ayushreddevil9
Foootball hinders the adrenaline of transfers.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2015
- Messages
- 10,841
These fecks ain't leaving
These fecks ain't leaving
VdS is leaving Ajax because he started getting involved in the transfer side and made an absolute mess of it, leading Ajax to underperform in the league and in Europe and their fans booing him.Van Der Sar leaving Ajax, construction work underway at Carrington, Neymar linked, just all a coincidence right??
Suspect there will be an announcement not long after the cup final that indeed it is Qatar who are the new overlords.
FDJ was never coming here, his thread was the most stupid threads of all time.Purely as far as the journey goes this is a worse saga than even FDJ and Sancho (tranche 1)
VdS is leaving Ajax because he started getting involved in the transfer side and made an absolute mess of it, leading Ajax to underperform in the league and in Europe and their fans booing him.
He's likely taking a step back to have a break, or Ajax kind way of saying thanks but you're fired.
Carrington was more than likely had planned maintenance work scheduled in as its the end of season break and the best time to undertake any work without the players and staff being there.
We're linked with multiple players each season, yes it's a coincidence.
I have seen an insane amount of misinformation about how this functions, and your post has literally inspired me to create an account to reply after lurking for a long time.
I really wish people would just say nothing when they are not knowledgeable on a particular subject, instead of spouting drivel with such confidence.
To be clear, this should not be taken as advice or a recommendation of any kind. Simply trying to share my knowledge and experience in this industry.
Here is the foundation of how it works.
To provide some information and correct the two biggest falsehoods I've seen:
- Manchester United plc is the holding company for our beloved football club. The Glazers hold around 69% of the shares, while the other ~31% trades on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
- The Glazers shares are Class B shares and are held privately, but can be converted to Class A shares if they wanted to sell on the NYSE. The NYSE shares are Class A shares and trade publicly.
- The Glazers essentially hold all of the voting power. Class B shares have 10 times the voting rights of Class A shares.
- Nevertheless, one Class A share entitles the holder to the same amount of equity in the company as a Class B share.
The bottom line as I see it is this, in my opinion: If there is no full takeover, the shares give no meaningful voting rights, paid no dividends for almost 2 years, and even back when they paid dividends, the Class A shares got peanuts.
- Enterprise value is typically the method used in these kinds of transactions. In plain English, this means debt is included in the "number" you see as the bid. Example: suppose United has no cash, the debt is £1B, and the bid is £6B. This means the equity (shares) of the club are valued at £5B (in this example).
- "Only the Glazer shares are for sale." Not necessarily. The Glazers control the Board and the votes. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that, if a 100% takeover is sought (ie. Qataris), it can be executed in one transaction. People seem to be fixated on this Class A vs Class B share distinction, but these are shares of the same entity. I do not see why it would have to operate any differently than any other take-private transaction. If a scheme of arrangement was in place and since the Glazers control the Board and the voting power, this is doable.
"Okay, then why would the Qataris (or anyone) bother with 100% when they do like Jimmy Rat allegedly started with and send a bid on the Glazer shares only?"
- Eliminate the ample regulatory and reporting requirementa that come with having it as a plc on a stock exchange.
- If the Qataris believe the club will increase in value under their ownership, owning 100% makes more sense in the long run.
- Status, pride, etc.
We’re broke, cuz they’re greedy
We’re poor, cuz they’re rich
Weg’s tall, but he’s useless, yeah
The debt’s high, but they’re staying
Jim’s in, and we’re underwhelmed
Jassim’s lost, but we’re hopeful, baby
And what it all comes down to
Is that it’s gonna be just like Nice, Nice, Nice
'Cause Jim’s got one hand in our pocket
And the other one is giving Avram a high five
Joel’s drunk, but we’re sober
Our captain’s crap and he’s overpaid
Pep’s wired, on something, yeah
Fletch cares, but he’s clueless
FFP’s here, but it’s fooling none
Jim’s won and I'm sorry, baby
And what it all comes down to
Is that the Glazers are gonna be quite alright
'Cause Jim’s got one hand in our pockets
And the other one is flicking off Darcie
And what it all comes down to
Is that Jassim hasn’t got it all figured out just yet
'Cause he’s got one hand in his pocket
And the other one is ripping up a rainbow sign
Bruno dives, but he’s focused
Martial’s crocked, but he’s wise
Luke Shaw’s not fat, but he’s big-boned, baby
Klopp’s sad, but we’re laughing
Arteta caved, cuz he’s chicken shit
Varane’s old, but he’s pretty, baby
And what it all boils down to
Is that no one's really gonna come and clear the debt
Well, Jim’s got one hand in our pockets
And the other one is holding a Brexit sign
And what it all comes down to my friends, yeah
Is that everything’s gonna be just like Nice, Nice, Nice
'Cause Jim’s got one hand in our pockets
And Jassim is hailing a taxi cab
I have seen an insane amount of misinformation about how this functions, and your post has literally inspired me to create an account to reply after lurking for a long time.
I really wish people would just say nothing when they are not knowledgeable on a particular subject, instead of spouting drivel with such confidence.
To be clear, this should not be taken as advice or a recommendation of any kind. Simply trying to share my knowledge and experience in this industry.
Here is the foundation of how it works.
To provide some information and correct the two biggest falsehoods I've seen:
- Manchester United plc is the holding company for our beloved football club. The Glazers hold around 69% of the shares, while the other ~31% trades on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
- The Glazers shares are Class B shares and are held privately, but can be converted to Class A shares if they wanted to sell on the NYSE. The NYSE shares are Class A shares and trade publicly.
- The Glazers essentially hold all of the voting power. Class B shares have 10 times the voting rights of Class A shares.
- Nevertheless, one Class A share entitles the holder to the same amount of equity in the company as a Class B share.
The bottom line as I see it is this, in my opinion: If there is no full takeover, the shares give no meaningful voting rights, paid no dividends for almost 2 years, and even back when they paid dividends, the Class A shares got peanuts.
- Enterprise value is typically the method used in these kinds of transactions. In plain English, this means debt is included in the "number" you see as the bid. Example: suppose United has no cash, the debt is £1B, and the bid is £6B. This means the equity (shares) of the club are valued at £5B (in this example).
- "Only the Glazer shares are for sale." Not necessarily. The Glazers control the Board and the votes. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that, if a 100% takeover is sought (ie. Qataris), it can be executed in one transaction. People seem to be fixated on this Class A vs Class B share distinction, but these are shares of the same entity. I do not see why it would have to operate any differently than any other take-private transaction. If a scheme of arrangement was in place and since the Glazers control the Board and the voting power, this is doable.
"Okay, then why would the Qataris (or anyone) bother with 100% when they do like Jimmy Rat allegedly started with and send a bid on the Glazer shares only?"
- Eliminate the ample regulatory and reporting requirementa that come with having it as a plc on a stock exchange.
- If the Qataris believe the club will increase in value under their ownership, owning 100% makes more sense in the long run.
- Status, pride, etc.
At least that thread was funny. This thread is just like a chore.FDJ was never coming here, his thread was the most stupid threads of all time.
Are you referring to the quorum.Only the Glazer shares are for sale." Not necessarily. The Glazers control the Board and the votes. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that, if a 100% takeover is sought (ie. Qataris), it can be executed in one transaction. People seem to be fixated on this Class A vs Class B share distinction, but these are shares of the same entity. I do not see why it would have to operate any differently than any other take-private transaction. If a scheme of arrangement was in place and since the Glazers control the Board and the voting power, this is doable
Because INEOS will have had to agree a number of hard amounts with their financing and they won't be able to go above those without extensive remodelling of the bid - paid off at different rate / longer term etc. Given they are borrowing to buy the club...and will have to borrow further amounts to fund redevelopment of Carrington and Old Trafford stadium then they will be far more restricted in what they can "wiggle" out as extra cash to cram the Glazers mouth with gold.We seem to be waiting for the Qataris to make a bigger last-time bid than previously (I think Jassim hasn’t got the cash, Qatar do, not Jassim and the Raine Group are feeding this to the Glazers), but can anyone explain why Ineos cannot just increase their offer after (or before) Qatar do?
Yeah this is something often overlooked. They also presumably have some sort of hard deadline on that financing agreement surely.Because INEOS will have had to agree a number of hard amounts with their financing and they won't be able to go above those without extensive remodelling of the bid - paid off at different rate / longer term etc. Given they are borrowing to buy the club...and will have to borrow further amounts to fund redevelopment of Carrington and Old Trafford stadium then they will be far more restricted in what they can "wiggle" out as extra cash to cram the Glazers mouth with gold.
The only potential for the glazers to get more is to apply pressure on the Qatari's who essentially have access to a massive wealth fund they can dip into or borrow against that collateral at a lower rate than INEOS can probably get.
Because INEOS will have had to agree a number of hard amounts with their financing and they won't be able to go above those without extensive remodelling of the bid - paid off at different rate / longer term etc. Given they are borrowing to buy the club...and will have to borrow further amounts to fund redevelopment of Carrington and Old Trafford stadium then they will be far more restricted in what they can "wiggle" out as extra cash to cram the Glazers mouth with gold.
The only potential for the glazers to get more is to apply pressure on the Qatari's who essentially have access to a massive wealth fund they can dip into or borrow against that collateral at a lower rate than INEOS can probably get.
We're being told INEOS is to big to have any trouble with loan servicing, all by themselves.
Simon Stone on his podcast suggested that he’s been told that we have a transfer budget and we can make deals.
Yeah hopefully the case.This is just as you would expect. The club will have included projected transfer spend this summer in their financial forecasts in the presentations given to prospective buyers/investors. Reports have suggested it is something like £100m plus sales. The uncertainty is not ideal, but the ownership situation should not have a terribly adverse impact on this summer's transfer activity. For Murtough and Ten Hag, it should largely be business as usual and I would expect them to get three or four deals over the line, even as the sale process continues in the background.
I wonder if part of the negotiations included the ongoing concern and all parties negotiating had to agree that in the case of protracted negotiations business would continue as usual and a net spend of £Xm would be the target.Simon Stone on his podcast suggested that he’s been told that we have a transfer budget and we can make deals.
If the two Glazers are settling in under Ineos for a few more years before selling their remaining shares, it's in their interests to keep the club running smoothly before the transition. One bad transfer window can set a club back a couple of years.Simon Stone on his podcast suggested that he’s been told that we have a transfer budget and we can make deals.
It’s in both the buyers interest to keep the club running smoothly.If the two Glazers are settling in under Ineos for a few more years before selling their remaining shares, it's in their interests to keep the club running smoothly before the transition. One bad transfer window can set a club back a couple of years.
I think their shares are at a minimum guaranteed price, so no difference for them really.If the two Glazers are settling in under Ineos for a few more years before selling their remaining shares, it's in their interests to keep the club running smoothly before the transition. One bad transfer window can set a club back a couple of years.
The price will also plummet to it’s actual value if INEOS buy us because it’s already inflated. True price is probably 12-14 dollars.I think their shares are at a minimum guaranteed price, so no difference for them really.
If the two Glazers are settling in under Ineos for a few more years before selling their remaining shares, it's in their interests to keep the club running smoothly before the transition. One bad transfer window can set a club back a couple of years.