And still be part of the committee with a cyclist. Come on mate. You are better than this. Stop arguing for the sake of it.
Anyways I rest my case.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Anyways I rest my case.
You have missed the crown jewels of Bale and Gaitan
It's about time we get the squad on the same supplements as the City and Liverpool squads.
I'm sure at least 60% of these highly trained young athletes are secretly asthmatic and just don't realize.
You have no case to rest. You're having a hissy fit about an ex cyclist specialist being on the board and turn your head away from what the Qatar structure probably would have looked like.
Spoiler alert - it was always heading that way regardless of if it was Ratcliffe or Jassim. I don't know why you're crying about it and changing your point all the time.
Glazers won't have full control, it is NOT reported that they keep sporting control for a while as you claim, so don't make shit up. You're better than that.
We were always going to have a committee where the decisive voice on who we sign is a non-football guy with suspicions of doping on his name.
Sure, right.
If Sir Jim is eventually buying the whole club/majority then this deal will take a long time to be agreed.
1 Board have to ratify the deal and change the future power holding -assumption being that Sir Jim wants to dilute the Glazer stranglehold, (the Glazers, as things stand, only need to retain about 10%, a guess, of their class B shares to retain power, given that their sold class B shares become class A shares changing the maths).
2. Club will need to hold a special AGM to put it to the owners/shareholders. (it may be a formality due to the current Glazer voting power but it is still part of a process). No doubt that AGM will be held in Alaska so that no fans/small investors can attend.
3 Then once passed then things can start to move.
However, trying to agree a deal that retains the value of Sir Jim’s share and gives him a measure of influence will not be easy. Once the Glazer’s ownership falls below 67% their trump selling card is gone and they will want to ensure that they get paid for giving that up.
In a publicly trading company there can’t be a side agreement between the Glazers and Sir Jim, particularly given the process that got to this stage was a club initiative, everything must be open and transparent.
If Sir Jim is striking a deal to take the whole club, then the club has to consider a potential shareholder dissent legal action.
How would he do that?
On face value if you hold 4 class A shares and through a tender process 1 share is sold, by you to Sir Jim, at a premium you still have 3 left that are now worth a fraction. The Class A group would argue Jassim would have purchased them all but due to the poor/biased sale/strategic process, whatever, the club/board/Raine drove him out of the process.
We know so little, but it all seems massively complicated.
1 Board have to ratify the deal and change the future power holding -assumption being that Sir Jim wants to dilute the Glazer stranglehold, (the Glazers, as things stand, only need to retain about 10%, a guess, of their class B shares to retain power, given that their sold class B shares become class A shares changing the maths).
2. Club will need to hold a special AGM to put it to the owners/shareholders. (it may be a formality due to the current Glazer voting power but it is still part of a process). No doubt that AGM will be held in Alaska so that no fans/small investors can attend.
3 Then once passed then things can start to move.
However, trying to agree a deal that retains the value of Sir Jim’s share and gives him a measure of influence will not be easy. Once the Glazer’s ownership falls below 67% their trump selling card is gone and they will want to ensure that they get paid for giving that up.
In a publicly trading company there can’t be a side agreement between the Glazers and Sir Jim, particularly given the process that got to this stage was a club initiative, everything must be open and transparent.
If Sir Jim is striking a deal to take the whole club, then the club has to consider a potential shareholder dissent legal action.
How would he do that?
On face value if you hold 4 class A shares and through a tender process 1 share is sold, by you to Sir Jim, at a premium you still have 3 left that are now worth a fraction. The Class A group would argue Jassim would have purchased them all but due to the poor/biased sale/strategic process, whatever, the club/board/Raine drove him out of the process.
We know so little, but it all seems massively complicated.
Last edited:
We were always going to have a committee where members would not have a proper footballing background.
Qatars grandest team have an ex Tennis player as chairman. Go figure.
Its just a weird thing to get hungover considering leaks say wel look at Edwards or Mitchell in footballing roles and bring in a CEO with footballing pedigree. That's more than what I could say about Qatars bid.
Last edited:
True, you'd like to think we'd stay away from it but there's no way we can compete when others are doing it, catch 22 situation as any achievement when doping feels hollow.
Ratcliffe is paying 25% BECAUSE HE CAN NOT AFFORD TO PAY 100% now.. If he had, he would, why wait.
So Mr Clever person, tell us how will Ratcliffe afford to pay MORE ( in value and in monetary terms) in future what he can't pay now?
Please educate us in meaningful facts
Why
1. Ratcliffe is unable to AFFORD 100% United now, so the 25% is the magic number.
2. If Ratcliffe can not pay 100% today, what guarantees is there, that he will pay the remaining 75% in future?
3. If the club succeeds, (we all hope that), means Glazers will value the club higher, what makes you believe Ratcliffe will afford us in that future VALUE.
4. How are you preempting Glazers are heading out of the door? Have they told you so, how do you know? At what point will they head out? At what price?..
As you can see you know nothing about Glazers going.. So argue with what you know, instead of calling other opinions meaningless
It is meaningless to compare two scenarios that clearly aren't the same.
Ratcliffe wanted to buy much more than the 25%, but the Glazers aren't happy with the valuation (which includes the Qatar bid). No one is currently willing to pay the Glazers what it would require for them to walk away now. Can’t afford and not being willing to pay something are two different things.
The best we can hope for is that this is all about club valuation, the Glazers aren’t happy with the current market valuetion and bids for full control, and believe that the club is worth number that no one is actually willing to pay. Therefore, Ratcliffe has suggested a deal that will see him gain a lot of control on the sporting side, for a hefty fee, with a clear path that allows him to continue to buy more of the club towards a full takeover further down the line. If the club valuation continues to go up, which it likely will due to the next TV deal, the Glazers can add more to their bank account on their way out.
Alternatively, they are completely uninterested in selling more of the club and either way we’re fecked.
Imho, i doubt Ratcliffe is buying 25%, for a hefty fee, after trying to buy a lot more, unless he has assurances about being in a position where he can take full control further down the line.
You still having a meltdown over Qatar? They wouldn’t pay the cash, mate. You’ve got to move on now, for your own sanity.
This thread will be a laugh if we lose tomorrow
Ratcliffe is many things, not all of them good, but one thing is pretty conclusive, he is a very clever and astute business man
There is zero chance he buys 25% without getting what he wants, which apparently is full control of the sporting side, if the Glazer's don't agree to this then they'll be getting bugger all.
Nice post. Thanks for sharing. These same thoughts have crossed my mind as well. Perhaps the Sheikh's deal was not all it was claimed to be. After the bid was withdrawn, I've seen a few sources suggest the Class A shareholders may not have necessarily received the same price as the Glazers. I don't know how else they would be able to justify it, unless there were other financial/regulatory concerns with the bid.
There has also been some chatter about potentially issuing new shares to INEOS, which would help inject capital for investment but which the Class A shareholders would absolutely hate.
In a perfect world (alas this one is not), they could just do a reorg and scrap the dual class structure which does throw the Class A shareholders a bone. Joel and Avram lose their ability to hold the club hostage if the other 4 siblings want to do what they please with their shares and the ~30% of shares on the NYSE suddenly become relevant in terms of voting power. This would have made things so much easier for a potential buyer. The current structure is so Glazer-esque in that it allows even 1 of them to hold things up if they are not on board. I feel like that is the main reason things have transpired in the bizarre way they have. Jimbo and his team have to get all 6 of these trust fund babies to agree on something. We always just grouped them as one ("the Glazers"), but in this case, they are likely 6 individuals with 6 different ideas of what kind of a deal is best for them.
We still unfortunately have more questions than answers and each iteration of this deal appears to be more convoluted. We just have to hope Jimbo and INEOS are wholly committed to a deal that results in them taking control in the foreseeable future.
I have totally given up hope of ever getting rid of those Glazer parasites. They are nothing but a curse on our club. I think their plan al along was just to manipulate share prices. The money Sir Jim is putting in now would have bought him 50% of the club 2 years ago. Their greed seems to know no bounds! The sheer brass neck of the Glazers astounds Me. They must know how much the fanbase absolutely despise them and they still have the balls to stick around?!?!?
I really hope there will be asolutely massive protests in the pipeline.
I really hope there will be asolutely massive protests in the pipeline.
Seriously? What the feck did I read ? So we were always going to have Glazers stay or a non- footballing team taking control of us ? Jeez !
Just bore off mate.
And you keep bringing up that ex tennis player. Don't know who are you referring to . If you are referring to the owner Nasser , then he is the fecking chairman not a board of directors. They have a structure in place too.
Last edited:
Agree, and well done for actually calling it what it is - minority investment.
It’s as comical as it is depressing to see so many people so easily hoodwinked into referring to it as a ‘Takeover’.
For starters - Ineos will be ON the board.
A 3 way team for sporting issues would significantly improve the process and speed of making decisions. Currently things have to get up to Arnold then to the board to make decisions. This process would remove Arnold from sporting decisions which can only be a good thing - he can focus on commercials and financials as that’s his expertise.
A Glazer sense checking and working as part of the sporting team would mean that the key decision makers are able to make things happen quickly without the process layers of delay that currently exist
I’m not saying this is ideal but it will be significantly better than what we currently have. If ETH has to report into the trio then surely he would have a clear understanding and direction on what is and isn’t possible.
Haha. At this stage getting relegated will be like winning the league!
I actually don't mind that if it's true. It shows they are keen to get started on fixing this mess. The part I am apprehensive about is whether they get an ironclad agreement for a controlling stake in the foreseeable future or not. If it's just a straight minority investment deal with some ambiguous level of influence on the sporting side, that is just not good enough.
The board will still have to ratify expenditure.
And who do you think will be putting suggestions to the committee?
It is ADDING more layers of bureaucracy, not removing any.
So the deal won't be done in time for the January transfer widow - seriously, can the Glazers wipe their @rses in good time?
You're claiming that Glazers keep control and it won't be a while before that changes. That's not actually true from what is being reported.
Hes the president of PSG and sits on the board. Is that the structure you're on about? Their structure has him as both chairman and CEO.
At least in this structure we have Jean-Claude Blanc tipped for CEO, who had experience at this level with Juventus and PSG.
I heard Avram enjoys letting it crust a little bit first.
It's wild that this even needs to be said. Some of the doom and gloom posts are embarrassing.
How is it that some newbie that cannot read is here preaching to me how raising a completely valid point about false equivalence is 'having a meltdown'.
How about you go and apply your third-rate psychiatry degree on someone that actually cares?
It is. Thats what pro Jim guys don't get it. If it was full take over, I could have made piece with it.
Glazers are staying, they are still on board with an ex cyclist guy .( As if we have never been through that. )
Now Jim has only 25 % - but will have full control of sporting decisions. I refuse to believe Glazers with 75% will give a autonomous authority to someone who don't even have a background in football. They also have a majority there.
What will happen to our infrastructure? Again, who in the right sense will loan billions when you only have 25 % of the club ? INEOS won't lend money with just 25 % and to make it 100%, you have to pay more than what Qatar was offering.
It's a total corporate bluff. If you have some fecking common sense you will see it.
How does this take anything away when we’re supposedly hiring Mitchell / Edwards? What the feck goes through the sporting director after this?
It causes a headache just thinking about all the ins and outs, good luck to the advisors/financiers/lawyers etc on not getting sued in the future by one the party or another.
He is the Jim of nice or the Glazers of United or Boely of Chelsea. The fecking owner. For state clubs, the Emirs don't get involved directly.
Campos is their sporting director and that's the structure.
Now you tell me what's this 3 man board doing in our club ?
And sorry, there is nothing reported on Glazers going out. They are here to stay with 75% of the stake.
Hopefully hiring said sporting director as have already been reported.
1. Yes, INEOS will obviously be on the board, but they do not have a majority on the board.
2. You seem to be assuming that the 3-man committee would take over responsibilities that currently rest with the board. Why would that be the case?
3. Are you seriously arguing that reporting to - and getting directions from - a 3-man committee composed of at least two distinct factions, present on two different continents and of whom none are devoting more than a fraction of their time to United, is a more streamlined and efficient arrangement than reporting to Arnold who then deals with the majority owner on the issues that are beyond his remit? And who is even reporting and getting the direction? Murtough is DOF, but it does not appear that all strands of the football operation end up squarely with him. Arnold seems to deal with him as well as EtH and the heads of other departments. It's not just about which persons get a bigger say and if that's good or bad, it's also a question of structure and clear lines. And this is the opposite of that.
So When they brought Mbappe and the whole state paid for Neymar… who made them decisions?
Can still see this falling through, seems unlikely Glazers would let Jim have meaningful control of football matters and it makes no sense for Jim to not have that.
The board is bad enough when there’s only one disinterested incompetent faction.
How does serial pontificator Joel, a doping expert and an absentee oil magnate come to the right sporting decisions in reasonable time frames?
How does serial pontificator Joel, a doping expert and an absentee oil magnate come to the right sporting decisions in reasonable time frames?
You keep going on about the Qatar bid as if you have the inside track while simultaneously arguing we don't know enough about what Ratcliffe despite loads of detail from reliable sources painting a pretty underwhelming vision for the future of the club.
The whole insinuation that the Jassim bid was from the same people that bought PSG is a massive reach, given that apparently they didn't want to overpay - not something you'd expect of a proper state bid.
In that sense, you literally have no clue how the Qataris could have run the club. Even ignoring that we can agree the transfer committee is a good approach to transfers, as shown by Liverpool. It's the people sitting on that committee that will influence how it's perceived by fans. If Woodward sits on it, it's a joke. If it's someone like Mitchell or Rangnick, it's an altogether different proposition in my opinion.
Oil magnate?
Slowly walking into the most obvious disaster, people getting excited about a football committee with no actual football people involved.
People championing marginal gains, our players can’t even put in effort for a full match.
People championing marginal gains, our players can’t even put in effort for a full match.
Indeed, it’s a complete mess - as with seemingly ANYTHING the Glazers are involved with.
A convoluted, abnormal mess that enriches the Glazers at the expense of Manchester United.
How anyone can’t see through it at this point is beggar’s belief.
And then still need approval from the board.
Because the board takes legal responsibility for the club, there is no way they allow expenditure without some oversight. Self preservation says they cannot.
Could be a case of too many c̶o̶c̶k̶s̶ cooks. Messy as feck.
- Status