Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Bad news for Ratcliffe fans I’d say. All the bluster last week was that he’d won the process and his offer was the best.
I maintain that there’s little chance that the Glazers will leave a huge amount of capital at risk in the club with another owner and no say in how it’s run.
What’s the point of this? I thought Glazers would stay on to see their 10b evaluation come to fruition but how much extra would they make in 3 years?
Good news for the fans, bad news for the Glazers and I’m not sure why they would go for that?
Yeah very little incentive IMO.
just a guess but perhaps Ineos need/want more time to free up liquidity because interest rates are so high atm
SJR have leaked that to calm the fans. Pretty obvious.
Risky game. Who's to say in 3 years we aren't doing a 'Chelsea' and sitting 12th in the league after a shite season they'll be lucky to get the current offer.
Those Ratcliffe reports last week seem to be a bit premature don't they.
Qatar will boot the Glazers out tomorow. And clear the debt. And fund the stadium without a load more new debt. In short, piss off Jim
The latest news actually pulls the needle back to Jassim's bid, as Joel and Avram won't see the fruits of staying put for another 5-10 years. It would take a minimum of 5 years for the completion of the new stadium and infrastructure.
The sky article says expected to be a preferred bidder this month. So from a few days, to a week to this month. To say this process is now taking the piss and making a complete mockery of the club, its staff and fanbase would be an understatement. Make a decision you cretinous cnuts.
Surely the point is that a premium price is agreed now above the current price on offer? So the Glazers know that even if things go wrong, they will receive more for those shares later down the line than they will now.
The question is how valuable that is to them, as money received now could be put to potentially more profitable use elsewhere over that period.
Nobody is saying that they definitely will leave after 3 years. They may stay longer.
Yeah 3 years is really not a long time in business. I don’t think this is much of an ‘advantage’ to Ratcliffe.
I am certain they will sell this month if we fail to reach the CL. They simply can’t afford the club if we are not in the CL for multiple seasons.
Not really. If it gets done this month, it will be 6 months since the club was put up for sale. 6 months for this kind of deal is actually pretty good. Raine's prediction for a super fast sale was never realistic. A pessimistic prognosis could easily have had this take close to a year. But I very much doubt that. November to July sounds like a reasonable timeframe, including the handover process.
Which he has now done, they're just playing by social media's rules.
Makes me warm to his bid somewhat. But I doubt Joel and Avram feel the same way.
So, Elliot RKO out of nowhere then?
I hope we’ve got the scouts and recruitment team working on different scenarios for the summer. After bringing in a new manager last summer I was hoping this one at least would have a clear focus and the chance to get early deals done. The takeover seems to be ruining any chance of that.
Not if Jim doesn’t take the option up which seems to be possible?
How depressing would that be? Went through all this for months getting our hopes up finally thinking we’re getting rid of the parasites only for them to turn around and say they’re staying. It will be absolute carnage.
It makes sense if 4 out of 6 Glazers want to sell but 2 are not keen and will only sell at an absolute premium.
Knowing how the Glazers work it will be done in September, just as the transfer window is closed.
The media seems clueless
Then what's stopping the other 4 to ask for the same terms? Everyone likes more money
No one is giving those terms now.
If let's say avram is able to get 60 dollars per share in 3 years time then I bet that the other siblings would want similar terms.
Wonder how the four will feel if everybody pulls out because the other two are being so greedy.
I wouldn't have thought so. The description "put-and-call arrangements" would (as far as I'm aware) typically suggest that INEOS/Glazers have the right to buy/sell at (presumably different) set prices. So INEOS can't stop the Glazers opting to sell and the Glazers can't stop INEOS opting to buy (within the terms of the agreement). With the price obviously being higher if INEOS opt to buy than if the Glazers opt to sell.
They'd be getting more money later(through Ratcliffe) than selling their stake to Jassim? So it's money in the bank vs hanging on for a tad more?
I don't follow. The Glazers do not own the shares collectively, nothing prevents the other 4 from selling and there is no reasonable reason for a prospective buyer to pull out because a minority of current owners don't want to sell. If something like that happened you need to understand that the bidders are the biggest morons on earth and United dodged a bullet.
I am finding it all baffling to be fair.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Class B shares non transferable? I thought they had to be converted to Class As 1-1 in order to be sold?
This saga has become incredibly annoying . Glazers have the unique touch of making everything around them become a massive drag.
But Ineos would clearly be far less inclined to agree to making an offer equating to 3x the current 'excess'. The deal for the other siblings seems to be similar in both cases, so it's not like they can leverage a much higher offer. Glazers would struggle to find investors offering such amenable terms for investment in the club compared to the money they're being offered to sell now.
The other Glazers seem to recognize, by all accounts, that this isn't their 'area' in terms of sports franchise development (compared to NFL) and the guarantee of huge amounts of -unearned - money for management of the club that's varied from 'hands-off' to actively detrimental, except in a very narrow sense around short-term marketing and pumping the price up at the cost of the long-term brand, money on the table, right here and now to invest in whatever else (including more 'reliable' hedges/indexes as well as the Buccs).
Why would they stick around with something they don't want to personally invest in, that demands huge amounts of cash in order to grow which will at best water down their own shares and come with its own uncertainty (to say nothing of increasingly mutinous fan base that, if a transfer of control doesn't go through, might start trying to get every game cancelled, going harder on sponsors and spooking their investors). The ESL is further away than ever, even with milquetoast nature of 'fan reforms' proposed. The club is in a transitional phase, with competitors strengthening, City dominant and top-4 (and CL revenues ) itself a toss-up next season without serious squad investment. Finance isn't my area but as numerous 'better informed' people have commented (analysed in great detail), any half-decent financial advisor is recommending that they sell...
This
They are just so vile. Scum.
It's a rule of the current board, it doesn't have to be the case after the sell. In fact it's likely a point of discussion for SJR lawyers and it's a fairly straightforward change.
That can be changed instantly if the Glazers want to (which would be needed if they sell for a majority stake). Kieran Maguire also mentioned that they can sell class B shares to an outsider. Either scenario requires a certain percentage of the Glazers to agree.
But Joel and Avram have more than 18%, which means that if the other 4 Glazers sold without consulting Joel and Avram, Ineos couldn't buy a majority of the club.
Any deal would include Ineos buying a few percent of Joel and Avram's shares, so they have to be on board.
Ineos can't offer J&A more for their shares than the other siblings now as part of the same sale. So that's why they would have a premium if they sell within X amount of years. It allows J&A to get the asking price that they want now for their shares (based on the 6bn valuation), despite no one being willing to offer that valuation for the full 69% of Glazer owned shares.
Just a reminder, when there is talk of a 5bn or 6bn valuation, that is total valuation of the club. That's what their bids are based on, which sets a price per share, that the Glazers would receive. So they get 69% of that valuation if all sell, and each individual Glazer gets the amount that the number of shares they own would be worthed based on the total valuation.
- Status