Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The more this goes on, the more I am reminded of the Haggling sketch from Life of Brian (in reverse)

SJ: "How much do you want for this club"
Glazers: "at least £5bn"
SJ: "OK here's £5bn"
Glazers: "What? We're supposed to haggle? It's worth more than £5bn"
SJ: "But you said.. OK we offer £5.1bn"
Glazers: "5.1bn? Are you insulting us. Us, with our red headed children and an Avram to feed and barely a billion in the bank?"
SJ: "Look just tell us what to say please"
Glazers: "5.5bn"
SJ: "Fine, 5.5bn and that's our last offer"
Glazers: "Are you kidding? 5.5bn? For this mighty club, with all it's dedicated supporters and affiliated forums full of geniusii?"
SJ: "But that's what you told us to say"
Glazers: "5.7bn and not less or you can strike us dead"
SJ: "5.7bn then"
Glazers: "no no no, now you offer us 5.6bn"
SJ: "...you guys are crazier than the Parisiennes. 5.6bn"
Glazers "done & we'll let you keep Avram".
SJ "Wat?.. Fine, look here's 6bn anyway I don't have anything smaller, now feck off.
Glazers : "But we need to give you your 300m change"
SJ "It's fine, you gave me an Avram, keep it"
Glazers: "300m? For this finely coifed stud? You're having a laugh. He's worth at least 500m.."
etc.
 
VP89 said:
The reason for the delay is because they have multiple bids from SJR with different structures and that requires consideration.
Click to expand...
In your opinion.
 
croadyman said:
He should have held firm on that 69% offer which booted them out of this club
Click to expand...
And if the Glazers (all of them) didn't want to leave right that second .. then what? Then you pivot, adjust, obviously. It's a transitional takeover. They'll be gone over the next few years but feel they can milk more out of it in a minority shareholder role, which is within their right to do as they own it. Nobody can force them to do anything. If you want to own the club and have to play the long game, then you do it.
 
dinostar77 said:
So these are the latest end of year figures for INEOS:

The Group held cash balances of €2,642.8 million at March 31, 2023 and interest-bearing loans and borrowings (net of debt issue costs) of €9,324.3 million at March 31, 2023.31

Can someone explain how INEOS are going to pay back the £5-£6billion they are going to borrow to buy the club? Who is going to be saddled with the interest payments on that debt? What about Utds current debt which is approaching £969mil (ourstandingbtransfer fees included).
Click to expand...
INEOS group would be the ones taking out the debt for the purchase. And they are not paying 5-6bn since they are only purchasing a percentage and not 100% their outlay is likely to be in the 2-3.5bn range

Also they have substantial revenues, enough to carry the debt
 
BD said:
Nah but if Arsenal had bid £60m, and after a half a year of us talking up Mount and buttering up his fans saying that we'll treat him great and invest lots of money and time into him (ok analogy is getting lost), we then came along with a £58m bid and said take it or leave it, it'd be a bit arrogant at least.

Anyway, I just feel that, based on the admittedly very small amount of actual information we have, Jassim/the Qatari bid has been quite arrogant - I get the feeling they expected to just waltz in and buy the club without issues. Maybe I'm reading it all wrong though.
Click to expand...

That’s not really a very good analogy though.

A closer analogy would be Arsenal offering £30m now and £30m in 3 years whereas we are offering £58m up front.

Taking FFP into consideration I guarantee Chelsea would take the £58m offer.
 
bosnian_red said:
And if the Glazers (all of them) didn't want to leave right that second .. then what? Then you pivot, adjust, obviously. It's a transitional takeover. They'll be gone over the next few years but feel they can milk more out of it in a minority shareholder role, which is within their right to do as they own it. Nobody can force them to do anything. If you want to own the club and have to play the long game, then you do it.
Click to expand...

Just the fact they are still part of this club annoys the feck out of me. I desperately wanted to celebrate them finally leaving after 18 LONG years
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Great post.

Sadly the Mark Goldbridge generation have spoken though. They are very loud but don't have an awful lot to say really other than 'Rat' and 'Brexit Jim'.
Click to expand...
Did Mark Goldbridge say he’s a Rat and Brexit Jim?
 
Water Melon said:
If Ratcliffe wins, majority of pro-Qatar posters will take it on their chins and give Jim some time to come with more detailed explanation of his plans for the club. They will start judging him properly after one complete year under his reign. If Jassim wins, the meltdown of pro-Ratcliffe folks will be epic.
Click to expand...
:lol: have you actually read this thread? or #RatclifeOut trending on twitter?
 
Pexbo said:
That’s not really a very good analogy though.

A closer analogy would be Arsenal offering £30m now and £30m in 3 years whereas we are offering £58m up front.

Taking FFP into consideration I guarantee Chelsea would take the £58m offer.
Click to expand...

You've countered a bad analogy with another one. Chelsea are literally the last club you should mention in terms of being averse to deals structured over the long term!
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I think it's reasons like this why negotiations will be tougher with Ineos, and why they will need to pay more. I still think the fact a couple of Glazers have Class A shares should be noted too. Ineos aren't offering to buy them as far as we know, whereas Jassim is, and at a premium

Off topic: Is "The Italian Way" still open in Hastings? I last went there in about 2018 and really enjoyed it
Click to expand...
Hi, unfortunately not, closed permanently last year. Used to do great reasonably priced Pizzas as I recall.
 
Pexbo said:
That’s not really a very good analogy though.

A closer analogy would be Arsenal offering £30m now and £30m in 3 years whereas we are offering £58m up front.

Taking FFP into consideration I guarantee Chelsea would take the £58m offer.
Click to expand...

Fair point, though I didn't realise the Jim bid was structured so extreme that way. But we'd also need to incorporate the partial and full sale offers etc etc for this analogy to be accurate, at which point it loses all reason.

The original point was just that I've found the Qatari bid and press releases to be a bit arrogant or assuming. Though I have no interest in the club being owned by a state, so I'm probably biased from the outset. Not pro-Jim, just anti-state owned.
 
Cassidy said:
INEOS group would be the ones taking out the debt for the purchase. And they are not paying 5-6bn since they are only purchasing a percentage and not 100% their outlay is likely to be in the 2-3.5bn range

Also they have substantial revenues, enough to carry the debt
Click to expand...

Ineos Group is the holding company for their chemical business as far as I have understood it. The entity for sports investments does not seem to be public. I would guess it falls under INEOS Enterprises, which is only open for investors.
 
Austinho said:
Why would the Glazers bother sticking around for 3 years waiting for a final payout from Radcliffe, when they can easily take a huge lump sum right now? Something stinks about the Jim Radcliffe deal and I think people might be in for a rude awakening if they think the Glazers plan on just walking away in 2026.
Click to expand...

Under the conditions laid out they wouldn't have a choice it would be forced.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
You've countered a bad analogy with another one. Chelsea are literally the last club you should mention in terms of being averse to deals structured over the long term!
Click to expand...

Yeah, in this case the choice would be amortizing 60m vs 58m or getting a short term cash injection of 58m vs 30m. If the issue is cash flow then you choose the latter if the issue is about accounting then you choose the former.
 
croadyman said:
Just the fact they are still part of this club annoys the feck out of me. I desperately wanted to celebrate them finally leaving after 18 LONG years
Click to expand...
Sure. The thing that actually matters is somebody else takes control. The other things are functionally irrelevant.
 
Cassidy said:
INEOS group would be the ones taking out the debt for the purchase. And they are not paying 5-6bn since they are only purchasing a percentage and not 100% their outlay is likely to be in the 2-3.5bn range

Also they have substantial revenues, enough to carry the debt
Click to expand...
But they will have to cough up another couple of billions in 3 years, right? Do you have figures for their revenues which show that they would have enough money to service all this debt while investing in the Club?
 
Is it a certainty that the new debt would be on INEOS and not the club?
Did the government/PL change the rules or did this clause only apply to Chelsea due to the extraordinary circumstances of their recent takeover?
 
Woziak said:
I think your are pretty much on the money, that the two bids are much closer than what’s being rumoured but still no one has answered the most important question?

you can offer an enterprise value per share of say $30 so selling all of their 113m B controlling shares for $3.39bn, Forbes recently valued the club at $6bn which is twice the market cap for a reason. If you buy controlling shares of the club you also take over considerable assets of land around old Trafford which the Glazers have been buying up since 2008, they, the Glazers want a premium ontop of the shares to relinquish their control and allow SJ to build restaurants and hotels or SJR to set up fracking Site(That’s a joke btw!)

They also have future broadcast and merchandising deals in place which are all part of Forbes $6bn evaluation and again the Glazers do not want to relinquish these since they basically have paid their dividends every year bar one of £20m per year for all 6 Siblings. Again they don’t want to relinquish these future deals unless someone compensates them accordingly.

I also thought that both Bids both like you valued at 100% and then the Glazers expected 69% of that value to buy out all of their shares(or 51% in SJR new bid) most fans assumed that this was the amount to be paid to the Glazers to relinquish control yes £6bn to the Glazers as the 100% valuation of the club is not necessarily 100% of shares it also includes Current assets, both short and long term like Player Squad Value and Property owned outright by the clubs , plus more importantly future Broadcasting and Merchandising deals.

I also like you, assumed that the Glazers would only get 69% or 51% of the valuation but the more I dig into this the more it seems that the bids by both parties are to take over the controlling shares and involve much more that a simple purchase and transfer of shares.

So for example SJR bid is £5.4 possibly going up to £6bn for 51% of the Glazer Control including compensatory payments for loss of future broadcasting, merchandise contracts, relinquishing control of the clubs short, mid and long term assets.

So SJR valued the shares at $30 which is 163 million at $30 = $4.89bn (£3.92bn) plus the club debt which must be factored into the bid even though it does not have to be cleared under a merger takeover of $675m(£570m) and then Ineos made an additional payment in lieu of Future assets, Broadcasting and Merchandising of £800m or $1bn This would mean that the Glazers would receive 113m shares at a guaranteed $30 which is $3.390 Billion plus $1bn to relinquish control of the club giving them a guaranteed buy out of $4.39bn (But it could rise to $4.99bn).

The deal from SJR and Ineos would mean 73% of that agreed deal must be paid now and 27% later in a structured put and call layered take over where they payments could go up but never down.

So for clarity SJR woulD have to pay $3.20bn (£2.6bn) now for 51% controlling shares and a minimum of $1.239bn(£1bn) over 4 years but this could also rise to $1.87bn(£1.5bn) dependent on team success.

This is how the £6bn bid is actually being pitched it’s like Sky Reporting we bought A Martial for £58m because it assumes that all the clauses to meet that value will be met.

SJ offer of $6.5/6.6bn might also value the club slightly differently on that ;

1. The debt is paid $675m
2. They value the shares at $29 so 163m 163*29 = $4.72 billion (£3.78bn)
3. Legacy payment to relinquish control $1.1bn(£882m)

Therefore the Glazers would get 113m @29 = $3.277 billion plus $1.1bn legacy plus $220m for selling remaining 4.3% of A shares giving them a total right now of $4.6bn (£3.7bn) cash and tax free right now.

I’m scratching my head right now too as this whole process is so more complicated than a normal merger needs to be.


Conclusion neither bid is accepted by the Glazers as they clearly want £6bn minimum and they want the money upfront and not a penny less !
Click to expand...
They really have some brass neck this lot.
 
dinostar77 said:
So these are the latest end of year figures for INEOS:

The Group held cash balances of €2,642.8 million at March 31, 2023 and interest-bearing loans and borrowings (net of debt issue costs) of €9,324.3 million at March 31, 2023.31

Can someone explain how INEOS are going to pay back the £5-£6billion they are going to borrow to buy the club? Who is going to be saddled with the interest payments on that debt? What about Utds current debt which is approaching £969mil (ourstandingbtransfer fees included).
Click to expand...

They wouldn't need that amount to do a deal.
 
united_99 said:
Is it a certainty that the new debt would be on INEOS and not the club?
Did the government/PL change the rules or did this clause only apply to Chelsea due to the extraordinary circumstances of their recent takeover?
Click to expand...

Nothing is a certainty with this whole farce
 
KiD MoYeS said:
People cannot be annoyed at Ratcliffe for potentially keeping the Glazers on in a minority ownership when it is likely the only possible route to securing the club.
Click to expand...
No, i'm plenty annoyed. I want these rats out and any deal made with them leaves a very, very sour taste in my mouth.
 
Telsim said:
Enough Tier 1 sources have alluded to INEOS and the Glazers being in the final stages of negotiations to make me believe it's just a matter of time. And the wind has been blowing that way for awhile as well, not the least because of Qatar underestimating the whole thing. But I've already explained my reasoning why believe this latest "offer" is just saving face. You can go back and check it out if you are so inclined.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's that cut and dried. Either result would not surprise me at this point.

The thing I find most SJR friendly is the lack of movement in the share price. But I also wouldn't put it past the Glazers to be quietly hoovering up shares in advance of a Qatari takeover.
 
simmee said:
Is Ineos Sports fully owned by SJR? If there are other investors involved, which I assume, they would demand return on their investment. In that case it's either dividends or they plan to sell us in X years. Ineos Sports reports are not public on their website unfortunately so it is difficult to know. Common practice would be to sell in maybe 3-5 years on average for private equity.
Click to expand...

This is why we shouldn't assume, there is 3 of them involved at INEOS with SJR having the majority... No boardroom, no shareholders, no investors. Just those 3 with SJR leading it all.
 
united_99 said:
Is it a certainty that the new debt would be on INEOS and not the club?
Did the government/PL change the rules or did this clause only apply to Chelsea due to the extraordinary circumstances of their recent takeover?
Click to expand...
Nothing is certain, but it seems logical that the debt would be on INEOS as they would most likely be able to get financing at a lower interest rate than the club.

That said, even in this case the club would probably end up making transfer payments to INEOS to cover the debt repayments.
 
glazed said:
I'm not sure it's that cut and dried. Either result would not surprise me at this point.

The thing I find most SJR friendly is the lack of movement in the share price. But I also wouldn't put it past the Glazers to be quietly hoovering up shares in advance of a Qatari takeover.
Click to expand...

Only part I don't get is why they haven't accepted Ratcliffe's staying offer already
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Nothing is certain, but it seems logical that the debt would be on INEOS as they would most likely be able to get financing at a lower interest rate than the club.

That said, even in this case the club would probably end up making transfer payments to INEOS to cover the debt repayments.
Click to expand...

Which is the key point unless people worry was bankruptcy.
 
KiD MoYeS said:
People cannot be annoyed at Ratcliffe for potentially keeping the Glazers on in a minority ownership when it is likely the only possible route to securing the club.
Click to expand...

It's not the only route, it's the cheapest.
 
dinostar77 said:
So these are the latest end of year figures for INEOS:

The Group held cash balances of €2,642.8 million at March 31, 2023 and interest-bearing loans and borrowings (net of debt issue costs) of €9,324.3 million at March 31, 2023.31

Can someone explain how INEOS are going to pay back the £5-£6billion they are going to borrow to buy the club? Who is going to be saddled with the interest payments on that debt? What about Utds current debt which is approaching £969mil (ourstandingbtransfer fees included).
Click to expand...

The 969m will remain with the club albeit with a much better plan than the Glazers have going on how INEOS operate.

The 5bn is a figure thrown out of nothing, we don't know how much they are borrowing or putting down themselves but whatever is is will be put onto INEOS books not United so the debt will be that of INEOS, who as you can see have a load of debt of which they must be good at paying or they wouldn't keep getting it.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
The 969m will remain with the club albeit with a much better plan than the Glazers have going on how INEOS operate.

The 5bn is a figure thrown out of nothing, we don't know how much they are borrowing or putting down themselves but whatever is is will be put onto INEOS books not United so the debt will be that of INEOS, who as you can see have a load of debt of which they must be good at paying or they wouldn't keep getting it.
Click to expand...

There you go like I said that's not clearing debt
 
Marcelinho87 said:
The 969m will remain with the club albeit with a much better plan than the Glazers have going on how INEOS operate.

The 5bn is a figure thrown out of nothing, we don't know how much they are borrowing or putting down themselves but whatever is is will be put onto INEOS books not United so the debt will be that of INEOS, who as you can see have a load of debt of which they must be good at paying or they wouldn't keep getting it.
Click to expand...
This is not a fair statement at all. Sometimes you get lots of debt easily and then end up being in a complete clusterfeck.
 
Tiber said:
It's not the only route, it's the cheapest.
Click to expand...
He is still going to buy the club for more than what the Qataris are offering. It's nothing to do with being the cheapest. It's just a multi stage takeover. Which the Qataris are equally capable of agreeing to. Full control now and then full ownership over 1-3 years... What's the issue?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.