He doesn't need to purge the Glazers. There are only half of the current board of 12 directors. In the event he gains control some directors will likely leave. Ratcliffe can then leverage his controlling stake to appoint or nominate new board members that will vote with him over the Glazers. This is assuming that the Glazers will for some reason vehemently oppose everything Ratcliffe wants to do having just sold control of the club to him. Weird but ok, I guess.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
He doesn't need to purge the Glazers. There are only half of the current board of 12 directors. In the event he gains control some directors will likely leave. Ratcliffe can then leverage his controlling stake to appoint or nominate new board members that will vote with him over the Glazers. This is assuming that the Glazers will for some reason vehemently oppose everything Ratcliffe wants to do having just sold control of the club to him. Weird but ok, I guess.
If Ratcliffe wants to invest in the stadium and wants to issue fresh shares for that investment. You think the Glazers will pony up the amount because if they don't their holdings will be diluted. What happens in that case when such a proposition is tabled to the Board?
As mentioned this assumes the Glazers will be opposed to everything Ratcliffe wants to do having just sold their control of the club to him.
Well first off, it's not like anyone here has an influence over the decisions being made. So if people are being stupid because of their emotions here, it's not a big deal. I personally am of the opinion that majority of the people who are against the Qatari bid would prefer the Glazers to remain in charge over the Qataris so they will bend over backwards to whatever SJR comes out with. Of course the proposition for Sir Jim with the Glazers in minority control is probably better than the Glazers but I've not been a fan of how Sir Jim has approached this bid to be honest and his own track records with clubs he has owned.
The hunchback ogres really need to leave us in peace. Even when they have stupidly big offers they still take too long to decide. The greed... its disgusting.
I am unsure what gave the impression I was requesting more. Argue with Dwazza - I'm only half awake, I've nowhere near the energy required to entertain you.
I’m confused. How will the Glazers have 40% if Ratcliffe is buying most of their shares and they only have 69% to sell?
They'll be class A shares and have little to no impact on the value of the Glazer holdings due to the derivative contract they'll have with Ratcliffe.
Six new pages in the last four hours, after the thread has been practically dead for days. I hoped that this meant there was some late night news.
But there's feck all new news. You're all just regurgitating the same shite as before.
feck you. I love it, but also feck you.
But there's feck all new news. You're all just regurgitating the same shite as before.
feck you. I love it, but also feck you.
Derivatives don't work like that. The agreement will indicate a set price for a particular date.
I meant voting stake. They currently hold 90% voting power. Assuming they sell off 50% to Ratcliffe, it would still leave them with about 40%. Unless Ratcliffe is getting more than that.
Surely it will depend on the total shares they hold, else it is just a fixed buyout even if they hold 1 share by the time the clauses kick in.
It would be odd of Ratcliffe or Jassim to spend that kind of money and not have control.
Thanks for explaining. So class B shares won't have any dilution at all even if other shareholders get diluted?
50.1% will represent controlling stake but not necessarily total control on all decisions. That depends on the Board makeup. I just hope that if Ratcliffe does come in like this, he finds a way to feck the Glazers.
I don't like math and this one is a doozy.
If what you say is correct, the Glazers own 69% of the shares and have 90% of the voting power. Ratcliffe will acquire 50.1% of the club from their holdings so this should give him around 64% of the voting power. (50.1/69=.72), 72% of 90 is 64%. That might actually be enough for him to exercise complete control.
edit: I'm terrible at math so this may not be correct.
If you have a particular love for one of the more obscure Glazers then there is some very exciting gossip.
I keep trying to sell people on Kevin but to no avail.
The way I understand a futures derivative it is an agreement for Ratcliffe to buy (or the Glazers to sell) their shares for a fixed price on or by a fixed date. So their payout is set the day the derivative contract is agreed and any share price, share issue or other financial or market event has no impact on the contract.
I could be wrong here and initially I thought they were just talking about 50.1% of the total voting power. But if they are selling him 50.1% of the total shares, then he will have complete control.
If that's the case, and I am pointing this again, I really hope Ratcliffe fecks the Glazers somehow.
It's ok, I don't think anyone except Raine and the Glazers know the true details in all of this. The rest is guesses and bad math.
fair enoughIt's ok, I don't think anyone except Raine and the Glazers know the true details in all of this. The rest is guesses and bad math.
Ive asked this before, but didn’t get an answer, how much more potentially could the Glazers make remaining with the club rather than selling up? Is it a vast sum?
Last edited:
Hence 'he wouldn't need to.' That said, rogue directors can be a pain in the ass.
Its 50.1% of the total shares based on reports.
I'd assume that all or most of Arnold, Baty and Stewart would leave as they are chief execs who would likely be replaced by people Ratcliffe brings in. That leaves Leitao, Sawhney and Hooks. I don't know what their relationship is with the Glazers and if any affinity they had with them would impact their votes as far as doing good things for the club goes. If all of the current board members stay I'd guess we'd get a 13th in Ratcliffe and then things get interesting if he replaces all of the six non-Glazers mentioned here.
Kevin was involved in updating our club website. What a legend.
Sounds fecking awful the more we get to hear about these Sir Jim bids.
Got ya mate. Yep fair enough.
Drafting up posts about being Virtue Signalling FC. Since the news dropped you heard anything or read anything from the Qatari camp? Not saying you're an ITK just that I've noticed you tend to post stuff in this thread about Jassim potential ownership.
Bro, I got the same feeling on the eve of the Brexit Vote. Turkeys voting for Christmas. This move which is sadly looking likely is a major dub for INEOS and a L for Qatar investment. We will remain broken, as Broken Britain is now 13 years on post Tory control.
From one greedy stingy businessman to the other.
This
Brexit Jim + 6 glazers is surely the worst possible outcome available
And for them it will be pretty easy to explain why they havent done certain things... just pointing fingers at each other.Brexit Jim + 6 glazers is surely the worst possible outcome available
I don't understand how this will benefit Ratcliffe/INEOS tbh. Fans surely will expected money pumped to improve the club as a whole from transfers to facilities to stadium etc. So by maintaining Glazers at where they are albeit as minor majority, will Ratcliffe/INEOS put the money in? Because at the end of day, to get full control of the club, Ratcliffe/INEOS will still have to pay for remaining Glazers share right? If let say hypothetically Ratcliffe/INEOS spend hundred of millions into the club that will rise the club valuation, won't that make it will cost much more money when Ratcliffe/INEOS to buy out the Glazers?
Am dumb sorry/
Am dumb sorry/
At this point
I'm convinced they just wanted a valuation for further loans.
I'm convinced they just wanted a valuation for further loans.
If it’s like what you described, we normally call it a forward contract rather than a futures contract cause futures contract is traded on exchange and need to mark to market daily.
from the different sources, assuming true, my understanding is that it is more like an option rather than forward contract. They have the option to buy their shares within an agreed exercise window. It’s an option rather than obligation. In the other words, they can choose not to purchase their shares.
None of us know what SJR has planned post takeover.
May be getting 51% control so that he can pay off debt and invest in team and stadium is the right approach and he can always buy back other shares accordingly over the next 5-10 years.
Cheers. You may well be right although what I have read lately is that Ratcliffe will buy the remaining Glazer shares after a set period of two or three years.
How are Malaga doing these days?
Yeah, maybe you are right. Or, it’s the last minute noise intentionally released by Glazers to try to lure Qatar makes another bid. After FA cup, it should be the time for them to make announcement. If not, what can we, the world wide fans, do? Really pathetic situation if so.
- Status