How? He’s not the majority shareholder. That’s not how it works.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
How? He’s not the majority shareholder. That’s not how it works.
I also do not think under current circumstances for Spurs to be selling to Qatar.
Feel free to take VVD out.
Ragnick also isn't some fluke. He was good at being a footballing director, and obviously not the same credentials as a manager. His record spoke for itself in that capacity, and so does Mitchells. You can't just take credit away from Mitchell because he gives you these vibes.
And I'm still waiting to hear any alternative suggestion.
INEOS are buying 25% at 1.3, none of us have any idea how much the rest will cost, but it will almost certainly be more, that's why the Glazer's are selling 25%, they expect that the next 25% will be considerably moreThis is what I don't understand.
Ineos pay 1.3 and buy 25%, does that not equate to 5.2 for the 100%, and yet Ineos value the club at 7.0..?
Yet, apparently, Qatar have already bid beyond that figure of 5.2, and for a Cash sale.
I'm not grasping the arithmetic, Unless the initial 25% is valued lower than the remaining 75%....
He does not need to be. He's giving 25% for the club, in return for footballing autonomy and a route to get majority later down the line. Glazers take a complete backseat in the footballing matters and stick to the commercial side, or other facets affecting the club.
The board can be restructured such that INEOS get the say on all footballing matters.
This has been eluded to by various credible journalists including the Athletic. You can't just bury your head in the sand and say "no, that's not how it works".
That’s how business works. The Ineos bid is for £1.3B for 25% amounting to a overall value of £5.2B because it takes into account the debt. With debt, the offer based on current valuation payed by Ineos would be £5.7-6B
Depends on exactly how much they own, as I understand it.
One and the same entity (person, company, consortium etc.) can't be "influential" owners of more than one club in the same competition (e.g. the Champions League).
It's a very fair point to bring up, by the way. And it's been mentioned before too.
If Jimbo/INEOS effectively takes charge of United's "football side", it would seem that we'd run into trouble if both Nice and United compete in the CL.
Would seem.
It probably won't be a problem, though, for multiple reasons. Surely, Jim is aware of this potential snag.
Last edited:
It does work if they contracted his influence and control over particular things. You think he would buy 25% just to have no control whatsoever? Come on, nobody is that stupid, especially someone who is a billionaire.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said however the board is made up of 12 members, 6 of which are Glazers, at best this is a draw with votand Joel Glazer holds the casting vote, I’m pretty sure of that .
I tend to agree with everything you say but INEOS pitch to the Glazers is that you can have your cake and eat it, like I said the stadium investment really takes care of itself and has zero bearing on FFP/FSP so assume INEOS are loaning the club £500m towards debt, Cashflow and new players, this loan I’m guessing will be agreed to be paid back by the club over a 5-10 year period with a set sum paid each year from the new profits made, this is not debt in the Leveraged buy out way but it is an inter company loan and must be paid back at a fixed point in time.
The real issue here is , will INEOS be using their own cash from profits and cash reserves to invest in the club or are they borrowing the money in the same way they seem to be for purchasing the initial 25% share.
That’s the million or in this case billion dollar question.
Jassim would have been borrowing the money as well.
People are getting fundamental facts about who’s on the board wrong.
It’s the 6 siblings. 3 independent directors and 3 staff members (Arnold, Batty, Stewart).
Plus if its 6 vs 6 the Glazers have the casting vote.
It’s the 6 siblings. 3 independent directors and 3 staff members (Arnold, Batty, Stewart).
Plus if its 6 vs 6 the Glazers have the casting vote.
Why would they sell. What do they gain from selling. Spurs aren’t in financial trouble.
True but I've been around long enough to know that there's no guarantee about anything in football!
As listed on Companies House the directors are the 6 Glazers plus Sir Alex, Sir Bobby, David Gill, Richard Arnold, and John Edelson.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00095489/officers
There isn’t one person that can highlight what Ragnick is successful for. He had a good hand in helping build a football club from scratch. But the things we mainly care about like highlighting and signing players, if you do your research were selected by people not named Ralf Ragnick. So unless someone can point out how he got Sadio Mane or Kimmich. Maybe give it a rest on the Ralf front. He just was around the right people.
Not currently, but Joe Lewis is in legal trouble in the US, that might have an impact at some point
Why are you telling me to give it a rest on the Ralf front? You brought him into the debate and then you wound yourself up about it.
I am still waiting for your suggestion for a footballing head, by the way.
They don't have a say in anything like this.
They are a different sort of "director". Basically, they have zero actual power.
I'm aware but the rumours of the Glazers wanitng £6b was probably them pricing the club to account for the debt. I have no doubt they'll hope the club's value increases over the course of this INEOS takeover and try to wriggle out of paying the debt before they eventually slink off.
What do you think his game is?
Hand a billion and a half over to the Glazers in order to...what?
Genuinely curious about your take on this. Why would he be interested in buying 25% of Glazer shares?
If INEOS are buying 25% of the shares, that money goes to the shareholders selling, so where do we get the 1billion investment we need ? Its not like the Glazers are going to change their habits.
No they aren't. If you can't get Manchester United I would be looking at a club like Everton.
He's not a myth, and nor is Paul. You're talking absolute nonsense if you think Paul Mitchell is a myth and was just lucky to be around Southampton and Tottenham for extended periods of time in an influential role whilst contributing nothing to their footballing operations.
One is already on the list for Ratcliffe and apparently not ready for a return, the other has no established pedigree comparable to Paul Mitchell.
Good contribution.
Unless there are express provisions in the purchase of the minority share indicating full control of footballing matters it doesn’t work without board approval. We don’t know how much control the glazers want to concede to Ratcliffe. They may in their delusional minds believe they’re doing a fine job and simply want to use Ratcliffe’s funds to invest in infrastructure with a promise for a substantial return for his investment.
He's a part owner of the club. A provision of it is he owns the footballing side of things. Being the majority owners doesn't mean you own and have final say on everything, if the agreement stipulates that Ratcliffe, who won't be an employee but a part owner, will have control, then he'll have control. That's it.
I don't see why it's controversial anyway. Glazers pretty much just ignore the footballing side, so this is someone bidding 25% to get what he wants and also take on a job that the Glazers pretty clearly don't want anything to do with. It's a no brainer from them.
People are not seeing the long term picture here:
Man Utd will never be wholly owned for another 20 years. Ratcliffe never wanted a 100% of the club, and never will - as he sees this club as business where he just needs majority control.
Ratcliff will never add an obligation clause and buy all the shares, but only an option at a particular price.
Man Utd will never be wholly owned for another 20 years. Ratcliffe never wanted a 100% of the club, and never will - as he sees this club as business where he just needs majority control.
Ratcliff will never add an obligation clause and buy all the shares, but only an option at a particular price.
Nothing is agreed yet it seems. The Thursday rubber stamping is only the start - lots of details still to be thrashed out.
Exactly that, at some point people will finally get this, although tbf there’s been do much poor reporting on the actual numbers mainly due to NDA’s and guesses everywhere.
We have a strong idea because tier one reports have stated hes getting footballing control.
Thats only the UK football club company. Its owned by a number of other holding companies e.g. Red Football Shareholder Ltd (UK) which is in turn owned by Manchester United Ltd (Cayman).
Ratcliffe wouldn't give 25% with these key details still needing to be thrashed out. This isn't a handshake in a pub.
What "substantial return" could it possibly represent for someone like Jimbo?
United generate a lot of money - for a football club. United don't generate anything but petty cash for someone with the investment potential of Jimbo.
If he wanted to invest a billion and a half in a single company (as a minority share holder), strictly in order to make money from the investment, why the hell would he choose United? That makes no sense whatsoever, can't you see that?
People need to realise blue tick does not equal reliable, they just paid for it. The desperation for Qatar is unreal.
You have to assume that all the Glazers will vote for INEOS and therefore it only takes one of the three employees , Richard Arnold, Patrick Stewart Cliff Batey, the three independent directors representing the minority share holders are Robert Leitao, Man Utd Sawhney and John Hooks.
I really don’t see any of the Glazers objecting, so even if all the other 6 say no it’s just becomes a non decision or put to a revote. The only way this doesn’t go through is if the Glazers are actually divided and the three company directors actually showing a backbone and voting for a no to 25% investment.
The individual directors may be deciding to vote against this but again it only takes 1 to concede. Seriously can’t see anyway that the Rat doesn’t get at least 9 out 12 votes for his deal.
Just loads of PR saying what people want to hear.
Short of it is, if the rules don’t change in the future we are forever playing second fiddle to the financial power of these state owned clubs and anymore that come after us.
With the people who own these clubs now sitting on the top boards of European football they aren’t disappearing either.
The Glazers have even made the fans happy with mediocrity.
Short of it is, if the rules don’t change in the future we are forever playing second fiddle to the financial power of these state owned clubs and anymore that come after us.
With the people who own these clubs now sitting on the top boards of European football they aren’t disappearing either.
The Glazers have even made the fans happy with mediocrity.
Seems some people think it is.
Or they pretend it is for feck knows what reason.
I'm on record calling Jim a cnut. And I'm not backing down on that. But I've never claimed he's an idiot, because he clearly isn't.
Yeah you could pick up Everton. Question is why would they want them. People forget they we’re interested because it was Manchester Bloody United.
Why did the Saudi's go for Newcastle. They aren't successful, have a localised if you like fan base.
I keep telling you. We aren’t Southampton or Spurs. There is nothing about his accolades which screams success. Southampton had been a well ran club before he go there and Spurs really haven’t missed him.
No established Pedigree? He’s Sporting Director of Barcelona and has a league title under his belt. Something Mitchell doesn’t have.
- Status