To the Jassim side obviously..
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
To the Jassim side obviously..
Are you serious What is this based on , offcourse some sort of terms and legal framework needs to be negotiated before the exclusivity .
There are plenty of things to negotiate regarding the period of exclusivity, including how long the preferred bidder gets to try and finalize the sale, and the thorny question of how the Glazers can respond if Jim ups his offer by 50p during this time - the Glazers will want to be able to accept the offer, Jassim will want to prevent that. What happens if the buyer finds out something in due diligence and wants to change his offer? All of these, and probably many more, need to be defined to the satisfaction of all teams of lawyers and that is never quick as they have to justify their enormous fees.
That is not at all how it works. There's no binding agreement for exclusive negotiations.
Being "pro-Jim" is largely about the club retaining its meaning and ethos, over short-term gains. So a slow sale process leading to a potentially disappointing season is probably not going to sway people.
If Ratcliffe pulls it off it will feel like a gut punch. His ownership model just wouldn't be what we need at all and we'll keep falling behind.
My god he talks absolute bollocks. He’s trying to say that Ratcliffe’s offer is attractive because it has no actual terms and can be adjusted on the fly. But that’s not negotiating or tabling a new offer, it’s because it’s a magic offer where the terms don’t need to be discussed because it’s completely fluid and can be changed at any time. But remember that’s not negotiating or tabling a new offer - no, it’s the same offer but the terms change.
Of course he's taking bollocks, he's a bloke on Twitter
I think for most of the anti-Jassim fans it’s pretty deep rooted and they’re very staunch.
If you notice, lots of fans who prefer Jassim tend to say, ‘if Ratcliffe wins I’ll be disappointed but will hope for the best’, whereas on the other side it’s much more binary (understandably as it’s based on their moral stance), and many of them seem unwilling to even give the 92 Foundation the benefit of the doubt and just give them a chance.
So no, I don’t think anything at this point will sway them.
In the future, I’m not sure. Only they could tell you that, but many of them won’t even engage beyond saying ‘that’s it for me’, which I respect, but it doesn’t really open the door to a good conversation.
Slightly off topic, but just listening to Khaldoon Al Mubarak speak on SSN. Oh what it must be like to have someone switched on running the club. If Qatar or Jim win I really hope they bring the best in class to the club in senior positions.
It is literally reuters entire business on the line if they put things forward without corroboration.
The one thing they have, why so many financial professionals rely on them, is they are trusted to be accurate. It is utterly insane to think that a multi billion dollar business built almost entirely on data accuracy just went rogue over our club.
Jim Ratcliffe has employed high levels of nepotism and cronyism in the running of his clubs.
Can’t believe @Pexbo didn’t know the market was closed yesterday.
I was going to say just Qatar, but wanted to seem neutral hahaha
He's probably off his adhd meds
I think the Glazers are giving INEOS time to up their bid per share. INEOS have to apply for more financing so will take longer than it would with Qatar.
Won’t be surprised if the next development is either INEOS increase their bid or they pull out / say existing bids are final.
Ah yes. Khaldoon Al Mubarak. The week after his side win an Treble having to defend himself from 115 counts of cheating. He's our man.
Not as much as a shite rumour in 4 or 5 days
Right but at the same time they haven't said anything. Qatar might or might not be in exclusive talks + Ratcliff might or might not still win.
They've covered their backs but weirdly broke it like it was a major development.
Being evil/dislikable and competent is a big thing. The Tories have governed the UK off this logic for most of the post WWII period.
Some on here sound like children with responses like this.
No, the only variable is duration. Pick your preferred buyer and give them x amount of time to reach an agreement with you.
With us selling Iqbal, I hope that will set off the domino effect in motion for this to be completed now.
How…?
Yes, I want evil Tory principles in charge of my chosen form of entertainment. And I'm the child.
This doesn't make any sense. If SJR negotiating via a "laddered Glazer exit" and it was even a thing, the absolute most success we could bring in 2-3 years would still not value the club at what the Glazers are asking for today.
SJR is already beyond the point where he must realise his offer to keep them involved is hurting the club in the future. If the club does become more successful, Glazers further benefit, if the club is not successful, Glazers still further benefit and the club is hurt even further.
I don't particular care or associate this transfer window with the change in ownership. I would take signing nobody this window if it meant the Glazers were totally removed from the club.
Well, your reading comprehension is certainly at kindergarten level. The point was that being a cnut doesn't make him incompetent which is what the original poster was referring to.
We're trying to talk some business in this thread because that's what it's for.
Sorry mate that's bollocks , exclusivity with preferred buyer based on my limited knowledge generally means there is already a broad agreement on the sale price what needs to be worked out is time scale and structure of payment and further due diligence of the books as well as deciding punitive measures if one of the Party decides to back out .
So offcourse there would be lot of legal paper work which would go into it and it's not as simple as you are making it out .
Why can’t / won’t Jim Ratcliffe just bid to own the club outright?
He’s supposed to be worth what, 30b?
Why is he bidding like this? It seems weird. If the Glazers wanna stay, his offer must already be great from their POV, and if they wanna leave, Jassim’s must be great.
But if Jim really wants the club and it’s a vanity / legacy project, why isn’t he bidding to simply buy the club?
Last edited:
It’s just a matter of time before we start hearing INEOS are back in front and then it’s over to the Qatari’s again. There’s easily weeks and weeks for this continue whilst the club continues to sleepwalk through another transfer window.
Unless one of the bidders get fed up I’m not expecting any progress soon and even then it might be more negotiating as a preferred bidder which Glazers would drag out as much as possible again.
Unless one of the bidders get fed up I’m not expecting any progress soon and even then it might be more negotiating as a preferred bidder which Glazers would drag out as much as possible again.
One thing is for sure. He isn't listening to what the fans want and that doesn't bode well for the future
Nah, I really think if the Glazers swing it back again in Olde Jim’s favour Jassim will walk and leave them to it.
There’s 2 bidders FFS, offering VERY different deals. And it’s been that way for months.
If they wanna sell, go exclusive with Jassim, if they wanna stay, go exclusive with Ratcliffe.
They’re acting as if they are multiple similar bids for them to mull over when they’re polar opposite.
They by now obviously know which they prefer. So ffs just pull the fecking trigger you pathetic brats.
Load of crap.
It's never been more alive! Take that, Phillip parsons, from the times, or should I say, behind the times!
Well tbf in the pro-Jim fans’ eyes that’s exactly what it is. That’s how they see it. They’re not just just saying that for a laugh.
I disagree, completely, but I accept that’s how they see it. And it is subjective.
Obviously for some, xenophobia will also be playing a part but I’d hope that they’re in the minority.
Last edited:
Yeah, yeah, I see what you’re saying Roy, but you’ve got to alter the quote so it makes sense in the context of the thread…
Do you see what I mean?
No it's not. A quick Google of Reuters articles shows they're not strictly reporting on things that are exactly iron clad. If you look in this article you'll see examples. And they're just another agency that relies on their sources, as they did in the exclusivity article.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/man-united-suitors-jostle-biggest-sports-deal-ever-2023-02-16/
They will just go on as normal if they are proven to be wrong, as every single other media outlet does.
- Status