Club Sale | It’s done!

[V.O.]

Love to see the stroppy, spoiled reaction of someone/something that's used to getting exactly what they want, not getting what they want. Great stuff.

Aye, this and the Kaveh Solhekol one are just the noise of toys being thrown out of the pram.

Don't think it's helping that side's image with anybody who didn't already have Qatar flags in their twitter profile while they were posting ANNOUNCE MBAPPE.

 

[blackhawk747]

Thats what I mentioned a few months back.

There is talk that INEOS which many claim here to think its a massive company based on its revenues -- 65Billion but its tiny compared to the Big Oil entities. They will get bought up at some point in the near future.

What I am thinking is that INEOS Sports will get a spunoff from the chemical/oil parts of the business in the medium term. It makes no sense in the long run. Short run it's good for brand awareness and building for the INEOS franchise network. I see Ratcliffe as the Richard Branson of the chemical world. The INEOS organisation is quite loosely connected like Branson's web.

Ratcliffe chemwhateverfeck offers the Glazers shares of that newly spinoff INEOS Sports division in exchange for the United shares at a date in the near future. A multi-sport organisation.

I think the INEOS may pull the Man Utd off the NYSE soon and repackage the newly form INEOS Sport and list it again in NYSE or somewhere else.

 

[Woziak]

Does this mean Ratcliffe will be buying out the shares of minority share holders? If an average person owns shares in United, will their shares be bought out at $46 per share automatically?

I add the caveat that there are two valuations of INEOS 25% purchase one of $1.75 billion and the other $1.875 billion so the offer per share is in a range of $43 and $46 again we do need the actual financial offer not the hear say and all the different valuations which are currently all over Twitter-verse.

 

[gaffs]

Hello.

I'm a long time RedCafe lurker but felt compelled to sign up after reading this thread for the last 12 hours or so.
I'm quite surprised that the sentiment about the Qatar-Ratcliffe situation is so overwhelmingly negative.
My read, based on the information currently available, is that this is a very good outcome for the club.

We haven't gone into the hands of a state owner. This is absolutely massive for the institution that is Manchester United. We are big enough, if run right, to compete and be successful. You only need to look at Arse and Pool to see that.
Ratcliffe is a grizzled businessman and made a deal that creates a roadmap for full ownership. And while that 100% number is a few years off, respected reporters are saying he could be in control of the club in a year.
His initial 25% stake would give him 40% weight when it comes to board voting rights.
He's going to have sporting control right out of the gate, and any investment into the club will be under his direction, not the Glazers.

It's not a massive leap to assume that Dave Brailsford will arrive in some type of overarching Performance Director capacity, with Paul Mitchell as DoF - these are experts in their fields with proven track records. When was the last time United could say this in terms of the people above the manager? Never.
And we're also set to benefit from the data and sports science expertise Ineos already has.

Men like Jim Ratcliffe don't engineer this type of situation to be a 'yes man' - I should have thought there's going to be a codified roadmap to control / ownership, with watertight milestones for compulsory share purchases. I'd venture that he's going to act as though he's running the show from day one. He's paying a huge premium for his first tranche of shares and will have negotiated accordingly in terms of control and input. It's just totally illogical to suggest he's spending 1.5bn to be an invisible investor.

I understand this is not the clean break that we all desperately wanted, but we are at the beginning of the end game. This news is a net positive, and I look forward to seeing how it all comes out in the wash in the coming week.

My two pennies, for what they are worth.

Good post. I agree, way too many doom-mongers on here that just wanted the Qatar sugar daddy.

You said...
His initial 25% stake would give him 40% weight when it comes to board voting rights.

Where is that from?
As, im not sure if that is the case. No one knows which shares Ineos will buy and what voting control The Glazers will give up.

The Athletic said Ineos will get sporting control. I support that if it means the likes of Paul Mitchell join the club, but quite honestly, there is no reason why The Glazers couldn't go out and employ him to turn him, so what do Ineos really bring?

I agree with the fact that Ratcliffe is clearly a savvy businessman and it this is the step he had to take to get full control of the club, both sporting and on the business site, then fair enough.

Im just a little worried that Ratcliffe may have sacrificed some of his business principles, just to get control of the sporting side of the club. I worry that he has come in and said to the Glazers that he will buy 25%, improve the teams performance with a view to allow The Glazers to sell for a greater price in the near future.

 

[Oldyella]

I think we have to wait and see how the deal is structured. Is the 1.3B going straight to the Glazers with the club seeing none of it? Will Ineos be allowed (and will they even want) to spend more money out of their pocket on United with the other shareholders not putting anything in without further dilution? Will they be allowed to take complete ownership of the footballing side and allowed to spend United's money without Glazers' approval who are still the owners of the club?

Who knows for certain if Ineos want to invest more, but why would any of this money go to the club? its the shareholders selling shares that's bringing this money in.

 

[gaffs]

This is a goodbye to:
- Update of Old Trafford
- Improvements to training facilities.
- Investments in the community.
- Large investments in the squad.

But most of all, it's not a goodbye for the Glazers. This is the worst thing that could happen to United.

Worse than The Glazers staying in control indefinitely?

 

[TrueRed79]

A bit immature that.

You don't recognise the quote? That's sad.

 

[antsmithmk]

How he's just snuck that in there in the middle of mostly reasonable points tickles me.

He's right though. It should be a destination that earns the club significant money not just on match day. The name isn't great, but the concept and the surrounding area being developed is a very good idea.

 

[JagUTD]

Good post. I agree, way too many doom-mongers on here that just wanted the Qatar sugar daddy.

You said...
His initial 25% stake would give him 40% weight when it comes to board voting rights.

Where is that from?
As, im not sure if that is the case. No one knows which shares Ineos will buy and what voting control The Glazers will give up.

The Athletic said Ineos will get sporting control. I support that if it means the likes of Paul Mitchell join the club, but quite honestly, there is no reason why The Glazers couldn't go out and employ him to turn him, so what do Ineos really bring?

I agree with the fact that Ratcliffe is clearly a savvy businessman and it this is the step he had to take to get full control of the club, both sporting and on the business site, then fair enough.

Im just a little worried that Ratcliffe may have sacrificed some of his business principles, just to get control of the sporting side of the club. I worry that he has come in and said to the Glazers that he will buy 25%, improve the teams performance with a view to allow The Glazers to sell for a greater price in the near future.

The non Glazer shares as far as anyone knows are not part of the deal and would not require board ratification.

So we can be confident that the shares being sold are the Glazers, therefore 25% would equate to around 40% voting rights.

 

[gaffs]

Im not trying to say his Nice project was good in the past 3 seasons, but has there been any potential with it?

And is there any reason to suggest that he would handle United differently? Learn from the struggles from Nice perhaps?

I think it's fair to say there that Ineos/Ratcliffe will have very different ambitions for United than for Nice.

 

[V.O.]

He's right though. It should be a destination that earns the club significant money not just on match day. The name isn't great, but the concept and the surrounding area being developed is a very good idea.

Neville probably just has designs on it being built directly outside his hotel.

 

[Jim Beam]

Gary should stick to commenting football matches and crack jokes with Carragher.

Nothing wrong in what he says and better than many of hysterical drivel that's been posted here.

I was against Qatar bid, but questions should be asked about the deal that is about to be made with Glazers staying in pretty big capacity.

 

[gaffs]

The non Glazer shares as far as anyone knows are not part of the deal and would not require board ratification.

So we can be confident that the shares being sold are the Glazers, therefore 25% would equate to around 40% voting rights.

That has not been confirmed anywhere. For all we know, this is a play to start hoovering up the minority shares, before later buying Glazers class B shares.

Re voting, the Glazer class B shares, once sold, lose the 10x voting power, so unless something changes, Jim cant get 40%.

 

[arnie_ni]

The non Glazer shares as far as anyone knows are not part of the deal and would not require board ratification.

So we can be confident that the shares being sold are the Glazers, therefore 25% would equate to around 40% voting rights.

How are you calculating that?

 

[hobbers]

Worse than The Glazers staying in control indefinitely?

They couldnt have stayed in control indefinitely without minority investment to prop them up

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Why do the Qatari sources keep talking about clearing the debt and investment in the club after the sale? Obviously that's all great for the club and the fans, but none of it matters to the Glazers (who are the party they ultimately needed to convince).

 

[Gabriel Djemba-Bebe]

What a weird rant from the "source", is it just spin to save face or literally a moron? "The market dictates what United are worth, not the Glazers or Raine". Market price is a function of buyers and sellers, and in this deal that looks to be Ineos and the Glazers. Whatever deal they end up agreeing on, if they do, is what the market decided. What the source is referring to is the stock price, but that is just what the marginal seller/buyer think the listed stocks are worth.

"United can’t keep up with Brighton these days, never mind Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal"... peak Qatari meltdown. It's the kind of stroppy comment you'd see on the caf after back to back defeats. Brighton are a well run club but they've never finished above United so you'd expect a bit more perspective from a Sky source.

 

[blackhawk747]

Some of you may think that there will be no more Old Trafford renovations and other improvements project if the INEOS become minority owner. I truly believe it will be the opposite.
The $75B valuation is calculated base on the growth if everything is in the right place (Improved infrastructure, Continuous Superior commercial pulling power etc.) In order to protect the valuation and further inflate the value to make profit, investment MUST BE MADE. Any decent investor knows it.

 

[Zlaatan]

Great news. I'd rather wait for Ratcliffe to gain control and for United to remain a legitimate football club while not winning anything for a few years rather than becoming a sports washing project for a human rights abusive state so we can have instant City type "success".

 

[Frosty]

Why do the Qatari sources keep talking about clearing the debt and investment in the club after the sale? Obviously that's all great for the club and the fans, but none of it matters to the Glazers (who are the party they ultimately needed to convince).

Playing to the fans.

Also I did read something a while back from a financial journalist that the Qatari state would not overpay for United as if they did they would be fleeced in future investment deals. So Jassim was allowed to bid what he was and the PR campaign was designed to either force the Glazer's hands or (if it failed) save face.

 

[arnie_ni]

Why do the Qatari sources keep talking about clearing the debt and investment in the club after the sale? Obviously that's all great for the club and the fans, but none of it matters to the Glazers (who are the party they ultimately needed to convince).

To incite fan pressure or something maybe?

Or maybe they thought that someone that's own the club for 15 plus years might think, he this new guy has great intentions for this club maybe taking a bit less than we want will be best for the future of the club. I'm sure some owners might think like that but not these dudes.

Either way the only they could convince the Glazers to sell was by paying more for the shares. The rest is irrelevant to the Glazers.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Some of you may think that there will be no more Old Trafford renovations and other improvements project if the INEOS become minority owner. I truly believe it will be the opposite.
The $75B valuation is calculated base on the growth if everything is in the right place (Improved infrastructure, Continuous Superior commercial pulling power etc.) In order to protect the valuation and further inflate the value to make profit, investment MUST BE MADE. Any decent investor knows it.

Only way that happens is if the other owners also contribute capital (very unlikely) or agree to have their stakes diluted. INEOS isn't going to give the remaining shareholders a free ride off their investments.

 

[Remember the geese]

The non Glazer shares as far as anyone knows are not part of the deal and would not require board ratification.

So we can be confident that the shares being sold are the Glazers, therefore 25% would equate to around 40% voting rights.

He isn't buying 25% of the Class B shares. He's buying a combination of Class A and B shares. Ratcliffe will be purchasing approximately 3% of each Glazer's shares, which will give him somewhere in the region of 18-19% of the Class B shares. This will make him the single highest owner of the shares.

 

[Denis79]

Why do the Qatari sources keep talking about clearing the debt and investment in the club after the sale? Obviously that's all great for the club and the fans, but none of it matters to the Glazers (who are the party they ultimately needed to convince).

They did the mistake thinking the Glazers actually care what happens to the club when they leave.

 

[Acquire Me]

Huh? He's made great points in that post.

Everything he has said is spot on though.

Although much of what he says makes sense, it's just a bunch of questions. There is nothing in that post that is helpful at all.

It reads like a person living in a fantasy world. If he had been a bit more realistic, he could have asked himself how transparent a club of United's stature should be. How much information should be shared.

One of the biggest problems for the club and fans is the big questions fans care about and discuss at length and how the information flow between them.

Hopefully Sir Jim and Ineos will share information on how this acquisition will proceed and the short and long term plan to make us a top team again.

I only perceive his post as fluff to get positive attention.

 

[mitchmouse]

I just don't get what the Glazers are after - no one's going to pay them what their delusional minds have dreamt up as a figure. The only thing they can be after is destroying the club...

 

[El Zoido]

Why do the Qatari sources keep talking about clearing the debt and investment in the club after the sale? Obviously that's all great for the club and the fans, but none of it matters to the Glazers (who are the party they ultimately needed to convince).

This is PR for the fans, many of whom have concerns over a Qatari ownership. Their internal conversations with the Glazers would have been very different.

 

[Rolaholic]

 

[Rojofiam]

Great news. I'd rather wait for Ratcliffe to gain control and for United to remain a legitimate football club while not winning anything for a few years rather than becoming a sports washing project for a human rights abusive state so we can have instant City type "success".

Which would be far from guaranteed anyways

 

[Sweet Square]

To quote the *********** Aristotle - “This shit is chess, not checkers.”

 

[mitchmouse]

They spent something like 200 billion to host the World Cup, if it was genuinely a state backed bid and they really wanted to own the club they would have done. They couldn’t/wouldn’t get a deal done so all their PR is meaningless.

no one ever said it was a state bid so I don't see your point

 

[Shakesy]

Newcastle successful . 1927 last league title, 1955 last fa cup, zero European success, haven’t even had a charity while for 114 years. What are you smoking?

Oh, not familiar with sarcasm I see

 

[LordSpud]

 

[Rolaholic]

 

[JagUTD]

He isn't buying 25% of the Class B shares. He's buying a combination of Class A and B shares. Ratcliffe will be purchasing approximately 3% of each Glazer's shares, which will give him somewhere in the region of 18-19% of the Class B shares. This will make him the single highest owner of the shares.

He's buying 25% of the club, and he's buying it from the Glazers, who own 67% of the club.

Buying non Glazer shares would require separate deals with each individual shareholder or for them to be purchased via the stock market. That he is reportedly paying a premium for this 25% means he is buying them all from the Glazer family.

There 67% becomes 42%. Voting rights make up roughly becomes 60-40.

 

[Swedish_Plumber]

I’m very ignorant of all things finance. But it seems pretty criminal to me that someone can load an entity with debt then feck off and leave it all behind, despite making enough to pay it off 10 times over.

 

[clarkydaz]

What does “sporting control” mean exactly? United is still a sports club so how does the minority shareholder get to drive the core business? Sounds like PR to me to persuade fans that the Glazers are no longer in charge of the footballing side.

For the first 8 years they were here Fergie ran the club and they didnt really interfere. They stayed away and quietly collected the money, which is all they care about. It collapsed when they had to run the club

 

[Big Ben Foster]

This is PR for the fans, many of whom have concerns over a Qatari ownership. Their internal conversations with the Glazers would have been very different.

Of course, but it's over now, so why are they still going on about it? Trying to save face maybe?

 

[MDFC Manager]

Excellent!

 

[Nogbadthebad]

He's buying 25% of the club, and he's buying it from the Glazers, who own 67% of the club.

Buying non Glazer shares would require separate deals with each individual shareholder or for them to be purchased via the stock market. That he is reportedly paying a premium for this 25% means he is buying them all from the Glazer family.

There 67% becomes 42%. Voting rights make up roughly becomes 60-40.

That would require a change of the rules for shares established by the company. Because at the moment, Class B shares lose voting rights if the owner is not a member of the Glazer family.