Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is everything alright?
Does seem like the 'deal' is not that done.

Probably until Mark Kleinman says something then it's not confirmed.



 
It's an interesting one as the share price only rocketed because of the SJ statement about buying 100% of the club, which they shouldn't have made, as they were under a NDA and 100% of the club wasn't for sale, only the Glazers seeking "strategic alternatives".
When did SJ make a statement? The share price rocketed after the Glazers made the strategic announcement. It reached its peak when influencers and journalists said that Qatar were leading.
 
The most likely is that Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE is buying 25% straight from the Glazers

Yeah the shareholdings will presumably end up

25% ratty
44% leeches
31% minority
 
Not really. People buy minority shares all the time. Show me the law where you have to leagally buy all shareholdings rather in one go rather than buying in this example 12.5% from the NYSE?

I only have a moderate interest so if you're an expert in business law please feel free to share relevent links as I would be interested to see.
I think here Sir Jim is looking to buy a minority shareholding, initially, with a view to a takeover. If that is the case then the issue of dissent (some Cayman Islands Law argument) can be used by the shareholders.
Also the Glazers can't have a side agreement when the plan was a strategic Club initiative otherwise they did not act impartially as directors, everything has to be open and fair (?)
 
Delays mean pro-Qatar Twitter ITKs get one last opportunity to desperately cling onto their pathetic lies :lol:
 
Not really. People buy minority shares all the time. Show me the law where you have to leagally buy all shareholdings rather in one go rather than buying in this example 12.5% from the NYSE?

I only have a moderate interest so if you're an expert in business law please feel free to share relevent links as I would be interested to see.
Cayman Islands. The entire reason why this bid had to be reconstructed was because of that law.
This has been discussed about 1m times in here within the last 2 months.
It’s not breaking news. Sir Jim can buy all he wants up until that one share that gives him full control and then it’s lawyers at the ready
 
I'll say it again, if Ten Hag hadn't done so well last season we'd already be sold by now. The Glazers are reluctant sellers and were looking for an excuse to stay. So if we continue to struggle this season it might not be the worst thing for our future, it would speed this process up.
 
How do you know those are all lies and the Sir Jim stuff isnt? We havent had anything official yet from the club or either bidder

Maybe I trust reputable sources like the Athletic, Times, Bloomberg or Reuters over those idiots claiming to be ITK?
 
This is sounding worse by the day.

It’s literally the worst outcome we could have got.

I don’t believe for one second that SJR will buy 100% of the club.

He won’t meet the Glazers £6 billion valuation now. So why the feck would he meet their £8-£10 billion valuation 2-3 years down the line?

The whole thing is a bloody mess.
 
It’s literally the worst outcome we could have got.

I don’t believe for one second that Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE will buy 100% of the club.

He won’t meet the Glazers £6 billion valuation now. So why the feck would he meet their £8-£10 billion valuation 2-3 years down the line?

The whole thing is a bloody mess.
I have the same concern to be honest. I refuse to believe Jim will pay approx 8B to acquire full control . Just don't see it.

This is probably a minority investment which is what Glazers always wanted . Using this 1.25B I think the brothers will have an agreement to split the ownership and finally it will down to 2 glazers + Jim.

Jim will take up the sporting control but Glazers will be very much part of it (not all of them but the ones who doesn't want to sell)
 
Every single bit of enthusiasm I did have for the potential of a takeover has now dissipated.

I think I’m kinda done with all of this now. Past caring about it, whatever happens - happens.
 
That’s not the whole reason though let’s be honest. Buying in January involves luck. Lucky to get the player you want (most likely the club want to keep their best at that stage of season) and they cost more as a result
Depends where you buy from and what your plans are.
 
Mixture of the lead 'owner' parasites looking to stay and drain plus (IMO) certain fans led by the nose regarding the nature of Qatar and the Qatari bid, means that he's the least-worst option on the table. There doesn't seem to be any cash-flush billionaire looking to redevelop the club (a) out of 'love' or (b) to rebuild its brand alongside stadium/high-end fan/real-estate opportunities which would be bolstered by the former 'rebuilding', which seems to have been the Jassim angle. Neither, of course, a general move towards making all clubs 50+1 fan owned, which would be my preference.

If he can leverage enough to gain control over footballing business and (A) bring in a high-end SD/DOF and get everyone to reinterview for their jobs and (b) switch the focus back towards recruiting the most promising up and coming players with appropriate physical as well as mental and technical skillsets - basically, Dortmund-style or high-end Brighton, or a more coherent version of Chelsea's approach - then we could at the least do an Arsenal and become a contender again, if not 'top dogs'. I'd also say that, as a fan and an intelligent enough guy going by his business dealings, whatever you think of his politics (which are pretty much diametrically opposed to mine) , he will want to refashion the current squad through disposing of certain players, even if it means selling for under market value. I doubt, for instance, he permits us to turn down 30+ for McTominay and for Maguire, or allows them to receive such mixed messages, or has any qualms about letting Sancho go.

People have been sceptical about the 25% 'buying him privileges over the footballing side, but an average CEO or Chair potentially has far less invested in the business in terms of stock and serves at the 'pleasure' of the board and then majority ownership (as I understand it, which might not be too well! am not a 'business guy') and still wields pretty much all responsibility. Levy doesn't majority own Spurs, though he has a sizable stake, and yet basically runs it without Lewis' interference, except an expectation to make the numbers work and grow the thing, as far as we've been led to understand. Likewise the CEO at Brighton. Hence, with some fiduciary responsibility clause in the corporate agreement and a general agreement to square the footballing side with specific brand commitments (tours, building a squad for whatever new version of the CL/ quasi- super League the Glazers have in mind), is there any compelling reason why he wouldn't be granted it?
 
But that information came from the Muppeteers, who seem to be gloating as they clearly have a leak from INEOS, right now I’d wait until we have all of the actual data. I also don’t think they are a credible source and have a biased agenda.

The stronger rumour was the bid was £5.6bn which was made last week but it came too late and that after the debt was paid the Glazers would get about £5 billion nearly double the market value, however still less than INEOS 25% bid who had offered £1.5bn for 25% yes £1.35 bn is being quoted, however there is an additional £150m to be invested to help with immediate cash flow problems. Lots of small print, lots of contract agreements to be included, Jimmy deal is incredibly complexed, I think it will happen now as there no one else in the room to bid against, however from the Glazers point of view the last thing they want right now with only one bidder in the room, is for Ineos group to think they’ve bid £1 billion more ?

What’s to stop Ineos from now going in with a lower bid or demanding 51% and more control, nothing is signed yet!

The third option of the Glazers staying is still very much on the table!
Then that begs the question,why leave it so late?

I think Jassim has been lacklustre and proactive enough. When set out to acquire something and don't achieve it, you have ask yourself why?

Yes, we can point to the greed, but they must have known what was required.

In regards to no deal occurring, there is a part of me that goes not give a Shyte anymore. They have to sort their own crap out without me investing head space in it.

Perhaps, there was a lot from Beckham last week?
 
So much for all that horseshit about Raine Group making the process seemless in the year this has been going, if this INEOS thing drags out to Christmas.
 
I'll say it again, if Ten Hag hadn't done so well last season we'd already be sold by now. The Glazers are reluctant sellers and were looking for an excuse to stay. So if we continue to struggle this season it might not be the worst thing for our future, it would speed this process up.

Ideally this falls through and we finish mid table and fall out of European competition completely.
 
this entire saga has completely fvcked up this great club and this season is going to end up a disaster with us possibly missing out on europe next season
 
Not really. People buy minority shares all the time. Show me the law where you have to leagally buy all shareholdings rather in one go rather than buying in this example 12.5% from the NYSE?

I only have a moderate interest so if you're an expert in business law please feel free to share relevent links as I would be interested to see.
There are laws in place in some countries, where if you purchase a certain percentage of shares in a company you have to offer to buy all the shares, in some cases the shareholders have to sell, I have no idea what the case is here but there have been threats of lawsuits about the A class shares being left out of "bids"
 
Transfer budgets at United have rarely been a problem, the readies have been made available, the most important thing is how it's spent, in United's case poorly, fix that and a lot of issues go away
So being a 25% owner does Ratcliffe get to decide where it is spent without any interference from glazers and the board. If so then what is stopping him from spending £100m on a nothing player from Nice or Lausanne. Wouldn’t that be a way to siphon off money from United to his other ventures. See now why i said you can’t give control to a minority investor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.