Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
glazed said:
I want to see the details but the key questions will be how much debt will the club be loaded with at the end and how much dividend and interest will it have to pay to Glazers and various other parasites. I feel the obvious answer to both will be 'a lot'.

Given leveraged buyouts are now banned, I'm hoping the Premier league will block this takeover.
Click to expand...

Absolutely zero chance. The PL is useless and uninterested in enforcing ownership rules unless forced to by the government.

Look at City blatantly buying them off while 115 charges hang, unanswered, over their heads.

PL will do nothing.
 
Licha-Vidic said:



  • Sir Jim Ratcliffe will take control of footballing operations in an attempt to remove the Glazers from the firing line in his proposed 25 per cent Manchester United co-ownership deal, Telegraph Sport understands.
  • Under terms close to being agreed by key parties, the controversial American owners would remain at the club but take back seats amid efforts to calm the mood among fans.
  • A clause handing Ratcliffe control of sporting matters also goes some way to explaining why the Ineos owner is willing to pay an estimated £1.35 billion, a significant premium on market valuations, for just a quarter stake.
  • One interested party claims an agreement with Ratcliffe could now be voted by key club figures this week although other insiders said a deal could yet be delayed.
  • Sources on both sides of the deal played down suggestions that a deal had already been done with Ratcliffe. One added that final negotiations could yet “change the dynamic”.
  • However, Ratcliffe has sought assurances that his proposals include “operational control of footballing matters”, a key figure with knowledge of the situation explained.
  • Ratcliffe, whose Ineos firm generates $61 billion (£52 million) in revenue, has lined up financing from banks including Goldman Sachs Group Inc, while JPMorgan Chase & Co., Rothschild & Co. and Bank of America Corp. are among other banks advising or offering capital on a deal.
Click to expand...

If this is true then that's good news imo.

You need someone at the very top who is driving the club towards success. So Ratcliffe being in-charge of the sporting side of the club is a big step forward potentially imo.
 
JagUTD said:
Wonder what they might be voting on this week?

Given they haven't voted on previous sales of their holdings due to them converting, why might they do so now?

Ratcliffe could have just bought the shares via the market if all he was going to end up with were non voting shares. And saved a fortune to boot. I know it's difficult for many to accept anything not in clickbait tweet format but come on, this stuff is pretty self explanatory.
Click to expand...
Again, the B class shares are also held by the Glazers and not by Manchester United PLC. If they want to offload a minority in that, they could well do so without the Board ratification. This is a minority investment (which could well include B and A class shares) and that is why it requires the Board to vote on it.

We are all yet to know the details but do you actually believe Ratcliffe is getting 40% voting rights for 1.3B. You really think the Glazers value their 69% for less than 4B (while they rejected an offer of more than 5B by SJ), as that is what it means by your calculations. Your assumptions are far less likely than the one where this 25% tranche contains both B and A class shares (maybe both coming from the Grazers holding).
 
NK86 said:
Again, the B class shares are also held by the Glazers and not by Manchester United PLC. If they want to offload a minority in that, they could well do so without the Board ratification. This is a minority investment (which could well include B and A class shares) and that is why it requires the Board to vote on it.
Click to expand...

I think a rule change is required to allow INEOS to hold B shares so a board vote would be required.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Absolutely zero chance. The PL is useless and uninterested in enforcing ownership rules unless forced to by the government.

Look at City blatantly buying them off while 115 charges hang, unanswered, over their heads.

PL will do nothing.
Click to expand...

Yet you've desperately been hoping for us to pull a City? Qatar being the folks who won a world cup via bribery afterall.
 
mu4c_20le said:
Only one side's finances were questioned and it wasn't the skint Ineos, surprisngly.
Click to expand...

Probably because the skint Ineos are funding their offer from debt to wall street rather than their own pockets.
 
JagUTD said:
Yet you've desperately been hoping for us to pull a City? Qatar being the folks who won a world cup via bribery afterall.
Click to expand...

City aren’t being charged for having a wealthy ME ownership (that would be idiotic xenophobia).

They’re being charged for cheating. It’s a big difference, unless you think that Jassim being from Qatar immediately makes him a cheat - in which case I’d have a firm word with yourself.
 
So are there any good arguments why Ratcliffe won't use United to service the debt he used to buy the shares with? I'm desperate.
 
Adnan said:
If this is true then that's good news imo.

You need someone at the very top who is driving the club towards success. So Ratcliffe being in-charge of the sporting side of the club is a big step forward potentially imo.
Click to expand...
Second bolded part is a bit concerning that’s debt on top of debt.

However it seems like this is also how Chelsea backers were funded.
 
Castia said:
It’s just sad isn’t it
Click to expand...

Why is it sad? Other than the mythological Qatari independent investors who are totally not the royal family of Qatar, not even billionaires walk around with that much liquidity.

Jim’s loans will be backed against Ineos assets, which are real with positive cash flow and revenues year after year and he’ll get very favorable terms on such a loan.
 
glazed said:
I think a rule change is required to allow INEOS to hold B shares so a board vote would be required.
Click to expand...
I agree. This could well be on the agenda for this Board meeting. However I absolutely do not believe Ratcliffe is getting 25% shares in United, all of which are B class. That would make the Glazers' shares worth less than 4B and I am quite certain they are not selling their 69% for that low an amount.
 
mattyround said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nice example of a dangerous combination of wishful thinking, lack of research and complete delusion.

In no way is it best for the club (forget the politics) to be part-owned by someone that doesn't have the money or desire (or both) to go the full mile and own the club outright who's sold out to the very people who have brought the club to its knees (or rather grave).
 
Godfather said:
So are there any good arguments why Ratcliffe won't use United to service the debt he used to buy the shares with? I'm desperate.
Click to expand...
Apparantly and I’ve not seen much of this as of late but the thought is that INEOS will take on the debt from the club basically absorbing it and any additional debt will be levied against them.

The buyout wouldn’t be passed if it was a leveraged buyout and the debt put against the club itself. Those kind of buyouts are banned in the PL.
 
Adnan said:
If this is true then that's good news imo.

You need someone at the very top who is driving the club towards success. So Ratcliffe being in-charge of the sporting side of the club is a big step forward potentially imo.
Click to expand...
It would be a step in the right direction if the Glazers become silent shareholders and SJR completes a top down restructure of the club. Get in external advisors and look at the structure and then every person currently in a position at the club and check that it’s right. Be ruthless and get rid of positions or people that aren’t working and bring in people with the right credentials to do the job.
 
Remember the geese said:
Hardly. This is the best scenario for the club. Qatar was never a serious option. They wouldn't stump up the necessary or be willing to play the long game/be flexible. This scenario is far better than any other possible option, which includes the Glazer's staying long term, or them selling a minority stake to someone who has no interest in a full takeover.
Click to expand...
We've been playing the long game for 10 years now, but sure let us continue with that...
 
Godfather said:
So are there any good arguments why Ratcliffe won't use United to service the debt he used to buy the shares with? I'm desperate.
Click to expand...
Because, and I may be wrong, i believe he hasn’t done that with any sporting venture he’s been involved with. If his goal is money orientated it will be a pretty piss poor investment for a rather shrewd businessman.

That and he knows he’ll be hounded out of house and home if its only a 25% with no future takeover
 
Godfather said:
So are there any good arguments why Ratcliffe won't use United to service the debt he used to buy the shares with? I'm desperate.
Click to expand...
Just blind hope at this point. If he does put that new debt on us, I expect all of the posters clamouring for him coming on here spinning the "not all debt is bad" line over and over.
 
NK86 said:
Again, the B class shares are also held by the Glazers and not by Manchester United PLC. If they want to offload a minority in that, they could well do so without the Board ratification. This is a minority investment (which could well include B and A class shares) and that is why it requires the Board to vote on it.

We are all yet to know the details but do you actually believe Ratcliffe is getting 40% voting rights for 1.3B. You really think the Glazers value their 69% for less than 4B (while they rejected an offer of more than 5B by SJ), as that is what it means by your calculations. Your assumptions are far less likely than the one where this 25% tranche contains both B and A class shares (maybe both coming from the Grazers holding).
Click to expand...

Jassim wasn't offering £5bn for 67% though. It was for 100%.
 
Once all this moral victory claims excitement ends, the current pro - Jim posters take a step back and think . What's the plan to improve our infra ? If Jim does a full takeover today and say I will build a stadium and improve the club facility, I will be the first one to support it.

As things stand this is just an adjustment between 2 billionaire groups to stay with united .
-With just 25% Jim gets the sporting control and the fame.
-Since he only has 25 % he won't be spending a lot from his pocket.
- nothing about our infrastructure.
- Glazers are taken out of firing line, gets 1.7b and still owns the club. This is a terrific deal !

Mark my words - nothing will change. We will be back with a similar thread in couple of years stating how shitty our owners are and how they aren't spending money to improve us. We generate " enough money" theory doesn't last for ever. Already there is a generation who hasn't ever seen us lift a title.

Dark days ahead !
 
L1nk said:
Because, and I may be wrong, i believe he hasn’t done that with any sporting venture he’s been involved with. If his goal is money orientated it will be a pretty piss poor investment for a rather shrewd businessman.

That and he knows he’ll be hounded out of house and home if its only a 25% with no future takeover
Click to expand...
I have seen this being pointed. Which other sporting venture of his will cost him north of 5B pounds just in terms of him being able to own them? So it's not really a fair comparison to draw.
 
Godfather said:
So are there any good arguments why Ratcliffe won't use United to service the debt he used to buy the shares with? I'm desperate.
Click to expand...

Much, much cheaper for it to be placed against Ineos than United.

The financial strength of Ineos far surpasses United. Leveraging any debt against United when you have the might of an asset like Ineos is something only absolute morons would do, the sort of morons for whom United was there primary asset and the rest of their business empire was a bit shit...
 
JagUTD said:
Jassim wasn't offering £5bn for 67% though. It was for 100%.
Click to expand...
I have seen different figures but one I have seen consistently is the Glazers want nearly 6B pounds for their shares. Do you really believe that they will suddenly be fine with 3.5B?
 
Godfather said:
So are there any good arguments why Ratcliffe won't use United to service the debt he used to buy the shares with? I'm desperate.
Click to expand...

Because financially the sums do not compute in any way, if you borrow a billion the club do not make enough money to even pay the interest for a year, whereas his other company make a whole lot more, the reason they do it by debt because they get a lot of tax breaks from paying for something via debt than using cash, any company worth its salt would fund any acquisition in the same way
 
TheNewEra said:
Literally fecked as a club, Newcastle will be ahead of us soon
Click to expand...

Soon!? Newcastle are already in a far better place than Utd!

Loads of money, good football, just thrashed PSG, exciting players, sensible signings.

A better comparison is Newcastle under Mike Ashley, which is what Utd are headed to under the Glazer / Rat coalition.
 
NK86 said:
I have seen different figures but one I have seen consistently is the Glazers want nearly 6B pounds for their shares. Do you really believe that they will suddenly be fine with 3.5B?
Click to expand...

The valuation was always for the entire club. Though it was confusing and subject to many pages of discussion I recall it was clarified eventually.

Wanting £6bn for just their shares would effectively value the club at almost £10bn.
 
Glazers are such disgusting leeches. No way to get rid of them.
 
Answers will likely come this week but it’s all very good running the football side of things but if you don’t have any control over funds for signings, how does that help?

We are limited in our spending by FFP, can they add funds to help this?
Aside from transfers, can they do much more than we are already doing?
 
We need to forget about the Qatar bid. It’s over.

We need to put pressure on Ratcliffe to meet all our needs as our fans, and not rest on just securing his minimum desired requirements - which is sporting control. We need to know how will pay for everything if he will put debt on INEOS rather than Man Utd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.