Which is why I’m inferring that the Qataris have entered an exclusive period and INEOS are out and Qatar already know that.
Hence why the talk now is Qatar or (if a final agreement cannot be found) they fall back to minority investment.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Hence why the talk now is Qatar or (if a final agreement cannot be found) they fall back to minority investment.
I just think the situation is muddied by the fact that there are 6 or 7 Class B shareholders. For example, if 1 Class B shareholder sold each year for the next 6 or 7 years, where would that leave the Class A shareholders? It's the same in principle except they're all going at once. If it was held by one single company then it could be argued a lot easier that they have left the minority shareholders high and dry, but can you prevent individual shareholders from simply selling their shares?
And that is before we get to the possibility of 2 shareholders remaining. In that case, who is liable to the minority shareholders or could they prove that they have suffered a loss in that case? I don't know the legal ramifications to any of this, but I'm just looking at it from a logical approach and I'm not convinced that an individual holding 10-20% of the shares can be prevented from selling up.
Well that's something different altogether and is simply a guess on your part. But if you are correct, shouldn't the Glazers be announcing this to shareholders also in their best interests?
Which is all fine but we’re not talking about a simple private sale of shares here.
You seem to be hell bent on ignoring the bit where they started this entire process as directors of the company promising to act in the best interests of shareholders, fans and stakeholders in a statement from the club.
That statement says that:
The Raine Group is acting as the Company’s exclusive financial advisor and Latham & Watkins LLP is legal counsel to the Company.
Rothschild and Co. is acting as exclusive financial advisor to the Glazer family shareholders.
Really highlighted just how amazing Sir Alex and Gill were.
They have to release any material news that may impact the share price to the NYSE as per below:
I think it can be taken as read that either Qatar buys the club or nobody does. The latter seems unsustainable in the long run - but a stalemate between Glazers could run for a while.
Not a peep out of the agm yesterday? Must have been a dull meeting if even the twitter bullshitters aren't talking about it
That’s my main worry with this too.
I wonder how patient Jassim will be then before he decides to call it quits himself due to the never ending longevity circus this whole saga has been.
Holy shit the thread title change gave me a heart attack!
Someone needs a good slapping
Let's hope so.
State of the over privileged Glazer siblings arguing over billions of dollars when not one of the clowns invested a single cent, yet feel they are entiled to hundreds of millions each. Even that doesn't seem enough to fund their greed. Absolute Rats the lot em'
Yeah that is a very valid concern
It was explained here a hundred times but no one listened. Nothing happens at AGMs for 99.9% of companies nowadays.
Yeah City would never have won half of the trophies because players would be here
Whoevers making these thread title changes is taking the piss out of us!!!
As if this place needs any help
I would have thought that the bigger issue is the dual class share structure's unequal voting rights (10 v 1) and the clause that stipulates that class B shares automatically revert to class A shares at point of sale when sold to anyone outside the Glazer family (provided that the family still retains at least 15% of the shares).
The class A shareholders would have every right to expect that if the Glazers were selling a portion of their class B shares to, for example, Ineos, that their voting position as class A shareholders would consequently improve (since a portion of the class B shares with 10x voting rights were being converted to class A). Ineos would of course never agree to take on 50.1% of the club while only acquiring a minority of the voting rights, so the Glazers would have to construct a deal whereby the 10x voting power of their class B shares was retained, even while being sold outside the family to Ineos.
The Inoes M&A team are highly experienced and they, the club and the Glazers have been taking legal advice throughout, so I will be surprised if conflict with the class A institutional holders has killed off SJR's bid, but, that does appear to be what has happened, if David Hellier from Bloomberg is to be believed.
Last edited:
Anyone know where we can buy this creme? Also, I'll probably regret asking this, but anyone know what it is made from?
Anyone genuinely think we won’t get sold? How long can they keep this up for?
The club needs to be cleansed of the Glazer family.
Don't think the cleansing cream can help with that.Holy shit the thread title change gave me a heart attack!
So boring thread titles on the caf of late.
I'm surprised the Glazers haven't stripped the club by selling the land of the stadium is on, in return for a long lease arrangement, which will be paid by the club etc
There is still plenty of money for them to remove before they sell up for a big price.
There is still plenty of money for them to remove before they sell up for a big price.
How dare they!
Is this possible -
Apparently we are negotiating with any number of players agents and clubs etc. Mount, Onana, previously KMJ and now Caicedo. Surely the new owners would have significant interest in such signings and investments. So what deal has been struck with the bidders to ensure these negotiations can take place ?
is it possible that common sense has won out? An announcement of a new billionaire owner and inevitable transfer warchest at this point would literally add on 15 million to every player we go after. Maybe the successful bid has already been accepted and a NDA or some sort signed to stop the news leaking until after the transfers have been sorted?
As a fan I’m gonna forget worrying about the takeover and focus on transfers - don’t give a fuk who owns us anyway but I do care if we start next season with no striker or back up for Casemiro.
Apparently we are negotiating with any number of players agents and clubs etc. Mount, Onana, previously KMJ and now Caicedo. Surely the new owners would have significant interest in such signings and investments. So what deal has been struck with the bidders to ensure these negotiations can take place ?
is it possible that common sense has won out? An announcement of a new billionaire owner and inevitable transfer warchest at this point would literally add on 15 million to every player we go after. Maybe the successful bid has already been accepted and a NDA or some sort signed to stop the news leaking until after the transfers have been sorted?
As a fan I’m gonna forget worrying about the takeover and focus on transfers - don’t give a fuk who owns us anyway but I do care if we start next season with no striker or back up for Casemiro.
Think Mike Ashley is much worse. What about the chicken farmers of Blackburn?
Going off of what people in here have said prior, this would be the kind of fraud that gets you in to too much bother for it to be worth trying.
I know this probably has been answered somewhere, I'm just curious why Jassim hasn't just bought up all the shares not owned by the Glazers already? Could he not buy up the shares of the siblings that want to sell and then force the rest out?
United haven't been a PLC for a long time
Answer to the first is because it would be expensive and unfruitful and the second is that the way the shares are set up he couldn't get a majority stake without the holdouts agreeing to sell at least some shares to him.
I think they convert to Class A shares in that scenario.There’s a mechanism to transfer B shares to someone else and retain voting rights and my guess is that it requires a vote from all other B class holders.
The Glazers (all six) will sell ALL their shares to the 92F, it’s just a matter of time. It’s legally and financially their best option.
If they eventually end up in a legal dispute there’s a possibility it could jeopardize their other businesses including their ownership in TBB. Even if the possibilities are slim they will NOT take that route.
I’m no legal expert but common sense says that six media shy families who values wealth above everything else don’t want to end up in a public legal dispute with a uncertain outcome. The downsides by far outweighs the eventual financial upsides.
Btw. I said already in beginning of this sales process that I didn’t saw Ratcliffe as a serious buyer. Too much uncertainty was involved to take him seriously. I still stand by that comment.
If they eventually end up in a legal dispute there’s a possibility it could jeopardize their other businesses including their ownership in TBB. Even if the possibilities are slim they will NOT take that route.
I’m no legal expert but common sense says that six media shy families who values wealth above everything else don’t want to end up in a public legal dispute with a uncertain outcome. The downsides by far outweighs the eventual financial upsides.
Btw. I said already in beginning of this sales process that I didn’t saw Ratcliffe as a serious buyer. Too much uncertainty was involved to take him seriously. I still stand by that comment.
In fairness as bad as he was, even Ashley paid off Newcastle's debts when he took over rather than loading his own debts onto the club, and then put his own money into the club as interest free loans when they were struggling which meant they didn't have to fork out millions in interest payments. Don't get me wrong Ashley didn't invest in the club or encourage their various departments to progress, and somewhat left it to rot as long as the Premier League money was rolling, as such there is no real defence for his style of ownership, but he cannot be considered to be on the same level as the Glazers.
I don't really think it's possible to overstate how astonishing it is we've managed to maintain the relative levels that we have done with the eye-watering sums that have been taken out of the club during their ownership. It's not even that far off the level of money that took City from being the club they were in 2007 to the club they are today. I don't know how many other clubs in the world would have survived being owned by this family.
How many directors are they in total? Assuming 6 are the Glazers themselves.
On what basis can the minority shareholders prevent the Glazers selling their shares?
It doesn't make sense. It's not as if they are being offered less for their shares, they would still hold them and if anything, they would increase in value at the point of sale.
It doesn't make sense. It's not as if they are being offered less for their shares, they would still hold them and if anything, they would increase in value at the point of sale.
- Status