Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Plant0x84 said:
It’s not his place to speak out against the owners, He’s an 81 year old in poor health. Give the man a break!
Click to expand...

No body is asking him to wage a one man campaign against the Glazers or lead at the front of marches. A few simple words or even an interview would go a long way in forcing these parasites to sell up and leave.

What is stopping him? His wages? He's made a fortune in his career, how much more money does he need. Is he worried about his reputation at the club? If anything he will amplify our love for him 10x if he speaks up. Would they try and stop him attending games? No chance, imagine turning away Fergie at a United game, there would be riots.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
Apologies if this has been covered, but have any of the journos mentioned how we have a transfer budget despite the Glazers still being in charge?

Assumed they’d keep the money inside the club until an agreement was reached but by the stories, United are going after Kane, Mount etc which would be expensive deals
Click to expand...

I cover one of the scenarios in this Twitter thread.


What we have is an article from El Pais (Spain’s bigger morning newspaper), claiming to have talked to a member of 9-2’s transaction team. This member refer to how management of MUFC (above ETH, so probably Murtough?) described the clubs transfer strategy this summer for the bidders. According to this article, the intention is to spend up to 500m this summer financed with a new credit line from Bank of America, and the source states that 9-2 “signed off” on this plan, which basically only can be interpreted as ‘if you do this, we won’t lower our offer’.

If this is true, one can of course only assume that they have gone through the same procedure with Ineos. It’s of course impossible to know if this information is false or correct, and if correct, if it’s described correctly literary being like third hand information passing through the mouth of some legal/financial advisor and a Spanish reporter — but with that said, it does make sense from some perspectives.

Firstly, like the footwork for the transfer window starts in February, not March, not April, not May, nor the first weeks of June, but February. And then it heats up gradually until the window open 14 June. This takeover process isn’t done in time. The only thing that makes sense is for the club to do just what is described, establish a strategy that all parties can live with — and execute on it.

Secondly, the club needs to make a big splash. Anything else is bad business. The Glazers are in the habit of making horrible business, so perhaps this is not the best argument. But it’s still relevant and correct.

Thirdly, if we don’t sell any players, with CL football our spending are limited to app. 100m. But that increases significantly if we sell players. To get above 350-400m, we probably must sell one player just to create more FFP space, not just because they are deadwood. Ie one of the RBs, Lindelof or Sancho. But if we manage to sell Maguire, McT and Henderson for a total of 60m, as well as Fred and Elanga for 25m and can at least partly rid our selves of Martial, Telles and Bailly’s wages — we can app spend up towards 400m.

And like, I 100% agree with you, either the reports are false and we haven’t given up on Martial and won’t be getting both Mount and Rice etc etc etc — or we have to spend a lot more than what we will have on the bank account on 14 June.
 
Nori- said:
No body is asking him to wage a one man campaign against the Glazers or lead at the front of marches. A few simple words or even an interview would go a long way in forcing these parasites to sell up and leave.

What is stopping him? His wages? He's made a fortune in his career, how much more money does he need. Is he worried about his reputation at the club? If anything he will amplify our love for him 10x if he speaks up. Would they try and stop him attending games? No chance, imagine turning away Fergie at a United game, there would be riots.
Click to expand...

I don't think Fergie views them in quite the same way we do. They had a long, successful professional relationship after all. I doubt they are best mates, but I also doubt there's any ill feeling between Fergie and any of the Glazers.
 
Messier1994 said:
On a serious note, I think the following is clear about the take over process.

1. Anyone can gain 100% of the control of the club and 69% of the economic rights by buying all of the shares held by the Glazers.

By doing this, you gain the exact same control of the club as the Glazers has today.

The current bid from 9-2 for the Glazers shares is £2.9bn. So anyone that want to get the same control and ownership of the club as the Glazers can outbid 9-2 if they pay more than £2.9bn. In addition 9-2 pledges to invest 1bn into the club according to reports.

So in essence, from the Glazers and fans of MUFC’s point of view, 9-2’s bid for the club is slightly lower than what Boehly paid for, and pledged to invest in, Chelsea. Boehly paid 2.5bn for the club and pledged to invest 1.75bn in the club, for a total of £4.25bn. 9-2’s bid to the Glazers is £2.9bn and they pledge to invest a billion, so in total 3.9bn.

In addition, they would also seek to buy the shares listed on the NYSE for app. 1.3bn.

But overall I think it’s quite clear that 9-2 is not QSI and that this is a project they have a fairly limited budget for. The Glazers has picked an awful time to sell the club from a macro economic point of view, with interest rates sky rocketing etc. But remember that Saudi Arabia made a bid for Chelsea but didn’t even get through to the second round, just because a bidder origins for an oil state, it doesn’t mean that they have unlimited funds. It could also be that Sheik Jassim’s position took a big hit from Credit Suisse going bust. Qatar was the biggest share owner of Credit Suisse and Sheik Jassim was on CS’ board

2. Ineos bid to the Glazers is for all their shares for app. 3.5bn, ie valuing the club at close to 6bn (at the bottom line, this means 600m more for the Glazers, but they won’t get all immediately). According to information in the FT — the purchase price would be paid to the Glazers in tranches. Ie they would sell shares representing a controlling stake (more than 50% of the series B shares) in the first tranche and then the rest over the coming “years”. What is new in the FT article is that they intend to change to AoA so that others than the Glazers can own B shares. If no such change is made, the voting strong B shares would convert to A shares if sold to a non Glazer.

If Ineos comes out on top, it’s after a pretty modest bid. Remember they offered to pay just as much as Boehly for Chelsea (after the deadline), ie £2.5bn for the club and Ineos also pledged to invest £1.75bn in Chelsea’s squad and stadium. With this bid, Ineos would have to pay a little more, to get a little less (69%), of something a lot bigger MUFC. Hopefully the £1.75bn investment figure still stands, it’s a figure that should make us the club that can invest the most in our squad in the world over the coming decade.

3. The Glazers obviously seem very intrigued by 9-2 and are dragging out the negotiations with Ineos to give 9-2 time to raise their offer. The process aimed to finish in late March, and after that two “deadlines” has passed without a preferred bidder being appointed.

Will 9-2 come back with an improved offer? Like many surely will remember, I had “Qatar” as my favorite back in November/December before either of 9-2 or Ineos even had declared their interest. And while it’s hard to get full insight into how business is done in these countries, we know enough to conclude that it is perfectly possible for them to be irrational, but when they say something, they deliver (with ‘they’’, I mean Sheik Jassim, not some Twitter account with Arabic text in the bio). Before anything is done, sealed and delivered with Ineos — I wouldn’t rule anything out.

But with this said — “11.59 pm” has passed three times already in this process. We are into June 4 (possibly 5 before I hit send). If Jassim like have told Avram ‘give me a call before you close with someone else’, Avram’s phone bill to Qatar is probably pretty significant by now…

The FT article obviously came from either top of the Raine Group or one of the other central advisors. Reading between the line, they are basically ridiculing the 9-2 bid. Talking about it in terms of how “serious it is”, the “penny dropping” regarding key elements, and so forth. They obviously also feel that Ineos really is playing hard ball.

So I don’t know what to think. Anyone wanting to hold out hope for 9-2 should be able to do so — nothing is a done deal yet — but objectively, the only thing they have going for them is Avram holding off appointing Ineos the preferred bidder.

4. Given that 9-2 obviously doesn’t have unlimited resources for this project (under normal conditions, I don’t think it’s a bid that make it to the second round of bids, it’s Chelsea money for a lot bigger club in MUFC) — should we be worried that they will buy the club and then not invest enough? I doubt it. We know practically nothing for certain about either bidder, but I think both alternatives would provide sufficient resources for us to be the No 1 in the football world in terms of financial resources. Like anything else is bad business.

It does feel like many think that 9-2 is a safer bet to invest more into the club — what is the basis for that? Is there a logic in assuming that since QSI got PSG for free and then invested 2bn into the club, 9-2 will buy MUFC for 6bn and then invest 2-3bn into the club? Maybe, I don’t know. But is it a certainty? Anyone claiming that must know something I don’t.

5. I want to add one last thing, we are a long way into the process. Like we talked about above, the economic climate this spring has been a nightmare. Big banks going bust, interest rates skyrocketing, a war in the middle of Europe and tension between Russia and NATO, asset prices tanking completely — and so forth. Had the club been sold during the fall of 21’ when the stock market went crazy, there certainly would have been interest from SPACs, crypto players, and other super high net worth individuals.

Ineos and 9-2 announced their interest what, I’ve lost track of time, but like 5-6 months ago. Recession is looming. But investors are about one year ahead of reality. Even if the 6 worst months are ahead of us, it will start to look up a few months into 2024. Inflation won’t survive a recession and the world’s problem — which we are aware of today — aren’t bad enough to sink the world economy for any longer period of time.

Investor just have two modes, they are either panicking and are on suicide watch or they have blinders on and try to get their hands on as many assets as possible.

With more and more investors starting to get their head above water so to speak — I wouldn’t at all be shocked if a third bidder comes in and just swoops up the club. If so, probably an US consortium, perhaps even some Asian investors. The current bids — 2.9 and 3.45bn to the Glazers (this is of course all that matters) — just isn’t that much for a club like MUFC.
Click to expand...

First of all, this puts an awful lot of faith in the numbers reported by the papers, given they've been wrong so much throughout this saga I wouldn't. Second of all, United has a market cap of about 3bn dollars, so if those numbers reported are accurate they give an enormous premium to the actual value of the club, buying a club the size of united is not a particularly good investment. Obviously they've been lucky with getting Howe, but Saudi Arabia got Newcastle for just over 300m and have invested about 200m or so in the club and they now have a champions league side, it's always going to be a better investment buying a club lower down the league table and using the savings as investment in the side, so the only people who would be willing to pay a premium for us want the brand, for sportswashing or greenwashing or they're fans of the club
 
Plant0x84 said:
There are usually long term complications. We don’t know what Sir Alex is still dealing with.
Click to expand...
True. Utd and his family have been fairly forthcoming about these things in the past and there's been no mention of any kind of relapse since. I seem to remember they brought it up in the recent documentary on Amazon. He seemed in good health at the final :)
 
Nori- said:
No body is asking him to wage a one man campaign against the Glazers or lead at the front of marches. A few simple words or even an interview would go a long way in forcing these parasites to sell up and leave.

What is stopping him? His wages? He's made a fortune in his career, how much more money does he need. Is he worried about his reputation at the club? If anything he will amplify our love for him 10x if he speaks up. Would they try and stop him attending games? No chance, imagine turning away Fergie at a United game, there would be riots.
Click to expand...
You underestimate just how little the Glazers care about this club I think. If thousands of fans protesting doesn’t bother them, an elderly ex-employee isn’t going to do owt - even if it is SAF.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Yeah, obviously I’m aware of that but thought he’d made a really good recovery over the last 5 years.

The way @Plant0x84 said it, it sounded like perhaps he was struggling right now with other / new issues. Hence my comment.

Either way, I hope he’s well, and he looks well!
Click to expand...
Warms the cockles every time they wheel the old timer out :drool: even when it's arm in arm with Summerbee....
 
I'm hoping we actually hear something sooner or later. It's gone very quiet, no preferred bidder, radio silence from pretty much everyone...

Looks like it'll be more than just transfers to get stressed out over this summer
 
DOTA said:
I did find that an amusing reminder of our two clubs' respective pasts.
Click to expand...
"Have you ever seen one of these up close before Mike?" Bet he was insufferable afterwards and still ranting about Rooney's overhead kick.
 
Nori- said:
As much as Sir Alex has done for this club, his constant refusal to speak out against the Glazers doesn't sit right with me.

The first thing some people will think at this point is "how dare you", but at what point do you allowed to start criticising someone? If the thing you love is being destroyed in front of your eyes and someone the power to stop it but doesn't, are they still the hero you make them out to be for past achievements? Fergie is in a unique position, if he speaks everyone listens and his words hold weight. He isn't blind, he knows what is happening and the fact he's not even said a word is wrong. We gave him as much as he gave us, it wasn't just one way.

The pictures of him sat smiling next to the head rat who has milked this club and set us back decades on Saturday, made me sick to my stomach. Im sure a LOT of people felt them same but won't say it. His legacy is precious to us and our history but he is not untouchable. No one is.

All I can say is those who kept silent won't be forgotten. Ex-players, ex-managers, all of them. They've put their own interests ahead of the club that has given them everything. The only one at this point that I have huge respect for is Gay Neville. Sky could easily tell him, don't get involved or your job is at stake and he's still spoken out against the Glazers.
Click to expand...
Correct, it’s a sad fact, but SirAlex is probably one of the main reasons we’ve ended up with the Glazers, after a high court battle with JP McManus over a race horse.

Looking back on Saturday, seeing SAF sat next to Avram, I felt a sense of sadness, like we’re a club living in the past, ruined by a family of morally bankrupt spivs.
 
Messier1994 said:
On a serious note, I think the following is clear about the take over process.

1. Anyone can gain 100% of the control of the club and 69% of the economic rights by buying all of the shares held by the Glazers.

By doing this, you gain the exact same control of the club as the Glazers has today.

The current bid from 9-2 for the Glazers shares is £2.9bn. So anyone that want to get the same control and ownership of the club as the Glazers can outbid 9-2 if they pay more than £2.9bn. In addition 9-2 pledges to invest 1bn into the club according to reports.

So in essence, from the Glazers and fans of MUFC’s point of view, 9-2’s bid for the club is slightly lower than what Boehly paid for, and pledged to invest in, Chelsea. Boehly paid 2.5bn for the club and pledged to invest 1.75bn in the club, for a total of £4.25bn. 9-2’s bid to the Glazers is £2.9bn and they pledge to invest a billion, so in total 3.9bn.

In addition, they would also seek to buy the shares listed on the NYSE for app. 1.3bn.

But overall I think it’s quite clear that 9-2 is not QSI and that this is a project they have a fairly limited budget for. The Glazers has picked an awful time to sell the club from a macro economic point of view, with interest rates sky rocketing etc. But remember that Saudi Arabia made a bid for Chelsea but didn’t even get through to the second round, just because a bidder origins for an oil state, it doesn’t mean that they have unlimited funds. It could also be that Sheik Jassim’s position took a big hit from Credit Suisse going bust. Qatar was the biggest share owner of Credit Suisse and Sheik Jassim was on CS’ board

2. Ineos bid to the Glazers is for all their shares for app. 3.5bn, ie valuing the club at close to 6bn (at the bottom line, this means 600m more for the Glazers, but they won’t get all immediately). According to information in the FT — the purchase price would be paid to the Glazers in tranches. Ie they would sell shares representing a controlling stake (more than 50% of the series B shares) in the first tranche and then the rest over the coming “years”. What is new in the FT article is that they intend to change to AoA so that others than the Glazers can own B shares. If no such change is made, the voting strong B shares would convert to A shares if sold to a non Glazer.

If Ineos comes out on top, it’s after a pretty modest bid. Remember they offered to pay just as much as Boehly for Chelsea (after the deadline), ie £2.5bn for the club and Ineos also pledged to invest £1.75bn in Chelsea’s squad and stadium. With this bid, Ineos would have to pay a little more, to get a little less (69%), of something a lot bigger MUFC. Hopefully the £1.75bn investment figure still stands, it’s a figure that should make us the club that can invest the most in our squad in the world over the coming decade.

3. The Glazers obviously seem very intrigued by 9-2 and are dragging out the negotiations with Ineos to give 9-2 time to raise their offer. The process aimed to finish in late March, and after that two “deadlines” has passed without a preferred bidder being appointed.

Will 9-2 come back with an improved offer? Like many surely will remember, I had “Qatar” as my favorite back in November/December before either of 9-2 or Ineos even had declared their interest. And while it’s hard to get full insight into how business is done in these countries, we know enough to conclude that it is perfectly possible for them to be irrational, but when they say something, they deliver (with ‘they’’, I mean Sheik Jassim, not some Twitter account with Arabic text in the bio). Before anything is done, sealed and delivered with Ineos — I wouldn’t rule anything out.

But with this said — “11.59 pm” has passed three times already in this process. We are into June 4 (possibly 5 before I hit send). If Jassim like have told Avram ‘give me a call before you close with someone else’, Avram’s phone bill to Qatar is probably pretty significant by now…

The FT article obviously came from either top of the Raine Group or one of the other central advisors. Reading between the line, they are basically ridiculing the 9-2 bid. Talking about it in terms of how “serious it is”, the “penny dropping” regarding key elements, and so forth. They obviously also feel that Ineos really is playing hard ball.

So I don’t know what to think. Anyone wanting to hold out hope for 9-2 should be able to do so — nothing is a done deal yet — but objectively, the only thing they have going for them is Avram holding off appointing Ineos the preferred bidder.

4. Given that 9-2 obviously doesn’t have unlimited resources for this project (under normal conditions, I don’t think it’s a bid that make it to the second round of bids, it’s Chelsea money for a lot bigger club in MUFC) — should we be worried that they will buy the club and then not invest enough? I doubt it. We know practically nothing for certain about either bidder, but I think both alternatives would provide sufficient resources for us to be the No 1 in the football world in terms of financial resources. Like anything else is bad business.

It does feel like many think that 9-2 is a safer bet to invest more into the club — what is the basis for that? Is there a logic in assuming that since QSI got PSG for free and then invested 2bn into the club, 9-2 will buy MUFC for 6bn and then invest 2-3bn into the club? Maybe, I don’t know. But is it a certainty? Anyone claiming that must know something I don’t.

5. I want to add one last thing, we are a long way into the process. Like we talked about above, the economic climate this spring has been a nightmare. Big banks going bust, interest rates skyrocketing, a war in the middle of Europe and tension between Russia and NATO, asset prices tanking completely — and so forth. Had the club been sold during the fall of 21’ when the stock market went crazy, there certainly would have been interest from SPACs, crypto players, and other super high net worth individuals.

Ineos and 9-2 announced their interest what, I’ve lost track of time, but like 5-6 months ago. Recession is looming. But investors are about one year ahead of reality. Even if the 6 worst months are ahead of us, it will start to look up a few months into 2024. Inflation won’t survive a recession and the world’s problem — which we are aware of today — aren’t bad enough to sink the world economy for any longer period of time.

Investor just have two modes, they are either panicking and are on suicide watch or they have blinders on and try to get their hands on as many assets as possible.

With more and more investors starting to get their head above water so to speak — I wouldn’t at all be shocked if a third bidder comes in and just swoops up the club. If so, probably an US consortium, perhaps even some Asian investors. The current bids — 2.9 and 3.45bn to the Glazers (this is of course all that matters) — just isn’t that much for a club like MUFC.
Click to expand...

I must say. This really has opened my heart to some unforgiving truths i refused to accept. For all the bloody names calling I've been doing at my big age is a bit silly. I'd have been ashamed of it a decade ago let alone me doing it now. It comes from an irrational place tbh. Your comment regarding the FT article mocking the 9-2 bid was a bit Eye opening as was your use of the actual bidded figures. It really highlights what is what rather than the generic whole figures we have seen flashed around. The battleground is all well and set it seems and since the end of April, where it emerged that SJR was ahead, my brain has been surviving off the copium off a Qatar bit to rule them all which has you commented hasn't happened and is looking unlikely. The Glazers just want the most money possible and that is being coughed up by INEOS its as simple as that.
 
hp88 said:
He's still employed by the club as an ambassador so I doubt he will say a bad word about them whilst they're still around, there will a interview at some point where he will open up about it.
Click to expand...
No chance will he ever speak out. I have seen this situation a thousand times. You expect the backing you turn round and everyone turned into pumpkins.
 
This was first announced on the anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. There’s a lesson there somewhere…
 
Woziak said:
The part you conveniently omit is that 92 Foundation through SJ will pay off the debt of $660m

…and these numbers are wrong when you bid for 100% of the club their are other variables like future commercial media deals and the value of the Squad which are valued at £950m and are actually assets of the club because if you buy 100% of the club you are no longer responsible to the NYSE or the shareholders so if Qatar wanted to they could sell the complete squad to raise cash(obviously this would never happen!) and play the youth team, There will be a value for the assets too in a total takeover valuation and therefore the Glazers will want a fee for that too this is all part of their £6-7 billion valuation which in hindsight is not unreasonable based on the upward trajectory of ETH as coach. …

This is why I think Raine have simply ignored SJ bid and tried to create a shadow bidding war with SJR being used as he can’t possibly buy 100% of the club unless he sells some of his assets.
Click to expand...

No, I don’t conveniently omit that.

Which of the below hypothetical offers do you think the Glazer would take?
(a) 3bn
(b) 2.97bn plus a pledge to invest 1000 trillion to stop starvation, HIV and save every animal on the planet

They would take (a) and never think twice about it. And Malcom Glazer has written the constitutional documents for MUFC plc as well as chosen to have the company’s seat on the Cayman Islands since that jurisdiction offer the most majority owner friendly Companies Act. The siblings can do what they want and the minority owners on the NYSE have very very limited rights.

As for the para in the middle, I don’t recognize that and I’ve worked all my life with these type of transactions. But you are correct in the sense that if you buy 100% of the shares — you can do what you want with the assets of the club. If the plan is to invest billions to develop the land around OT — it makes sense to buy 100% of the shares. Let’s say you are building a train station — the club shouldn’t do that. It’s surely a multi party venture with involving the city, builders and so forth. So what the club should do is put that part of the property in a subsidiary and at least place it in a group at the same level as the football club. That is much harder to do if there are minority owners, who surely would claim that SJ sold this property to himself for price below market value.

But again, it’s not like the Glazers will go “oh your plan is to do this and that, but then it’s perfectly OK that you pay less money to us”. The Glazers are shareholders of the club, they can sell their shares to everyone else. And since it’s a company on the Cayman Islands and not in the UK — the concept of anyone buying the majority owners shares being forced to also offer to buy the minorities shares (ie to make a so called Mandatory Bid) doesn’t even exist.

This cannot come as a surprise to anyone, the Glazers will accept the bid that is the highest for them. And besides, anyone wanting to control 100% of the club, just has to buy their shares. The shares listed at the NYSE has very very limited rights.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Alec Guinness wore a wig when he played Obi Wan Kenobi in A New Hope.
Click to expand...

His grandson play in the Championships, is named Nesta, but not related to that Nesta, and I even think Nesta is his given name, he is named Nesta Guinness Walker — right?

(and with him I refer to Alec Guinness, the Smiley fellow in the spy series, not Obi Wan K)
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Yeah, obviously I’m aware of that but thought he’d made a really good recovery over the last 5 years.

The way @Plant0x84 said it, it sounded like perhaps he was struggling right now with other / new issues. Hence my comment.

Either way, I hope he’s well, and he looks well!
Click to expand...
My post was a reference to his haemorrhage. He does look well, which is great to see - but there is good health pre-illness and good health post illness which are not the same thing. I didn’t intend to mislead however, and I’m sorry if I gave you a fright!
 
Loon said:
This was first announced on the anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. There’s a lesson there somewhere…
Click to expand...
The lesson is that big business deals aren't done at the speed non-business people think they are
 
Plant0x84 said:
My post was a reference to his haemorrhage. He does look well, which is great to see - but there is good health pre-illness and good health post illness which are not the same thing. I didn’t intend to mislead however, and I’m sorry if I gave you a fright!
Click to expand...
He's also 81 and probably has the same issues that most 81 year old blokes have
 
Loon said:
This was first announced on the anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. There’s a lesson there somewhere…
Click to expand...
Presented without comment.
On the morning of November 22, 1963, the 41st President of the United States also woke up in Dallas, Texas. George Herbert Walker Bush was the 39-year-old president of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company and chairman of the Harris County, Texas Republican Party, and had stayed the night of November 21st at the Dallas Sheraton alongside his wife, Barbara.
Click to expand...
https://anthonybergen.medium.com/waking-up-in-dallas-a134b0764c36
HRG Group, Inc., formerly Harbinger Group Inc. and Zapata Corporation, is a holding company based in Rochester, New York, having originated from an oil company started by a group including future U.S. president George H. W. Bush

By 1994, the company had come under Glazer's control, after a proxy fight. Glazer became chairman of Zapata, replacing Ronald Lassiter, and in 1995 Avram Glazer, son of Malcolm, was named CEO and president of Zapata
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HRG_Group
 
Today (Monday) will be a big day… I can feel it.

Think of the ‘he’s starting to believe’ scene in the Matrix, but Jassim is Neo and Morpheus is his Dad.

Brexit Jim is Agent Smith.

It’s gonna be something like that.
 
Feck sake, just feck off you greedy bastards! You've stolen our clubs money and potential and ruined one of the biggest sporting institution's in the world just to line your pockets. Please just have 1 ounce of decency and feck off!
 
So many great posts from posters who clearly possess greater greater financial savvy than I, but I’ll opine anyway.

Would the Glazers accept a slightly lesser offer today it meant retaining rights to a share of future of projected revenue? I suppose it depends on the difference in the cash offer. £100m? £500m?

At what point do they slap their miserable thighs, take the cash and hand over the keys?
 
George The Best said:
If SJR wins and keeps the Glazer’s on board, then what happens next? It’s not just investment in the squad that’s needed - the infrastructure needs a massive overhaul of some description. If the Glazer’s stay then they should meet their share of the infrastructure investment that’s badly needed. They’ve shown no motivation to put their own money into the club since day one, and neither has SJR (publicly) committed to any such investment - which gives me big alarm bells about this ‘deal’. Not that sold on the SJ/Qatar either, so this isn’t going to end well either way from my perspective.
Click to expand...

I share your concern. It's troublesome that's for sure. If the Glazers are looking for an outside investor to pump millions into the club while letting them continue without chipping in, well that sounds a bit rum. And, as you say, they've put nothing in so far so why would that change?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.