Because the guy seems to be covering all bases. If you read his timeline he just seems to give a lot of opinion pieces on football. I don't know who his sources are, but it sounds like he could be being fed info from Qatar on the SJR bid, which immediately raises doubts. If it was Raine/Glazers/MUFC/SJR giving him this info then I'd put more weight on what he's saying. But it looks like more Qatar propaganda trying to stir the pot.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Because the guy seems to be covering all bases. If you read his timeline he just seems to give a lot of opinion pieces on football. I don't know who his sources are, but it sounds like he could be being fed info from Qatar on the SJR bid, which immediately raises doubts. If it was Raine/Glazers/MUFC/SJR giving him this info then I'd put more weight on what he's saying. But it looks like more Qatar propaganda trying to stir the pot.
It makes for incredible reading now.Exactly. Yet there were folk on here in the pro Brexit Jimmy camp who were trying to suggest the Qatari’s were handling this like amateurs.
Why?
This was three weeks ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...jassim-manchester-united-friday-ultimatum-bid
My memory of how long ago his bid was is bad, but it feels way longer than 3 weeks. The article I posted mentioned that same bid in the middle of May?
Use a little logic.
If Qatar are confident that their bid has won, what do you think the implications are for the INEOS bid?
If they have indeed entered exclusive negotiations then they will be fairly certain that the INEOS bid has lost. They don’t need Ratcliffe to tell them that and there’s no reason Raine wouldn’t have informed them that INEOS have not made a new offer and consider themselves out of negotiations.
If Qatar are still in the dark about their bid, then I'd question where they get their info on the SJR bid. It seems to me that they are still trying to stir the pot, and I suspect they did so with the Reuters news too.
Yes they have.
Or they have enough resources but the two other partners weren't convinced of United's business model. So they went with their lowest-risk model?
Have Qatar been entered exclusivity? Apologies if I missed this. The tweets are saying that the 92 foundation are claiming SJR's bid is dead due to legal reasons. Not seen anything about exclusivity - obviously that would change everything. Just had a look elsewhere and not seeing this major news that they're in exclusive negotiations? The Bloomberg article is behind a paywall.
I think he knew he couldn't compete with Qatari and simply tried to work on a plan that could work.
Where are you getting this “still in the dark” business from? Bloomberg literally reported yesterday that they are briefing that they are confident they have won. They then said if it’s not Qatar it will be minority investment.
From that it’s a fairly short distance to infer that they have been told they are moving forward with their offer, likely exclusive negotiations and naturally with a possibility the deal is not agreed it leaves Glazers falling back to minority investors. It seems fairly obvious from that that it means the INEOS offer has been either been rejected or withdrawn.
Since then the Bloomberg journalist has been briefed that the INEOS bid is indeed dead.
There’s no inconsistencies with any of the reporting. It’s pretty simple to join the dots between it.
If they are the only bidder they sort of are in exclusive negotiations
Worrying that Qatar seemingly is the only real bid being considered yet they still haven't signed off on it
The nightmare of them doing a no sale seems to be unfolding by the day
The nightmare of them doing a no sale seems to be unfolding by the day
I’m speculating about exclusivity. I thought I’d made that clear.
The Six of the best situation
If the Glazers clan can’t agree you would have thought, there would be some sort of trust type agreement between them to decide situations where a decision cannot be reached amicably.
You would assume that if they can’t agree then a majority decision would apply, like a jury.
The only complication would be a dead heat of 3/3 and you would think that in that type of family/business arrangement there would have a scheme in the agreement, some sort of arbitration.
In the absence of a dead heat then you would think it would not take too long to make a decision?
If the Glazers clan can’t agree you would have thought, there would be some sort of trust type agreement between them to decide situations where a decision cannot be reached amicably.
You would assume that if they can’t agree then a majority decision would apply, like a jury.
The only complication would be a dead heat of 3/3 and you would think that in that type of family/business arrangement there would have a scheme in the agreement, some sort of arbitration.
In the absence of a dead heat then you would think it would not take too long to make a decision?
Last edited:
But reports aren’t saying Qatar are in the dark?
Sometimes news is just news, you don’t have to fight against pro Qatar news every time an article is released. They can’t always be wrong
I think the idea of them waiting to confirm this until after June is ringing more and more true the closer we get
They made a 'take it or leave it bid' after the final round of bidding. When was this extra 'take it or leave it' offer? If so....
so much for 'not negotiating further'.Nothing is confirmed, everything is pure speculation.
It was 3 weeks ago, another one and as funny as it is it looks like it workedThey made a 'take it or leave it bid' after the final round of bidding. When was this extra 'take it or leave it' offer? If so....
Retweeted by the Bloomberg journo...
Seems to me that Qatar are confident because they believe SJR's bid is going to be challenged legally. Hence why in the same article the journalists suggests the Glazers might not sell.
I would be more concerned if the prospect of minority investment made more sense on the surface.
I don't think a hedge fund is going to invest the kind of money required without having significant influence on the club's operations. Between the equity investment and the investment into the actual infrastructure, it would be billions.
I don't think the Glazers would be willing to stay on and relinquish some of their control when they can make a clean break with the Qatari option.
I suppose a private credit deal with a hedge fund wouldn't be entirely impossible, but from the perspective of a hedge fund, I don't think that would be as appealing and I would guess the Glazers already tried exploring that route only to find unfavourable terms.
They can't be confident of winning and still in dark. Their confidence must be based on something.
What Ben means is: reputable outlets are communicating their confidence but I haven't had heard anything, that must mean everyone's still in the dark
"We've not heard anything so based on that we're confident" isn't a thing
What Ben means is: reputable outlets are communicating their confidence but I haven't had heard anything, that must mean everyone's still in the dark
"We've not heard anything so based on that we're confident" isn't a thing
From United's IPO back in 2012 when we were put on the NYSE.
Fiduciary duties of directors
As a matter of Cayman Islands law, a director of a Cayman Islands company is in the position of a fiduciary with respect to the company and therefore it is considered that he owes the following duties to the company: a duty to act bona fide in the best interests of the company; a duty not to make a profit out of his position as director (unless the company permits him to do so); a duty to exercise his powers for the purposes for which they are conferred; and a duty not to put himself in a position where the interests of the company conflict with his personal interest or his duty to a third party.
This is somewhere where those A Class shareholders can point.
Fiduciary duties of directors
As a matter of Cayman Islands law, a director of a Cayman Islands company is in the position of a fiduciary with respect to the company and therefore it is considered that he owes the following duties to the company: a duty to act bona fide in the best interests of the company; a duty not to make a profit out of his position as director (unless the company permits him to do so); a duty to exercise his powers for the purposes for which they are conferred; and a duty not to put himself in a position where the interests of the company conflict with his personal interest or his duty to a third party.
This is somewhere where those A Class shareholders can point.
If they believe they no longer have any competition then the only thing that will stop them is a refusal to sell, so they would obviously be confident.
There must be a bit of a grey area between their duties as a director of the company and their rights to sell their shares. It would be pretty significant if a party wasn't allowed to sell their shares due to the effect on minority investors no? Not to mention that the situation is further complicated by the fact that the Glazers aren't a single entity and, in fact, 6 (?) separate shareholders who are each free to sell their shares.
So where do the Glazers rank in the worst owners in Premier League history?
If they don’t sell it will be an absolute bloodbath
Makes it different when there's another major offer on the table offering to purchase the company in its entirety. They'd have a tough time arguing that clearing all the debt and massively improving the facilities is not in the best interest of the company.
For what it's worth, I don't trust any of these journalists. It's clear that they either know nothing, or just what they are being fed by their contacts within either bidding party. I'm just pointing out, as I did with Reuters, that the article is pretty flaky and their source is in the wrong camp to be commenting on the other camps bid, when they don't even know themselves what is going to happen.
Again, I don't think anybody can force the Glazers to sell. Why would the majority Class B shareholders be dictated to by chancers holding Class A shares? I know next to nothing about this sort of stuff, but that just wouldn't make sense. The tail would be wagging the dog.
From my perspective, no journalist has truly been able to get close to the Qatari bid throughout this process until the pieces from Reuters and Bloomberg recently. To me, that means something. Before that, most of the reports reeked of Raine briefings or were from sources within the club, in my opinion.
Mike Keegan was clearly their chosen guy in the buildup, but even he was only just a conduit rather than someone well informed on the happenings of the negotiations.
I don't think it's a case of all six having to agree on a course of action and any one sibling having the ability to kibosh it.
Surely there must be a deciding mechanism that a PLC has to follow in this scenario?
Easily the worst. Not even close is it
They've taken the most historic and beautiful team in World football and turned them into this
If they were never born then United would probably have the strongest and best squad in the World right now
What will your stance be if Jassim takes over Utd?
Happy, disappointed, devastated, indifferent etc.
Up there with Mike Ashley and Venkys.
Official press release from Manchester United in the capacity of directors, not private shareholders:
Key quote:
“Throughout this process we will remain fully focused on serving the best interests of our fans, shareholders, and various stakeholders.”
Following this statement the share price rocketed.
If the Glazers accept an offer where they exit selling only their own shares at a premium when there is another offer that gets a premium price for all shareholders, can you explain to me how they have not reneged on the promise they made as directors?
The other offer also includes major investment in the club and the removal of debt. A promise which also fulfils the criteria of their statement and promise last year.
- Status