Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
lex talionis said:
I get all that, but it’s hard to see how the Glazers would ever agree to a 25% shareholder having operational control of a business enterprise.
Click to expand...
Because they want some $$$$ without actually leaving fully now and this is currently the best way to get it, they envisage, rightly or wrongly that the club's value will grow, they're probably right because the new PL rights deal coming along in 2025 will be worth more than the current deal.

The cost of getting $$$$ now is losing control of the footballing side, that's the part they've gotten wrong with the likes of Woodward, if Ratcliffe gets that right that will further increass the value of the club - more $$$$ for them

A simplistic view of the deal goes something like this (not real $$$ values)

Current share price is $100, Ratcliffe buys 25% paying $130 a share and has control of footballing operations

Assuming in xx years the share price if now $125, Ratcliffe buys 25% at $160 a share, if the share price has fallen then Ratcliffe buys at the same price as the first 25% deal

And then the rest sold the same way, by this method they get more $$$ overall than they would with a single sale of everything in one go and if the value of goes up they'll gain even more

Could be entirely wrong of course because none of us really know!
 
GreenSatsumaHead said:
Aye man, if you can't beat fact based analysis with other facts the best thing to do is attack with whataboutery, non-sequiturs and false equivalences.

Don't forget to endorse others deploying the same modus operandi with either anonymous upticks or detail-free exclamations like:



It is, after all, the 21st Century.



Reckon this was always going to take time.

Ratcliffe's 25% was never going to be a love payment, so thise viltures will need time
to figure their next move. Probably hoping Saudi Arabia or The Crab People fancied throwing eighty-five billion at them, so don't let septuagenarian Jimmy throw the whole heft just yet.
Click to expand...

Where was I attacking anyone? I asked a question which obviously you don't want to answer but we all know the answer anyway.
I also doubt any other anti state bid top reds will be able to answer with the truth because you and them know they don't do anything.
 
lex talionis said:
I get all that, but it’s hard to see how the Glazers would ever agree to a 25% shareholder having operational control of a business enterprise.
Click to expand...

The shareholders of most large business hand over operational control to someone. Usually in the form of a CEO, who often isn't a major shareholder at all.

Control of the board is something different as they appoint/remove the CEO. Board appointments are ultimatey determind by the shareholders, so the Glazers would be able to control who sits on the board as it stands. How Radcliffe gets around that is the better question. Most obvious way would be that as part of the agreement, the Glazers downgrade their shares to the lesser class so they lose their voting power but retain their stake. No indication of that happeing though from what I've read.
 
Bert_ said:
The shareholders of most large business hand over operational control to someone. Usually in the form of a CEO, who often isn't a major shareholder at all.

Control of the board is something different as they appoint/remove the CEO. Board appointments are ultimatey determind by the shareholders, so the Glazers would be able to control who sits on the board as it stands. How Radcliffe gets around that is the better question. Most obvious way would be that as part of the agreement, the Glazers downgrade their shares to the lesser class so they lose their voting power but retain their stake. No indication of that happeing though from what I've read.
Click to expand...

It remains a mystery to me how both Sir Jim and the Glazers could have the control they crave.
 
lex talionis said:
It remains a mystery to me how both Sir Jim and the Glazers could have the control they crave.
Click to expand...
It completely depends on whether the Glazers actually do 'crave control' on the football side of things. Maybe they never did. Maybe they used to, but have realised (either by themselves or Ratcliffe convinced them) that Ratcliffe in that position would do better, which would ultimately make the Glazers more money. Maybe they actually do want to fully sell in the future, and part of Ratcliffe's demands towards that is that he gets control of the football aspects of the club now. Maybe it's all bullshit and nothing will really change. Nobody really knows.

Ratcliffe obviously won't have full control of the financial side of things. But it's really not hard to see how a minority owner is in charge of the footballing decisions as long as everyone is in agreement. Obviously there would be clauses and if he ends up being a disaster (worse than now? :eek: ) they'd be able to exercise the option to change things again.
 
MadDogg said:
It completely depends on whether the Glazers actually do 'crave control' on the football side of things. Maybe they never did. Maybe they used to, but have realised (either by themselves or Ratcliffe convinced them) that Ratcliffe in that position would do better, which would ultimately make the Glazers more money. Maybe they actually do want to fully sell in the future, and part of Ratcliffe's demands towards that is that he gets control of the football aspects of the club now. Maybe it's all bullshit and nothing will really change. Nobody really knows.

Ratcliffe obviously won't have full control of the financial side of things. But it's really not hard to see how a minority owner is in charge of the footballing decisions as long as everyone is in agreement. Obviously there would be clauses and if he ends up being a disaster (worse than now? :eek: ) they'd be able to exercise the option to change things again.
Click to expand...

Who controls the budget controls the business.
 
lex talionis said:
I get all that, but it’s hard to see how the Glazers would ever agree to a 25% shareholder having operational control of a business enterprise.
Click to expand...

it’s not hard to see when 4 of the 6 glazers couldn’t give a toss and the remaining two would ultimately own less than SJR.
 
Red in STL said:
It's quite simple, it goes something like this

I give you xx billion for 25%, I have 100% control of the football operations, you continue with everything else

I agree to buy the 75% left in x years for xxx billion

Or you get the princely sum of feck all

The real problem with United isn't really the money, it's about how it's spent and the people who decide, appoint competent people and a stronger competitive squad will emerge
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight. The Glazers will allow Ratcliffe and co to manage the football operations of a football club while they grow the commercial side of things?? So in effect the glazers will earn money for Ratcliffe to spend on the “football operations” which includes transfers and wages and managerial hiring and firing. All this control while owning 25% of the stake.
 
bludsucker said:
So let me get this straight. The Glazers will allow Ratcliffe and co to manage the football operations of a football club while they grow the commercial side of things?? So in effect the glazers will earn money for Ratcliffe to spend on the “football operations” which includes transfers and wages and managerial hiring and firing. All this control while owning 25% of the stake.
Click to expand...
The Glazers will control the money and let Ratcliffe take the blame for the failures on the football side. Just as they gave us our DOF to blame, they will do the same with Ratcliffe. He will appoint the DOF and maybe another glorified executive as MD or COO with a football remit but they will fail because the decision making processes that will need Joel Glazer's sign off will deny us the agility we would need the market.
 
AneRu said:
The Glazers will control the money and let Ratcliffe take the blame for the failures on the football side. Just as they gave us our DOF to blame, they will do the same with Ratcliffe. He will appoint the DOF and maybe another glorified executive as MD or COO with a football remit but they will fail because the decision making processes that will need Joel Glazer's sign off will deny us the agility we would need the market.
Click to expand...

The club will be a political sesspool. No accountability with both sides blaming each other for different reasons.
 
GreenSatsumaHead said:
Aye man, if you can't beat fact based analysis with other facts the best thing to do is attack with whataboutery, non-sequiturs and false equivalences.
Click to expand...

Earlier on the thread someone uploaded a video from a KSA friendly at newcastle's ground. It was an anti-sportswash protestor, and the abuse he was getting from the locals.

Seriously, try and locate it. Dearie me, it was absolutely pathetic.

'You've been BRAINWASHED against Saudi Arabia...What about the west....'

Same shit on here.
 
Jassim is planning something so big not even his closest sources know what his full plan is. Thankfully for us, he's let Transfer Radar into his deepest and darkest secrets - whilst simultaneously using next level PR to work in the shadows

:lol::lol: feck off. Probably the worst tweet I've ever come across. Can we not post this shite in here please, people shouldn't need to be asked.
 
Acquire Me said:
Why do you think that? Because it takes time?
Click to expand...

It's something I've thought, mainly because while Ratcliffe may negotiate over sporting control, he will only invest if there is a legally binding agreement that leads to him getting full control in the future and the two parasites won't agree to it.

If the Athletic is correct then the two cnuts honestly believe they can grow the clubs income by >50% in the next 5 years, despite not growing it at all in the last 8 years.
 
RedUnited86 said:
Jassim is planning something so big not even his closest sources know what his full plan is. Thankfully for us, he's let Transfer Radar into his deepest and darkest secrets - whilst simultaneously using next level PR to work in the shadows

:lol::lol: feck off. Probably the worst tweet I've ever come across. Can we not post this shite in here please, people shouldn't need to be asked.
Click to expand...
Some are still in the denial phase. I will be interested to see the gymnastics these Twitter accounts perform if/when an official announcement is made of a deal with Ratcliffe. Will probably claim Jassim is waiting for the right moment to buy out both the Glazers and Ratcliffe.
 
NWRed said:
It's something I've thought, mainly because while Ratcliffe may negotiate over sporting control, he will only invest if there is a legally binding agreement that leads to him getting full control in the future and the two parasites won't agree to it.

If the Athletic is correct then the two cnuts honestly believe they can grow the clubs income by >50% in the next 5 years, despite not growing it at all in the last 8 years.
Click to expand...
Record revenue for a PL club last season (22-23) up 13%
I can't post links but there's a Sky report on You Tube.
 
putzmcgee123 said:
Some are still in the denial phase. I will be interested to see the gymnastics these Twitter accounts perform if/when an official announcement is made of a deal with Ratcliffe. Will probably claim Jassim is waiting for the right moment to buy out both the Glazers and Ratcliffe.
Click to expand...
I actually think both sides are in denial. I think Qatar genuinely have pulled out now and it would take the selling side reaching out to invite back to the process by accepting a previous offer for them to return.

I also think that Ratcliffe has tried to take advantage of the fact he was the last man standing by essentially declaring victory though his client journalists when it’s nowhere near the truth.

The Glazers have wanted minority investment all along and have no intention of selling the club. They started the strategic review and stated that they were open to selling because they knew it would inflate share prices which would be important to get a good deal on minority investment - raising capital through selling new shares at $13 a pop would water down their own holding by a lot more than selling new shares at a premium rate.

What the Glazers now have with Ratcliffe is an offer for around $40 a share which I’m sure they would love to take him up on, only he wants to ensure that if he is paying a premium like that he’s going to have a clearly defined route to buying the rest of the club which is something they are not prepared to give him.

So what I think is happening now is another impasse where Ratcliffe tries to get a deal which sees him eventually buy the club whereas the Glazers try to get a deal where he invests at a premium, gets superficial control, gets to be the face of the club and gets to align it with his INEOS brand but has no clear path to buying the rest of the club.
 
AneRu said:
The Glazers will control the money and let Ratcliffe take the blame for the failures on the football side. Just as they gave us our DOF to blame, they will do the same with Ratcliffe. He will appoint the DOF and maybe another glorified executive as MD or COO with a football remit but they will fail because the decision making processes that will need Joel Glazer's sign off will deny us the agility we would need the market.
Click to expand...
Its a lose lose for Ratcliffe. Why will he invest upwards of £1.5b just to be the shield for Glazers. He can’t take footballing decisions without the Glazers signing off on it. If he is successful on the football side then the glazers will demand more for the rest of the stake. If he isn’t successful then he will stand to take pelters from the fans as we already are frustrated with lack of success and the general incompetence of the people in charge.
I just don’t see the appeal of this to Ratcliffe. Don’t think this will get done imo. And even if it gets done then we are in for an extended period of mediocrity as both owners will be reluctant to invest anything in the club lest the other benefit from this.
 
Pexbo said:
I actually think both sides are in denial. I think Qatar genuinely have pulled out now and it would take the selling side reaching out to invite back to the process by accepting a previous offer for them to return.

I also think that Ratcliffe has tried to take advantage of the fact he was the last man standing by essentially declaring victory though his client journalists when it’s nowhere near the truth.

The Glazers have wanted minority investment all along and have no intention of selling the club. They started the strategic review and stated that they were open to selling because they knew it would inflate share prices which would be important to get a good deal on minority investment - raising capital through selling new shares at $13 a pop would water down their own holding by a lot more than selling new shares at a premium rate.

What the Glazers now have with Ratcliffe is an offer for around $40 a share which I’m sure they would love to take him up on, only he wants to ensure that if he is paying a premium like that he’s going to have a clearly defined route to buying the rest of the club which is something they are not prepared to give him.

So what I think is happening now is another impasse where Ratcliffe tries to get a deal which sees him eventually buy the club whereas the Glazers try to get a deal where he invests at a premium, gets superficial control, gets to be the face of the club and gets to align it with his INEOS brand but has no clear path to buying the rest of the club.
Click to expand...
I see where you're coming from on a lot of your points. I think where our opinions likely differ is why Jassim withdrew. I don't see why else he did it other than to front-run an announcement of an impending deal with Ratcliffe, otherwise it simply looks like he lost. I can't reconcile why else he would pivot when the messaging the entire time was that, even if he would refuse to increase his valuation, the bid would remain on the table. Bloomberg were saying INEOS had pulled into the lead a few days before the dramatic announcement of Jassim's withdrawal. For me, the writing is on the wall.

In our resident INEOS ITK @TrebleChamp99 we trust.
 
Pexbo said:
I actually think both sides are in denial. I think Qatar genuinely have pulled out now and it would take the selling side reaching out to invite back to the process by accepting a previous offer for them to return.

I also think that Ratcliffe has tried to take advantage of the fact he was the last man standing by essentially declaring victory though his client journalists when it’s nowhere near the truth.

The Glazers have wanted minority investment all along and have no intention of selling the club. They started the strategic review and stated that they were open to selling because they knew it would inflate share prices which would be important to get a good deal on minority investment - raising capital through selling new shares at $13 a pop would water down their own holding by a lot more than selling new shares at a premium rate.

What the Glazers now have with Ratcliffe is an offer for around $40 a share which I’m sure they would love to take him up on, only he wants to ensure that if he is paying a premium like that he’s going to have a clearly defined route to buying the rest of the club which is something they are not prepared to give him.

So what I think is happening now is another impasse where Ratcliffe tries to get a deal which sees him eventually buy the club whereas the Glazers try to get a deal where he invests at a premium, gets superficial control, gets to be the face of the club and gets to align it with his INEOS brand but has no clear path to buying the rest of the club.
Click to expand...

I think you are on to something here.
 
putzmcgee123 said:
I see where you're coming from on a lot of your points. I think where our opinions likely differ is why Jassim withdrew. I don't see why else he did it other than to front-run an announcement of an impending deal with Ratcliffe, otherwise it simply looks like he lost. I can't reconcile why else he would pivot when the messaging the entire time was that, even if he would refuse to increase his valuation, the bid would remain on the table. Bloomberg were saying INEOS had pulled into the lead a few days before the dramatic announcement of Jassim's withdrawal. For me, the writing is on the wall.

In our resident INEOS ITK @TrebleChamp99 we trust.
Click to expand...
Man United is not the last big entity Qatar will be looking to buy. They already made like 3 “last offers”, it’s just terrible negotiating strategy if you just hang in there forever incrementally increasing your offers. There has to be a point where you say no. Now if they try to buy Tottenham for example, they will know that they either take the premium offer or they genuinely will just walk away.
 
IMG-6396.png
 
It’s irrational and I can’t explain, but I swear to god, I was almost certain Qatar will be back, even when it was all but confirmed last couple of days.
Jim will most probably buy the club, but what a weird feeling
 
putzmcgee123 said:
I see where you're coming from on a lot of your points. I think where our opinions likely differ is why Jassim withdrew. I don't see why else he did it other than to front-run an announcement of an impending deal with Ratcliffe, otherwise it simply looks like he lost. I can't reconcile why else he would pivot when the messaging the entire time was that, even if he would refuse to increase his valuation, the bid would remain on the table. Bloomberg were saying INEOS had pulled into the lead a few days before the dramatic announcement of Jassim's withdrawal. For me, the writing is on the wall.

In our resident INEOS ITK @TrebleChamp99 we trust.
Click to expand...
I see your point but personally i feel Jassim walked away not because Ineos were in the lead, but because ineos 25% offer was in the lead. Implying that glazers were never seriously looking for a full sale and he was just being played around.
 
Red in STL said:
Because they want some $$$$ without actually leaving fully now and this is currently the best way to get it, they envisage, rightly or wrongly that the club's value will grow, they're probably right because the new PL rights deal coming along in 2025 will be worth more than the current deal.

The cost of getting $$$$ now is losing control of the footballing side, that's the part they've gotten wrong with the likes of Woodward, if Ratcliffe gets that right that will further increass the value of the club - more $$$$ for them

A simplistic view of the deal goes something like this (not real $$$ values)

Current share price is $100, Ratcliffe buys 25% paying $130 a share and has control of footballing operations

Assuming in xx years the share price if now $125, Ratcliffe buys 25% at $160 a share, if the share price has fallen then Ratcliffe buys at the same price as the first 25% deal

And then the rest sold the same way, by this method they get more $$$ overall than they would with a single sale of everything in one go and if the value of goes up they'll gain even more

Could be entirely wrong of course because none of us really know!
Click to expand...

So by this rationale, you’ll have a guy in charge of the sporting side… who will save billions down the line if the sporting side FAILS…

And the Glazers will just give him 100% control and trust him to ‘do his best’, despite it being firmly in his favour for the sporting side to tank for a few years…

It’s honestly ridiculous.

The only way this laughable deal goes through is if -

1. He definitely doesn’t have majority control (and why would he with 25 fecking percent?).

2. The Glazers are going nowhere and have no desire for full sale at any point in the future.

Either is a shit deal and fans should be fecking up in arms.
 
spwd said:
Where was I attacking anyone? I asked a question which obviously you don't want to answer but we all know the answer anyway.
I also doubt any other anti state bid top reds will be able to answer with the truth because you and them know they don't do anything.
Click to expand...

It's being ignored because it's been done to death and it's not the gotcha you seem to think it is.
 
Banat said:
It’s irrational and I can’t explain, but I swear to god, I was almost certain Qatar will be back, even when it was all but confirmed last couple of days.
Jim will most probably buy the club, but what a weird feeling
Click to expand...

I bet you felt that way when your last GF left?
 
MDFC Manager said:
I see your point but personally i feel Jassim walked away not because Ineos were in the lead, but because ineos 25% offer was in the lead. Implying that glazers were never seriously looking for a full sale and he was just being played around.
Click to expand...

I am sure there is some truth to that. It was reported for a while that the Jassim camp didnt feel that the Glazers were serious abut selling out, not 100% it.
 
Please can someone rational provide a summary of current state of this-

The board were meant to meet and ratify Ineos 25% last week ? did this not happen?
 
Banat said:
It’s irrational and I can’t explain, but I swear to god, I was almost certain Qatar will be back, even when it was all but confirmed last couple of days.
Jim will most probably buy the club, but what a weird feeling
Click to expand...

It's not that irrational. They were talking about buying the club for 5.3bn, absorbing 600M in debt and investing 1.5bn in infrastructure. In a deal worth 7.4bn, what's another 600-800M for the Qataris? Assuming the club follows a similar value trajectory from the last 10 years, and the women's game grows as much as it looks like it will over the next decade, 8bn total for something that could be worth 12-18bn in 10 years isn't THAT crazy. Not to mention the sport washing element of it all, the investment opportunities it opens up in Manchester, what it would do for Qatari tourism and the political power in UEFA they would be buying - well worth another billion quid.

I don't think they will be back, becasue I think the real reason they didn't win outright is because Avram and Joel do not want to sell out yet. Ornstein mentioned on Vibe with 5 that there are rumours that the Qataris asked the Glazers to name their price, but that the Glazers more or less weren't interested in a full sale until closer to 2026 (when Joel and Avram think club valuations in football will soar massively).
 
I cannot wait for the day when what ‘Joel and Avram think’ has absolutely nothing to do with Manchester United.

It’s beggar’s belief that the idiotic whims of these two utterly clueless twats are what Man Utd has to be guided by.

It’d be like making Mr Blobby the Prime Minister and everyone just accepts it because ‘what can you do?’.
 
McGrathsipan said:
Please can someone rational provide a summary of current state of this-

The board were meant to meet and ratify Ineos 25% last week ? did this not happen?
Click to expand...

i think the initial reports were that they were going to vote on it in that board meeting, but then as the story progressed reports started saying that the meeting had been on the books for awhile and that it may take more time before they vote. Given how the process sas gone my guess would be they have yet to vote on it.
 
Last edited:
joedirt87 said:
i think the initial reports were that they were going to vote on it in that board meeting, but then as the story progressed reports started saying that the meeting had been on the books for awhile and that it may take more time before they vote. Given how the process as gone my guess would be they have yet to vote on it.
Click to expand...

Every report on this is pure speculation or downright lies I think - hard to see the wood from the trees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.