Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
gaffs said:
Thats business. There is only one club that Jim wants to buy and he realizes he has to be pragmatic if he wants to get it.

I agree, Qatar want it. But im not sure why its 100% or nothing? Maybe its a negotiation ploy? Maybe it is a principal that they hold in Qatar that they don't want to share their assets.

If Jim gets majority control of the club and fans start to see improvements on and off the pitch, The Glazers being minority shareholders will soon fade into the background.
Click to expand...
Good points there actually.

I think it remains to be seen whats actually happening, but i think the main thing United supporters want to see at the moment is clearing of the debt and Glazers out. Jim hasn't stated he'd clear the debt, he's just said any NEW debt would be incurred on INEOS not United, wheras SJ has said he'd clear the debt and there'd be no new debt at all. I can see why Qatar would be an attractive propostion in that sense.

I think it's just a case of wait and see what happens, but as it drags on and Jim seems to propose things that keep the Glazers around, it's not going to sit well with many.
 
Pexbo said:
And then there was one.

Big step towards Qatar winning the auction when their only rival bid withdraws from the running.
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like a withdrawal to me unless I am not reading between the lines
 
croadyman said:
Doesn't sound like a withdrawal to me unless I am not reading between the lines
Click to expand...
Maybe not a withdrawal, but it does sound like the actions of a man who's out of ideas or knowing he's possibly losing in the race and wants to win at any cost.

We really don't know
 
Very difficult to get excited about the prospect of a minority sale

Gets SJR a seat on the board but not sure if it would achieve much for improving all the problem area within the club
 
Worst possible outcome is Jim buying 25%. The club is well and truly fecked.
 
The fact that United have allowed speculation on the club's sale to reach fever pitch levels for so long with misinformation abound everywhere, speaks volumes about their lack of duty of care.

I'd imagine United's entire band of non-playing staff would be in some way unsettled as well along with the players and those on the frontlines. It is a natural response when the club you work for is potentially changing hands.

What a bloody shambles this club is
 
Rood said:
Very difficult to get excited about the prospect of a minority sale

Gets Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE a seat on the board but not sure if it would achieve much for improving all the problem area within the club
Click to expand...

He is effectively giving the Glazers a new life by pumping his own money and those siblings doing Jack. I thinkmthe 92 Foundation has to increase it's bid otherwise, I do think they will win.
 
gaffs said:
Great post and breakdown mate. Top work.

We don't know for sure, but i see no world where Jim is making this play in the hope Qatar come in at a later date and buy the club, including his stake. If he wants to make a quick buck, he would stick to the industry he knows.

He is also not going to invest £1.5 billion just to receive dividend over the next few years. He aint got time for that. And he wont take 25% of the club, without any control, in a business that The Glazers could start asset stripping - im thinking selling future rights in the same way Barca did.

At 70, he wants control of MUFC. I have to think that this is a play to increase his holdings over time and to avoid any of the legal challenges that may come from Class A shareholders.
Click to expand...

It is he will want binding contracts but I don’t see too much benefit to the Glazers with this deal I’ll explain;

1. Ineos are giving them £1.5 billion for a minority share, that’s their money and they will not reinvest this money in the club unless there is a sub clause that makes them.
2. The Glazers also owe $400m plus for The Bucaneers
3. How does this reduce the club debt within the next three years because without European football next year and the revenues that brings, the debt gets bigger, FSP reduces to 80% and United are being closely watched by UEFA, only a cash injection by a new owner or existing owners can prevent FFP fines snd possible sanctions.
4. The Club was suppose to post ‘last year financial results’ today and did not, if they don’t do this in the next week something is happening behind the scenes.
5. If the club posts a huge loss with interest rates going up, servicing the debt becomes a bigger issue.
6. SJ/ Qatar state, because irrespective of what people say this is a state bid hidden as a private bid, they have been remarkably silent for a long time yet we hear they have also been communicating with the Raine Group recently.
7. What possible benefit do the INEOS group get from this attempt? The fans will hate them, the minority share holders object and 4 of the 6 Glazers might be thinking about the £5.4 billion that SJ offered and they would not have to worry about a sporting franchise 4000 miles across the Atlantic. They basically have about 20-25% stake for £1.4-1.5 billion with none of that invested money being used to improve the squad, stadium or training grounds, it just goes to lining the Glazers pockets and giving them some liquid cash now with the hope of more in the future. Jimmy the Rat will have no control on what happens at the club and the Glazers can continue to run a yo yo operation, qualify CL then fail, so 23-24 season no European football, FSP reduces to 80% of turnover which would be ok based on this years revenue providing the club sells players and the owners makes a £30m investment, that’s never going to happen!
 
Last edited:
DRJosh said:
The fact that United have allowed speculation on the club's sale to reach fever pitch levels for so long with misinformation abound everywhere, speaks volumes about their lack of duty of care.

I'd imagine United's entire band of non-playing staff would be in some way unsettled as well along with the players and those on the frontlines. It is a natural response when the club you work for is potentially changing hands.

What a bloody shambles this club is
Click to expand...
Very true yes. You can imagine how that on some level will filter down to the players and coaching staff too.
 
Mickeza said:
Unless he ups his bid he isn’t winning.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, we genuinely don’t know what SJ/92 foundation bid is, we only know it’s for 100% and Class shareholders can be a huge issue Within the bidding structure, let’s say he’s offered £5.4billion to the Glazers for their 69% share all 113 million and for them to relinquish control but then he’s also offered £1.4 bn to the Class A share holders for their 50 million shares, The Glazers also own 6.9 million class A shares. So basically get £5.6 billion now minus the debt so £5 billion or $6 billion after debt has been paid so $1 billion each to walk away or £250m each now has they will have to use sone of that money to pay off the credit card and legacy debt, I’m sure that would be a caveat in the INEOS bid as well as an agreement of leaving within 3 years at per bono rate. They could still face a threat of court by Class A Share holders owned by Hedge Funds as they would have lost a huge windfall opportunity that might not ever be offered again.

Call me a cynic but this really does look like a last despairing attempt to get some form of control from a man that may think he’s lost the bid already?
 
Woziak said:
Not necessarily, we genuinely don’t know what SJ/92 foundation bid is, we only know it’s for 100% and Class shareholders can be a huge issue Within the bidding structure, let’s say he’s offered £5.4billion to the Glazers for their 69% share all 113 million and for them to relinquish control but then he’s also offered £1.4 bn to the Class A share holders for their 50 million shares, The Glazers also own 6.9 million class A shares. So basically get £5.6 billion now minus the debt so £5 billion or $6 billion after debt has been paid so $1 billion each to walk away or £250m each now has they will have to use sone of that money to pay off the credit card and legacy debt, I’m sure that would be a caveat in the INEOS bid as well as an agreement of leaving within 3 years at per bono rate. They could still face a threat of court by Class A Share holders owned by Hedge Funds as they would have lost a huge windfall opportunity that might not ever be offered again.

Call me a cynic but this really does look like a last despairing attempt to get some form of control from a man that may think he’s lost the bid already?
Click to expand...

It certainly has a whiff of desperation to it.
 
gaffs said:
The Glazers didn't buy the whole club at once. They bought shares over time.

Ratcliffe may think that buying a significant amount of the club now puts himself in the box seat for obtaining a controlling stake.

You would think though that him buying 25% would make it far more difficult for Qatar not to buy 100%.

Seems like a stratigic move. Im sure Jim wants the controlling stake now (or even last year) but it is just not happening thanks to the Glazers greed and/or indecisiveness.

I really don't understand the Ratcliffe hate. The objective is to get control off The Glazers and have some competency in control of this club. You don't need to buy 100% of the club to do this.
Click to expand...
No, but you need an awful lot more than 25% to get control away from the parasites. This will be money in their pockets and they'll be laughing all the way to the bank, but still in full control.
 
Woziak said:
They are putting up 25% of the 69% they own not the club, the Glazers want £6billion for 69% or their 113 million shares and to relinquish control, he’s offering them £1.5billion for 28.2 million so each Glazer is selling approx 4.4 million share at £250m each bit there may be a caveat that £200m must be paid off the legacy debt we’ll see if it ever comes to pass that this happens, it seems like a lot throw of the dice by a desperate man who knows he’s losing ?
Click to expand...

Basically, it's the choice of bird in hand -- or Ratcliffe selling hopium, leveraging on the Glazers' greed.
 
gaffs said:
Thats business. There is only one club that Jim wants to buy and he realizes he has to be pragmatic if he wants to get it.

I agree, Qatar want it. But im not sure why its 100% or nothing? Maybe its a negotiation ploy? Maybe it is a principal that they hold in Qatar that they don't want to share their assets.

If Jim gets majority control of the club and fans start to see improvements on and off the pitch, The Glazers being minority shareholders will soon fade into the background.
Click to expand...

By buying 100% it makes things easier to run. Also by making it 100%, there is accountability. Plus by making it 100% ownership, the debt and its increasing costs will be cleared as part of his manifesto.

There isn't any incentive to clear the debt otherwise.

If Jim only gets a sizeable minority or even majority, what makes you think there will be improvements on & off the pitch? His current clubs aren't exactly shining examples on the pitch.
Also going back to point 1, why would he invest significant amounts (for infrastructure, debt clearance etc) when he doesn't hold 100%?
 
Berbaclass said:
Very true yes. You can imagine how that on some level will filter down to the players and coaching staff too.
Click to expand...

I would not be surprised If it has affected the players. I think Rashford is playing like someone who thought Harry Kane/Greenwood was going to be up there with him this season.

Obviously, that has not happened and the pressure on his shoulders has significantly increased and it has manifested itself in his decision making.
 
Woziak said:
They are putting up 25% of the 69% they own not the club, the Glazers want £6billion for 69% or their 113 million shares and to relinquish control, he’s offering them £1.5billion for 28.2 million so each Glazer is selling approx 4.4 million share at £250m each bit there may be a caveat that £200m must be paid off the legacy debt we’ll see if it ever comes to pass that this happens, it seems like a lot throw of the dice by a desperate man who knows he’s losing ?
Click to expand...
Thanks for your insight, it's clear you have a financial understanding of what's going on.

Just adding that sheikh Jassim would likely have little issue upping his bid to a palatable figure for the Glazers if he's really pushed, I would be surprised if Ratcliff can do much.
 
croadyman said:
Doesn't sound like a withdrawal to me unless I am not reading between the lines
Click to expand...

Its just another way to snake his way into the greedy eyes of the Glazers.

Dangle some cash today and leverage on the Glazers' delusion of a brighter future aka greed --- when we know we will be more restricted on our spending in the near future with the increasing debt repayments and FFP issues. And in parallel, there is an ever-increasing cost of improving our ageing infrastructure.
 
alexthelion said:
No, but you need an awful lot more than 25% to get control away from the parasites. This will be money in their pockets and they'll be laughing all the way to the bank, but still in full control.
Click to expand...

Precisely. I think Gaff has some preacher's hope of the Glazers redeeming themselves --- and becoming somewhat altruistic by actually spending money on United as payback for past sins.
 
Ratcliffe getting the United ownership is Johnson becoming PM.

He wanted the title but not the responsibility and never had the intention or capability to do the job.

It's all about the ego and being able to say you've owned United, irrespective of what's best for the club.

Still think it has to be Qatar but the wait is painful.
 
Last edited:
Rightnr said:
Ratcliffe getting the United ownership is Johnson becoming PM.

He wanted the title but not the responsibility but never had the intention or capability to do the job.

It's all about the ego and being to say you've owned United, irrespective of what's best for the club.

Still think it has to be Qatar but the wait is painful.
Click to expand...

Wonderful analogy
 
Woziak said:
It is he will want binding contracts but I don’t see too much benefit to the Glazers with this deal I’ll explain;

1. Ineos are giving them £1.5 billion for a minority share, that’s their money and they will not reinvest this money in the club unless there is a sub clause that makes them.
2. The Glazers also owe $400m plus for The Bucaneers
3. How does this reduce the club debt within the next three years because without European football next year and the revenues that brings, the debt gets bigger, FSP reduces to 80% and United are being closely watched by UEFA, only a cash injection by a new owner or existing owners can prevent FFP fines snd possible sanctions.
4. The Club was suppose to post ‘last year financial results’ today and did not, if they don’t do this in the next week something is happening behind the scenes.
5. If the club posts a huge loss with interest rates going up, servicing the debt becomes a bigger issue.
6. SJ/ Qatar state, because irrespective of what people say this is a state bid hidden as a private bid, they have been remarkably silent for a long time yet we hear they have also been communicating with the Raine Group recently.
7. What possible benefit do the INEOS group get from this attempt? The fans will hate them, the minority share holders object and 4 of the 6 Glazers might be thinking about the £5.4 billion that SJ offered and they would not have to worry about a sporting franchise 4000 miles across the Atlantic. They basically have about 20-25% stake for £1.4-1.5 billion with none of that invested money being used to improve the squad, stadium or training grounds, it just goes to lining the Glazers pockets and giving them some liquid cash now with the hope of more in the future. Jimmy the Rat will have no control on what happens at the club and the Glazers can continue to run a yo yo operation, qualify CL then fail, so 23-24 season no European football, FSP reduces to 80% of turnover which would be ok based on this years revenue providing the club sells players and the owners makes a £30m investment, that’s never going to happen!
Click to expand...

Not sure you have explained why the Glazers WONT allow Jim to buy this 25% with a view to increase his holding towards a majority.

Point 7 you make is exactly why Ineos and Jim are not going to just hand over £1.5 billion.

There is no solid justification or business reason why they pay for 25% and it not be the start of a guaranteed mechanism to gain the majority of the control in the near future.

Ineos and Jim would be flushing £1.5 billion down the toilet because, as you say, The Glazers will take their % of that and it will never be seen again.

I see this as a way for Jim to obtain the shares owned by those who would be opposed to him only buying the required Class B shares....
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/foo...takeover-Sir-Jim-Ratcliffe-Sheikh-Jassim-news

There is zero point in them doing this otherwise. He doesn't need dividends. Trying to flip 25% isnt worth the risk when there is really only one 100% buyer in the market - Qatar - who could easily turn to another club. He wants control.
 
Rightnr said:
Ratcliffe getting the United ownership is Johnson becoming PM.

He wanted the title but not the responsibility and never had the intention or capability to do the job.

It's all about the ego and being able to say you've owned United, irrespective of what's best for the club.

Still think it has to be Qatar but the wait is painful.
Click to expand...

Qatar then is like Trump wanting the Presidency again to avoid his legal jeopardy.

They want it to sports wash their reputation and enhance their business standing.
 
Nothing from that potential 1.5b is going back and invested into the club. Its going straight to the leeches pockets.
 
SAF is the GOAT said:
Nothing from that potential 1.5b is going back and invested into the club. Its going straight to the leeches pockets.
Click to expand...

A good portion yes, but its not clear on who's shares he plans to buy. So some may go to The Glazers, some to the holders of the publicly held stock.

If true, it will be a first step towards control, im sure.
 
Pes6Monster said:
One of Qatar's real problems is they can't bid too high or they'll face scrutiny about the state function involved.

Reckon they will up their bid and get it over the line, eventually, but Ratcliffe has given us pause for thought.
Click to expand...

Why cant they? Who is going to be able to work out where the money really comes from?

Be it 5, 6, 7 or 10 billion, it Qatar, via Jassim want to pay it, they will be able to pass any of the PL/UEFA checks.
 
Ugh please don't let it be true that Ratcliffe is trying to get a minority share in the club leaving the glaziers still here, I think I might implode if that happens, Ratcliffe won't make many friends by doing that!
 
Berbaclass said:
Maybe in the west.
Click to expand...

Which is what im saying. Qatar seem to be all or nothing. That is fine but if two Glazers want to keep a % because they beleive that the value will be 2x in 10 years, then it just wont be possible.

For me, it is better to have 51% of something, than 100% of nothing. Ratcliffe knows this. Qatar seemingly not.
 
gaffs said:
Agree. There are some moronic people out there that cant think a step forward and believe the richest man in the UK wants to donate £1.5 billion to The Glazers and other minority shareholders for no control on the club.

Click to expand...

I bet when Ratcliffe first offered to
keep the glazers in.. there were those that said “he’s only doing it temporarily and will buy them out after 2-3 year” now he’s gone from full ownership, majority ownership to minority ownership and people still think he has some long term plan to buy out the glazers?

Some naive people out there.
 
sglowrider said:
By buying 100% it makes things easier to run. Also by making it 100%, there is accountability. Plus by making it 100% ownership, the debt and its increasing costs will be cleared as part of his manifesto.

There isn't any incentive to clear the debt otherwise.

If Jim only gets a sizable minority or even majority, what makes you think there will be improvements on & off the pitch? His current clubs aren't exactly shining examples on the pitch.
Also going back to point 1, why would he invest significant amounts (for infrastructure, debt clearance etc) when he doesn't hold 100%?
Click to expand...

Don't worry about accountability. If Ineos and Jim get control, they are responsible. Nice have had a "nice" start - 13 points, 4th in the table, no losses - one point above Qatar owned PSG.

The more debt that is cleared, the more profit you can make from the business. Same for infrastructure investment.

The majority of businesses have investors. Some have large %'s publicly listed. Doesn't mean they dont reinvest just because the majority owner doesnt control 100%.

Jim is 70. I agree with most that for him, this is probably an ambition / legacy / passion project.
If the reports are true and the amount of flexibility he is showing to get the deal done, means he really wants it.
A guy that does this to get his boyhood club isnt going to run it in the ground.
I think he will make football success the priority as you dont build a legacy from only commercial success.
 
gaffs said:
Jim is 70. I agree with most that for him, this is probably an ambition / legacy / passion project.
If the reports are true and the amount of flexibility he is showing to get the deal done, means he really wants it.
A guy that does this to get his boyhood club isnt going to run it in the ground.
I think he will make football success the priority as you dont build a legacy from only commercial success.
Click to expand...

You mean like a Jack Walker.
 
SAF is the GOAT said:
Nothing from that potential 1.5b is going back and invested into the club. Its going straight to the leeches pockets.
Click to expand...

This is as certain as the sun coming up tomorrow. This 'deal' will just kick the can down the road while we'll be increasingly constricted financially and the infrastructure costs will keep on rising.

It's fine for Ratcliffe if he wants to get the deal over the line a few years down the road but can we wait that long without a detrimental impact, on & off the pitch through this delay?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.