Yep. Started mocking those in the comments for correcting him as if it was obvious as well.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Another ridiculous GCSE question!
He says stupid stuff like this intentionally to farm engagement.
I'd say KS3, first year stuff...
Holy crap, our new owner is father Christmas!
I disagree with it being naive, it’s done very consciously.
That talking out your arse comment really did strike a cord, so much so you’ve somehow concluded I’d be negative about a full sale? When in fact my posts in this thread have been about how mediocre this partial investment is & my earlier posts in the thread were questioning the inconsistent use of the Human Rights argument.
For what it’s worth, I’d be wholly behind a full sale to Ineos.
My recent postings are against this 25% nonsense but there you go again (talking out your arse) & lumping someone in with a group so you can label them things.
As for the post, let’s look at it again shall we. . .
Moot point as Qatar aren’t buying us. I’m not particularly partial to investment [not ownership] coming from a tax dodging Brexite’er via his petrochemical company but that’s just me.
I’m done with the pseudo intellectual mental gymnastics people play when they take umbrage with state ownership but are happy with petro-dollars in the form of Ineos because shaman Rights, Whataboutery etc. So let’s just say I accept it’s your opinion.
Another poster has already picked you up on the state vs investor part of your argument but again, the wording is very deliberate from you.
We finally have something nearing an agreement. Indeed this investment leaves us in a better position, guess it all depends on a persons definition of much better but I don’t believe this 25% represents a great deal.
It is something though.
The crux of it.
Utter codswallop.
I see the positive in so much as it represents more today [when it happens] than yesterday. Aside from that I don’t see the positives in this form of investment for the club. I can see why SJR would do it, I can see why the Glazers love it, what I fail to see is how this deal benefits Manchester United in a meaningful way long term which is pretty much words to the effect of other sceptics.
This is a topic on this forum so I will go from the pool of contributors on here, can you tell me which posters ‘only see a future where state run clubs can be successful, and that is more important to them.’? and don’t forget you said most of them, not the odd one or two.
The whole premise of that point of your post stinks.
Bar the 3/4 clubs that will have state back we’d be the biggest fish anyway, we are not some minnow & the deal you’re championing is one where a billionaire is pledging a quarter of a billion in investment ffs.
Manchester United Football Club is big enough to compete with any & every team if not operating under the cloud the Glazers have put us under & SJR is extending.
Is he high!?
I read it as 25% total shares all bought FROM their stake, rather than 25% OF their total stake
So I was wondering why everyone was calling him a moron for a while
So I was wondering why everyone was calling him a moron for a while
Hasn't Goldbridge been basically exposed as a troll/wum? I don't understand why people give him any attention.
(Jim's net worth + 0) x 2.5 = (Jim's net worth) x 2.5
I picked it up later when i was less drunk that the poster probably meant appending a 0.
This is the question the discussion generally goes quiet at.
Yes obviously appending a 0
I am so so tired of reading this myth.
I can't be the only one who thinks something isn't quite right with this minority investment offer, right? From the moment I heard the news about the "restructuring" of Ratcliffe's offer up to the news of it being up to 25% of the club it didn't seem right or logical and I can't say despite there being almost daily updates that I'm any the wiser on why and how does it solve the issues that instigated the strategic review. It didn't make sense at the time, especially if it was to mean majority ownership later but even as a basic minority offer it doesn't make sense. The amount of questions it raises with every passing piece of info is staggering. Is this why Jassim's consortium pulled out? Because they knew this minority offer was an impossible deal to get over the line. Do they know something we don't? Will it fail to get done and then force the Glazers back to the negotiating table?
Whole process is a mess.
Whole process is a mess.
American-based muppet may not be so ignorant after all. Maybe the US is where the best information/source is at including sale talks.
Man United 'hire LA-based recruitment firm to scout top talent' as Red Devils look to rival Man City and Chelsea in finding new players as they 'fear they are falling behind in the transfer market'
Manchester United has enlisted the services of the American recruitment firm Pace, based in Los Angeles, to identify a new talent scout for emerging players.
Jassims offer was 6B pounds enterprise value.
From the latest news we are hearing Ratcliffe's minority share purchase is at 8B pound valuation. 1.3B for 17%.
No wonder Jassims offer was not entertained. This is an insane offer if it is actually 1.3B for 17% that is.
It does seem that way, given the seemingly impenetrable problems Sir Jim faced a few months ago.
The Lindsell Train guy saying he knew nothing, despite being the largest A class group.
However, Arnold leaving, Cooperman buying, at a late stage (who buys millions of shares to get stuck in a legal argument), choosing quality paint for the Old Trafford upgrade, talk of all these Superstar Amin/Management guys, the media's stance suggests it is a fait accompli.
Like many right-minded United fans, I'm still hoping the Glazers get screwed on their way out, but they seem to have won.
All will be revealed in a few days, if nothing else it will be interesting.
The valuation is 4.4b, not 8.
I make it 51.75% left. So he's right, Glazers have nicked .25% the greedy thieving bastards.
What myth? The guys an absolute weapon with a strange cult like following.
There's no myth going on. His modus operandi is to be as divisive as possible whilst insulting anyone that has a difference of opinion. His video's are clickbait bollocks too. The guys a fecking tool.
$33 for 28 million shares, you do the math.
He definitely posts on RedCaf
Did you know he’s actually a Nottingham forest fan?
At least 1
We do a lot of business with INEOS and their processes are, shall we say, a little weird.
They ‘self-bill’ on a monthly basis, meaning we might have done 10 orders for them but we ‘can’t’ invoice them until THEY allow it! So at the end of each month we get a sheet from them, telling us which jobs (sometimes even which parts of which jobs) they’ll pay for at that particular point!
I wonder if they’ll try similar tactics with other clubs…
They ‘self-bill’ on a monthly basis, meaning we might have done 10 orders for them but we ‘can’t’ invoice them until THEY allow it! So at the end of each month we get a sheet from them, telling us which jobs (sometimes even which parts of which jobs) they’ll pay for at that particular point!
I wonder if they’ll try similar tactics with other clubs…
I keep being told to "do the math" I CAN'T TAKE THE PRESSURE (2023)
Anyone who can do the math for me? It's a lot of money, right?
Anyone who can do the math for me? It's a lot of money, right?
I've not read the Bloomberg article and only seen the headline about £4.4B equity value and presume that is what you're referring to.
Based on my info, there are 162,503,442 shares outstanding of Manchester United plc, including both A and B. If Jimbo is paying ~$33/share, his implied valuation of the plc's equity (regardless of the fact he is only actually buying 25% of it) is approximately:
$33 * 162,503,442 = $5,362,613,586 = £4,303,245,350.
If this is the case why did the Glazers turn down $6.4bn plus the debt so nearly $7bn from the SJ Bid?
You have to factor in his investment of $300m which will be used to levy for additional shares which will be used to increase the 162.5m shares to probably 170m shares and therefore increase Ratcliffe’s percentage or maybe the 25% was always with this in mind.
It’s Widely quoted from the Ever increasing miscalculating media is that the final amount is £1.25bn or is it £1.4bn or maybe it’s even £1.5bn?
Mostly this is all conjecture and a huge misrepresentation, I await the final documents which will have to be listed on the SEC, if the greedy Glazers have accepted less money just to stay in charge, the hatred from fans for them will further intensify
Agreed but with huge investment which is turned into stocks so naturally increases his ownership and share percentage, Ratcliffe is not dropping nearly $2billion with the first $300m without shares in return
Not just the fans but the other shareholders since the Glazers under that scenario could be in breach of their fiduciary responsibility. Above all else as a PLC they have a duty to make decisions that benefit all shareholders. If the 14D-9 form filed at the SEC shows that the offer from Nine Two was a better offer for the asset and all shareholders and that the Glazers strung them along in order to work with Ratcliffe to structure a deal that benefitted only them then it could get messy.
But they'll just argue that they think it's a better deal as they believe they can grow the share price with Ratcliffe's investment and strategic direction. Which you'd have to assume is what the greedy parasites believe they can do or they wouldn't still be clinging on.
Right… another one on the ban list
The Glazer's will just argue the 'strategic investment' will eventually lead to higher profits, which it most likely will.
If the also greedy shareholders had any real opportunity they'd have acted upon it. So far zippo.
Qatar failed. The disappointing 'heroes of Lindsell Train' narrative is a busted flush. Ineos' investment has won.
Time to accept it and move on.
Well he's either a complete buffoon or he knows what he's doing and is doing it for clicks. I suppose being stupid is more likely.
- Status