Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
How come Glazer Share and the shares floated on stock exchange are worth the same, considering the disparity in terms of voting rights?

You can see why Ratcliffe wants only Glazers share, as thats the only share that matters. Qatar can go and just buy the 31% share and it wont make any difference to their ownership goals. So why Qatar isn’t dropping the plan of buying United completely and offer only for Glazers share.

Also how come sale of United can be initiated when Glazers can only offer 69% of shares?
 
pratyush_utd said:
How come Glazer Share and the shares floated on stock exchange are worth the same, considering the disparity in terms of voting rights?

You can see why Ratcliffe wants only Glazers share, as thats the only share that matters. Qatar can go and just buy the 31% share and it wont make any difference to their ownership goals. So why Qatar isn’t dropping the plan of buying United completely and offer only for Glazers share.

Also how come sale of United can be initiated when Glazers can only offer 69% of shares?
Click to expand...
Class A and B shares carry the same nominal, or par, value at the date of issue. Voting rights don’t really matter in terms of valuing the different shares.

If a buyer obtains the Glazer’s 69% shareholding then they have control, and effective ownership. They can’t force the A class shareholders to sell theirs and one of the INEOS bids was aimed at doing just that, until the A class shareholders kicked up a fuss as they were being left out of the ‘windfall’. 92F have said they want to buy the Glazer’s shares and will then also make a ‘fair offer’ for the A class shares - presumed to be at the same price per share as the offer for the Glazer’s B class shares.

Only buying the Glazer’s shares, at a premium, could be illegal under Cayman Islands laws - and would certainly result in legal action from the A class shareholders (who are bigger and have deeper pockets than the Glazer’s)
 
George The Best said:
Class A and B shares carry the same nominal, or par, value at the date of issue. Voting rights don’t really matter in terms of valuing the different shares.

If a buyer obtains the Glazer’s 69% shareholding then they have control, and effective ownership. They can’t force the A class shareholders to sell theirs and one of the INEOS bids was aimed at doing just that, until the A class shareholders kicked up a fuss as they were being left out of the ‘windfall’. 92F have said they want to buy the Glazer’s shares and will then also make a ‘fair offer’ for the A class shares - presumed to be at the same price per share as the offer for the Glazer’s B class shares.

Only buying the Glazer’s shares, at a premium, could be illegal under Cayman Islands laws - and would certainly result in legal action from the A class shareholders (who are bigger and have deeper pockets than the Glazer’s)
Click to expand...

But it doesn’t answer the question, that Glazer who own 69% of share, how can they affectively call a process to sell Manutd in its entirety? Why they didn’t advertise it as “selling their shares and looking for potential buyers”. In that case how can minority shareholders force prospective buyers to buy their shares?

Is it the original announcement which made it difficult for Glazers since SJ then offered to buy out minority investors as well and now Glazers need both bidders to agree with the minority shareholder deal as well? Seems like this sale is going as well as the Glazers have run Manutd football club. Total chaos


Also this partial buyout of minority shareholders is also bit strange as Qatar can just offer slightly lower price but offer to take the entire share in one go. Glazers can like the Ratcliffe deal all they want but if minority shareholders are blocking the deal, then i dont see how this new offer makes any difference. If i was a shareholder and someone is offering 25% at slightly higher price and other deal is for 100% for slightly lower price, i think 100% makes more sense. Keep in mind that Manutd stock is not some long term growth stock
 
George The Best said:
Class A and B shares carry the same nominal, or par, value at the date of issue. Voting rights don’t really matter in terms of valuing the different shares.

If a buyer obtains the Glazer’s 69% shareholding then they have control, and effective ownership. They can’t force the A class shareholders to sell theirs and one of the INEOS bids was aimed at doing just that, until the A class shareholders kicked up a fuss as they were being left out of the ‘windfall’. 92F have said they want to buy the Glazer’s shares and will then also make a ‘fair offer’ for the A class shares - presumed to be at the same price per share as the offer for the Glazer’s B class shares.

Only buying the Glazer’s shares, at a premium, could be illegal under Cayman Islands laws - and would certainly result in legal action from the A class shareholders (who are bigger and have deeper pockets than the Glazer’s)
Click to expand...

Do we know that this is illegal under Cayman Island laws?

https://theathletic.com/4389616/2023/04/08/manchester-united-investors-glazer-sale/

Michelle Heisner, a corporate partner at New York law firm Baker McKenzie, explained there can sometimes be a clause that requires a majority of the minority shareholders to vote to push through a merger.
It is unlikely such a clause exists at United and any potential merger would be structured under Cayman Islands law.
In most cases, Cayman Islands law requires either a simple majority or a special resolution, which is two-thirds or more for approval.
The Glazers have a weighted voting share of 67 per cent, so pass the required threshold and would not need the consent of the other 31 per cent to green-light a complete sale of the club. They will, however, have a right to dispute whether the price they got paid was fair. This is called dissent.

I believe it is this dissent that is being threatened by the minority shareholders, should The Glazers cut them out of the sale process.
 
Woziak said:
That’s the thing it’s but 1.5 times the value it’s actually 1.5-1.6 tines the Forbes valuation, market cap as you know, working in banking is a speculative valuation of all of the shares, it does not take into account assets and liabilities of the club and who controls those assets and liabilities, in Nan united case, that is the Glazers who have 69% controlling shares.

I argued just like you with a top financier and he explained very coherently that the Glazers do not only want an enterprise value for their A and B class shares but they also want fair compensation for relinquishing control of the club. He cited the Forbes valuation which lists the club in the following way ;

Matchday - $988m
Broadcasting -$1.991 Bn
Commercial - $2.018 Bn
Brand - $1.003Bn

This Equals a $6Bn valuation by Forbes in May 2023, 2nd only behind Real Madrid. This valuation of £4.8 billion by Forbes was a valuation after debt as well this is why the Raine Group started mention silly numbers like £6-7bn early in the process.


They are looking for an increase of 150% on Forbes valuation and they have an interest in the offer on A class shares as they own 6.9 million of the 54 million available of these as well.

Many inside the financial markets think or suggest something was agreed with Qatar in July/August and then the Glazers moved the goal posts and this is why SJ is currently coming out with their strong comments that they will not increase their bid!

Please look through the Forbes valuation it’s actually ridiculous how they’ve valued united at $6 billion.
Click to expand...

Im sorry, but no one is going of the Forbes valuation.

It is a fricking magazine! The same magazine that estimates Donaldo Trump is worth $3billion....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...762b08-4287-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html

It is quick math on the back of a fag packet.

As for team valuations....

https://theathletic.com/1657620/202...accurate-do-they-matter-what-do-owners-think/

“These are all estimates. I have no idea how they come up with these numbers. I’ve heard they talk to people at the NBA and maybe certain teams,” he said. “Maybe (they’re accurate) on a relative basis in terms of the values. On an absolute basis, that’s up for debate.”
 
I dont think we will challenge city consistently for title and cups unless we get bought by the qatari group. Outside of that we may win odd titles, if we are lucky, but we won't consistently win things.

I know football has come down to that but we have to accept the new normal.
 
gaffs said:
Do we know that this is illegal under Cayman Island laws?

https://theathletic.com/4389616/2023/04/08/manchester-united-investors-glazer-sale/

Michelle Heisner, a corporate partner at New York law firm Baker McKenzie, explained there can sometimes be a clause that requires a majority of the minority shareholders to vote to push through a merger.
It is unlikely such a clause exists at United and any potential merger would be structured under Cayman Islands law.
In most cases, Cayman Islands law requires either a simple majority or a special resolution, which is two-thirds or more for approval.
The Glazers have a weighted voting share of 67 per cent, so pass the required threshold and would not need the consent of the other 31 per cent to green-light a complete sale of the club. They will, however, have a right to dispute whether the price they got paid was fair. This is called dissent.

I believe it is this dissent that is being threatened by the minority shareholders, should The Glazers cut them out of the sale process.
Click to expand...
Interesting, no doubt the lawyer would not publish that comment unless she had some serious understanding.

However she says 'there can sometimes be a clause' and
'It is unlikely such a clause exists'. So where would this missing information be - we have the stock market filings, memo and articles?

However, a further complication is that the A class investors threatened legal action when they were being completely bypassed by the process, Sir Jim offering to buy out all or a majority of the Glazer shares, some time in April? At that point they were being offered nothing, so would dissent be a consideration?

What exactly the threat was based on, we don't seem to know.

Was it just that the board owed a fiduciary duty to consider each and every shareholder regardless? The process being a club strategic review. Whatever the basis, it was enough to make sure Sir Jim would go back to the drawing board and Jassim hold firm.
 
Last edited:
beck7 said:
I dont think we will challenge city consistently for title and cups unless we get bought by the qatari group. Outside of that we may win odd titles, if we are lucky, but we won't consistently win things.

I know football has come down to that but we have to accept the new normal.
Click to expand...
Qataris are our only salvation, hope. Faustian deal with Mephistopheles(The Devil himself) as I like to call it. Red Devils will have to sell their soul to the Devil in order to be a formidable force in football they once were. There is no other way. Quite ironic, isn't it?

But I have a feeling Joel and Avram will push the Ratcliffe deal through(annoy the Qataris enough in the process). They want to stay as leeches at any cost, it looks like. It's almost look like a pathology/sadism, they just so enjoy destroying(doing what's wrong for) United, it's more than money, maybe.
 
greenoffpearson said:
Interesting, no doubt the lawyer would not publish that comment unless she had some serious understating.

However she says 'there can sometimes be a clause' and
'It is unlikely such a clause exists'. So where would this missing information be - we have the stock market filings, memo and articles?

However, a further complication is that the A class investors threatened legal action when they were being completely bypassed by the process, Sir Jim offering to buy out all or a majority of the Glazer shares, some time in April? At that point they were being offered nothing, so would dissent be a consideration?

What exactly the threat was based on, we don't seem to know.

Was it just that the board owed a fiduciary duty to consider each and every shareholder regardless? The process being a club strategic review. Whatever the basis, it was enough to make sure Sir Jim would go back to the drawing board and Jassim hold firm.
Click to expand...
Bloomberg (j think) reported that the United board wouldn’t even sign off on Jim’s takeover due to Cayman Law and that’s one of the reasons his offer was dead in the water. Jim has fallen back since so it must be true.
 
cyberman said:
Bloomberg (j think) reported that the United board wouldn’t even sign off on Jim’s takeover due to Cayman Law and that’s one of the reasons his offer was dead in the water. Jim has fallen back since so it must be true.
Click to expand...

The lawyer referred to a merger.

Is a merger taking a simple majority, 50% plus.

Is this why Sir Jim is now looking at an initial 25% - no control no merger? Confusing.
 
philippexyz said:
Qataris are our only salvation, hope. Faustian deal with Mephistopheles(The Devil himself) as I like to call it. Red Devils will have to sell their soul to the Devil in order to be a formidable force in football they once were. There is no other way. Quite ironic, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Completely wrong, never mind ironic. Qatar will turn United into a psg-style shitshow.

cyberman said:
Bloomberg (j think) reported that the United board wouldn’t even sign off on Jim’s takeover due to Cayman Law and that’s one of the reasons his offer was dead in the water. Jim has fallen back since so it must be true.
Click to expand...

The Glazers, Avram and Joel included, not wanting it would be the biggest impediment.

Ratcliffe has been smart enough in this process and his new offer has legs (if and when Qatar increase their state bid, he'll increase his minority offer - the stalking horse has yet to bolt).

Clearly, it's been done to assuage the hitherto pro-Glazer greedy shareholders, who just want qatar's higher share rate. They care diddly about what qatar do next.
 
Pes6Monster said:
Completely wrong, never mind ironic. Qatar will turn United into a psg-style shitshow.



The Glazers, Avram and Joel included, not wanting it would be the biggest impediment.

Ratcliffe has been smart enough in this process and his new offer has legs (if and when Qatar increase their state bid, he'll increase his minority offer - the stalking horse has yet to bolt).

Clearly, it's been done to assuage the hitherto pro-Glazer greedy shareholders, who just want qatar's higher share rate. They care diddly about what qatar do next.
Click to expand...
To be honest I’m sick of hearing how Jim’s bid is this super intelligent, masterful move when I was told the same thing 2 bid alterations ago.
For some reason we keep lumping Jim’s failed bids in with some sort of collusion with the Glazers who really want to sell to Jim. Even this recent breaking news from Sky states they have no idea if this involved talks with the Glazers or if it even leads to a takeover if it goes through.
As soon as Jim breathes we have posters running on to tell us how is a Jim / Glazer master plan despite Glazers giving no indication at all that it appeals to them. In fact break the deadlock has been stated many times
 
Freak said:
Why don’t Jim and Jassim just fecking get together and submit a bid for joint control. 50-50.

Yes yes it will never happen but we all just want the fecking Glazers gone.
Click to expand...

Only way I would accept him,certainly don't trust him to get rid of them in a few years with this phased takeover BS. They will find a loophole to carry on leeching from us
 
croadyman said:
Only way I would accept him,certainly don't trust him to get rid of them in a few years with this phased takeover BS. They will find a loophole to carry on leeching from us
Click to expand...
Of course they will. The Glazers care about nothing but money. If they can find a way to stick around and leech, they will do, no questions asked
 
Pes6Monster said:
Completely wrong, never mind ironic. Qatar will turn United into a psg-style shitshow.



The Glazers, Avram and Joel included, not wanting it would be the biggest impediment.

Ratcliffe has been smart enough in this process and his new offer has legs (if and when Qatar increase their state bid, he'll increase his minority offer - the stalking horse has yet to bolt).

Clearly, it's been done to assuage the hitherto pro-Glazer greedy shareholders, who just want qatar's higher share rate. They care diddly about what qatar do next.
Click to expand...
If and when SJ offered £6bn, the Glazers will likely accept it, so it doesn't matter what Jimmy boy does, he could increase his stake to 50% wouldn't really make a difference.
As soon as that magic £6bn number is hit, the Glazers will be happy.
 
cyberman said:
To be honest I’m sick of hearing how Jim’s bid is this super intelligent, masterful move
Click to expand...

It's a good thing I did not refer to it as such. I called it 'smart enough'. It's his only play versus a state bid.

Brownie85 said:
If and when SJ offered £6bn, the Glazers will likely accept it, so it doesn't matter what Jimmy boy does, he could increase his stake to 50% wouldn't really make a difference.
As soon as that magic £6bn number is hit, the Glazers will be happy.
Click to expand...

That may be, but it would not surprise me if they attempted to extract more from Qatar, who have it, after all. If they walk, Glazers will have a suitable Plan B in 'Jimmy'.

They'll always be happier with more.
 
Last edited:
Pes6Monster said:
It's a good thing I did not refer to it as such. I called it 'smart enough'. It's his only play versus a state bid.



That may be, but it would not surprise me if they attempted to extract more from Qatar, who have it, after all. If they walk, Glazers will have a suitable Plan B in 'Jimmy'.

They'll always be happier with more.
Click to expand...
Is it his only play when we were told his other 2 bids were his only play as well though?
I can’t see how smart he’s been at all
 
One thing I don’t get is why the parasites would accept £1.5 billion for just 25% of their Class B shares as the money would either go towards investment into the club therefore nothing to the parasites OR goes directly to the parasites therefore doesn’t get invested into the club and means nothing changes financially for the club and we have the same debt, infrastructure and playing squad.

Selling 25% just doesn’t make any sense as four of them want to leave and £1.5 billion doesn’t buy them off seeing as they’d get more from the Qatar offer if it’s £5.5 billion as mostly reported, nor does £1.5 billion fix the issues with the stadium and training facilities but there’s no way the parasites would allow that money to come in without getting their hands on the majority of it therefore it’s basically a nothing offer that addresses zero.

If anyone has an answer for me on what £1.5 billion offers other than Ratcliffe a non controlling seat at the table please feel free to help me out as it’s left me scratching my head all week, at 70 years old surely Ratcliffe isn’t going to play second fiddle to the parasites and stump up £1.5 billion just to be on the board with the hope of buying the rest at a later date.
 
davidmichael said:
One thing I don’t get is why the parasites would accept £1.5 billion for just 25% of their Class B shares as the money would either go towards investment into the club therefore nothing to the parasites OR goes directly to the parasites therefore doesn’t get invested into the club and means nothing changes financially for the club and we have the same debt, infrastructure and playing squad.

Selling 25% just doesn’t make any sense as four of them want to leave and £1.5 billion doesn’t buy them off seeing as they’d get more from the Qatar offer if it’s £5.5 billion as mostly reported, nor does £1.5 billion fix the issues with the stadium and training facilities but there’s no way the parasites would allow that money to come in without getting their hands on the majority of it therefore it’s basically a nothing offer that addresses zero.

If anyone has an answer for me on what £1.5 billion offers other than Ratcliffe a non controlling seat at the table please feel free to help me out as it’s left me scratching my head all week, at 70 years old surely Ratcliffe isn’t going to play second fiddle to the parasites and stump up £1.5 billion just to be on the board with the hope of buying the rest at a later date.
Click to expand...

It's impossible not say until we see it play out. Some reports are that it's 25% now with Jim slowly buying control over the next few years.

If it's essentially a fixed agreement that say by 2026 he has bought all their shares it may be a benefit to them as I'm sure he would potentially pay more total if he can do it over a few years rather them having to cough up 5-6 billion all at once
 
cyberman said:
Is it his only play when we were told his other 2 bids were his only play as well though?
I can’t see how smart he’s been at all
Click to expand...

The only play he has against a state bid is to find some leverage and attempt to exploit it. In this case he has it with the Glazer brothers.

Qatar have more cash, obviously, but they foolishly bragged about it in an attempt to win favour with the fanbase (new stadium, training facility, Jassim is cool because he wears shades to meetings, or some shit). The Glazers absolutely know that 'us' money is in play and want a slice of it.

So, they'll let those the bidders play each other off.

Ratcliffe's current ploy is essentially similar to his original gambits, yes, but it really is all he's got.
 
laughtersassassin said:
It's impossible not say until we see it play out. Some reports are that it's 25% now with Jim slowly buying control over the next few years.

If it's essentially a fixed agreement that say by 2026 he has bought all their shares it may be a benefit to them as I'm sure he would potentially pay more total if he can do it over a few years rather them having to cough up 5-6 billion all at once
Click to expand...

I understand in regards to the fixed agreement but I don’t see how this benefits anyone other than the two main parasites and Ratcliffe, it certainly doesn’t benefit the other four or the club and why would Ratcliffe come in knowing he’s actually damaging his purchase and effectively throwing money down the drain ?

At £1.5 billion it means either £375 million each to the other four and nothing into the club or fixing the stadium and training facilities and nothing to the other four, it can’t be anything other than that.

With the Qatar offer at £5.5 billion once the historical debt is taken it means £816 million each immediately with interest on that probably being massive each year, I just don’t get any benefit for anyone in this supposed £1.5 billion bid ? Being the businessman he is I don’t really see what Ratcliffe himself gains other than a seat at the table as it leaves the parasites with 45% of the Class B and control over Ratcliffe.

It doesn’t even make much sense for the other two parasites as it’s basically prolonging the inevitable seeing as they can’t afford the club without putting their own money in which we know won’t happen and with interest rates going up as well as the initial loan used to buy the club needing to be paid in 18 months they basically have 18 months before it’s out of their hands.

I just don’t see how this isn’t a final ploy to get the £6 billion from Qatar who themselves probably see it for what it is and is why they have just stayed quiet and are being patient, they know Ratcliffe playing second fiddle to the parasites is a ridiculous business move on his part whilst knowing the parasites can’t afford the club and eventually we’ll start regularly failing FFP to the point the club is taken off of them and put up for auction.
 
davidmichael said:
I understand in regards to the fixed agreement but I don’t see how this benefits anyone other than the two main parasites and Ratcliffe, it certainly doesn’t benefit the other four or the club and why would Ratcliffe come in knowing he’s actually damaging his purchase and effectively throwing money down the drain ?

At £1.5 billion it means either £375 million each to the other four and nothing into the club or fixing the stadium and training facilities and nothing to the other four, it can’t be anything other than that.

With the Qatar offer at £5.5 billion once the historical debt is taken it means £816 million each immediately with interest on that probably being massive each year, I just don’t get any benefit for anyone in this supposed £1.5 billion bid ? Being the businessman he is I don’t really see what Ratcliffe himself gains other than a seat at the table as it leaves the parasites with 45% of the Class B and control over Ratcliffe.

It doesn’t even make much sense for the other two parasites as it’s basically prolonging the inevitable seeing as they can’t afford the club without putting their own money in which we know won’t happen and with interest rates going up as well as the initial loan used to buy the club needing to be paid in 18 months they basically have 18 months before it’s out of their hands.

I just don’t see how this isn’t a final ploy to get the £6 billion from Qatar who themselves probably see it for what it is and is why they have just stayed quiet and are being patient, they know Ratcliffe playing second fiddle to the parasites is a ridiculous business move on his part whilst knowing the parasites can’t afford the club and eventually we’ll start regularly failing FFP to the point the club is taken off of them and put up for auction.
Click to expand...

what was the initial debt and how much is due in 18 months?
also I find it improbable for siblings to go on their own, dont they all have other ventures together? Their old man knowing they ll fall apart if not together might have few provisions about it.
 
gaffs said:
Im sorry, but no one is going of the Forbes valuation.

It is a fricking magazine! The same magazine that estimates Donaldo Trump is worth $3billion....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...762b08-4287-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html

It is quick math on the back of a fag packet.

As for team valuations....

https://theathletic.com/1657620/202...accurate-do-they-matter-what-do-owners-think/

“These are all estimates. I have no idea how they come up with these numbers. I’ve heard they talk to people at the NBA and maybe certain teams,” he said. “Maybe (they’re accurate) on a relative basis in terms of the values. On an absolute basis, that’s up for debate.”
Click to expand...


Let’s wait and see because if there’s no sale you can bet your bottom dollar tat the Qataris will let all the information out on what they bid, anyway right now we have much bigger problems because it ETH will struggle to survive 7 defeats in 11 matches!
 
Qatar should do a brief about the club being shite and not upping their offer once a week.

Maybe the Glazers will catch one of these articles and in about a year figure out they're not getting their dumb valuation
 
Last edited:
I'm convinced the club has now taken on a mind of its own and is sabotaging itself to try and force the Glazers out, we can literally do nothing right.
 
dpansheth said:
what was the initial debt and how much is due in 18 months?
also I find it improbable for siblings to go on their own, dont they all have other ventures together? Their old man knowing they ll fall apart if not together might have few provisions about it.
Click to expand...

The initial debt was £780 million which I’m sure got down to around £500 million when the old man was alive so around 2013/14 but then the parasitic kids have managed to get it back up to around £580 million, the remaining balance is owed by 2025 as it was a 20 year loan so £580 million or around that is owed to Bank Of America in 18 months and Bank Of America just happen to be the people helping/advising Qatar with their offer for United.

It’s very clear that the old man was the clever yet immoral businessman and the parasitic kids just went with what Daddy gave them as playthings, they’ve managed to increase the debt over the past 10 years despite us making all payments and interest payments due to their piss poor management and pure greed.
 
Woziak said:
Let’s wait and see because if there’s no sale you can bet your bottom dollar tat the Qataris will let all the information out on what they bid, anyway right now we have much bigger problems because it ETH will struggle to survive 7 defeats in 11 matches!
Click to expand...
Yup i think Qatar will release all info if they fail to win the race or the Glazers pull the plug. The way things are going though i just don't see that happening. There has to come a point where even the Glazers say enough is enough and take whats on the table. They'd be insane not to do so
 
I just can't get my head around what they want to hang on for, they have wrecked the club, are despised by everyone, yet are refusing a to accept a fortune to get out.

They have to be been given a reason not sell.
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
I just can't get my head around what they want to hang on for, they have wrecked the club, are despised by everyone, yet are refusing a to accept a fortune to get out.

They have to be been given a reason not sell.
Click to expand...
Only one possible reason not to sell is to wait for the Super League(if it's inevitable, and I hope it never becomes a reality).
 
As if I needed another reason to hate the rats, but the only reason martial is still in the team is because one of the inbred liked him and overruled the manager think it was mourinho and stopped him from being shifted out.
 
philippexyz said:
Only one possible reason not to sell is to wait for the Super League(if it's inevitable, and I hope it never becomes a reality).
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the Super League is dead and buried. There are just too many legal issues with pushing forward with it which was evident the last time.

I think the Glazers have been told that the club is definitely worth £6bn+ and they won't settle for a penny less
 
A man who truly cares for the club and realises what it’s gonna take. Everyone needs to get on board with the idea it’s the only way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.