Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pickle85 said:
What are the benefits to delisting from the NYSE?
Click to expand...
As a private owner of the club, they 92 Foundation are not governed by a board of investors to debate and decide decisions. For example they want a player, they don’t have to justify the cost of acquisition, cost of wages and agent fees with a board made up up of all the share holders. They could basically decide on a player and buy him in 2 weeks not 2 years.

If SJR took over he would run the club initially in the same way a board of 9 directors made up of 4 nominated by him, Joel and Avram plus two selected from the minority share holders. He would be the chairman of the board and have the deciding vote but there would still be debate after debate, huge delays in decision making just like now!
 
Pexbo said:
I think the financial journalist of two decades understands sources and is well placed to discuss them.
Click to expand...
Yeah but it takes away all the posts and points made against Qatar in the face of Bloomberg etc so it doesn’t count.
Who is Bloomberg and FT when compared to senior sports journalist Lawton of The Times?
 
Pickle85 said:
What are the benefits to delisting from the NYSE?
Click to expand...
I think it’s so they aren’t forced to open their books that allows investigation past their ownership of the club but it was explained on here that long ago that I could be wrong.
 
JagUTD said:
Cheating.

No other reason. It make it's easier to hide all the cheating.
Click to expand...
Also owning 100% of the club outright, which is why all companies that move to private ownership are delisted, there are no shares to trade anymore.
 
Pexbo said:
I think the financial journalist of two decades understands sources and is well placed to discuss them.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he does. Specific to the sale of Manchester United however? Not so sure.

If anything he's dismissing all the reports so far and it's probably due to the NDAs in place and that included the darlings of Bloomberg and Reuters nevermind clowns like Jacobs.
 
Woziak said:
All I ask is that people keep an open mind, you can’t quote any specific number when under an NDA and the vagueness of the quotes reported are for a reason, it will all come out soon and I don’t know what the actual number to the last penny is, but I have contacts in the city and they are all saying the 5th bid was huge, much higher than a lot thought or was reported with various financial clauses attached. That’s why there have been articles recently saying it could cost up to $8bn in total. The bid is just not as simple as the Chelsea one where all debt owed to the owner, Roman Abrahamovic which was written off by the owner, that was a clean sale and still the £2.3bn paid has not gone to it’s intended recipient.
We’ve been quoted anything from $5bn, £5bn, £5.8bn but (£800m is for future investment). No one knows but the rumour around the financial sector was the 5th bid was nearly £6bn including debt pay off.

And the worst part is, the Glazers still want more ?
Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to the NDA situation. I work with a lot of private equity firms, and the secrecy of dealmaking during the process is incredibly high, and so the finer details are not disclosed at all until announcement or completion.

At the end of the day, it's just a guessing game for us folks what is happening.
 
cyberman said:
I think it’s so they aren’t forced to open their books that allows investigation past their ownership of the club but it was explained on here that long ago that I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Woziak said:
As a private owner of the club, they 92 Foundation are not governed by a board of investors to debate and decide decisions. For example they want a player, they don’t have to justify the cost of acquisition, cost of wages and agent fees with a board made up up of all the share holders. They could basically decide on a player and buy him in 2 weeks not 2 years.

If Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE took over he would run the club initially in the same way a board of 9 directors made up of 4 nominated by him, Joel and Avram plus two selected from the minority share holders. He would be the chairman of the board and have the deciding vote but there would still be debate after debate, huge delays in decision making just like now!
Click to expand...
Thanks both.
 
JagUTD said:
Cheating.

No other reason. It make it's easier to hide all the cheating.
Click to expand...
The SEC is a joke. Cheaters get it done either way and pretty much always caught. See City for instance.

Delisting is because the club isn't beholden to shareholders. Would make for an easier time blowing a ton of money on say... stadium reno and youth team revamp
 
JagUTD said:
I'm sure he does. Specific to the sale of Manchester United however? Not so sure.

If anything he's dismissing all the reports so far and it's probably due to the NDAs in place and that included the darlings of Bloomberg and Reuters nevermind clowns like Jacobs.
Click to expand...
Are you saying he’s not counting Bloomberg and Reuters as credible news sources?

You do love to squeeze anything to fit your narrative don’t you :lol:
 
KiD MoYeS said:
If they wanted a sale surely they would have progressed on one, no? The Qatari has given the best bid, take it or leave it, and the Glazer family still haven't responded if the Guardian are to be believed.
Click to expand...

this argument makes more sense in the other direction

if they didn't want a sale, they would have just said so by now
 
JagUTD said:
Great new thread title but the guy at the FT must be aware that there are no trusted sources except the club, Raine or NYSE and that by posting it on Twitter he is also included?
Click to expand...
Some of you lot are hilarious :lol:
 
Red Shorts said:
I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to the NDA situation. I work with a lot of private equity firms, and the secrecy of dealmaking during the process is incredibly high, and so the finer details are not disclosed at all until announcement or completion.

At the end of the day, it's just a guessing game for us folks what is happening.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point we have heard huge disparities in actual bids without knowing the complete breakdown of the bids, this can antagonise united fans and sometimes because they are just fed up with the whole protracted process, they can even turn against each other when it’s completely not necessary, our mortal enemy is not each other, it’s one family who have turned our club into a laughing stock, we’ve all been in a seriously abusive relationship with them but because of our unrelenting love for the club we come back for more.

The harsh reality is the deal is probably not done, however SJ and his consortium are probably insisting something happens soon or they walk away, their bid is not known but we do know that the Glazers themselves went to the PSG chairman to ask him to plead with his friend SJ to increase his bid which they did.

This means they want to sell to SJ/Qatar but they still want more money, they probably want the debt cleared plus the £6bn as well. I keep saying if this ever happens, fans are going to be shocked at just how greedy the Glazers are?
 
Woziak said:
If Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE took over he would run the club initially in the same way a board of 9 directors made up of 4 nominated by him, Joel and Avram plus two selected from the minority share holders. He would be the chairman of the board and have the deciding vote but there would still be debate after debate, huge delays in decision making just like now!
Click to expand...

I wonder about this. The Glazer family has always operated as a unit, whether at Tampa or Old Trafford. I honestly can't see Joel and Avram in a subservient position to Ratcliffe as minority shareholders in the place where they have ruled the roost for so long.
 
the story about employees recording messages is so ridiculous

never-mind the NDA/privacy issue

these cnuts have barely been to Old Trafford, let alone Carrington or anywhere else United's employees work. I doubt they even know the names of any of the non-director level staff

the staff probably all hate them
 
strandty said:


Okay, so who had a staff leaving message deadline on their Glazer sale Bingo card?
Click to expand...


"Obviously keep this quiet in the canteen, Geraldine, but we're asking you and the gang to record a little goodbye. No, Geraldine, don't mention it to Nasdaq..."
 
Moriarty said:
I wonder about this. The Glazer family has always operated as a unit, whether at Tampa or Old Trafford. I honestly can't see Joel and Avram in a subservient position to Ratcliffe as minority shareholders in the place where they have ruled the roost for so long.
Click to expand...

They won’t, no chance. God knows what he’s promised them in order to swing the deal his way. Ratcliffe is just an English Glazer, and possibly even worse.
 
Woziak said:
You can’t delist from the NYSE without clearing all the existing debt and that must be done first of your intention is to delist.
Click to expand...

even if that were true what does this have to do with the Glazers caring about the debt?

delisting from the NYSE is a seperate transaction from them selling their shares
 
Moriarty said:
I wonder about this. The Glazer family has always operated as a unit, whether at Tampa or Old Trafford. I honestly can't see Joel and Avram in a subservient position to Ratcliffe as minority shareholders in the place where they have ruled the roost for so long.
Click to expand...
I would completely agree however we just don’t know what SJR has promised them?
 
Moriarty said:
I wonder about this. The Glazer family has always operated as a unit, whether at Tampa or Old Trafford. I honestly can't see Joel and Avram in a subservient position to Ratcliffe as minority shareholders in the place where they have ruled the roost for so long.
Click to expand...

An interesting question is whether SJR is insisting on a few Class B shares from J&A to ensure he has a two thirds majority of voting power. J&A shares make up 33.4% of the voting rights so they would have a veto on major decisions.
 
Tarrou said:
even if that were true what does this have to do with the Glazers caring about the debt?

delisting from the NYSE is a seperate transaction from them selling their shares
Click to expand...
Ok simple terms

1. The Glazers own the club or 69% majority of the club.

2. This means they not only own all of the assets but they own the debts too

3. When Malcolm bought the club he leveraged the purchase of the club on a bank loan (Debt) which had to be repaid over a period of time or in the event that the club was sold.

4. When Malcolm died, the 6 siblings inherited the club, the assets and the debts.

5. If they wish to sell the club 100%, they have to settle the outstanding debt which is now in their name as they became guarantors of the debt, when their Father died.

6. SJ buying the club, did not leverage a buy out of the club 18 years ago so he has to pay off the debt as part of his final offer to the Glazers or pay them the amount which they will have to pay off, but based on his preference to buy 100% of the club and take it private, set up new bank accounts, incorporate a new holding company to own ManUnited he can not transfer debt from a previous company to a new company if he’s delisting the company.
 
Tarrou said:
even if that were true what does this have to do with the Glazers caring about the debt?

delisting from the NYSE is a seperate transaction from them selling their shares
Click to expand...
Ok simply do you think a bank that’s owed over £500m is not going to want it’s money back when the original loan was 18 years ago after seeing the custodians of that loan, the Glazers get £5bn not want their money back, the loan is leveraged on man united by the Gkazers, in other words the club is the collateral, now after selling their shares they no longer own the club so where’s the collateral?

It’s different if Joel and Avram stay with SJR, it can be paid and absorbed by INEOS or a new deal can be agreed with a repayment structure with SJR and 2 Glazers guaranteeing the loan repayment as the new majority owners of the club and still offering the club as collateral.
 
Woziak said:
Ok simple terms

1. The Glazers own the club or 69% majority of the club.

2. This means they not only own all of the assets but they own the debts too

3. When Malcolm bought the club he leveraged the purchase of the club on a bank loan (Debt) which had to be repaid over a period of time or in the event that the club was sold.

4. When Malcolm died, the 6 siblings inherited the club, the assets and the debts.

5. If they wish to sell the club 100%, they have to settle the outstanding debt which is now in their name as they became guarantors of the debt, when their Father died.

6. SJ buying the club, did not leverage a buy out of the club 18 years ago so he has to pay off the debt as part of his final offer to the Glazers or pay them the amount which they will have to pay off, but based on his preference to buy 100% of the club and take it private, set up new bank accounts, incorporate a new holding company to own ManUnited he can not transfer debt from a previous company to a new company if he’s delisting the company.
Click to expand...

how do you come up with all this? deary me :lol:

they can't sell 100% of an asset they own 69% of

they can sell their 69%. What happens after, such as delisting, is up-to the new owner
 
Woziak said:
Ok simply do you think a bank that’s owed over £500m is not going to want it’s money back when the original loan was 18 years ago after seeing the custodians of that loan, the Glazers get £5bn not want their money back, the loan is leveraged on man united by the Gkazers, in other words the club is the collateral, now after selling their shares they no longer own the club so where’s the collateral?

It’s different if Joel and Avram stay with Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE, it can be paid and absorbed by INEOS or a new deal can be agreed with a repayment structure with Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE and 2 Glazers guaranteeing the loan repayment as the new majority owners of the club and still offering the club as collateral.
Click to expand...

do i think banks want their money back?

no mate, they'll probably just forget about it
 
Woziak said:
Ok simply do you think a bank that’s owed over £500m is not going to want it’s money back when the original loan was 18 years ago after seeing the custodians of that loan, the Glazers get £5bn not want their money back, the loan is leveraged on man united by the Gkazers, in other words the club is the collateral, now after selling their shares they no longer own the club so where’s the collateral?

It’s different if Joel and Avram stay with Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE, it can be paid and absorbed by INEOS or a new deal can be agreed with a repayment structure with Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE and 2 Glazers guaranteeing the loan repayment as the new majority owners of the club and still offering the club as collateral.
Click to expand...

Isn't it United's debt? Not the Glazer's debt. I'm pretty sure I saw some protests about this over the last 20 years.
 
Tarrou said:
how do you come up with all this? deary me :lol:

they can't sell 100% of an asset they own 69% of

they can sell their 69%. What happens after, such as delisting, is up-to the new owner
Click to expand...

100% of the shares they own, as opposed to 100% of the club (that they don't own)
 
JagUTD said:
Cheating.

No other reason. It make it's easier to hide all the cheating.
Click to expand...
This is a wonderful piece of fiction. If I am a prospective investor interested in buying an asset with the intention of investing heavily to enhance the asset, my expectation would be that the value of the asset will rise.

If I am willing and able to both spend now to acquire a 100% stake and have money left for investing to improve the asset, why would I not want to reap the full reward of my spending? Why reward minority shareholders when they are contributing nothing?

That does not even touch upon the rationale from the perspective of status. The prestige of being able to call yourself the 100% owner of Manchester United likely has its own value to the Qataris.
 
I did watch the Muppetiers video on Monday and this does seem to fit in with the current situation. He also said that everyone is frustrated and implied Raine are also concerned as this process could tarnish their reputation and how their competence is perceived. I acknowledge this is not the best level of information to go by but there appears to be truth in it.

As no party has received a response, what do people predict now the next step steps will be?
Is it likely the parasites will kick the can down the road?
 
Yorke to Cole said:
I did watch the Muppetiers video on Monday and this does seem to fit in with the current situation. He also said that everyone is frustrated and implied Raine are also concerned as this process could tarnish their reputation and how their competence is perceived. I acknowledge this is not the best level of information to go by but there appears to be truth in it.

As no party has received a response, what do people predict now the next step steps will be?
Is it likely the parasites will kick the can down the road?
Click to expand...

Well expect the fanbase to go nuclear
 
Ahriman said:
100% of the shares they own, as opposed to 100% of the club (that they don't own)
Click to expand...

this is what was wrote

If they wish to sell the club 100%, they have to settle the outstanding debt
Click to expand...

which doesn't sound like what you wrote, but who knows

the fact is, nobody knows the terms of the loan agreements

it is possible there are several loans, with several loanees, some with fixed rate terms and some variable

nobody knows what is written in each loan agreement, but it is likely the Glazers would want to structure it so it doesn't need to be paid off in the event of a takeover, to give them more flexibility when the time comes. It is secured against the club so that is definitely possible.

I'd guess at least some of the loans have the option to be called in, and therefore if the interest rates are lower than current market rate then they'll be called in, or renegotiated

we just don't know, and all these people claiming they do are just spitballing or misunderstanding things they've read, or repeating incorrect information

one piece of information we do have which is quite telling, is SJ claimed the debt would be cleared, and Jimmy didn't. If it was compulsory to pay off the loans, then why wouldn't Jimmy announce it in his statement? It is what all fans have been desperate for for over a decade. It's an open goal, yet he didn't do it.
 
mufc_sd said:
Arash Massoudi editor for the Financial Times just tweeted after Jackson's article:

"Been a finance reporter for over a decade, the misinformation during the Manchester United sale process is extraordinary. A majority of what you read is wrong. Stick to trusted news outlets, not Twitter."
Click to expand...
Welcome to the football tweet world, Arash
 
Red00012 said:
Sancho is preferred on the right , Rashford could be up top as Martial will be injured and Garnacho is still raw
Click to expand...

I prefer him on the right not sure Ten Hag does though going off last season. I would hope we're signing a senior striker as we should be playing our top scorer in his best position. And Garnacho might be Raw but he's too good not to get 30-40 games next season.

If we sign a left winger this summer I'll buy a hat and then eat it.
 
Pexbo said:
Are you saying he’s not counting Bloomberg and Reuters as credible news sources?

You do love to squeeze anything to fit your narrative don’t you :lol:
Click to expand...

Do you actually believe Reuters or Bloomberg are always accurate in their reporting? Especially when quoting sources relating to something protected by NDAs?

The BBC are about as accurate as Reuters but many here would dismiss a report by then quoting "sources", especially weeks after they've made the claim and it appears to have been inaccurate.

The reason Reuters and the like are well regarded is because they report after the fact, and give detailed information. Anyone trying to report something that has not happened yet is always more likely to be wrong than right.
 
JagUTD said:
Do you actually believe Reuters or Bloomberg are always accurate in their reporting? Especially when quoting sources relating to something protected by NDAs?

The BBC are about as accurate as Reuters but many here would dismiss a report by then quoting "sources", especially weeks after they've made the claim and it appears to have been inaccurate.

The reason Reuters and the like are well regarded is because they report after the fact, and give detailed information. Anyone trying to report something that has not happened yet is always more likely to be wrong than right.
Click to expand...

You've completely made this up
 
Status
Not open for further replies.