Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I really struggle to see how Sheikh Jassim could be viewed as the "most flexible" party in these negotiations. Ratcliffe has, as per multiple reports, offered a number of options to the Glazers which involve them retaining some shares in the club should they wish to.

We might not like the idea of the Glazers retaining shares in the club but purely from the perspective of a prospective buyer, I think it's hard to argue that it wasn't a shrewd move.
Maybe do but not all the Glazers want to stay. 2 out of 6 do, so in essence SJR is catering for 2 of the Glazers whilst, it seems, forcing the others to stay, which will cause friction amongst them.

SJ has the more straightforward offer which is 100% ownership, no ifs or buts, just pay up and go. My guess is the 2 Glazers want to stay because they believe the club will increase in value and they'll get more money in the future. SJRs offer is just pure confusing
 
One day the Glazers will leave, it will happen, and that will be a great day for the club to finally see the back of that horrendous family.

Considering the circumstances that lead to them owning the club, both bidders have offered more that enough, and far more than the Glazers deserve...but we all know who they are dealing with, so I don't think the delays and endless bids should be attached to either bidder, all the blame for this fiasco goes to the Glazers.
 
Oh, maybe it was too good to be true from what I wanted then. The ideal would be clear the debt, fix stadium and facilities and get United a squad the club deserves.
Jassim says they can and will do that. I have my questions on that based on publicly available information to date though. But yeah INEOS are a massive company with a lot of money either way.
 
I really struggle to see how Sheikh Jassim could be viewed as the "most flexible" party in these negotiations. Ratcliffe has, as per multiple reports, offered a number of options to the Glazers which involve them retaining some shares in the club should they wish to.

We might not like the idea of the Glazers retaining shares in the club but purely from the perspective of a prospective buyer, I think it's hard to argue that it wasn't a shrewd move.

I meant flexible in terms of money rather than being creative with share options. As well as increasing their offers they’re also advertising an additional $1bn at their disposal which is surely of interest to anyone entering into exclusive negotiations?

Id say it shows that they didn't bother listening or taking the normal bidding process seriously. You can't have a bidding process where one person makes the bid and the other waits then says "yeah me too... Add $1 to their bid". Not really how it works?
It’s not a blind bidding process so that’s exactly what Glazers and Raine want. It’s called a bidding war.
 
Maybe do but not all the Glazers want to stay. 2 out of 6 do, so in essence SJR is catering for 2 of the Glazers whilst, it seems, forcing the others to stay, which will cause friction amongst them.

SJ has the more straightforward offer which is 100% ownership, no ifs or buts, just pay up and go. My guess is the 2 Glazers want to stay because they believe the club will increase in value and they'll get more money in the future. SJRs offer is just pure confusing
I always thought Ratcliffe's offer was structured so that whichever of the Glazers want to retain shares will do so whilst the rest will liquidate them entirely. I could be wrong.
 
For a little context, City was bought for $265m.

Jassim has laid down an offer here of $6.5b… for an asset that needs a billion of investment.

Sometimes I’m not sure people are even really grasping how big an offer that is.

It’s an insane amount of money that any other owner would take immediately. The hold up is due to the Glazers’ almost comical greed and ineptitude.
I'm well away it's a feck ton of money. Ratcliffe and Ineos are valuing the club higher still, and it's the way Qatar have bid for us that to me doesn't look great. They bid lower every time, even at the "give me your best offer" point, and then proceeded to give 2 more offers past that point. It took them 5 offers just to get close to what Ratcliffe offered in 3, but also it makes a mockery of a bidding process to be allowed to wait and see what the competition bids to then say "oh same here actually".
 
One thing that nobody has discussed at all is the tax situation of the sale. The Glazers might or be might not be liable to pay tax on the sale in both the US and UK jurisdictions and how the deal is structured would be crucial to that. It might also be that a staggered sale or a partial sale offers major advantages that we do not know anything about.
 
All the people saying Qatar don’t care about profit but Jim does and that’s what makes him a bad man is hilarious too.

It’s living in dreamworld to pretend that Qatar aren’t buying the club to make profits off the land around Old Trafford later on.

This is why they are finding it hard to get the funding. They are thinking how much can we realistically gain on this investment long term.

I actually think the City Group are more about a proper sporting project than Qatar have shown in this instance and at PSG.
 
I meant flexible in terms of money rather than being creative with share options. As well as increasing their offers they’re also advertising an additional $1bn at their disposal which is surely of interest to anyone entering into exclusive negotiations?


It’s not a blind bidding process so that’s exactly what Glazers and Raine want. It’s called a bidding war.
Then what's the point of Raine having multiple rounds of bidding and a "final round", which one party did not follow as being a final round?
 
$1b of that number is the investment.
It's not. $6.5bn is the valuation or £5.2bn. $1bn or £800m is the additional pledged investment.

Please get your facts straight.
 
Then what's the point of Raine having multiple rounds of bidding and a "final round", which one party did not follow as being a final round?

The point is that after each round you get rid of the bidders that have reached their limits and try to squeeze more out of the more determined bidders. You also get into more details which is important for the seller.
 
If they haven't gone before the start of next season, how likely is a mass protest capable of getting the first home games at Old Trafford called off? Might be the only way to force them out?
 
No, it isn’t.

He’s bid $6.5b just to the glazers. That’s now been made clear.

His fantastic pledges to the club are completely separate.
It's not. $6.5bn is the valuation or £5.2bn. $1bn or £800m is the additional pledged investment.

Please get your facts straight.
For what it's worth here's what @Messier1994 posted which is a better breakdown of each bid:


5bln for club and debt, take away debt, take out the 31% that isn't included in this sale, and this is what you get.
 
One thing that nobody has discussed at all is the tax situation of the sale. The Glazers might or be might not be liable to pay tax on the sale in both the US and UK jurisdictions and how the deal is structured would be crucial to that. It might also be that a staggered sale or a partial sale offers major advantages that we do not know anything about.

The point here is that posters no Ape Shit, even the minute minority of the ones with knowledge about finances and/or merges & acquisitions still no nothing about what exactly is happening. 1600 pages of utter speculation this thread, 1600 pages of utter drivel unfortunately. I’ve read more sense even in one of my threads about shit on the general.
 
Manchester United’s snail-pace M&A saga may yet erupt into an all-out scrap. Hedge funds are laying the groundwork for a legal fight if the $3 billion soccer club’s controlling Glazer family tries to shut them out of any sale. The club’s relatively muted public-market valuation, compared with recent similar deals, suggests such takeover shenanigans are likely.

The Glazers, who took control of the northern English team in 2005, effectively put it up for sale last November, and are hoping for a valuation of at least 5 billion pounds ($6.3 billion), according to the BBC. Since then Qatari Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad al-Thani has bid around that level, which likely includes Man Utd’s roughly $900 million of net debt. Yet a rival approach from English chemicals tycoon Jim Ratcliffe has investors in Man Utd’s New York-listed shares worried.

One hedge fund with a large stake in the club is making legal preparations in case Ratcliffe launches an offer that involves only buying the Glazers’ super-voting Class B shares, a person familiar with the matter told Breakingviews. Such an approach would effectively exclude minority investors from the takeover. A separate person familiar with the situation told Breakingviews that hedge funds were already studying past precedents under Cayman Islands law, where Man Utd is incorporated, to figure out how they might build a case against any manoeuvres by the Glazers or Ratcliffe.

Man Utd’s dual-class share structure is the concern. About two-thirds of the total equity comprises Class B shares, which carry 10 votes and are held by the Glazers, while the remaining third is made up of publicly listed Class A shares, which carry one vote and are held mostly by institutional investors. The Financial Times reported recently that Ratcliffe and the Glazers were considering a deal in which the billionaire would buy enough Class B shares to control the club but without making an offer for other investors. The Glazers could even seek to change the club’s articles of association to make sure Ratcliffe’s acquired shares retain their super-voting rights, according to the report.

The hedge funds have some grounds for their pushback. Manchester United’s 2012 initial public offering filing notesthat Cayman Islands law gives shareholders the right to challenge deals and to receive “fair value” for their shares as determined by a judge. The Cayman courts in October ruled in favour of minority shareholders in a take-private case that lawyers at Loeb Smith called a landmark decision.

But that assumes there’s actually a deal for Class A shareholders to vote against. This might not be the case if Ratcliffe simply takes control of the club through a bilateral transaction with the Glazers. Another risk is that Ratcliffe lacks the money to rebuild the club's ailing Old Trafford stadium, meaning he would have to lump more debt onto the club to fund the much-need project. And there’s no guarantee he would maintain the Glazers’ record of paying dividends, meaning the minority investors could end up with shares that are worth much less than they are now.

If anything, the Man Utd share price reflects this pessimism. Chelsea Football Club’s sale to a consortium led by U.S. billionaire Todd Boehly valued the West London side at 5.7 times trailing revenue. Man Utd is only trading at just over 5 times its sales from the last financial year. That suggests investors are pricing in a relatively high chance of a Glazer side deal, and a low chance of hedge funds successfully challenging it.
 
I’m talking about pre season friendlies plus you forget to remember that The Glazers now own an IPL team as well and the Middle East is one of the fastest growing areas for cricket, will not be long before SA or Qatar rival the IPL!

I know which one of the two parties I would rather piss off by turning down.
should I wish to engage in future business opportunities Qatar are offer far more.

There so much more going on with so many NDA’s I think it’s still very much a 55/45 deal with SJR have a marginal edge.
They have a team in the UAE league. They tried to buy an IPL side when 2 new franchises became available but massively underestimated the prices and ended up as the lowest bidders.
 
No, it isn’t.

He’s bid $6.5b just to the glazers. That’s now been made clear.

His fantastic pledges to the club are completely separate.
Thats half the problem. The Glazers want their slice of the $1bn investment pledge. They know he has it and so they want it. Not only have the cnuts stripped the club over the last 18 years they're now picking over the bones of potential future investment after they are gone.
 
Manchester United’s snail-pace M&A saga may yet erupt into an all-out scrap. Hedge funds are laying the groundwork for a legal fight if the $3 billion soccer club’s controlling Glazer family tries to shut them out of any sale. The club’s relatively muted public-market valuation, compared with recent similar deals, suggests such takeover shenanigans are likely.

The Glazers, who took control of the northern English team in 2005, effectively put it up for sale last November, and are hoping for a valuation of at least 5 billion pounds ($6.3 billion), according to the BBC. Since then Qatari Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad al-Thani has bid around that level, which likely includes Man Utd’s roughly $900 million of net debt. Yet a rival approach from English chemicals tycoon Jim Ratcliffe has investors in Man Utd’s New York-listed shares worried.

One hedge fund with a large stake in the club is making legal preparations in case Ratcliffe launches an offer that involves only buying the Glazers’ super-voting Class B shares, a person familiar with the matter told Breakingviews. Such an approach would effectively exclude minority investors from the takeover. A separate person familiar with the situation told Breakingviews that hedge funds were already studying past precedents under Cayman Islands law, where Man Utd is incorporated, to figure out how they might build a case against any manoeuvres by the Glazers or Ratcliffe.

Man Utd’s dual-class share structure is the concern. About two-thirds of the total equity comprises Class B shares, which carry 10 votes and are held by the Glazers, while the remaining third is made up of publicly listed Class A shares, which carry one vote and are held mostly by institutional investors. The Financial Times reported recently that Ratcliffe and the Glazers were considering a deal in which the billionaire would buy enough Class B shares to control the club but without making an offer for other investors. The Glazers could even seek to change the club’s articles of association to make sure Ratcliffe’s acquired shares retain their super-voting rights, according to the report.

The hedge funds have some grounds for their pushback. Manchester United’s 2012 initial public offering filing notesthat Cayman Islands law gives shareholders the right to challenge deals and to receive “fair value” for their shares as determined by a judge. The Cayman courts in October ruled in favour of minority shareholders in a take-private case that lawyers at Loeb Smith called a landmark decision.

But that assumes there’s actually a deal for Class A shareholders to vote against. This might not be the case if Ratcliffe simply takes control of the club through a bilateral transaction with the Glazers. Another risk is that Ratcliffe lacks the money to rebuild the club's ailing Old Trafford stadium, meaning he would have to lump more debt onto the club to fund the much-need project. And there’s no guarantee he would maintain the Glazers’ record of paying dividends, meaning the minority investors could end up with shares that are worth much less than they are now.

If anything, the Man Utd share price reflects this pessimism. Chelsea Football Club’s sale to a consortium led by U.S. billionaire Todd Boehly valued the West London side at 5.7 times trailing revenue. Man Utd is only trading at just over 5 times its sales from the last financial year. That suggests investors are pricing in a relatively high chance of a Glazer side deal, and a low chance of hedge funds successfully challenging it.

Thanks for posting the article

Can't imagine they have a very strong case, based on my limited knowledge, because The Glazer's can surely sell their shares and negotiate as they please.
 
This is getting embarrassing.

What is 'walk away' in Arabic? Because I can imagine Jassim's advisors constantly mumbling that in his ear...
 
Genuinely don't even think we'll be sold before the season starts now.
 
Question:
What’s the average time for a merger and acquisition of a multi billion usd global corporation to take from moment of seeking bidders to completion?

Answer:
The average time for a merger and acquisition (M&A) of a multi-billion USD global corporation can vary significantly depending on various factors, including the complexity of the deal, the industries involved, regulatory requirements, due diligence processes, negotiations, and shareholder approvals. M&A transactions can take several months to complete, and in some cases, even longer.

On average, it can take anywhere from six months to over a year to finalize an M&A deal involving a multi-billion USD global corporation. This timeframe includes the initial stages of seeking bidders, negotiations, due diligence, drafting and reviewing legal documentation, obtaining necessary regulatory approvals, and finalizing the transaction.

It's important to note that each M&A deal is unique, and the timeline can be influenced by numerous factors specific to the transaction and the parties involved. Complex deals involving multiple jurisdictions, extensive due diligence, or regulatory challenges may take longer to complete. Conversely, some transactions with willing parties and straightforward regulatory requirements can be expedited, potentially reducing the overall timeline.

Just as another data point, my local NHL team, the Ottawa Senators, was put up for sale around the same time as the Glazers engaged with Raine and the sale is still not concluded despite being a simpler sale (‘only’ $1B, definitely for sale etc.).

It appears to be in the final stages, but there is no guarantee it will close before United, so I don’t think this is taking an unusually long time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.