Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's a bit different in that they didn't have to hide the fact the state was funding the world cup where as they do with purchasing United.
You’re green as grass if you think this government will let a transparently state backed Qatari takeover be blocked. Honestly have a think about the politics. There is literally zero chance they are turned away.
 
And I'm not saying they have no value, only that they are not equal.
Stocks are called equity for a reason. They should have the equal financial power (buying/selling them, dividend etc).

I would not be surprised if any sale that fecks over the minority shareholders to be blocked or at least be a long series of legal battles over that.
 
Totally agree the shares will be sold at the same price rumours at $38 and the Glazers will get an additional payment which does not represent share value to relinquish control of the club, they want compensation for the potential loss of future revenue through investments in the land they own and future merchandising and broadcasting deals. Call it a bill of Sale if you like which basically says they hand over as custodians of the club to a new owner for a huge financial payment which will be paid into their Cayman Islands accounts tax free.

If the Glazers shares were also listed on the NYSE and with the fact they said all shares would be of equal value, I would agree that the A share holders have a solid case. When I looked into this a few weeks ago everything related to publicly traded shares and that it was normal for there to be a premium for the higher class.

At the time of the initial IPO the stock sort of bombed as well, because what was on offer wasn't particularly attractive due to get set up of the shares. I also couldn't find anything concrete on how the fact the Glazers shares are not listed, other than that if they were, the shareprice would be significantly higher and this would be a fairly moot point.
 
You’re green as grass if you think this government will let a transparently state backed Qatari takeover be blocked. Honestly have a think about the politics. There is literally zero chance they are turned away.

You're are probably right in that one, Newcastles owner barely even tried to hide it and even admitted it in open court not long after.

I don't think it's a positive thing though that the UK government would be happy with it. If we were all happy with what the UK government was happy with then we'd be some serious cnuts.
 
Couldn't it just be that simple that the Glazers are hoping that SJR will be able to borrow more money to rise his offer and therefore force Jassim to counter rise his? I still believe they just want as much cash as possible. If SJR wins they are still getting kicked out in a few years. I don´t think that staying is so important for that short period of time. If they were promised they could stay for another 10-15 years it would be another thing. This is a slow, high risk, poker game.
 
Couldn't it just be that simple that the Glazers are hoping that Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE will be able to borrow more money to rise his offer and therefore force Jassim to counter rise his? I still believe they just want as much cash as possible. If Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE wins they are still getting kicked out in a few years. I don´t think that staying is so important for that short period of time. If they were promised they could stay for another 10-15 years it would be another thing. This is a slow, high risk, poker game.
We’ll that’s the smart thought process, the Greedy Glazers want £6bn simple for 100% preferably then they will all forget for another 2/3 months and try and get £7bn the only way you close this deal is SJ and 92 Foundation go on record and say that the $1bn to invest in the club on top of the £5.4bn they were going to pay the Glazers has now been revised to only invest £200m in the infrastructure as the bid has now been increased to £6bn but all the Glazers only have 48 hours to make their mind up.
 
I’m not sure you can work through breaking laws against shareholders interests though. It’s not really a negotiation
Sure, but if the Glazers did not want to sell then why not withdraw?

Why not then engage with Sir Jim privately.

The problem for the Glazers is that they have made the sale/equity investigation a company (United) strategy. Therefore the board must be consulted on a final option or to withdraw.

If they withdraw now the A class shareholders will hammer them for turning away the best option for all shareholders, therefore the Glazer's are in a bind.

More likely the Glazers want to sell and withdrawal will just delay the inevitable.
JagUTD is right they don't hold the same quality but when they were sold on the NYSE they were advertised as having the same value, each share category, A and B, having the same value, receiving the same dividend.

Malcolm sold off 10% of United as A class shares. They were valued as representing 10% of the club.

What would the Glazer's say - they were never worth the same as class B, we lied?

The Glazer's have tried to take the proverbial, and have with us fans, but these A class investors are a different category of individuals and it is time to pay up.

Regardless, the board must act in the best interest of each shareholder, there should be no preference for one group over another. There shares are equal:

"The rights of the holders of our Class A ordinary shares and our Class B ordinary shares are identical"

from the sales prospectus -

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549107/000104746912007537/a2210287zf-1a.htm

I don't mean to single you two out, but you were the ones I saw over the last pages talking about this.

Yes, the board has a fiduciary duty towards the shareholders to always act in their best interests. But it's not the board that is selling the shares? It's the individual Glazers who are selling their shares privately. No matter if they are on the board, selling their shares is a personal decision, not a board decision?

And if the board ever does something that the majority of the shareholders (in other words, The Glazers) don't agree with, then the shareholders will call for an extraordinary shareholder meeting where they will elect a new board that will do as the majority wants?
 
I log in, 12 new pages and think, finally something must have happened. Nope. This is 100% going into next year isn’t it?
 
Having watched the numerous pile ons by those favouring Qatar on any poster who posts something they take particular offence to or misunderstand I think myself and others are actually very polite in general.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
They have fecked us haven't they. And Sir Jim too. If he hadn't come up with that idiotic idea of not buying the whole club, the sale would have been done a month ago. We would have now already bought Caicedo and Osimeh with the oil money and be looking forward to challenging, Instead we are trying to buy Haaland from Lidl and just hoping for top 4 again. cnuts. Sir Jim too.
 
Hi lads,

just heard glazers might be open to selling the club. Rumours of two potential buyers. Any truth to these whispers? All a bit sudden and out of the blue!
 
I don't mean to single you two out, but you were the ones I saw over the last pages talking about this.

Yes, the board has a fiduciary duty towards the shareholders to always act in their best interests. But it's not the board that is selling the shares? It's the individual Glazers who are selling their shares privately. No matter if they are on the board, selling their shares is a personal decision, not a board decision?

And if the board ever does something that the majority of the shareholders (in other words, The Glazers) don't agree with, then the shareholders will call for an extraordinary shareholder meeting where they will elect a new board that will do as the majority wants?
But SJ wants to buy all the shares, so that changes the situation.
 
Honestly i doubt this is going to affect our transfer business at this point. So although it'd be nice to open that bottle of champagne, i'm not all that concerned. I'll keep drinking beer until it's done.
Shame on you. Beer is horrendous. Champagne on the other hand is marvelous.
 
Yes, the board has a fiduciary duty towards the shareholders to always act in their best interests. But it's not the board that is selling the shares? It's the individual Glazers who are selling their shares privately. No matter if they are on the board, selling their shares is a personal decision, not a board decision?

All true except they Class B shares can't be sold as such outside the Glazer family without a board meeting where two thirds of the share holders vote to change the rules. And that would clearly not be in the interests of the Class A shareholders as it only benefits the INEOS bid. There's no need to change the rules for a Qatar buyout as they want all the shares anyway.
 
1949 - big year geopolitically:
  • NATO established
  • CCP takes over in China
  • West Germany and East Germany are formally established
  • Israel admitted to the UN
 
We’re literally comparing them to the Qataris who are buying it outright and clearing all debt.

Qatar's national debt is around 60 % of GDP, that's many Uniteds worth. Why do they have debt if they're so rich?

They're not going to sell assets to buy a football club. They'll either take up a loan, which they'll pay back somewhere down the line from income by selling natural resources, or they'll use gas money directly. It doesn't make any difference.
 
I was going to say this would be sorted by page 1970 my birth year but that's too close now. So I had a re-think and came up with 2 new pages for completion. 1980, my 10th birthday and also the day Lennon got shot or 2019 the year I lost my innocence (virginity). :drool:
 
Qatar's national debt is around 60 % of GDP, that's many Uniteds worth. Why do they have debt if they're so rich?

They're not going to sell assets to buy a football club. They'll either take up a loan, which they'll pay back somewhere down the line from income by selling natural resources, or they'll use gas money directly. It doesn't make any difference.

Firstly I am spitballing/streams of consciousness here -- crap I learnt from uni.

It's sometimes more prudent to carry debt, especially during a period of cheap interest rates -- which we have had for a couple of decades now. That has recently changed.

There are also different types of debt like bonds in Qatar's case.

Another key is to look at its balance sheet -- and whether the assets outweigh its liabilities. Then you need to look at the type of debt that it's carrying.

Then you need to also look at the country's credit rating. This will give you an indication of how risky they are.

Tbh I have not looked into Qatar's so I cant comment specifically on their debt.
 
First Hitler, now Cromwell. This thread really cannot get more evil.
not sure history paints Cromwell as evil... didn't see the Hitler thing. Also Leo Amery aimed it at Nev Chamberlain and gave Britain Churchill!
 
We can probably thank Joel mainly for the length of this thread- (Avram just seems to follow him).
Just wish Jim hadn’t planted the idea of joint ownership into their heads in the first place.
 
Last time I followed this news, Rio Ferdinand was telling us that the Qataris are close to buying United.

I think that was like a month ago. What happened?
 


Anyone able to verify this? Article is from Feb, maybe it’s common knowledge in here and I wasn’t following this that closely back then.
 
Yes, they will purchase United with gold bars. Even if they could, how exactly is the Nine Two Foundation going to explain where they got those gold bars from?

HBJ found a load of Shopping bags in the back of a fridge he'd forgot about, turns out there was £6b worth of gold in them.

But M&S bags this time, you can't transport Gold in Tesco bags.
 
To preface, I have no preference on buyer and assume both would be shit in their own way.

I completely understand why debt is a dirty word around these parts. But the debt didn't need to destroy us as much as it did, that was down to the Glazers being incompetent. If managed by people who know what they're doing and who have United's interests at heart, the debt shouldn't hamper us as much as it has.

There's also healthy debt and then there is Glazer debt

I hear what you say mate, but there will still be debt so how will we be able to fix Old Trafford and Carrington and still compete in the transfer market if they move around debt? Im sure INEOS shareholders wouldnt want to just give 1-2 billion quid to upgrade Stadium and training ground without seeing any returns.
 


Anyone able to verify this? Article is from Feb, maybe it’s common knowledge in here and I wasn’t following this that closely back then.


Meh, I don't think there's any real motive behind Jim buying us beyond dick measuring personally. Feels to me just like a bored billionaire that wants to buy a football club.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.