Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chief123 said:
As someone who’s a trader, what I would add is the Man Utd stock trading activity doesn’t seem like it is purely based off the back of the Al Watan tweet.
People that know something could certainly be the ones scooping up the stock. There has been no major sell off on the back of the news that nothing has been confirmed yet. In fact, the price has maintained its level and continued to trade with large volumes.

My take is the activity certainly suggests there’s more to the trading than just the Al Watan tweet. If the volume of buying is on the back off people knowing something, it would suggest it’s Sheikh Jassim who is the more likely winner as his is the only proposal to buy out all the shares including the public stock.

For all we know, it could even be SJ’s group buying the stocks at a cheaper level than they would pay when they takeover is official and they enforce the remaining public stocks to be purchased at the agreed takeover price. It would make sense from SJ point of view.

However, what I would add is that from a technical analysis perspective like a mentioned a few days ago, the trading pattern suggested a break to the upside was most likely (without getting too technical). Even without any news I would have expected the price to rise on the breakout pattern from a charting perspective.

Interesting.
Click to expand...
Not a trader myself but the price action has remained stable today. Probably means the heavy betting is Qatar wins within a week.

Not sure if you can derive a probability for the scenario off options or other derivates but gut feeling definitely says it wasn't just about that 'random' tweet which I have a suspicion may have been deliberately walked back on because the Qataris didn't want to risk it with the NYSE.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
They claim to be "mainly irritated" by posters who contribute to perpetuating hostility and division (by making enemies of fellow United fans) - and then proceed to blatantly provoking/winding up the other side by calling them names.

If you think that's "spot on", I suggest you read their post again.
Click to expand...
People arguing with sincerity on moral issues behind certain concerns should be well received and applauded. We need these selfless people on earth. As an example, I admire the "Just Stop Oil" movement yet people like myself will still drive guzzlers, and follow United without any reservations about who the owners will be. I admittedly just don't have the conviction to stop some of the things my heart believes to be the correct course of action.

PS: There will be a certain element of xenophobia amongst a very small minority using any reason to throw mud at Qatar. We can ignore this unpleasant thinking and should not criticise those with genuine concerns.
 
The fact that the stock is high and stable is very interesting.
 
It’s sad to see the fan base divided by the Glazers. Both INEOS & 92 Foundation have pros and cons. But the reality is we won’t know how either will run the club, how well they will run the club and probably the most important weather either will learn from inevitable early mistakes.

Whoever takes over United. We will really only be able to judge them in 3 or so years. Unless if they are really bad.
 
Sultan said:
People arguing with sincerity on moral issues behind certain concerns should be well received and applauded. We need these selfless people on earth. As an example, I admire the "Just Stop Oil" movement yet people like myself will still drive guzzlers, and follow United without any reservations about who the owners will be. I admittedly just don't have the conviction to stop some of the things my heart believes to be the correct course of action.

PS: There will be a certain element of xenophobia amongst a very small minority using any reason to throw mud at Qatar. We can ignore this unpleasant thinking and should not criticise those with genuine concerns.
Click to expand...

Shame on you. I ride a bike and walk, so I don't see why you couldn't.
 
As strange and as it sounds and sad also, maybe the delay of the big announcement has been put on hold due to the horrible news because of the Nottingham incident. Just saying. Someone has to.
 
glazed said:
The bottom line is that Manchester United is likely going to have deeply unpleasant owners for the foreseeable future and that's just the nature of the Premier League - sportswashers or profiteers.
Click to expand...

You're right, of course.

But to my thinking, here and now, there has to be line somewhere - as in: I have to draw it.

Again, though - I fully accept that this is more about my own need to draw that line, for my own sanity's sake, as it were. And - like I said or suggested above - I probably positively desire to draw that line. Maybe that's why I keep posting in this thread. Because it feels like a watershed moment for me.

(But then again, one could very legitimately ask, what if United aren't bought by Qatar? What if it turns out to be Jimbo - or nothing at all? Shouldn't I just stop actively following the thing I see so many issues with anyway? I probably should.)
 
BluesJr said:
The fact that the stock is high and stable is very interesting.
Click to expand...
And bang on point the Fed says more rate rises are on the horizon and everything gets mudded and turned to red.

That's to say, don't overlook the macro environment because even a red day might mean good news or potentially no news.
 
Morals don't win you trophies. The priority is the club's success, because this is Manchester United and not any team.
 
DOTA said:
Literally, or is exaggerative language part of the self-hatred?
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but I genuinely think I have actually read every page of this sh*t.

Either at the start of each day on the way to work or on the way home, sometimes even before bed. I’m a mess.
 
Cee90 said:
I hate to say it, but I genuinely think I have actually read every page of this sh*t.

Either at the start of each day on the way to work or on the way home, sometimes even before bed. I’m a mess.
Click to expand...
You're like a modern version of those monks who deliberately inflict pain upon themselves as penance.
 
MDFC Manager said:
The group saying the bolded bit will point to the "don't you have any morals, how can you support human rights abuse" type of posts, which will obviously be taken personally by the other group.
Click to expand...

Sure, yes.

In terms of what "triggers" people. Yes, obviously.

And, yes, I do believe there are people on the "other" side of this debate who aren't that different from myself in terms of how we define ourselves as United fans. We have a lot in common, let's say.

But I will also say that this thing has made it obvious (if it wasn't already) that there are United fans (this is not an age or geography thing, by the way) I have almost nothing in common with, with regard to what United means to them.
 
romufc said:
Right, so you do realise that the 2 Glazers staying even at 20% would have more voting rights than 50% owner Ratcliffe?

Why? Their Class B shares hold 10 times the voting rights of Class A share. They are not selling their share.

I thought the Glazers were ready to sell in November? so we have a takeover but with the Glazers still there.

https://theathletic.com/4463364/2023/04/28/manchester-united-sale-news-glazers/

There has been nothing that says Ratcliffe will do anything with the stadium or infrastructure, Jassim has mentioned that.

Jassim has also said the debt will be cleared, whilst SJR has said no new debt will be added, which means the current debt remains. This was in his first bid.

So maybe the stadium is 50/50 they may, may not do it but the other 2, I have seen sources.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? Genuine question. The Glazers with 20% would have more voting rights than SJR with his 51%?

Regarding the rest, it's all guesswork and negatively reading between the lines. We've had one initial statement where Jassim mentioned what he would do and SJR didn't. That doesn't mean he won't do any of that, anything is just guesswork. But that's the problem with this place, one person passes an opinion as fact, and before you know it everyone is stating the same thing. It's like half the posters want to indoctrinate the masses with rubbish.
 
Wumminator said:
Supporting a football team is literally only morals.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't even watch the games, I just check the fair play table at the end of the season to see if we've been the most moral team.

Seriously though that's an odd position, morals have never entered my mind when watching united
 
jm99 said:
Yeah, I don't even watch the games, I just check the fair play table at the end of the season to see if we've been the most moral team.

Seriously though that's an odd position, morals have never entered my mind when watching united
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
pocco said:
Are you sure about that? Genuine question. The Glazers with 20% would have more voting rights than SJR with his 51%?

Regarding the rest, it's all guesswork and negatively reading between the lines. We've had one initial statement where Jassim mentioned what he would do and SJR didn't. That doesn't mean he won't do any of that, anything is just guesswork. But that's the problem with this place, one person passes an opinion as fact, and before you know it everyone is stating the same thing. It's like half the posters want to indoctrinate the masses with rubbish.
Click to expand...

There is a clause that would be negotiated out that would see them still have majority voting rights…

But obviously this clause would have to be done away with otherwise nobody in their right mind would buy the club keeping them in charge.

But as it stands the clause is there and is legit.
 
marktan said:
I specifically said "well run non oil clubs like Liverpool" - hence excluding us. Using United as a counter argument to City is lazy when we've been terribly run under the Glazers. The comparison should be the likes of Liverpool, hell even the likes of Brighton and Arsenal that have bought well but don't have the same spending power as City to truly compete.
Click to expand...

You're arguing money is the reason for success, I'm saying it's largely Pep. (See PSG for comparison).

The reason I mention us is because the whole point of this discussion is about what we need, you say more money and use Liverpool as an example, I and others say better management. So I'm pointing out that we already have the money and we match City in spending.

Liverpool seem to be hamstrung or their owners are tight. Perhaps because of the work on their stadium recently. Brighton and Arsenal are two different animals. Brighton obviously don't have the resources. Arsenal have spent more in recent years but they've cleared out a lot of overpaid, expensive players in favour of youth. They were way ahead of what anybody predicted and came close. If they keep going then they could win it by the time their team matures and with a few more smart moves, as they seem to be doing. They don't need oil money to compete, they've got it sussed already.
 
jm99 said:
Yeah, I don't even watch the games, I just check the fair play table at the end of the season to see if we've been the most moral team.

Seriously though that's an odd position, morals have never entered my mind when watching united
Click to expand...
And yet you call City cheaters. Different mindset for United I suppose ?
 
RedDevilUnited369 said:
There is a clause that would be negotiated out that would see them still have majority voting rights…

But obviously this clause would have to be done away with otherwise nobody in their right mind would buy the club keeping them in charge.

But as it stands the clause is there and is legit.
Click to expand...

Ok well his argument seems disingenuous then and it is just a formality. More daft arguments to contend with.

Any ideas on what this clause pertains to? If the Glazers owned 1% and somebody else owned 99%, they'd still have the voting rights?
 
SJ is learning how to play Glory, Glory Man United badly on the piano for the announcement video
 
pocco said:
You're arguing money is the reason for success, I'm saying it's largely Pep. (See PSG for comparison).
Click to expand...
Just on this specific point - PSG win more league titles than City and until last Saturday had the same number of CL titles. Success wise there's actually not much in it, is there?
 
pocco said:
Ok well his argument seems disingenuous then and it is just a formality. More daft arguments to contend with.

Any ideas on what this clause pertains to? If the Glazers owned 1% and somebody else owned 99%, they'd still have the voting rights?
Click to expand...

The clause means that if the Glazer siblings sell their shares, they automatically turn to class A shares.

So if one stayed with 1% it would have 1o times the rights of any Class A shares. But wouldn't mean anything if someone else had 99%.

But the other guy is right too.
 
DOTA said:
Just on this specific point - PSG win more league titles than City and until last Saturday had the same number of CL titles. Success wise there's actually not much in it, is there?
Click to expand...

Yeah I suppose there isn't, but City are viewed as dominant and PSG a joke. But yeah, just goes to show that the two oil clubs have been failures in the CL for all the money they have. I do think City could add a few more before Pep goes, but I don't see one in the immediate future of PSG despite their wealth.
 
Barthez said:
I have no issues with Qatar or Jim. Couldn’t give a monkeys other than I prefer Jassim as I believe he will invest more in the long neglected infrastructure. Both will have to adhere to financial fair play. Do I have morals? - No, the world is cut throat I’m afraid and you’ll search forever to find a clean billionaire that’s for sure. It’ll still be the Manchester United football club I’ve supported since I was 9 and saw Norman Whiteside curl in that FA CUP goal against Everton in 85’
Click to expand...

Fair play to the honesty there.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Tbh phones are more a convenience (a pretty big one tbf) rather than a necessity. People survived pre mobile phones.
Click to expand...

The world has moved on. A phone and a car are central to people's lives now. To live without them would be a huge ask.

It's not in any way comparable to supporting a football club.
 
pocco said:
Yeah I suppose there isn't, but City are viewed as dominant and PSG a joke. But yeah, just goes to show that the two oil clubs have been failures in the CL for all the money they have. I do think City could add a few more before Pep goes, but I don't see one in the immediate future of PSG despite their wealth.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's all fair I think. I just prefer to downplay Pep's magic, as I don't like him and some people (not yourself as far as I know) act like he could've gone to Spurs and done what he's done at City.
 
Crackers said:
What do you actually mean by this?
Click to expand...

If there was no morals involved in football, you could simply just pick and choose a team to follow.

The whole idea of picking a team that represents your family and the local area is just morals. Otherwise, just support a better team.

People turn up in the thousands to watch Vale and Stockport every week. They don’t want to just win the league, they want to support a team through thick and thin.

It’s just morals.Supporting something is always about morals.
 
jm99 said:
Yeah, I don't even watch the games, I just check the fair play table at the end of the season to see if we've been the most moral team.

Seriously though that's an odd position, morals have never entered my mind when watching united
Click to expand...

Course they have. Why do you support United?
 
romufc said:
Right, so you do realise that the 2 Glazers staying even at 20% would have more voting rights than 50% owner Ratcliffe?

Why? Their Class B shares hold 10 times the voting rights of Class A share. They are not selling their share.

I thought the Glazers were ready to sell in November? so we have a takeover but with the Glazers still there.

https://theathletic.com/4463364/2023/04/28/manchester-united-sale-news-glazers/

There has been nothing that says Ratcliffe will do anything with the stadium or infrastructure, Jassim has mentioned that.

Jassim has also said the debt will be cleared, whilst SJR has said no new debt will be added, which means the current debt remains. This was in his first bid.

So maybe the stadium is 50/50 they may, may not do it but the other 2, I have seen sources.
Click to expand...

https://www.ft.com/content/81d56a02-ec1e-44b8-a7f6-8ba570398643

"United has a listing on the New York Stock Exchange but the Glazers control 95 per cent of the voting rights thanks to a special class of B shares. The publicly traded A shares, which are largely held by minority shareholders, have minimal voting power.

Ratcliffe, who flew to New York for talks last month, is seeking to acquire at least enough B shares to hand him control of the club, in an offer that is not expected to be extended to common shareholders.

"Two people with knowledge of the matter said the Glazers are now focused on a structure that would allow the six siblings to sell down their holdings in proportion to their holdings, allowing Ratcliffe to take control.


Ratcliffe and Ineos would buy the remainder of the Glazers’ shares in the coming years through derivatives contracts.

The structure of Ratcliffe’s bid means that he can part with less capital up front, obtain majority control and invest in the club.


“The penny has started to drop,” said one of the people. “There’s no requirement to make an offer for all shareholders.”

One possible solution is for the Glazers to vote through changes that would allow the B shares to pass over to Ratcliffe without turning into A shares, two people close to the process said. "
 
RedDevilUnited369 said:
The clause means that if the Glazer siblings sell their shares, they automatically turn to class A shares.

So if one stayed with 1% it would have 1o times the rights of any Class A shares. But wouldn't mean anything if someone else had 99%.

But the other guy is right too.
Click to expand...

Ok, but I think everyone can agree that SJRs bid will most definitely involve these shares remaining class B.

Although it makes me wonder what happens if he buys all their shares and they convert to class A (unlikely), but that would in turn raise the value of all the other class A shares and give the other parties voting rights? I wonder if that would be a deal those parties would be happy with as renumeration for their shares not being bought by SJR.
 
Wumminator said:
If there was no morals involved in football, you could simply just pick and choose a team to follow.

The whole idea of picking a team that represents your family and the local area is just morals. Otherwise, just support a better team.

People turn up in the thousands to watch Vale and Stockport every week. They don’t want to just win the league, they want to support a team through thick and thin.

It’s just morals.Supporting something is always about morals.
Click to expand...

I don't think that it is how it works. For a lot of people the team they support has nothing to do with morals, some picked and chose, others liked a player and many were indoctrinated by family members to support a team.

The main reasons are in the end not particularly moral, it's blind religious following, gloryhunterism or fanboyism.
 
pocco said:
Ok well his argument seems disingenuous then and it is just a formality. More daft arguments to contend with.

Any ideas on what this clause pertains to? If the Glazers owned 1% and somebody else owned 99%, they'd still have the voting rights?
Click to expand...
It’s the difference between B shares and the listed A shares. The B shares, Glazer’s, have 10 times the voting rights of A shares. Also, if the Glazer’s sell any B shares they revert to A class. These specific clauses in the Articles of Association would need to be changed for Ineos to be successful. That in itself could be tricky as all of the Glazer’s would need to vote for it, plus it’s not a quick fix to get the Articles changed. SJR must have some guarantee this will happen though, if successful, so it’s not a showstopper for him.
 
JPRouve said:
I don't think that it is how it works. For a lot of people the team they support has nothing to do with morals, some picked and chose, others liked a player and many were indoctrinated by family members to support a team.

The main reasons are in the end not particularly moral, it's blind religious following, gloryhunterism or fanboyism.
Click to expand...

Is your argument that it’s nothing to do with morals - it’s just religious following? Or that having your family give you a team to support isn’t a moral calling?

Course it is. If you don’t like morals in football - go support another team, there’s nothing stopping you at all.
apart from the guilt you’d feel. Morals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.