Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

probably not always but they are ten times more reliable than any footie journalist on this matter, that's for sure
 
Rightnr said:
Some of you lot are hilarious :lol:
Click to expand...

I know. It's been a roller coaster this thread watching how some constantly shift the goalposts.

I mean, at one point we had some claiming that a certain Qatari news source was certain to be right because it was owned by Jassims dad.... Turned out they were had by a kid in Cardiff. Amazing stuff :lol:
 
JagUTD said:
I know. It's been a roller coaster this thread watching how some constantly shift the goalposts.

I mean, at one point we had some claiming that a certain Qatari news source was certain to be right because it was owned by Jassims dad.... Turned out they were had by a kid in Cardiff. Amazing stuff :lol:
Click to expand...

I missed that one, amazing :lol:
 
Tarrou said:
probably not always but they are ten times more reliable than any footie journalist on this matter, that's for sure
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But 10 times better than nothing still isn't something you'd get your house on.
 
putzmcgee123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not fiction at all. Publicly listed companies in the US are required to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, aka SOX.

SOX requirements are related to accuracy of financial reporting, among other things.

Delisting United from the NYSE would allow for the same type of offshore payment schemes that Manchester City have employed to cheat their way to the top.
 
JagUTD said:
I know. It's been a roller coaster this thread watching how some constantly shift the goalposts.

I mean, at one point we had some claiming that a certain Qatari news source was certain to be right because it was owned by Jassims dad.... Turned out they were had by a kid in Cardiff. Amazing stuff :lol:
Click to expand...
We also have you questioning the actual pro financial journalists and sources who are leagues above any of the Athletic amateurs and it just makes me laugh.
 
Look closely guys, the Mason Mount unveiling photoshoot is the evidence we need that the sale's all but done.

8192.jpg


Besides the Middle Eastern-sepia toned wall, that rug was clearly donated by the Qatari Museum of Islamic Art, it's right out of their carpet collection. I guess the 'forever and ever' banner is a sympathy acknowledgement of how ridiculously long this has been going on for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rood
Pickle85 said:
What are the benefits to delisting from the NYSE?
Click to expand...

As a general question delisting has lots of benefits. Less risk of hostile take overs, in fact no risk if handled correctly with contracts, more privacy, no speculation, better investment opportunities etc.

In this case I presume they just want the club for themselves, as their toy.

I am no expert but I don’t know why you can’t delist a company in debt. Makes no sense. In fact, a company can be forcefully delisted if not compliant with the listing rules.
 
JagUTD said:
I know. It's been a roller coaster this thread watching how some constantly shift the goalposts.

I mean, at one point we had some claiming that a certain Qatari news source was certain to be right because it was owned by Jassims dad.... Turned out they were had by a kid in Cardiff. Amazing stuff :lol:
Click to expand...

Like you do?
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
It's not fiction at all. Publicly listed companies in the US are required to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, aka SOX.

SOX requirements are related to accuracy of financial reporting, among other things.

Delisting United from the NYSE would allow for the same type of offshore payment schemes that Manchester City have employed to cheat their way to the top.
Click to expand...
Re-read the post I quoted. Nothing I said has been rebutted. My bone of contention is the claim of the only reason for delisting from the NYSE is cheating. I am not suggesting that delisting from the NYSE does not make it easier to cheat.
 
Tarrou said:
this argument makes more sense in the other direction

if they didn't want a sale, they would have just said so by now
Click to expand...

They sent a contract and Jassim signed it. Then decided that they weren't interested in going ahead with the deal.
 
Rightnr said:
We also have you questioning the actual pro financial journalists and sources who are leagues above any of the Athletic amateurs and it just makes me laugh.
Click to expand...

Questioning any of them is the best stance to take right now. Surely the likes of yourself and all the others who have been burnt so often by getting excited regardless of who reports what, as long as it aligns with what you want to happen should be well aware of that by now?
 
JagUTD said:
Questioning any of them is the best stance to take right now. Surely the likes of yourself and all the others who have been burnt so often by getting excited regardless of who reports what, as long as it aligns with what you want to happen should be well aware of that by now?
Click to expand...
You don’t question any of them though, you consistently question Qatari positive news and give credence to Ratcliffe positive news
 
putzmcgee123 said:
Re-read the post I quoted. Nothing I said has been rebutted. My bone of contention is the claim of the only reason for delisting from the NYSE is cheating. I am not suggesting that delisting from the NYSE does not make it easier to cheat.
Click to expand...

The post you quoted was in response to another about delisting. You said that is a wonderful piece of fiction. I've pointed out it is not due to the reporting requirements for listed companies. Delisting's primary benefit in this situation is not having to follow the financial reporting requirements under SOX and what City have done over the years proves that. The hypothetical bravado you've claimed as the motivation is speculative at best.
 
Pexbo said:
You don’t question any of them though, you consistently question Qatari positive news and give credence to Ratcliffe positive news
Click to expand...

I really don't. Besides having a bit of fun at the expense of those who take any pro Qatar news as gospel, I've not taken any of the news particularly seriously.

I've certainly not tried to claim any news source is infallible as some have though, particularly anything linked to the State of Qatar itself.
 
JagUTD said:
Questioning any of them is the best stance to take right now. Surely the likes of yourself and all the others who have been burnt so often by getting excited regardless of who reports what, as long as it aligns with what you want to happen should be well aware of that by now?
Click to expand...
None of the financial media have said for certain a deal is done though.

I've never been too excited because I've seen these things develop in the press for other companies.

And to be honest, once we were past May, I stopped caring because our window has been well and truly Mounted with Mehson.
 
Tarrou said:
this is what was wrote



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.
Click to expand...

It’s not compulsory for SJR because he’s not looking to delist the club from the NYSE if he was and made that clear in his bid, then he would have to settle the debt as well.
 
Tarrou said:
this is what was wrote



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.
Click to expand...

It's not compulsory to pay off debts as part of a deliberate delisting or takeover in any shape or form. It could be part of the clubs specific loan agreements but i doubt it and as you say we just don't know.

Whoever is buying us will form a new company buy the shares of the existing listed firm and then take it private. They'll still own the existing company and its debt, it's a separate transaction to clear that debt or restructure it.
 
Woziak said:
It’s not compulsory for Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE because he’s not looking to delist the club from the NYSE if he was and made that clear in his bid, then he would have to settle the debt as well.
Click to expand...

right, so you agree the debt doesn't need to be cleared for them to sell (even if I disagree we need to clear debt to delist, its irrelevant to our discussion really)

it is a transaction that occurs after they've sold their shares
 
Lot of noise right now about Glazers staying. So those of you who hate the idea of Qatar might get your wish when the new season approaches as there’s a chance we will be still be owned by the leeches.
 
Zora said:
Lot of noise right now about Glazers staying. So those of you who hate the idea of Qatar might get your wish when the new season approaches as there’s a chance we will be still be owned by the leeches.
Click to expand...

I refuse to contemplate something so awful
 
Tarrou said:
right, so you agree the debt doesn't need to be cleared for them to sell (even if I disagree we need to clear debt to delist, its irrelevant to our discussion really)

it is a transaction that occurs after they've sold their shares
Click to expand...

Pretty sure i've read previously that in the event of a change of ownership or new majority shareholder, the loans against the Club get called in and would require paying off.
 
Zora said:
Lot of noise right now about Glazers staying. So those of you who hate the idea of Qatar might get your wish when the new season approaches as there’s a chance we will be still be owned by the leeches.
Click to expand...
There is feck all noise about anything.
 
jadaba said:
Look closely guys, the Mason Mount unveiling photoshoot is the evidence we need that the sale's all but done.

8192.jpg


Besides the Middle Eastern-sepia toned wall, that rug was clearly donated by the Qatari Museum of Islamic Art, it's right out of their carpet collection. I guess the 'forever and ever' banner is a sympathy acknowledgement of how ridiculously long this has been going on for.
Click to expand...

If you zoom in on the crowd picture of the left you can see an 18 year old Jassim attending his first match at OT.
 
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...
So the glazers cant delist themselves as shareholders until debt is cleared?
Whats all this about Sir Jim not clearing utds debt then?
 
jadaba said:
Look closely guys, the Mason Mount unveiling photoshoot is the evidence we need that the sale's all but done.

8192.jpg


Besides the Middle Eastern-sepia toned wall, that rug was clearly donated by the Qatari Museum of Islamic Art, it's right out of their carpet collection. I guess the 'forever and ever' banner is a sympathy acknowledgement of how ridiculously long this has been going on for.
Click to expand...

No way this is just a coincidence
 
Status
Not open for further replies.