Which one of the Glazers was born in Manchester and grew up a fan of the club again?
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
This is still the first phase of the process. Minority investment is still very much a possibility.
So i'm not wrong in what I said then
We all read their club's statement. Again I'd rather have the unknown with deep pockets then the proven failure who keeps mismanaging clubs. Also if he cannot put things in order at feckin lausanne then how on earth can ye manage a juggernaut like United who ply its trade in the most competitive league in the world?
Honestly I'd rather have Elliott then Ratcliffe
Nope, nope and fecking nope to the nopiest nope.
Keeping the Glazers like this is not guaranteed to come with no strings attached, literally no one has been able to reveal the inside details of the deal.
I don't get why it's so difficult to understand for some of you as well. A football club requires unified ownership, no diverging interests, be it public (NYSE) or of a private vermin variety (Glazers).
I would prefer no sale ahead of Jimmy Glazer's project because then we're guaranteed a full sale within the short term and everyone keeps telling we're apparently very rich and can run ourselves sustainably in the meantime.
Shouldn’t that be Glazers 6.0 now?!
We don't give a feck about the colour of his passport
Which also translates as - you’d rather get the inexperienced owner with a record of failure in business (see Credit Suisse) and good PR, than the proven success in business with very recent and prominent diversification into sport (with less than stellar results…so far).
You prefer no sale so we guarantee a sale? That’s not making a whole bunch of sense mate.
Birth certificate. Passports can be bought
Financial stability is what we want. Financial stability is what we need. If Qatar can provide that then so be it. If there was another multibillionaire that was offering the same terms as Qatar I’d snap their hand off, but there isn’t.
First of all qatar investment in credit suisse was around 3-5% at the time. I doubt that jassim tanked everything himself. Not every business venture is a success
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...liffe-third-loss-making-year-land-rover-rival
Secondly we are a football club and the only thing proven is ineos tanking every football club it has.
Last edited:
12-24 months and the Glazers will have no choice but to sell due to the financial black hole they’ve created. Thats what he was alluding to.
Nobody believes me still at the prospect of an underhand LBO by the ratcliffe.
If "Jimmy Glazer" doesn't buy the club who do you think is coming in to do so? Oh you're one of those who thinks if Ratcliffe had not existed then SJ would have already bought 100% of the club guaranteed which is just absolutely not true, the guy can't even stump up the cash to value the club higher than "Jimmy Glazer" even though he's supposedly broke af compared to SJ and SJ has the perfect opportunity to do so.
SJ has massively underpaid in his bids every step of the way, seriously, it's been well reported at this point that 6bn or so gets the club from the Glazers and the guy can barely stump up 5 so if SJ is as rich as you all say he is why isn't he just paying it, after all it's basically just loose change to this guy isn't it.
So if the Glazers won't accept anything less than 6 or so for the whole club what makes you think that they'd sell to anyone massively underbidding on that if Ratcliffe wasn't around, because that seems to be what you're assuming would happen, we don't know for sure yet and it doesn't look like they're even going to accept SJ's bid of somewhere around 5 to 5.5 bill so again, I ask, why would they accept what would be an even lower bid from SJ if Ratcliffe wasn't making them up their bids in the first place
Shouldn’t that be Glazers 6.0 now?!
Well played sir!this is an extremely bad faith argument.
if you are a fan of iPhone the way you are a fan of your football club, you’re an extremely weird person. If you don’t see the difference between generic products and your football team, you’re either a liar or the dumbest person in every room you go in. I hope you’re the former, bc if you attach the same emotional investment in your football team as you do your cutlery for instance, that’s terribly sad for you.
If my morals dictated every decision i make, i would not pay unfair taxes. Sadly, i don’t want to go to jail. If my morals dictated every decision i make, i would volunteer all my time at the children’s hospital/homeless shelters/animal rescue centres. Sadly, the reality of the world we live in means i don’t have unlimited time, and have to provide for my family. I hold my own goals and pursuits as having value to me also. Life is about sacrifices and compromise. I would love if the world was fair, it is not.
Me (or anyone) having a phone is not the “own” you people make it out to be. It’s a modern convenience that means i spend more time with my family. If a phone came along that had much less questionable sourcing, I’d buy that, no problem. To compare that to allowing morals to effect the preferred owner of the football club i support, when one bidder is a state that kills gay people, jails dissenters, funds proxy wars that have killed and displaced thousands, treats women as second class citizens.. says plenty about you.
I guess he thinks Jassim loves us so much he'll wait around for the club to be available again. And no one will oppose him by then.
Why do you think he’s hellbent on making himself as unpopular as the Glazers instantly?
It's not possible for him to do anything like this currently though is it because of the way the shares are currently setup. Under the current setup if any of the Glazers sell shares they automatically turn into shares without voting rights and so on unless they sell them to another of the Glazer family. It's only through a negotiated buy like we are currently having that this can change, so somebody cannot just buyout the Glazers if they seriously want to currently. They'll protect themselves from any LBO's in any agreement with a potential buyer, they're some of the worst business people on the planet but they're good at being rats
Why else would the glazers agree to stay on as minority stakeholders without a say? It's all about the premium for them. The only way they stay on is with a guaranteed out that's more profitable than Jassim bid. And why would Ratcliffe pay them more later, when he could just get rid now for better optics. This way [is the only way[ he can pay them off hence buy the club, with the clubs money.
my issue was with the label “moralists”, as it’s clearly dismissive of the whole view. Everyone’s got opinions, but like i said, “human rights abuse apologists” is exactly the same kind of label that can get used for you. In the end it just reduces it to name calling haha.
I full agree with sport being an escape. But it is being weaponised and the moniker of an “escape” sits less comfortable with me when people/states involved are funding/fighting wars, killing gay people, killing dissenters, killing journalists, starving and displacing entire countries. If every time you watch the football you’re watching the endorsement of that, how is it an escape, exactly?
Anybody with 15% can apply to the court for variation, which is inevitably granted. And obviously if you own 51% you get variation. The share setup is irrelevant in this instance.
Aaaaand here we are again. My apologies. Hope the rats sell soon as we lift the trophy later. Come on you beautiful red bastards!
Interesting, seems like you know quite a bit about this stuff? Or did you read it somewhere, curious to know more!
Haha. Brilliant. Thank you
That's not necessarily how it works. It depends on the make up of the Board and then how major decisions are supposed to be reached. Some decisions take a simple majority while some may require 2/3 majority to sign-off. Do you think the Glazers will not have Board seats if they own about 40% of the club? You can choose to believe that but no way will they have massive investments tied to the club with no say in it. I understand people preferring Ineos to Qatar but to say this position from Ineos is also fine is now verging on biting your nose to spite your face.
You already have @DOTA doing so.
I don’t think they are as interested in the executive level decision making, but all are equally interested in the £££££££ dividends
Great points.
Fair enough. English is not my first language and that wasn't meant to disrespect anyone (I think I literally said I understand/respect the moralists view). In my books it makes far more sense to those who are trying to sell the ineos bid as something good for the club
Two notifications for the price of one. How generous of you.
That was @NK86 I was replying to there.
Takeover 101. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpg...pter/9/crossheading/variation-of-class-rights
If it would prejudice a shareholder holding 15%+ the court will generally throw the variation out.
Board members are elected or sometimes appointed by the shareholders. If Ratcliffe obtains control of the club via a partial purchase of the Glazer's current 69% stake your hypothetical 40% is impossible. To minimize the influence of potentially 6 Glazer board members, Ratcliffe will simply use his controlling stake to nominate or appoint board members who will side with him.
It would generally be written into the sale agreement. If the Glazers end up holding 25% or something, Ratcliffe couldn't just disregard the agreement and purge them. (Well, there are mechanisms that allow it, but generally he wouldn't/ wouldnt need to)
So you think that the Board comprising of Glazers will have no say in the club with a substantial stake tied to the club? Will Ratcliffe transfer the loan to Ineos without a complete takeover? Will the Glazers allow a rights issues for infra investments knowing their shares would get diluted and thus they get fecked when the derivates are exercised.
Ratcliffe is no mug and I bet the Glazers know this. I still find it difficult to believe that some of you think the Glazers will have no say in how the club runs with about 40% controlling stake in it. That is just silly thinking and any investor will laugh at that suggestion.
You think any Glazer who has a stake with the club will not want to be part of the Board? They could have recused themselves now itself but they perhaps don't trust their own siblings enough, let alone someone outside the family with the majority shares.
You can bet that if they all stay, they will all have a say in it and that will perhaps be on of those points that will be long drawn out. Ratcliffe will still have the majority on the Board, but it will be a simple majority rather than a 2/3 one. I am just trying to counter the point that this is fine because the Glazers will have no say in the running of our club. That's just not how any investor will think, let alone ones who are reducing their stake in a staggered manner and the main reason is to get more money down the line.
- Status