Whilst running the auction for the Glazer’s?
Yep. Raine have been instructed by the club to carry out a strategic review on behalf of the Board. United are paying Raine for their strategic advice.
Whilst running the auction for the Glazer’s?
Yep. Raine have been instructed by the club to carry out a strategic review on behalf of the Board. United are paying Raine for their strategic advice.
That is wonderfully on brand for them you have to say.So is this the Glazer’s money being paid to Raine… or… the club’s?
Essentially, is it costing Man Utd money for the Glazers to dither around? And if so, how much is costing Man Utd?
Anything to stop you shouting DracarysYou do that.
Unbelievable, if true. So Raine are hosting the auction on behalf of the Glazer’s - whilst advising the United Board = the Glazer’s, at the same timeYep. Raine have been instructed by the club to carry out a strategic review on behalf of the Board. United are paying Raine for their strategic advice.
Why JassimGenuine question(s), and I preface this by saying that I respect people wanting Sir Jim and I respect people wanting Sheikh Jassim or the Qatar state. To each their own. Doesn't bother me. positives and negatives to both IMO.
But for people who want Sheikh Jassim, what is the main appeal for you?
And hypothetically, if INEOS made a statement (or reliably leaked) that they were not buying United as an investment like Nice were, but just to win things using their eyewatering wealth, were going to compete for the best players, were in fact going to clear the debt, let United spend their own money, buy all 69% of the Glazer's shares and revamp the stadium etc would it swing it?
Why Jassim
1)No debt
2)Will pay off debt
3)Investment in stadium, training ground.
4)Investment in men’s and women’s team
Could be just a dreamer or in over his head. Money alone does not being success. But nothing to point to either direction. Logically he’ll have his father making sure he don’t feck it up.
Why not Ratcliffe / INEOS
1)Will not pay off existing debt
2)Will buy using debt from people who’ll want to profit
3)Will keep the Glazers.
4)No commitment to investing in stadium / training ground
5)No commitment to investing in men’s / women team. Although most likely first year or two will see big money spent.
6) Very poor track record at clubs they already own. Have not improved their clubs in leagues that really they should be second & 1st if we judge on money alone, yet alone strategy and good management.
I refuse to add that. Because in November “Full sale” being the only acceptable deal was the one thing everyone agreed on. It’s only after Ratcliffe got into bed with the glazers that some started doing mental gymnastics to justify the glazers staying and glazers leaving became something others had to argue as a positiveWith Jassim you missed out - GLAZERS GONE FOR GOOD.
Argue amongst themselves I’d imagine, that‘s probably why this whole thing is being dragged out.
This is a little far-fetched based on what has been reported. The numbers you see quoted in the media for the bid valuations are almost certainly using the enterprise value, meaning that the amount of debt on the club is included in that figure. This is customary in M&A. The market cap is always going to be a lower number.
Just as a disclaimer, I work in the investment management industry (Risk & Compliance dep't). I do not have any kind of information on this transaction beyond what has been publicly reported, nor should anything I write here be considered advice or a recommendation. This is just me taking a rare opportunity to use my professional knowledge to comment on the happenings of United.
In my opinion and based on what has been reported, my best guess is a successful Qatari bid would have them paying in the range of $30-35 per share. If there is no full takeover, the intrinsic appeal of being a Class A shareholder is limited, at least under the current structure. Basically no meaningful voting rights, no dividends in nearly 2 years, and even when there were dividends paid, it was next to nothing for Class A. In my estimation, there is both major upside risk and major downside risk.
My take on the share price action is that it is highly speculative and not worth reading into the daily swings to infer odds on the takeover outcome. We the public know next to nothing and the swings are largely based on reports from football journalists. The markets just hate uncertainty and this process is dragging out beyond what the public were led to expect previously. The tiny amount of shares outstanding for a market cap of this size also make the stock prone to volatility.
Exactly rightWhy Jassim
1)No debt
2)Will pay off debt
3)Investment in stadium, training ground.
4)Investment in men’s and women’s team
Could be just a dreamer or in over his head. Money alone does not being success. But nothing to point to either direction. Logically he’ll have his father making sure he don’t feck it up.
Why not Ratcliffe / INEOS
1)Will not pay off existing debt
2)Will buy using debt from people who’ll want to profit
3)Will keep the Glazers.
4)No commitment to investing in stadium / training ground
5)No commitment to investing in men’s / women team. Although most likely first year or two will see big money spent.
6) Very poor track record at clubs they already own. Have not improved their clubs in leagues that really they should be second & 1st if we judge on money alone, yet alone strategy and good management.
Why Jassim
1)No debt
2)Will pay off debt
3)Investment in stadium, training ground.
4)Investment in men’s and women’s team
Could be just a dreamer or in over his head. Money alone does not being success. But nothing to point to either direction. Logically he’ll have his father making sure he don’t feck it up.
Why not Ratcliffe / INEOS
1)Will not pay off existing debt
2)Will buy using debt from people who’ll want to profit
3)Will keep the Glazers.
4)No commitment to investing in stadium / training ground
5)No commitment to investing in men’s / women team. Although most likely first year or two will see big money spent.
6) Very poor track record at clubs they already own. Have not improved their clubs in leagues that really they should be second & 1st if we judge on money alone, yet alone strategy and good management.
There's no guarantee that glazers will even sell, yet here we are.There's no guarantee or evidence that any of the above will or won't happen. Literally none.
There's no guarantee or evidence that any of the above will or won't happen. Literally none.
There's no guarantee or evidence that any of the above will or won't happen. Literally none.
Why Jassim
1)No debt
2)Will pay off debt
3)Investment in stadium, training ground.
4)Investment in men’s and women’s team
Could be just a dreamer or in over his head. Money alone does not being success. But nothing to point to either direction. Logically he’ll have his father making sure he don’t feck it up.
Why not Ratcliffe / INEOS
1)Will not pay off existing debt
2)Will buy using debt from people who’ll want to profit
3)Will keep the Glazers.
4)No commitment to investing in stadium / training ground
5)No commitment to investing in men’s / women team. Although most likely first year or two will see big money spent.
6) Very poor track record at clubs they already own. Have not improved their clubs in leagues that really they should be second & 1st if we judge on money alone, yet alone strategy and good management.
That's been the general consensus but looking at how we seem to be about to sign Mount, it appears perhaps the two things might not be as linked as previously thought. If anything this is a massive improvement in terms of how long it usually takes us to conduct business.Need this wrapped up as soon as possible. Longer it goes, will affect our transfer business. New ownership will also want to make some statement signings and can affect our window greatly.
Enlighten me, where did you get this info?
From the 2 or 3 tweets that were done? By journalists that are guessing as much as the next person? We know nothing about the intentions of both parties and it surely isn't helping this debate with made up facts.
diversionary tactics won’t deter from facts vEnlighten me, where did you get this info?
From the 2 or 3 tweets that were done? By journalists that are guessing as much as the next person? We know nothing about the intentions of both parties and it surely isn't helping this debate with made up facts.
We can only go off of the bid statement.There's no guarantee or evidence that any of the above will or won't happen. Literally none.
The Glazer family appointed the Raine Group as the club's exclusive financial advisers, who have been tasked with helping United find a buyer. I am still unclear as to who picks up the bill if the Glazers stay I can't see why it would Glazers personally.Why would the debt be passed on when Raine Group have a binding agreement with the Glazer family and not Man United?
Enlighten me, where did you get this info?
From the 2 or 3 tweets that were done? By journalists that are guessing as much as the next person? We know nothing about the intentions of both parties and it surely isn't helping this debate with made up facts.
There are around 163,000,000 shares outstanding (public float + privately held Class B). $30-35 share price means a market cap of around $4.9-$5.7B USD, or around £4-£4.6B. I have seen debt reported anywhere between £600M-£1B, but haven't cared enough to really dig into that. If media reports are to be trusted, a successful Qatari bid may be closer to $35 per share territory. $40 per share just on speculation (not even the takeover price) is not in line with the reported figures. This is all just one guy's opinion and not meant to be a recommendation or advice.Great stuff, I also think we can assume that all figures are EV. But I do think 30 USD per share is a little low since that would mean a market cap of 4bn USD/3.2bn pound which is what, an EV of app. 4 bn sterling?
My point is just — and please correct me if you think I am wrong — if there were any credible information on “Wall Street” that a deal was “done”, I think it clearly and immediately would be reflected in the share price. Right?
As a rule of thumb, about 50% of all takeovers leak before they even are announced in any way, shape or form the first time and significantly erases any deal premium. Doesn’t that indicate some form or insider trading or at least illegal disclosure of insider information? More or less, yes. But this as a rule doesn’t stop the trades from taking place right in front of the eyes of the authorities and the stock exchange.
I am not an expert on the NYSE, but unless I am corrected, I would assume that nothing is “known” by any deal blog or whatever in the US — that anyone attach any credibility too — without it showing in the share price.
The stock market is the best at valuating a share and right now — it seems like the stock market is leaning towards Ineos but haven’t ruled out 9-2. Do you agree?
The debt is on Manchester United. A new owner could pay it off (Qataris) or move it onto a different entity (INEOS), but it is not staying with the Glazers.The Glazer family appointed the Raine Group as the club's exclusive financial advisers, who have been tasked with helping United find a buyer. I am still unclear as to who picks up the bill if the Glazers stay I can't see why it would Glazers personally.
Could be Ratcliffe giving the FU to Qatar. But like others have said it’s not a big deal to Muslims.
In regards to most similar religions. Islam and Judaism are the most similar. It’s a common misconception amongst some Muslims that Christianity is the most similar to Islam. While all 3 share very similar life laws, it’s the core and most important faith tenant that makes Islam and Judaism the most similar.
Even the most Palestinian hating Zionist will say that. Which is why Jewish law allows jews to pray in mosques but not churches etc.
One of my first thought -collector's item.Boost sales of the third kit most likely. As it's different it will get talked about and people will want one.
Part of me believes they are trying to phase out the boat after the stigma recently highlighted and did the round on social media, to immediately remove it would seem cheap but this way they can phase it out unfortunately.
Aesthetics. The third shirt is nothing more a fashion item these days.
Thank you, I was wanting clarity as not a business person. I wanted clarification if Glazers are libel for anything which your statement states they are not, so I see they have no financial liability to pull the plug and stay if they so desire other than us hating them more than we already do, which of course they don't give a hoot. This I see is certainly an option that can't be discounted,The debt is on Manchester United. A new owner could pay it off (Qataris) or move it onto a different entity (INEOS), but it is not staying with the Glazers.
Raine was appointed by Manchester United plc, not the Glazers in a personal capacity. Football journalists are horrible at reporting on finance and aggregate it as, "Raine are working for the Glazers" because the Glazers control the Board, hold ~69% of shares, and control all company votes.
As I understand it Jamie, Joel was seen leaving SJ Dad’s hotel 2 weeks ago after discussing the new offer which surprisingly was made public in the next couple of days.As I understand it Jamie this is a nothing post
As I understand it Jamie, Joel was seen leaving SJ Dad’s hotel 2 weeks ago after discussing the new offer which surprisingly was made public in the next couple of days.
I just think it'll be really weird to go from protests outraged for fifteen years at a leveraged buyout and debt to a leveraged buyout and debt with everyone pretending that scenario represents a brave, new world
There still seems a misapprehension that people need to be aware of here in that speculated net worth isn't actually money someone has.
Ratcliffe isn't selling a significant chunk of Ineos and he doesn't have £4bn stuffed down the sofa. We've gone from 'debt is the road to ruin' to 'debt might be okay without neckbeards'
But sure, he runs Ineos with a substantial debt, but he'll clear ours, right? He'll bundle the entirety debt burden on his more lucrative, valuable business and let us spend like Phillip Schofield's lawyers encouraging parents of 13 year old boys to sign NDAs.
Anyone who claims to have an objection to the Glazer ownership who will rejoice at Ratcliffe is either a hypocrite or an idiot. Because the only difference is believing 'net worth' articles are currency.
Yep I get confused by the two all the time !Wasn't it Avram who left the hotel?
You constructed an entire narrative based on two PR statements. That's impressive.We can only go off of the bid statement.
Well the information is out there with the pledges given by Jassim and the ninetwo foundation. INEOS and Ratcliffe havent given any pledges just a weak statement.
You constructed an entire narrative based on two PR statements. That's impressive.
But this isn't a 'debate' this is merely a chat room/open forum. The guys entitled to his opinion.
Where do you get your info that his info is wrong? You know 100% he's wrong do you? Where are your sources?
The whole purpose of this thread is to literally vent while we all wait for concrete information.
In the meantime it's fine for anyone to come at it from any angle they want. That's how open forums work. Give the guy some slack eh.