mind would give up a majority control involving approximately $1B for each individual against a minority ownership with such unstable security. Zero chance.

That’s why a scenario with a passive minority owner isn’t a option for any involved parties.No promises in the world, bulletproof contracts or whatever would change that. Being extremely greedy or a shady businessmen is one thing but flat out stupid….. Ask yourself. Would you accept such an offer instead of pure cash in your pocket?

The only reasonable option for both bidders is to buy all shares from the six Glazer siblings in one installment. 69%. What the potential buyers can do is to offer other outside business deals or joint venture projects but only as some sort of sweetener to make their bid more competitive.

I think the key aspect in the selling process is who has the ability to pay everything right away when the deal is done. The bidder who can do so is probably also the preferred buyer who get a period of exclusivity to close the deal.

That’s my take on the subject of the willingness to be a minority owner.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, I've been saying this since the idea was floated about allowing Joel and avi to stay on in a minority capacity. I can see why Jim would do it, but I can't see why Joel and avi would, right now they're getting a huge premium shares because they're required for control, as an investment, 20% of a football club isn't really worth giving up 800m each or whatever it is that could be put in an investment fund and gain 10% annually or around that. It relies on the super league happening and it resulting in the value of the club more than doubling. So it doesn't make much sense to me, but equally there's no way Jim allows them to stay in control after spending multiple billions acquiring more than 50%

But the rumours seem to indicate that Joel and avi want to stay on in a minority capacity even though it doesn't really make much financial sense
 
7even said:
Nobody in their right mind would give up a majority control involving approximately $1B for each individual against a minority ownership with such unstable security. Zero chance.

That’s why a scenario with a passive minority owner isn’t a option for any involved parties.No promises in the world, bulletproof contracts or whatever would change that. Being extremely greedy or a shady businessmen is one thing but flat out stupid….. Ask yourself. Would you accept such an offer instead of pure cash in your pocket?

The only reasonable option for both bidders is to buy all shares from the six Glazer siblings in one installment. 69%. What the potential buyers can do is to offer other outside business deals or joint venture projects but only as some sort of sweetener to make their bid more competitive.

I think the key aspect in the selling process is who has the ability to pay everything right away when the deal is done. The bidder who can do so is probably also the preferred buyer who get a period of exclusivity to close the deal.

That’s my take on the subject of the willingness to be a minority owner.
Click to expand...
One thing we need to also understand is even if there's an option provided to the Glazers to keep 20% of their B shares (converted to A post the sale) and then being allowed to sell them at a premium, there are ways to dilute their holdings significantly to drive them out.

The shares are currently trading at around 19-20 usd. Suppose once JR takes over, he immediately put in money into United for removing their existing loan and for some of the infra work. New shares will be issued, not at the current inflated offer price but at the existing NYSE shares price, to Ineos. Even if something like a billion is put in, that will be like a 33% EV of United based on the current NYSE value. That would significantly hamper the remaining Glazers holdings. They will ultimately lose money in this scenario, which isn't even that far fetched.

Don't know much about JR, but does he not have a rep for being a ruthless businessman to squeeze out his minority partners. Would the Glazers want to take that risk?
 
webbthepostie said:
0_httpscdnimagesdailystarcoukdynamic122photos27000900x7381354027
Click to expand...

If Qata takes over, Phil Jones will be removed from our books.
These guys will expect results, fast, which means all deadwood will be disposed of quickly.
 
sunama said:
If Qata takes over, Phil Jones will be removed from our books.
These guys will expect results, fast, which means all deadwood will be disposed of quickly.
Click to expand...
His contract ends after next month, so he's gone regardless
 
LawCharltonBest said:
The Glazers sentimental?

They'd sell their Dad's ashes and their kids if the price was right

They're scum and I wish their graddad had been born without a penis
Click to expand...

If we all wish them misfortune, maybe something will happen? Every night, before I go to sleep, I pray for any sor
Skills said:
Final twist - joint bid by Qatar and INEOS.
Click to expand...
Quineos?
 
croadyman said:
Yeah they will be utterly ruthless
Click to expand...
Well Jones has been done at United for quite a while for all intent and purposes , only for some posters to still use him to make silly points .

He won't be at United come summer even if Glazers end up staying .
 
SecondFig said:
No, once bought by Qatar, or any other nation state, they become part of our history - and it's a dirty, squalid, nasty part of our history. Built upon exploitation of migrant workers, and repression and denial of human rights. I don't care if we can't compete with City, I'd rather we finish mid-table than sell our soul. Besides, you say we can't compete with City without state investment - but City haven't won a CL yet - constantly defeated by non-state owned clubs. PSG haven't won a CL, and are an absolute shambles of a club. There are plenty of ways to be well run and competitive without state investment.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Here's part of the issue with some journo's who are dead against any Qatari bid for United



Liew has stilled pinned the United article in his twitter, despite the more recent wankfest over Haaland and Guardiola
Click to expand...


Yep, as previously mentioned before there will be loads of articles in the media talking about morals, the reality is some of them just don’t want to see United with untapped potential and will just say the “right “ thing to push the agenda.

You wonder why some people are desperate for state control no matter the negatives, it’s seeing journalism like this and stuff on tv. Like asking a nice employee live on tv how it is there, how great are Ineos. Articles as quoted above praising city’s owners and vision then the day before saying footballs at an end game.

It’s plain to see even rival fans are at it praying it’s a half cooked takeover.
 
Last edited:
DRJosh said:
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.
Click to expand...
what scarf incydent¿
 
SecondFig said:
No, once bought by Qatar, or any other nation state, they become part of our history - and it's a dirty, squalid, nasty part of our history. Built upon exploitation of migrant workers, and repression and denial of human rights. I don't care if we can't compete with City, I'd rather we finish mid-table than sell our soul. Besides, you say we can't compete with City without state investment - but City haven't won a CL yet - constantly defeated by non-state owned clubs. PSG haven't won a CL, and are an absolute shambles of a club. There are plenty of ways to be well run and competitive without state investment.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
SecondFig said:
No, once bought by Qatar, or any other nation state, they become part of our history - and it's a dirty, squalid, nasty part of our history. Built upon exploitation of migrant workers, and repression and denial of human rights. I don't care if we can't compete with City, I'd rather we finish mid-table than sell our soul. Besides, you say we can't compete with City without state investment - but City haven't won a CL yet - constantly defeated by non-state owned clubs. PSG haven't won a CL, and are an absolute shambles of a club. There are plenty of ways to be well run and competitive without state investment.
Click to expand...
We sold our soul a long time ago mate
 
SecondFig said:
No, once bought by Qatar, or any other nation state, they become part of our history - and it's a dirty, squalid, nasty part of our history. Built upon exploitation of migrant workers, and repression and denial of human rights. I don't care if we can't compete with City, I'd rather we finish mid-table than sell our soul. Besides, you say we can't compete with City without state investment - but City haven't won a CL yet - constantly defeated by non-state owned clubs. PSG haven't won a CL, and are an absolute shambles of a club. There are plenty of ways to be well run and competitive without state investment.
Click to expand...
Isn't this already Manchester's history given this is also England's history.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Here's part of the issue with some journo's who are dead against any Qatari bid for United



Liew has stilled pinned the United article in his twitter, despite the more recent wankfest over Haaland and Guardiola
Click to expand...


That's shameful for a so called journalist, the mainstream media really do take us for mugs
 
FlawlessThaw said:
Here's part of the issue with some journo's who are dead against any Qatari bid for United



Liew has stilled pinned the United article in his twitter, despite the more recent wankfest over Haaland and Guardiola
Click to expand...

Guardian racist despicable rag
 
United are actually one of few clubs who can actually challenge without any external investment , What we need is a Clean slate and Competent people incharge for this very reason I am ok with who so evers ends up Owning United in Future .

And honestly speaking though I don't begrudge City's success or Chelsea before them , but I am willing to concede that odds are heavily stacked against Non Traditional top Clubs in terms of what they can achieve without benefactors so if their supporters find joy in their Achievements who are we to hold it against them .
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.