Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Figgins said:
To directly compare an estimated future figure with a figure today is delusional. Darn, even my first year undergrads will laugh at that.
Click to expand...

I do anything but "directly" compare an estimated future figure with a figure today", I put it in an appropriate context by writing:
"If the Glazers get a 10% yearly return on the extra 600m they get from 9-2 today, Ineos bid is still better with 400m. If they get 20% yearly return, the difference is 170m."

I hope you aren't responsible for the reading comprehension parts... :smirk:
 
crossy1686 said:
United are a world wide brand and always will be, he doesn't have to reverse anything.
Click to expand...

Like it or lump it but City shirts are becoming more and more apparent in Manchester and further afield... United will always be valuable as a brand but not at the very top like they could and possibly should be.
 
dpansheth said:
few pages, some one mentioned that Nice has been owned for only 4 years, give them another 3-5 years to be 2nd best team in France. Given Man Utd is atleast twice big as Nice, we must give Mr. Ratcliffe about 14-18 years before we can expect EPL title.
Click to expand...
I think most of us just want the best for the club, regardless of who the owner is or their associated moral crimes. However, what I struggle to make of Ratcliffe's bid is that he wants to hire his bike mate to run the recruitment, a bloke that's never worked in football. So we might as well add 30 years before our next PL at least with decision making like that.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Messier did bring up time value of money in his post though :confused:
Click to expand...

He mentioned return on investment for the excess capital provided in Jass's bid. There are more variables to this, for example, he didn't mention the spread lower and higher of SJS future offer. If it's lower, and to what extent lower does Jass's bid become viable. Like i said, that is just one view.

Messier1994 said:
I do anything but "directly" compare an estimated future figure with a figure today", I put it in an appropriate context by writing:
"If the Glazers get a 10% yearly return on the extra 600m they get from 9-2 today, Ineos bid is still better with 400m. If they get 20% yearly return, the difference is 170m."

I hope you aren't responsible for the reading comprehension parts... :smirk:
Click to expand...

@Messier1994 do you want to rewind?
 
Gurtej said:
Personally I am not arsed either way if it’s state back up or not.

You strongly believe it is, my question is if:

1) it’s something that bothers you?
2) if it does, what will you do if SJ is the new owner of the club e.g, will u stop supporting the club or you will move to another round of protest against the Qataris like we doing with Glazers or you gona come on forums and be a key board warrior
3) if it doesn’t bother you, why is it important ?
Click to expand...

As much as it seems I'm a supporter of SJRs bid I much prefer the Qatar bid purely for the simplicity of it but I am not arsed either way and will not judge either party until a good period of time into their ownership.

State ownership doesn't bother me and INEOS ownership doesn't bother me because I believe both will manage the club much better than the Glazers have.
 
dpansheth said:
thank you for your efforts here!

A quick point, the government put in the condition for CFC sale that the new owner must invest in the club. That's why SJR committed to that. Because it was mandated. There's no mandate here, its a dire need from fans POV.
no guarantee that SJR will invest, & probably the reason why he has not mentioned anything about debt, facilities or any of that. Its just a wish from SJR supporters.
Click to expand...

Thanks and good point!

And another aspect of this is that the pledge regarding CFC -- as far as I understand it -- was binding. The City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, as I understand it, actually contains provisions making public statements and pledges binding, as a result of the Craft takeover of Cadbury (if I remember correctly), of which it is said that Craft said something like 'not a single employee in the UK will lose his or her job' and then when the takeover was done, they fired if not everyone so at least a lot of people.

But what Ineos and 9-2 say in this matter will have no binding effect whatsoever.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
As much as it seems I'm a supporter of SJRs bid I much prefer the Qatar bid purely for the simplicity of it but I am not arsed either way and will not judge either party until a good period of time into their ownership.

State ownership doesn't bother me and INEOS ownership doesn't bother me because I believe both will manage the club much better than the Glazers have.
Click to expand...

All the Glazers had to do was employ the best in class people at the club and the fans would have been more sympathetic.

The trouble is they didn't and allowed their stooge Woodward to become CEO.
 
Amir said:
I hear that evil Jim has ruined Nice by making sure they only sign nice players, because he thought it's a great joke. Then he sat in his chair all season while laughing in a deep voice like a true old-style film villain. Horrible.
Click to expand...

The bad guy in Ted Lasso was actually based on SJR, pass it on :(
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
All the Glazers had to do was employ the best in class people at the club and the fans would have been more sympathetic.

The trouble is they didn't and allowed their stooge Woodward to become CEO.
Click to expand...

Correct and slowly pay back the debt rather than let it accumulate but it is what it is and we must love forward and support whoever gets in next.
 
Figgins said:
He mentioned return on investment for the excess capital provided in Jass's bid. There are more variables to this, for example, he didn't mention the spread lower and higher of SJS future offer. If it's lower, and to what extent lower does Jass's bid become viable. Like i said, that is just one view.

@Messier1994 do you want to rewind?
Click to expand...

All good!

And actually agree with this point. I can't do it, with no information on the variables. It is an weakness. The Glazers actions will if nothing else provide a hint of how lucrative the variable provisions are.
 
Messier1994 said:
Lets break down the bids based on the assumption that the widely reported 5bn for 9-2 and 6bn from Ineos are correct.

UvLIdqc.png


From the Glazers POV
With 9-2's bid being based on a 5bn EV valuation, it pays the Glazers 2.9bn.

With Ineos bid being capped at a 6bn EV valuation, it could pay the Glazers up to 3.6bn, of which app. 2.3bn is paid today, and up to app. 1.3bn is paid in 2026.


What is better, (a) 2.9bn today or (b) 2.3bn today and 1.3bn in three years? (b) is clearly better. .If the Glazers get a 10% yearly return on the extra 600m they get from 9-2 today, Ineos bid is still better with 400m. If they get 20% yearly return, the difference is 170m.

It seems like Ineos bid is variable regarding the remaining "18%". The impact of the variable part will not be massive. It is possible to with a fair amount of certainty forecast what our revenue will be in 3 years time. The UK TV deals runs to 2029 right. In the US, it runs to 2028. We won't all be watching the PL with VR glasses in 36 months time. But sure, we can do a lot better without the Glazers point of view. If the Glazers go with Ineos -- the variable part should be fairly obtainable.

From the fans POV
9-2 would pay the debt and has pledged to invest 1bn in the club. That totals app. 1.78bn. It is very similar to what Boehly has pledged to invest in Chelsea FC (1.75bn).

How much will Ineos invest in the club? I don't think there has been any report on that. What we can do is look at Ineos bid for Chelsea:
jZ5geYc.png


We got to assume that Ineos in no event will be willing to in total invest -- less -- in MUFC than in CFC. With Ineos bid for the shares of MUFC being 3.6bn, we must be able to assume that Ineos would be willing to invest 900m into the club. This match their total 4.5bn commitment for Chelsea.

Is 900m enough? No, I don't think it is. I won't expand on the math in this post but having looked at the numbers in the past, to afford a new/rebuilt OT we probably need up towards 1.5bn -- at least -- for it to not have an impact on our transfer budget. I am not surprised by 9-2's pledge of a total of 1.78bn, because that is a very reasonable number. There is no point in contributing like 2.5-3bn to the club, we couldn't spend the money over 10 years due to FFP anyway.

So hopefully Ineos is willing to invest more in MUFC than in CFC. I think it is good business for Ineos to do that. We are a bigger club, so the upside is higher. But we just have no reports in this regard so its anyone's guess.
Click to expand...

Keep up the great posts, balanced as always.
 
Messier1994 said:
All good!

And actually agree with this point. I can't do it, with no information on the variables. It is an weakness. The Glazers actions will if nothing else provide a hint of how lucrative the variable provisions are.
Click to expand...

Yep; i think this is the weakness and Jass's is exploiting it by narrowing the spread. It's do they trust SJR or take the money. Aside from the analysis, I'm of the view the Glazers have shown they like control, they'll manage the risk, even though risk isn't real, and take Jass's money.
 
How can all the pro INEOS types reconcile with the fact that Antony Head used SJR as his model for acting his character in Ted Lasso? Scary stuff, we could be going down the same route :(
 
Reapersoul20 said:
How can all the pro INEOS types reconcile with the fact that Antony Head used SJR as his model for acting his character in Ted Lasso? Scary stuff, we could be going down the same route :(
Click to expand...

Yeah because there's absolutely nothing worrying about the other bidder is there? Absolutely squeaky clean those Qataris. You know the young Sheikh who is the son of the former leader of the country that is known for absolutely appalling atrocities.

Straight up guy is Jassim.
 
What's going to be done first. This sale, or City's inevitable punishement?
 
Messier1994 said:
Thanks and good point!

And another aspect of this is that the pledge regarding CFC -- as far as I understand it -- was binding. The City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, as I understand it, actually contains provisions making public statements and pledges binding, as a result of the Craft takeover of Cadbury (if I remember correctly), of which it is said that Craft said something like 'not a single employee in the UK will lose his or her job' and then when the takeover was done, they fired if not everyone so at least a lot of people.

But what Ineos and 9-2 say in this matter will have no binding effect whatsoever.
Click to expand...

One question was for you:
- SJR bid is 2.6B right now & 1B later for the remaining 18%
- What happens to ~4% Class A shares Glazers are owning? If SJR does not take it off the stock market? (believe that's worth ~240M? )


Edit: sorry it was not clear to me from your analysis, that's why the question
 
Figgins said:
Yep; i think this is the weakness and Jass's is exploiting it by narrowing the spread. It's do they trust SJR or take the money. Aside from the analysis, I'm of the view the Glazers have shown they like control, they'll manage the risk, even though risk isn't real, and take Jass's money.
Click to expand...
During 2020, I learned the Glazers used to run a hedge fund where they'd buy SPACs close to par (i.e. $10 per share) and immediately sell on announcement when there was a pop on the share price. That year the pops used to be 20/30 or even 50% but usually it's more like 10% or even 7%.

These guys are not risk-takers or entrepreneurs. That's why I find the notion they'd risk a guaranteed return which can be quickly and easily reinvested in something even more profitable so far-fetched. They're the closest you can get to take the money and run 'investors'.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
And has instead actively found a way to keep the Glazers at Utd.
Click to expand...
:nono: Stop this now. He’s done nothing of the sort.
The Glazers hold all the cards. If the Glazers don’t want to go, they aren’t going whether we like it or not. INEOS are just working with the hand they’re dealt to get what they want. Needs must and a means to an end!
 
Plant0x84 said:
:nono: Stop this now. He’s done nothing of the sort.
The Glazers hold all the cards. If the Glazers don’t want to go, they aren’t going whether we like it or not. INEOS are just working with the hand they’re dealt to get what they want. Needs must and a means to an end!
Click to expand...
Do you and @Nou_Camp99 have bunk beds with Jim Ratcliffe bedspreads on?
 
mu4c_20le said:
I would love to see Ratcliffe going down to confront ETH when he subs on Weghorst again
Click to expand...
“What are you doing, you cock-headed fraud? He shouldn’t be at Manchester United. He should be playing for someone shit like…Nice or Lausanne.” Then he does the Mick McCarthy look directly into the nearest camera.
ConcreteGrouchyAtlanticbluetang-max-1mb.gif
 
stw2022 said:
I'd be more comfortable with the Ratcliffe bid if there was some more detail and honesty about the reality. What will the borrowing be, what will our contribution to that be, how will it affect our budget, what plans are in place to grow our earning to achieve the repayments needed

This whole "Guys, trust me, I'm a fan just like you. I'm not looking to make money You can trust me" spin that some fans evidently are buying into, is something I'm not comfortable with as I don't believe any of it is true.
Click to expand...
Whyare asking only about details of SJR bid? What about those details of Jassim’s bid?
 
Berbaclass said:
Do you and @Nou_Camp99 have bunk beds with Jim Ratcliffe bedspreads on?
Click to expand...
Why you getting personal? I’m just countering the misinformation.
We had a poster yesterday who got the wrong end of the stick and assumed SJR had decided to keep the glazers involved when that just not true or possible.
This process is murky and convoluted enough without fake concepts spreading too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.