Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for such post. Its evident that you've got experience on such matters. Who do you think will get the club?
Thanks mate. The following is just my opinion as I have no insight on the specifics of this process beyond what we have seen reported in the media.

I think no transaction at all is the least likely outcome. I've seen some people worrying that this whole process is a farce and it's all just for the Glazers to estimate what they could get and accept only if anyone blew them away. Sorry, not buying it. As far as I can tell, the club needs significant investment, we know the Glazers will not spend any of their own money, interest rates are the highest they've been in years, and many sports teams have been partially/fully sold in the past 2 years for insane sums. The conditions are perfect for them to make a clean break.

I think the second least likely outcome is private equity minority investment. This makes almost no sense. The short of it is: a firm would have to fork over a significant amount to invest into the club and a significant amount to purchase whatever their minority stake is. Why spend that much when you can spend a bit more to control the thing? I also can't see who in their right mind would invest if Joel and Avram are still in charge, and likewise, I can't see Joel and Avram going for this deal if they don't get to call the shots still.

That brings me to my next point: the Jimmy Rat bid where he buys out 4 Glazers, Joel and Avram stay on, and in 3 years, there are two sets of options exercisable that would give J&A the right (but not the obligation) to sell to Sir Jim at a predetermined price, and another option that gives Sir Jim the right (but not the obligation) to buy out J&A at a (presumably different) predetermined price. If we are to believe Ratcliffe has 3 bids still on the table (69% now, 4 Glazers now + put option, 4 Glazers now + call option), I don't see how there would not be 3 different valuations.

This bid is what has thrown this process into turmoil as far as I can tell. All we can go on is what is reported, and who knows how reliable that is. If their description of these options is accurate (calling them put and call options), on the surface, there would be absolutely nothing forcing them to be exercised when they mature in 3 years. Unless the put option (the one where J&A have the right to force Sir Jim to buy their shares at a predetermined price) are priced very favourably, I personally don't see the appeal of this offer for J&A, unless they truly do want to hold on for 3 more years (minimum). Final comment on this bid: I don't see why J&A would want to stay on as shareholders with no influence, and I don't see why Mr. Ratcliffe would buy a controlling stake only to give these two muppets any kind of a say.

I have serious questions about if Ratcliffe's 69% bid is still on the table, and if that bid also values the club higher than the Sheihk's bid. Reading between the lines, my guess would be "no," because I don't see why he would bid with the options in 3 years if that were the case. Reminder, this is all going under the notion that media reports on these bids are actually accurate.

My personal opinion is that it has always been and still is the Qataris to lose and Ratcliffe is simply used a pawn to help the Glazers and Raine get the largest sum out of Qatar. If the Qataris were only bidding against themselves, they would have massive leverage. I believe one or both of the Ratcliffe option proposals is the one beating the Sheikh's in valuation and the Glazers are using it as leverage in the hopes of the Qataris matching or beating it. I believe J&A are blowing smoke about wanting to stay on under Ratcliffe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 711
When the Glazers took control, it was during the week of a cup final (2005) and done amongst severe protest. They didn’t care then or now.

They don’t know what they want yet and will wait for Qatar to make another move and see if another bidder can do better.

Neville, whom I adored as a player, has been unbearable since his HIGNFY disaster exposed his crass psuedo-intellectualism. Still love the guy but I take his word with a pinch of salt, as the saying goes.
 
Ratcliffe confirmed!

The same thing happened at Nice. The club crest was replaced on the third shirt by a picture of a sun lounger.
 
Kieran Maguire on the Simon Stone podcast also said he thinks the takeover will be done (“we will have a new owner announced”)by the time the transfer window opens

FFS this is classic, another milestone slightly ahead of the current one.

- After FA cup final (getting closer, better push it back)
- Kick off to the summer window (new deadline)
- Pre season Tour
- Second game of pre season
- Before Community Sheild
- Before first game of the season
- Before first home game of the season

What will the next one be?
 
FFS this is classic, another milestone slightly ahead of the current one.

- After FA cup final (getting closer, better push it back)
- Kick off to the summer window (new deadline)
- Pre season Tour
- Second game of pre season
- Before Community Sheild
- Before first game of the season
- Before first home game of the season

What will the next one be?
Before the January transfer window?

Original brief (which Simon Stone of the BBC reported) was that they expected a full takeover to be done BY Spring (March 20)
 
We keep on saying it'll be after something. First it was it'll be after CL is sewed up, now it's after the cup final :lol:

This happens all the time and fans get excited. Its not just about this.

First it was 1st quarter, then there were those fake deadlines.
Now, no one has any idea what is going on, I doubt even the Glazers do.

I cant see this being wrapped up before mid July.

Remember last transfer window? How many deadlines were there for FDJ only for it not to happen? These fake deadlines mean nothing in football.
 
This happens all the time and fans get excited. Its not just about this.

First it was 1st quarter, then there were those fake deadlines.
Now, no one has any idea what is going on, I doubt even the Glazers do.

I cant see this being wrapped up before mid July.

Remember last transfer window? How many deadlines were there for FDJ only for it not to happen? These fake deadlines mean nothing in football.
Completely agree mate, shambles.
 
Before the January transfer window?

Original brief (which Simon Stone of the BBC reported) was that they expected a full takeover to be done BY Spring (March 20)
It was end of March.
Then end of May.
Then last Friday.

As i said before; this sale just sums up our every summer transfer window when we also push "deadlines" more and more.
 
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.

This is what I though too and I’d imagine it’s all been factored in by the new buyers as the last thing they’d want is to be left behind in the market and on the pitch due to this being dragged out by the parasites.

I did read the other day that apparently if you sell an academy player you can put the entire fee down on the balance sheet, is this true ? If so bringing in day £75 million for Henderson, McTominay and Elanga would mean an extra £75 million for the summer not including anything made on Maguire, Bailly, Telles, VDB and Pellestri.

Never really considered the fact they can’t release the shirt until this is all done as Adidas aren’t going to produce millions of shirts with TeamViewer on if as soon as we’re bought we announce a new primary sponsor.

Wasn’t the new shirt leaked the other day or was that a hoax ?

Kieran Maguire on the Simon Stone podcast also said he thinks the takeover will be done (“we will have a new owner announced”)by the time the transfer window opens

So that’d be July 1st right ? That’s a four or so week turnaround, I pray it’s that quick but doesn’t it take longer if it’s Ratcliffe and the reclassification of the shares from B to A ?
 
Ratcliffe confirmed!

The same thing happened at Nice. The club crest was replaced on the third shirt by a picture of a sun lounger.

https://www.cfclassics.co/clubs/lists/crestevo/france/psg/psg-crest-evolution.htm


Paris Saint-Germain Crest 2013 to Now

The most recent change to the logo came after the takeover by QSI (Qatar Sports Investments) in 2011. It seemed only a matter of time before they would stamp their own identity on the club's branding, so it was no surprise when the crest was altered in 2013. Whilst retaining the basic features of the previous logo, they brightened up the main blue colour and decided that they wanted to make the city's name stand out more, so moved Saint-Germain to the bottom of the crest (removing the year of formation, 1970, at the same time) and leaving PARIS standing out on its own at the top. The cradle was also removed, but the fleur-de-lys remained, as did the crest's most iconic feature - the Eiffel Tower.
 
I think the takeover will be announced after today.
So do I, but that still leaves a lot of days

It'll absolutely be after the FA Cup final. The most optimistic people will say in the next week or 2, I think it'll be late July / early August before we hear of a preferred bidder or investor.
 
So do I, but that still leaves a lot of days

It'll absolutely be after the FA Cup final. The most optimistic people will say in the next week or 2, I think it'll be late July / early August before we hear of a preferred bidder or investor.
Sorry I was just throwing a cheap joke out there.
 
If that’s the case, that certainly adds weight to the Ratcliffe bid rather than the Qatari bid. Would be strange for Qataris to approve that.

No it doesn't. The Qataris are already bidding £5bn for a club called the Red Devils with a devil in the centre of the club crest and badge. :lol:
 
No it doesn't. The Qataris are already bidding £5bn for a club called the Red Devils with a devil in the centre of the club crest and badge. :lol:
That’s different to glorifying an image of the devil further. It’s one thing keeping things as status quo, but this would be going out of your way to change something that no one would bat an eyelid if you didn’t.
 
Ratcliffe confirmed!

The same thing happened at Nice. The club crest was replaced on the third shirt by a picture of a sun lounger.

Then it is confirmed tha Jim Ratcliffe bought Manchester United AND Arsenal, since their 3rd kit apparently also will only have the cannon :D
 
That’s different to glorifying an image of the devil further. It’s one thing keeping things as status quo, but this would be going out of your way to change something that no one would bat an eyelid if you didn’t.
You're joking, right? A 5 billion bid will depend on what the club's crest looks like?
 
That’s different to glorifying an image of the devil further. It’s one thing keeping things as status quo, but this would be going out of your way to change something that no one would bat an eyelid if you didn’t.
Islam is a different religion from Christianity. The understanding of the devil, as well as the imagery related to it, is not the same.

Also, if you hadn't noticed, there's already a devil on the Manchester United shirt.
328453.jpg


(Inside the emblem, on top of the yellow background. This is a picture of a Manchester United player called Marcus Rashford.)
 
That’s different to glorifying an image of the devil further. It’s one thing keeping things as status quo, but this would be going out of your way to change something that no one would bat an eyelid if you didn’t.

I think you're reaching a bit there mate. They probably just found the stripped back emblem complimented the minimalistic white and maroon design (same colours as Qatar flag coincidentally) better than the original.
 
Tbh it probably has little bearing and may have been approved beforehand but it would just be strange move from new owners who are Muslim. A Muslim’s whole life and faith system has the devil as the ultimate enemy and the one they have a personal struggle against on a daily basis. I know the devil already is in our crest, but this would be a strange and unnecessary step especially from a Muslim owner. I know a number of Utd Muslim fans who won’t even wear the Utd shirt because of the devil symbol on it.

I just see it akin to Patrice Evra buying Liverpool FC and naming one of the stands Luis Suarez End.
 
Nothing will be announced until next Monday at the earliest now.

If its not announced at the beginning of next week then I think it's very likely that it rolls on in to next season.
 
Tbh it probably has little bearing and may have been approved beforehand but it would just be strange move from new owners who are Muslim. A Muslim’s whole life and faith system has the devil as the ultimate enemy and the one they have a personal struggle against on a daily basis. I know the devil already is in our crest, but this would be a strange and unnecessary step especially from a Muslim owner. I know a number of Utd Muslim fans who won’t even wear the Utd shirt because of the devil symbol on it.

I just see it akin to Patrice Evra buying Liverpool FC and naming one of the stands Luis Suarez End.
I bet you don't.

The image of red hooved beast carrying a pitchfork is a Christian image, not an Islamic one.
 
Islam is a different religion from Christianity. The understanding of the devil, as well as the imagery related to it, is not the same.

Also, if you hadn't noticed, there's already a devil on the Manchester United shirt.
328453.jpg


(Inside the emblem, on top of the yellow background. This is a picture of a Manchester United player called Marcus Rashford.)

You’re just trying to justify your username:p
 
I bet you don't.

The image of red hooved beast carrying a pitchfork is a Christian image, not an Islamic one.
You really don’t have a clue about the Muslim faith do you. Muslims don’t have a portrayed image but the concept and belief in the devil is no different.
 
Tbh it probably has little bearing and may have been approved beforehand but it would just be strange move from new owners who are Muslim. A Muslim’s whole life and faith system has the devil as the ultimate enemy and the one they have a personal struggle against on a daily basis. I know the devil already is in our crest, but this would be a strange and unnecessary step especially from a Muslim owner. I know a number of Utd Muslim fans who won’t even wear the Utd shirt because of the devil symbol on it.

I just see it akin to Patrice Evra buying Liverpool FC and naming one of the stands Luis Suarez End.
No, this is more akin to a Hindu eating beef or a Muslim having alcohol. Really not a big deal unless you are one of those crazy nutter. You really think Qatar would suddenly say "nope, don't like your emblem, give us back our 5 billion". Just think about it before digging in further :lol:
 
Thanks mate. The following is just my opinion as I have no insight on the specifics of this process beyond what we have seen reported in the media.

I think no transaction at all is the least likely outcome. I've seen some people worrying that this whole process is a farce and it's all just for the Glazers to estimate what they could get and accept only if anyone blew them away. Sorry, not buying it. As far as I can tell, the club needs significant investment, we know the Glazers will not spend any of their own money, interest rates are the highest they've been in years, and many sports teams have been partially/fully sold in the past 2 years for insane sums. The conditions are perfect for them to make a clean break.

I think the second least likely outcome is private equity minority investment. This makes almost no sense. The short of it is: a firm would have to fork over a significant amount to invest into the club and a significant amount to purchase whatever their minority stake is. Why spend that much when you can spend a bit more to control the thing? I also can't see who in their right mind would invest if Joel and Avram are still in charge, and likewise, I can't see Joel and Avram going for this deal if they don't get to call the shots still.

That brings me to my next point: the Jimmy Rat bid where he buys out 4 Glazers, Joel and Avram stay on, and in 3 years, there are two sets of options exercisable that would give J&A the right (but not the obligation) to sell to Sir Jim at a predetermined price, and another option that gives Sir Jim the right (but not the obligation) to buy out J&A at a (presumably different) predetermined price. If we are to believe Ratcliffe has 3 bids still on the table (69% now, 4 Glazers now + put option, 4 Glazers now + call option), I don't see how there would not be 3 different valuations.

This bid is what has thrown this process into turmoil as far as I can tell. All we can go on is what is reported, and who knows how reliable that is. If their description of these options is accurate (calling them put and call options), on the surface, there would be absolutely nothing forcing them to be exercised when they mature in 3 years. Unless the put option (the one where J&A have the right to force Sir Jim to buy their shares at a predetermined price) are priced very favourably, I personally don't see the appeal of this offer for J&A, unless they truly do want to hold on for 3 more years (minimum). Final comment on this bid: I don't see why J&A would want to stay on as shareholders with no influence, and I don't see why Mr. Ratcliffe would buy a controlling stake only to give these two muppets any kind of a say.

I have serious questions about if Ratcliffe's 69% bid is still on the table, and if that bid also values the club higher than the Sheihk's bid. Reading between the lines, my guess would be "no," because I don't see why he would bid with the options in 3 years if that were the case. Reminder, this is all going under the notion that media reports on these bids are actually accurate.

My personal opinion is that it has always been and still is the Qataris to lose and Ratcliffe is simply used a pawn to help the Glazers and Raine get the largest sum out of Qatar. If the Qataris were only bidding against themselves, they would have massive leverage. I believe one or both of the Ratcliffe option proposals is the one beating the Sheikh's in valuation and the Glazers are using it as leverage in the hopes of the Qataris matching or beating it. I believe J&A are blowing smoke about wanting to stay on under Ratcliffe.

thanks again. You really know your stuff and I hope that you'll become a full member soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.