Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
lex talionis said:
That's right. Neither Ratcliffe nor the Glazers will put themselves in a bind. And by all accounts it seems that Ratcliffe will not pay over the top for the club. And by all accounts the Glazers will not accept anything less than over the top, so to speak, for the club.

Yes no one knows, but this minority share gambit seems almost the worst of all worlds. It's just really hard to imagine how Ratcliffe under the arrangement we have read about will actually result in improved performances on the pitch. It's unimaginable that the Glazers will allow Ratcliffe operational control of the club under the circumstances.
Click to expand...

I think the thing the Glazers care least about is playing "football manager" and being too involved in player acquisition. For the right price, I don't think they will care about relinquishing control on the football side so Jim can bring in some INEOS people. I mean, from a Glazer perspective, how does a chance of CEO or DoF really matter to them?

Will it improve out footballing fortunes? Well, many believe that the player recruitment is our problem, so bringing in some competence in that department can only improve us. It will take a long time though.
 
I'm not really interested in anything except whether Ratcliffe has a clast iron route to full ownership.
 
gaffs said:
I think the thing the Glazers care least about is playing "football manager" and being too involved in player acquisition. For the right price, I don't think they will care about relinquishing control on the football side so Jim can bring in some INEOS people. I mean, from a Glazer perspective, how does a chance of CEO or DoF really matter to them?

Will it improve out footballing fortunes? Well, many believe that the player recruitment is our problem, so bringing in some competence in that department can only improve us. It will take a long time though.
Click to expand...

That is a reasonable answer, but it was presumed that competent people ran the football operation under the Glazers. Never say never I suppose, but as long as the Glazers are in charge of the whole operation it's hard to see what difference new faces in the football department will make. It's the Glazers who took control of the club, enjoyed the success that Ferguson had already established and once Ferguson left they allowed the football operation to rot to what it is today. Remaining at the top of the corporate pyramid gives me no confidence that much of anything underneath them will change.
 
OleGunnar20 said:
Agreed 100%. We've lurched from one bad short term plan to another since SAF. It's so glaringly obvious that we need to put a structure in place and start building for the future, as much as I hate to say it - Like City did all those years ago by bringing in the Barca lot.

I know I'm getting old when things like this register for me, but why do all these Journo types have to speak, with the same, stilted.. cadence.
Click to expand...

Probably because they are still uncertain and don't want to commit on anything
 
I wonder if there's something deeper going on here with regards to the events of the last few weeks. I've been thinking about the statements we've heard from the Jassim camp such as the accusations of the Glazers shifting goalposts during negotiations and seemingly having agreements in place only for them to be changed shortly after. We heard pretty scathing accusations levied at the Glazers from the Jassim consortium throughout and especially recently not least that they have refused double enterprise value offers with pledged investments on top - this feels very deliberate - almost as if they don't believe that Ratcliffe offer will go through for whatever reason.

Maybe they believe there's legal trouble ahead with Ratcliffe’s offer down to the Glazers ducking their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders (because we know full well that Ratcliffe hasn't wanted to cash any of them in at any stage) and that once we get to see the SEC filing, all correspondence, values, meetings etc will be public knowledge and that could throw up some legal issues. Something I don't think anyone has considered up to this point. If Jassim's team is truthful in their accusations that the Glazers were just looking to cash themselves in and enrich themselves at the expense of the asset and it's future then I wonder if there's appetite there from shareholders to pursue this.

I just haven't been able to ever get around how the Glazers could ever accept an offer, considering they have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, that only benefitted them. It's why I have always maintained it will be a full sale and why I've always pointed to the much moaned about pledged investment as a clever legal security blanket should this process end up in court. If it did ever end up in court then I'm sure the courts rule in favour of whatever deal is best for the asset, not what is best for the majority shareholder. I could be wrong, maybe a corporate lawyer could clarify that.

Late night food for thought. I should sleep.
 
lex talionis said:
That is a reasonable answer, but it was presumed that competent people ran the football operation under the Glazers. Never say never I suppose, but as long as the Glazers are in charge of the whole operation it's hard to see what difference new faces in the football department will make. It's the Glazers who took control of the club, enjoyed the success that Ferguson had already established and once Ferguson left they allowed the football operation to rot to what it is today. Remaining at the top of the corporate pyramid gives me no confidence that much of anything underneath them will change.
Click to expand...

Have never got the impression we had competent people in charge of football matters
 
gaffs said:
The guy on here claiming the announcement happens next week.

He comes across well, but i question how he has this info when non of the UK based media, be it sporting or business, have indicated this.

Same with his story about INEOS meeting Joel Glazer last week. That wasn't reported anywhere, but he stated that he knew it happened.

Feels like BS.
Click to expand...
He claims to have a top source within INEOS. He said the only better source would be Jim himself or one of the other two board members.
 
19Dan81 said:
I wonder if there's something deeper going on here with regards to the events of the last few weeks. I've been thinking about the statements we've heard from the Jassim camp such as the accusations of the Glazers shifting goalposts during negotiations and seemingly having agreements in place only for them to be changed shortly after. We heard pretty scathing accusations levied at the Glazers from the Jassim consortium throughout and especially recently not least that they have refused double enterprise value offers with pledged investments on top - this feels very deliberate - almost as if they don't believe that Ratcliffe offer will go through for whatever reason.

Maybe they believe there's legal trouble ahead with Ratcliffe’s offer down to the Glazers ducking their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders (because we know full well that Ratcliffe hasn't wanted to cash any of them in at any stage) and that once we get to see the SEC filing, all correspondence, values, meetings etc will be public knowledge and that could throw up some legal issues. Something I don't think anyone has considered up to this point. If Jassim's team is truthful in their accusations that the Glazers were just looking to cash themselves in and enrich themselves at the expense of the asset and it's future then I wonder if there's appetite there from shareholders to pursue this.

I just haven't been able to ever get around how the Glazers could ever accept an offer, considering they have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, that only benefitted them. It's why I have always maintained it will be a full sale and why I've always pointed to the much moaned about pledged investment as a clever legal security blanket should this process end up in court. If it did ever end up in court then I'm sure the courts rule in favour of whatever deal is best for the asset, not what is best for the majority shareholder. I could be wrong, maybe a corporate lawyer could clarify that.

Late night food for thought. I should sleep.
Click to expand...

This is very interesting. If some of us are actual corporate lawyers, having your input would be very welcome at this time. Something is really fishy in this process as a whole and it is a main reason why I was hoping that some superior financial or legal authority (SEC, SDNY, banks, etc.) would actually catch the Glazers red-handed of wrongdoing. However, the worst thing here is that the sale cannot pick up any steam and may even bog down in the event of an indictment UNLESS the prosecution has scathing and irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing by the Glazers.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
Why is everyone now saying there’s going to be no full takeover route?

Journos who broke the 25% story at the time all said it was with the full takeover route otherwise he wouldn’t be paying so much for 25%
Click to expand...
Mainly because right now, nobody is reporting there will be a certain full takeover

spwd said:
This bit gets me, how is he paying a premium for something that's supposedly worth 6b + when he's paying 1.5b for a quarter?
Click to expand...
He's paying about 1.25b actually
 
19Dan81 said:
I wonder if there's something deeper going on here with regards to the events of the last few weeks. I've been thinking about the statements we've heard from the Jassim camp such as the accusations of the Glazers shifting goalposts during negotiations and seemingly having agreements in place only for them to be changed shortly after. We heard pretty scathing accusations levied at the Glazers from the Jassim consortium throughout and especially recently not least that they have refused double enterprise value offers with pledged investments on top - this feels very deliberate - almost as if they don't believe that Ratcliffe offer will go through for whatever reason.

Maybe they believe there's legal trouble ahead with Ratcliffe’s offer down to the Glazers ducking their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders (because we know full well that Ratcliffe hasn't wanted to cash any of them in at any stage) and that once we get to see the SEC filing, all correspondence, values, meetings etc will be public knowledge and that could throw up some legal issues. Something I don't think anyone has considered up to this point. If Jassim's team is truthful in their accusations that the Glazers were just looking to cash themselves in and enrich themselves at the expense of the asset and it's future then I wonder if there's appetite there from shareholders to pursue this.

I just haven't been able to ever get around how the Glazers could ever accept an offer, considering they have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, that only benefitted them. It's why I have always maintained it will be a full sale and why I've always pointed to the much moaned about pledged investment as a clever legal security blanket should this process end up in court. If it did ever end up in court then I'm sure the courts rule in favour of whatever deal is best for the asset, not what is best for the majority shareholder. I could be wrong, maybe a corporate lawyer could clarify that.

Late night food for thought. I should sleep.
Click to expand...

The Glazer's fiduciary responsibility to shareholders is to enrich them. They've done it over and over.

Furthermore, they're not obliged to sell because they never actually said we are for sale. A sale was one option proposed. One has to remember Jassim pulled out after failing to
meet valuations.

There is a certain poster who swears the Glazers are screwing over shareholders and Linsell Train (or whatever the feck they're called) are 'heroes' for 'taking on' the Glazers and forcing Qatar.

It's complete bollocks, of course. They're just greedy b-words.
 
UnitedMuppetiers seemingly correct.

Sooner we have a new pair of eyes in midst the hierarchy the better.
 
Hernandez - BFA said:
UnitedMuppetiers seemingly correct.

Sooner we have a new pair of eyes in midst the hierarchy the better.
Click to expand...
Yup. He was correct yet again - said yesterday before sky announced that a date had been set that it was all now agreed and would likely be announced next week. Now there’s a BBC report saying the exact same thing. He definitely has a solid source - whether that’s the media or at the club I don’t know.
 
i assume our female fans are doing rats out for ratts at ot tomorrow?
 
crossy1686 said:
With a bit of luck everyone on the footballing side will be gone by the end of the month.
Click to expand...

Aye. We need a mass clear out, can’t afford to half arse this. Get Jean-Claude Blanc and Paul Mitchell in right away and any other appointments that need to be made get to work immediately, fresh start.
 
So the Glazers are taking a back seat waiting for a bet to pay off essentially? I’m assuming theres going to be some milestone dates or something when more of the club goes into INEOS hands? And maybe it’s whether INEOS are paying one price or another for them? (essentially put and call options in investments) One price which favours INEOS and one price which favours Glazers?
 
It's not a bad bet from the Glazers.

If an asset you give zero shits about and have made feck up after feck up is worth so much, imagine the potential of the same asset if it's run with a proper footballing structure.

It's not like Jim could run things any worse than what they currently are. Sit back, let him do all the hard work in turning the ship around and then sell at a even more ridiculous premium than the £6 billion.
 
Chairman Steve said:
So the Glazers are taking a back seat waiting for a bet to pay off essentially? I’m assuming theres going to be some milestone dates or something when more of the club goes into INEOS hands? And maybe it’s whether INEOS are paying one price or another for them? (essentially put and call options in investments) One price which favours INEOS and one price which favours Glazers?
Click to expand...

The Glazers have taken a back seat for 18-years. They were never involved so Jim is literally paying £1.3b to play Football CEO answering to the Glazers just as Woodward did and Arnold does now. Staggering how people can't see through this "footballing restructure" nonsense. Woodward holds shares too don't forget. Ratcliffe just another mouth to feed from a carcass that has very little meat left on it if any at all. Everyone will get sacked that's for sure because when Jimbo walks in the club will have to start making money as soon as possible to satisfy his own ROI not least the Glazers and other shareholders ROI.
 
RedDevilUnited369 said:
Monday? Isn’t it SBC funeral on Monday?

Unlikely.
Click to expand...
Might be seen as completely separate , not saying I’d do it but can’t imagine it would have much impact one way or another but I’d imagine it would be Tuesday or later in the week.

Where are the people who wanted something solid from “BBC “ I guess they won’t believe it until a club statement is made.

“nothing concrete , just the same information again, I’ll wait until someone reliable says it”

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck, it’s probably a duck.
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
Might be seen as completely separate , not saying I’d do it but can’t imagine it would have much impact one way or another but I’d imagine it would be Tuesday or later in the week.

Where are the people who wanted something solid from “BBC “ I guess they won’t believe it until a club statement is made.

“nothing concrete , just the same information again, I’ll wait until someone reliable says it”

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck, it’s probably a duck.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is all done and dusted now.
Time to accept SJR is taking over the 25% and hope he gets the football side right.

The club needs solid leadership from him now.
 
If United dont beat Luton tomorrow then you never know his first decision might be sacking TH
 
Zoo said:
Click to expand...

So it is indeed £1.25bn for 25%, valuation of £5bn. We can now safely conclude that glazers never wanted to sell the whole club, and Jassim never stood a chance. He would have been raising his bids indefinitely to no avail.

Also there's nothing about any future roadmap for full ownership, this is something some of us suspected, there will be no roadmap. Oh well, it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
TrebleChamp99 said:
Might be seen as completely separate , not saying I’d do it but can’t imagine it would have much impact one way or another but I’d imagine it would be Tuesday or later in the week.

Where are the people who wanted something solid from “BBC “ I guess they won’t believe it until a club statement is made.

“nothing concrete , just the same information again, I’ll wait until someone reliable says it”

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck, it’s probably a duck.
Click to expand...
You're on the verge of becoming a Tier 0 source. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.