There is also a subclause that says that in shareholder votes, the Class B shares always constitute two thirds of the voting, so if all the class B shares were sold as Class A bar one, the one remaining class B share would control the club. Collectively these particular rules might be so heavy handed as to be deemed unreasonable by a court. It would be funny if the Glazer greed to sell shares but keep control turned out to be their undoing.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
There is also a subclause that says that in shareholder votes, the Class B shares always constitute two thirds of the voting, so if all the class B shares were sold as Class A bar one, the one remaining class B share would control the club. Collectively these particular rules might be so heavy handed as to be deemed unreasonable by a court. It would be funny if the Glazer greed to sell shares but keep control turned out to be their undoing.
So if the leeches wish to attach themselves onto the Rat, they may well let this ‘sale’ process end, and then simply sell their shares to him afterwards?
Last edited:
Either way, not selling now could cause legal trouble.
The board should accept the 38$ share deal. After all, it is 50% premium on current value and around 300% of the value of United before Glazers deciding to sell. Not accepting that deal would be betraying the shareholders.
Now the board accepting such a deal, but the Glazers rejecting it might be cause of legal trouble too, cause half of the board are essentially the Glazers siblings and them voting on the board to accept the deal, but voting against it later would be a bit weird.
Voting against it, and then immediately entering private negotiations with SJR would be a cause of legal fights too.
I guess they could decide feck it, let’s just not sell, which will likely immediately send the club’s stock on single digits (their wealth essentially being lowered by 60-70%, and by 80%+ compared to having sold it to Qatar), wait for another few years to sell it, during which time there is no guarantee that they will get a better deal.
I think it is very likely that they will sell. It would be both brave and stupid to not sell it now.
There was a poster in the last week who was mentioning that a few times in this thread. I speak under correction but I think it was @Woziak .Maybe they can comment bud.
The board ultimately will either vote for the deal or against the deal (it being selling the club). Then it goes to a vote of all shareholders selling the club at x$/share or not. If the majority (or supermajority depending on the status) vote for, the club gets sold, otherwise it won’t.
If the Glazers vote against the deal in the board, they can block the deal considering that they own half of the seats (in a deadlock the chairman, in this case Avram and Joel cast decisive votes), but then the board/company can get sued from minority investors and they need to justify why the voted against such a great deal. If the Glazers vote for such a deal, and then in the shareholders voting against it, that is a cause for legal trouble too (why first yes, then no).
Bear in mind, this is only if Glazers vote as a block. It might be possible for Joel/Avram to vote against it while the others yes, and they control just slightly above 1/3 of the voting rights to block a deal.
50 pages left, we can do this
Potentially yes, but for that to happen the board (which is controlled by them) should first reject the offers of Rat and Qatar. Then they will get sued to death by various hedge funds and the process will get dragged for a long time.
If they immediately process to privately sell after fecking the other shareholders, they will be doubled sued to death.
Gosh, can these Glazers sell the club and feck off already.
I'm not saying there might not be legal challenges if they do this. But I can't see that Glazers wouldn't be in their right to do as they want.
Wouldn't this question be answered by stating that acting in the capacity of board members (and Chairpersons) they recommended to the shareholders that they should sell to Jassim.
But taking off the board hat to separate the roles, as private individuals who own the shares they decided that they did not want to because they felt that another option is better for them?
PS: Really enjoyed discussing this with you, one of the few level headed discussions I've had on here. (But also won't spend much more of my day here, about to have some beers.)
Actually feeling a little sorry for you lot. Insane that this is dragging on for so long without any proper updates.
Potentially yes but I’d hazard a guess they’d still get sued in such an instance. The law isn’t that static and would take intent deeply into account - this sale has been extremely public so by following the above process, they’d simply be trying to bypass the law, which should technically be legal but no way the courts ignore prior events and minorities will still sue.
It would seem not.
Legal challenges can block the sale though. It happens all the time for even smaller things (like Activision deciding to sell to Microsoft but being blocked in anti-competition grounds, same for Arm and Nvidia). So the Glazer should be very confident that they would win a lengthy legal battle (against some rich hedge funds to pull such a move). Maybe they will, but it seems high risk, low reward. In case they try that and they failed, they essentially have converted a 6-6.5B dollar asset (on which they own 2/3 of it) into a 2B dollar asset, best case. So instead of getting 4B+ they would be owning a 1.5B- asset in their hands. It is quite risky just so Avram and Joel can stay on the club for another 3 years in hopes that the asset appreciates in value even more.
I try ignoring the Caf every so often for a day or 2 in the hope that I log on and some reliable update/news would have occurred, only to repeatedly get disappointed!
We are very much used to being left in the dark with these owners. We have had next to nothing from them over the years, not even a f*ck you.
It’s nothing new tbh, pretty much sums up the way we’ve been run under the Glazers. Would have been a bigger shock if this had been all concluded by the end of Q1 as estimated/hoped for at the very start back in November last year.
I don't believe the club is going to be sold anymore
I know, it’s fecking depressing isn’t it.
Who’s your preferred bidder (of the two involved)?
Here the issue is that when they come to sell it comes before the board.
A takeover process would be triggered, the purchase of about 34% of the shares, sufficient to block any resolution.
If Sir Jim buys more than 34% it will be deemed to be a takeover and he would have to bid for the whole çlub.
The matter would go before the board.
The board may be questioned why they failed to take a previously higher offer from Jassim. It becomes a legal minefield.
Also if they changed the voting power of the new owners shares to remain as class B, they are altering the basis on which those class A shares were sold , that class B would only apply to the Glazers and there would be a reasonable expectation that at some point those shares would be absorbed into class A shares - on their sale. Now they are seeking to change the whole nature of that understanding?
Me neither. Not full sale anyway.
Oh I know legal challenges can hold up the process. But it should also be easier for a court to decide if rules were broken or not in the sale of shares.
They don't have to make a legal estimated guess on if United would become a monopolistic dominant force if the shares are sold to one party over the other like in the anti-competition lawsuits you mentioned.
I also don't agree that the value would depreciate as low as 2B (or even below 5B) should they lose a lawsuit which blocks them from selling to Ratcliffe. Then they either sell to the other party at their offered price, or possibly slightly lowered.
If Jassim then tries to argue that he shouldn't pay as much if they can't sell to Jim then they can decide that now is not the right time to sell after all. Manchester United is a unique piece of art that won't depreciate in value unless they stop having a fanbase that spends money on the club.
The shareprice might fluctuate, but that doesn't change the value of the club at the time of a sale. (Which is why Jassim is offering more than what the shares are technically worth.)
But yes, this is a simplistic take on it, the majority of the Glazers obviously prefer to sell now, for the best possible deal they personally can get, so that all the siblings are happy.
If they have to spend extra time to make sure that they pick the best possible deal they can (legally) get away with then they will spend that time.
All shares/stock market is essentially gambling anyway. Governed by individuals willingness to take risks based on what they THINK will be best, not necessarily what is percentage-wise the most likely best option.
If everything was ruled by logic then anyone could make money as long as they made the most logic choice, knowing that everyone else will make the same choice because it's the most logic choice. In reality we have winners and losers. (And most of the time under capitalism, the winners keep on winning.)
They’re owners who genuinely have no care for the club they inherited.
They’re also incredibly privileged people who were given everything they have on a plate, which tends towards lower empathy in my experience.
I'll take any sale where the Glazers lose Majority control at this point but don't think we'll get it
Coming around to this now. Two Glazers don’t want to sell and that’s it. OT will rot and a division will set in on the board that will turn nasty.
Two Glazers were caught out in what they were trying here and it’s all come crumbling down around them. Hopefully there’s 2/3 majority involved somewhere that can smoke them out
Try not to be too heavily invested but would prefer the bid from Sheikh Jassim for the club. Also just want to move on from the Glazers.
As far as I understand there is no such takeover process for stocks on the NYSE. The rules in the US is if someone acquires more than 5% they need to file with the SEC if they intend to do a full takeover or not. And if they intend to do a full takeover they need to give a tender offer to all shareholders. But if they file no about a full takeover they can still acquire 51%+ without having to do a tender offer for all of the stocks.
There is no 30% Takeover Code as there is in the UK.
They ain't leaving. They wouldn't be buying Mount and handing out the 7 shirt if they were planning to leave. They're trying to look good, so they can announce the club isn't for sale.
What I find absolutely astonishing is the notion that someone could own a sports club and not actually have any real interest in WINNING.
Yes, there are other great things about following a football club like the community, the spectacle of the game, the entertainment value, etc but at the end of the day, the whole point of any sport is to WIN AND DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO WIN (without cheating).
As this sale process has dragged on, I've become more and more depressed and disillusioned about our club's future.
I've been watching AFL again and the contrast between supporting my local club and supporting United is truly astounding.
I know that the administration and board that run my AFL club actually TRIES THEIR BEST TO WIN.
And my AFL team has been shit for two decades but I never doubt that they try and so it is an enjoyable experience watching them despite their poor results.
When I was growing up, I felt like the people that ran United actually cared about winning, that the board was competent at its job, that the players really understood what it meant to represent the club, etc.
But when I think of United under the Glazers, I don't ever feel like the owners are doing whatever is in their powers to maximise our club's potential.
It's gotten to the point where my passion for the club is waning and my enjoyment is diminishing.
And it's been a long time coming.
I can handle the team losing, if I know that everything is being done to improve. I could handle our team go another decade without another title SO LONG AS I FELT LIKE THE OWNERS, BOARD AND PLAYERS WERE DOING THEIR BEST.
From what I have read in some financial paper that INEOS is a bit unusual compared to the normal MNCs.
The three main partners may own INEOS but each individual entity within the INEOS sphere has their own board and chairman etc. Its not like they are head of some division.
So I suspect that it's like a constellation of acquired/strategic partnerships of companies connected to the main holding company, INEOS owning some equity in each separate entities. These entities apparently can even compete or overlap each others product lines.
It's almost like INEOS is a brand or franchise name -- which may explain they need to spend do much on marketing/branding.
Kroenke was like that with arsenal for the longest time. Participating was more important. Blue Peter badge .
Last edited:
Exactly. Absolutely correct imo.
After dealing with them for for so long you know how they work, this is Glazer damage limitation now.
Try and use silence and time to lull the fanbase back into complacency, which will probably work, and then at the right time begin drip feeding pieces of news slowly revealing that they’re either not selling, or are bringing in Ratcliffe.
Their problem is what Jassim has publicly pledged for the club.
It’s like a neglectful, abusive spouse having it revealed to their partner that there are other people who are attracted to them and will treat them well - it’s their worst nightmare.
They will thus try and drag it on for as long as possible until the new season is underway…
Then, after a good result on the pitch they’ll start revealing that they’re staying.
It appears this is dragging out because 2 of the leading Glazer parasites want to remain in some capacity because they feel that their decaying asset will still ultimately grow in value further down the line and they want a further slice of the cake should this occur.
Also what I found very interesting about Radcliffes recent comments is that he appears to be playing to the 2 parasites greed by stating that Utd are one of the few special clubs across the globe whose value will continue to increase over time. This is clearly being done so that the 2 greedy parasites will choose his package instead of the qatars bid which will allow the greediest parasites to stay on in some capacity and continue to feast on their asset.
Such a depressing state of affairs.
Also what I found very interesting about Radcliffes recent comments is that he appears to be playing to the 2 parasites greed by stating that Utd are one of the few special clubs across the globe whose value will continue to increase over time. This is clearly being done so that the 2 greedy parasites will choose his package instead of the qatars bid which will allow the greediest parasites to stay on in some capacity and continue to feast on their asset.
Such a depressing state of affairs.
Sir Jim is helping to facilitate the Glazers stay at the club. Even if they don’t sell at all, this is all his fault.
He’s even affected our summer transfer window simply by putting his miserable offer on the table.
How do you contribute to the woe of a club before you’ve even bought it?
I fear many more years of the same old shit from United. Doomed to aiming for a CL spot.
He’s even affected our summer transfer window simply by putting his miserable offer on the table.
How do you contribute to the woe of a club before you’ve even bought it?
I fear many more years of the same old shit from United. Doomed to aiming for a CL spot.
I still think this is all a stunt to get Qatar to up their bid.
Last edited:
That kind of thing is frowned upon there
What's the strongest bud they can offer do you think, maybe godfather og ?
Fair comment, I don't know the takeover rules for the NYSE or any other jurisdiction other than I had a look for London.
However the Glazers are stumped at the moment.
The club have to follow the process, they initiated it and must decide.
Board, all things being equal, recommend the Jassim offer.
Glazers, as a unit reject that.
Then what.
Process ends.
There could already be claims that the Glazers should have recused themselves due to a strong conflict of interest.
Glazers would have to wait a fair while before then re-engaging with Sir Jim to remove the claim that they have deliberately tried to circumvent the club's strategic process.
Are the Glazers really looking to do that?
- Status