I have assumed it’s the price per share that’s relevant. Provided I am right, if the club has a 100 shares Glazers will receive the total price / 100 * 69.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I have assumed it’s the price per share that’s relevant. Provided I am right, if the club has a 100 shares Glazers will receive the total price / 100 * 69.
No you’re right. I spoke to quickly.They don’t fulfill the threshold for a squeeze out which in the UK is at 90%.
Makes sense since Qatar are the major shareholders of Sainsbury’s.
Right, but it's not relevant to the Glazers or their sales process whether Qatar or anyone wants to buy the extra 31%. And they wouldn't buy that additional 31% as part of the same transacation. That would have to be done later. The current sales process is only for the 69% that the Glazers own.
@Berbaclass lad, make Mike Keegan do a positive update tonight or tomorrow
Latest murmurs are suggesting things could drag on again
Latest murmurs are suggesting things could drag on again
Sheikh Jassim is going to sneak in at the back post on the stroke of the full time whistle. SJR will be holding his arm up in the hope of a late offside flag which won’t come. 
I have assumed that there is a drag-along clause for in the articles of association. I am not 100% how it works in listed companies but there Is no way this would be handled in a non listed company.
The whole things a circus but did anyone really suspect anything other with these 2 sewer rats involved.
How did the Twitter purchase go? Wasn’t it once the deal is agreed to take the company private. Then all other shareholders are bought out at the agreed value per share. Regardless of whether or not they agree.
It’s possible Jassim’s bid is for 100% while Ratcliffe is for just a controlling stake.
I have also assumed that whatever Qatar offers is for 100% and that the Glazers will receive 69% of that.
Does Sheikh know United communicate via Fax? He might need to buy one. Hope he's prepared.Sheikh Jassim is going to sneak in at the back post on the stroke of the full time whistle. SJR will be holding his arm up in the hope of a late offside flag which won’t come.
Let's be honest, no journalists really know anything, people will go back and forth based on articles and tweets, but everyone is under an NDA and nothing is really that likely yo leak until the Glazers announce who the preferred bidder is, the rest is guesswork
I don’t know. I just heard that it could be either.
Its pretty ridiculous isn't it. These football "ITK" journalists now all of a sudden trying to take a stab at a multi billion dollar financial deal!
The idea that Jim or jassim's team would be leaking to journalists and potentially endangering the deal is utterly fanciful
I didn't really follow the Twitter takeover, so I don't know how big of a percentage the board that Musk negotiated with had. However, it's my understanding that different countries have different laws relating to this kind of thing. United is registered in the Cayman Islands, but of course the publicly traded stock is on the New York Stock Exchange, so I believe that the rules for taking a company private would be subject to Cayman laws, in addition to US laws. But exactly what those laws are, I don't know.
I do remember that when the Glazers did their hostile takeover of United, that once they owned a certain percentage, they could (or maybe even were required to) buy out the remaining shares, and there was nothing us PLC shareholders could do to stop it. I remember a big campaign by IMUSA/MUST to get fans to buy up shares to reach enough of a percentage that the Glazers couldn't force that purchase on us. But not enough people cared and that never came even close to happening. The US SEC laws probably have something similar, but I don't know what the percentage is.
Fair enough. It's easy to become overly defensive in this thread.
Not doing a good job is he. One side got relegated the other is on course to finish bottom half of the table in France
I agree. like you I don’t know the exact details. But I think there’s definitely something that means ‘minor’ shareholders get bought out at the agreed price if a full sale is agreed with the majority shareholder in this case the Glazers.
I believe its the Cayman Islands laws that apply in this case meaning there is no obligation to buy all of the shares and there is no obligation to pay an equal price for each share.
The thinking for a while has been that Ratcliffe will just ignore the 31% causing the share price to plummet and then pick them up far cheaper at a later date if he feels that way inclined.
The Qatari’s on the other hand need 100% of the shares to take the company private as being on the NY stock exchange opens them up to discovery by the US which is something they don’t want.
For the person that said the £5bn is just for the Glazers 69% thats incorrect. That would value the club close to 8bn which is nonsense.
This thread below does a better job of explaining the Cayman Island laws than I have.
You can’t value class A shares the same as class B shares.
If you were to float 31% of the shares with class B voting rights on the stock exchange they would go for way way more than $20 each. The idea you can take the value of the class A shares and infer the price of the class B shares is pure nonsense.
A very rich man staying in Claridge’s while in London? Yes, he MUST be selling Manchester United to the owner of Claridge’s.
Qatar cannot bid for publicly traded shares in this offer. The bid is for Glazer’s shares only - we need to understand what is on the table here!
Nowhere have I stated the contrary
The process requires the bidders to value the whole club in terms of a share price, with the Glazers then receiving 69% of that valuation or 51% depending on who wins etc
You might be correct and £8bn therefore would be the incorrect figure, but the point about both headline bids being based on the valuation of the whole club rather than the Glazers 69% is still true. Nobody is paying the Glazers £5.5bn and then paying more on top no matter how much cheaper than £2.5bn it is.
Mark Goldbridge (yes that moron) has said repeatedly this past week that we can't compete with City unless we are 100% owned.
It should come as great surprise to him then that City's owner has sold 23% of the club.
This is the issue with this whole process and debate. Everyone is emotional, which I totally get, but a lot of people just don't have anything like the full facts or knowledge of what's going on. Goldbridge least of all.
It should come as great surprise to him then that City's owner has sold 23% of the club.
This is the issue with this whole process and debate. Everyone is emotional, which I totally get, but a lot of people just don't have anything like the full facts or knowledge of what's going on. Goldbridge least of all.
It’s 350k? Small fan base. If you gonna spend the massive amount of money it takes to build a top club in European football you don’t buy Nice in the french league.
I just see very little basis for criticizing Ratcliffe for Nice. Why?
-An owners job is to get competent people to run a club and provide the club with enough resources. Sure an owner can get some of it if the club does extremely poor or well — but an owner can only do so much.
-There is no indication that Ratcliffe genuinely have tried to challenge PSG and co. Just look at the squads, sounds comical.
-Ratcliffe bought two clubs, Nice and Lausanne, and said that they see it as a way to learn to own football clubs. Is there any reason to doubt that?
It's around a 1 million. And your question was about french football. If you have to buy a club to compete with PSG, Nice will be one of the most realistic option with Marseille, Lille and Lyon.
Your answer seem to indicate that you either didn't want anyone to answer or you don't think that Ratcliffe should have bought any club.
I will give you a clue, 952k.
If you only count the city limits.
@JPRouve I am just calling it like I see it. Not sure what you mean with the last para?
What is the basis for ‘Ratcliffe is a bad owner, look at Nice!’? Very modest sums of money has been invested into that team. And it’s of course a given that Nice is a worthless option if you want to build a power house in European football, I mean seriously?
What is the basis for ‘Ratcliffe is a bad owner, look at Nice!’? Very modest sums of money has been invested into that team. And it’s of course a given that Nice is a worthless option if you want to build a power house in European football, I mean seriously?
That reminds me of that Regulus Black guy that used to come in here and get really emotional, shout at people and then leave
Mad coincidence tbh considering how many other hotels he could have stayed at instead plus the rat usually returns back to Florida pronto, not stick around London
"The remaining minority shareholders will be forced to sell" - that is not necessarily correct, it depends on the how the company is set up, United are quoted on the NYSE which has different rules to the UKSE
So you think Nice is a good club to buy if you want to build a top European football club?
You aren't, you clearly have no clue about the topic, to the point that you don't even know what to look for. And I didn't make an statemtnt about Raticliffe in that post outside of saying that in french football Nice would be one of the clubs that you would purchase if you wanted to compete with PSG and I said why.
You asked about french Football, you got an answer.
I think Nice metropolitan area (French: aire d'attraction de Nice) as defined by INSEE in 2021 is the functional urban area or commuting zone of the city of Nice, southeastern France. It covers 100 communes, has 1,103,527 inhabitants (2021) and an area of 2,073 km2.[1][2] It partly overlaps with the urban unit (contiguously built-up area) of Nice, which covers some cities, e.g. Antibes, Grasse and Cannes, that are part of the functional area Cannes-Antibes.[3]
Beyond that, I don't recall offering an opinion.
- Status