I mean obviously we aren’t probably hiring someone else
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I mean obviously we aren’t probably hiring someone else
He's only a bloody graphics designer.
Usually with Delaney you don't even have to apply logic. You can just dismiss it right away.
I was referring to that poster insinuating that us participating in social media was was a waste of time.He's only a bloody graphics designer.
I mean, let's have it right, we can dismiss the majority of mainstream media these days but especially the heavily biased, feelings-over-facts Delaney.
It's got to the stage now where the media narrative is completely running without the ball on this process - none of them have a scooby what's going on. Gotta hit those impressions and clicks though.
Clickbait or something actually possible? I remember hearing about multi-club ownership in European competations a while ago but it went silent
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/foo...ing-new-sir-jim-ratcliffe-update/ar-AA1koK7h?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/foo...ing-new-sir-jim-ratcliffe-update/ar-AA1koK7h?
Well surely, you dont pass a fit for ownership review if you arent allowed to own multiple clubs. It doesnt make sense that we'd be allowed to be sold to INEOS, and then be banned from the CL.
David Ornstein in today's The Athletic Q & A - Manchester City starlet in demand, Broja boot deal and Ratcliffe timeframe – Ask Ornstein - The Athletic
Q: Do you think Sir Jim Ratcliffe will have a concrete route to majority ownership at Manchester United as part of his deal with the Glazers? It is the key issue impacting United’s future.
A: I assume he wouldn’t be coming in with 25 per cent and sporting control as the end goal. That makes me think there will be a roadmap of sorts but, if so, I’m not sure if that will be formal, or not at this stage.
The complexity and time it is taking to finalise the initial deal suggest any further steps will take way longer to put in place.
Perhaps there is a framework of sorts, but I wouldn’t expect to hear anything formal on that for the time being — and remember, United are listed on the New York Stock Exchange, so anything of this nature would need to be notified there first.
That said, it’s something I’m certain Ratcliffe will be asked about if/when he speaks publicly.
Some inside the club were initially expecting there might be an announcement nearly two weeks ago, on the Friday before Sir Bobby Charlton’s funeral, then INEOS, Ratcliffe’s company, targeted early in the following week (after the service). But that didn’t happen and now the United States is in Thanksgiving Day mode, so it won’t come until next week at the earliest.
It’s clearly very complex but we are led to believe everything is on track and it is a matter of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’ the investment will be confirmed.
Q: Do you think Sir Jim Ratcliffe will have a concrete route to majority ownership at Manchester United as part of his deal with the Glazers? It is the key issue impacting United’s future.
A: I assume he wouldn’t be coming in with 25 per cent and sporting control as the end goal. That makes me think there will be a roadmap of sorts but, if so, I’m not sure if that will be formal, or not at this stage.
The complexity and time it is taking to finalise the initial deal suggest any further steps will take way longer to put in place.
Perhaps there is a framework of sorts, but I wouldn’t expect to hear anything formal on that for the time being — and remember, United are listed on the New York Stock Exchange, so anything of this nature would need to be notified there first.
That said, it’s something I’m certain Ratcliffe will be asked about if/when he speaks publicly.
Some inside the club were initially expecting there might be an announcement nearly two weeks ago, on the Friday before Sir Bobby Charlton’s funeral, then INEOS, Ratcliffe’s company, targeted early in the following week (after the service). But that didn’t happen and now the United States is in Thanksgiving Day mode, so it won’t come until next week at the earliest.
It’s clearly very complex but we are led to believe everything is on track and it is a matter of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’ the investment will be confirmed.
A lot of guesswork here and just relaying info he's been given. Doesn't make it an accurate depiction of the current state of affairs. Plenty of "I assume" and "led to believe."
The deal isn't getting ratified without unanimous support from all shareholders and directors. Hard to see that happening, especially anytime soon.
I'm thinking it would have to be Joel, Avram, and Ed Woodward. The horror.The shareholders want 'no deal' with the current regime still in place? Because that is the only alternative.
Plenty of 'guesswork' on all sides. It's been this way for over year. NDA's, tap of noses and a wink. If The Athletic had full possession of the facts, a solicitor or two would like a word.
It has always been that way has it not?
I reckon about 90% bull and 10% partially right fits when it comes to Manchester United.
Are people aware that Ratcliff as new owner might mean that we are not going to play CL football next season, even if we end in top 4 i the league? As everyone probably knows, 2 teams with the same owner may not be in the CL. Here, the rule is that the team that gets the highest position in the league gets into the CL. Currently, Nice are No. 2 in their league and therefore United will not be able to qualify for the tournament no matter what, if Nice is still number 2 next summer.
We now know what he meant by putting Manchester United back in Manchester.
white text
Its plausible that he steps away from Nice though, from the sounds of it, SJR is investing in United and not INEOS too. Where as its INEOS who owns Nice, so much things have been miss reported lately I seriously doubt this would be an issue, if it was this deal would certainly not go ahead
Fake news to generate clicks, nothing more to that story. Stop stating it like a fact when it's untrue.
From all accounts, most of the Glazer's have no interest whatsoever in the club. It's only Joel and perhaps Avram who have been sticking their noses in.
If the rest of the Glazer's accept that the mismanagement has been costing them money (which it most definitely has) and have been convinced by Ratcliffe that he will run things better which will ultimately make them more money, I wouldn't be surprised if they were happy to sign up to giving him control. Now obviously it wouldn't be unconditional and they would have the ability to change their mind in the future if things go even further south, but hopefully it wouldn't come to that.
I'm not saying that this is the case, but it's hardly difficult to envision it happening either. The fact we seem to have already changed the CEO actually makes it look rather more likely than it did when the reports first came out.
Last edited:
Are you aware of the precedents set by the Redbull clubs? I’m sure there are other examples too but there is no way a prestigious club like United are banned from European competition. Absolute hot air, but please feel free to panic and doom say, if nothing else it keeps the thread moving….
I wrote "might", so I did not write it as a fact. But it is not untrue that it might become a problem: https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ews/how-manchester-united-nice-could-28158924
I think what we should actually panic about it about United not making it to the CL.Are you aware of the precedents set by the Redbull clubs? I’m sure there are other examples too but there is no way a prestigious club like United are banned from European competition. Absolute hot air, but please feel free to panic and doom say, if nothing else it keeps the thread moving….
Much more accurate! What an indictment of the current club hierarchy structure it would be if Nice qualify and United don’t!
I mean clearly I am talking about Joel and Avram, the two largest shareholders and the two who have been most active in the running of the club.
It's not that they want "no deal" it's the level of animosity/legal issue of not getting what they're due from the full sale offer because the Glazers pushed too far. This isn't a private investment timeline - it's a public one announced to the SEC. All meetings, valuations have to be legally lodged for SEC filing. If Nine Two did in fact offer what they say they did and the Glazers blew up that deal to pursue a minority investment with Ratcliffe and for less per share for the other shareholders then you can imagine they're not going to be happy about that.
You have to think way outside of the good guy vs bad guy narrative of your favourite bidder to see the real landscape. Glazers opened the door with this process and Jassim's consortium walked straight through with an offer that any reasonable business owner would have gladly accepted but they blew it up for personal greed. This isn't over.
Jumped the gun, he made his reappearance on Wednesday
Billionaires and multi-millionaires with the best lawyers at hand have been negotiating this deal for over a year now, I don't know how people just assume they forgot this tiny little detail.
Anyways, here are 2 threads back from February that debunk this false news
Last edited:
From memory Avram is actually one of the lower shareholders out of the siblings after selling some of his a few years ago, and Joel is only slightly ahead of two of the others.
Yep, went searching and found this from The Athletic.
Joel - 19.11% voting power
Darcie - 18.15%
Bryan - 17.23%
Avram - 14.38%
Kevin - 13.77%
Edward - 12.99%
So the other four together have almost double the voting power of Joel and Avram, and that's before Ratcliffe comes in as the highest individual owner. If the six siblings are selling their shares equally then Joel and Avram together will only have about 25% of the voting power between them, so the same as Ratcliffe by himself. If the other four all agree to Ratcliffe being in charge of the football side then he will have a strong majority. Hell, I'm not even sure if Avram has ever really been involved in the football side. He's often been around the club in general, but the reports and rumours have always said it was more just Joel getting involved in the football decisions if I remember correctly.
Incorrect.
Ratcliffe, not INEOS, will be named as a 25% shareholder, not an owner. There is no conflict as INEOS are the owners of Nice.
I am sure SJR already thought about the 2 club conflict and there are always ways around it, the biggest precedent came from Red Bull group who basically set up 2 seperate boards and management to show there is no conflict.
Total nonsense of course as we see by the long list of players who played for both clubs but it's enough to satisfy UEFA apparently.
The bigger issue for Jim is that he wants to have the likes of Brailsford and Blanc involved at United, then there is a a clear conflict as they are both linked to Nice already.
No doubt the legalities of INEOS Vs Sir Jim personal are being worked on by the lawyers.
So many grey areas and legal issues with this bid that it's no wonder it's dragging on.
Total nonsense of course as we see by the long list of players who played for both clubs but it's enough to satisfy UEFA apparently.
The bigger issue for Jim is that he wants to have the likes of Brailsford and Blanc involved at United, then there is a a clear conflict as they are both linked to Nice already.
No doubt the legalities of INEOS Vs Sir Jim personal are being worked on by the lawyers.
So many grey areas and legal issues with this bid that it's no wonder it's dragging on.
They're not 'due' anything. The Glazers did not officially put the club up for sale.
Stymying Ratcliffe to enforce Qatar is just a return to the status quo as Qatar have pulled out.
Unless the status quo gives better value per share than the investment, I'm afraid the shareholders haven't much of a case.
To be expected and better to do it now than get an unpleasant surprise in six months.
There is no option but to do it now, it simply wont go through otherwise
This shit could be an episode of Succession.
I would argue that they did put the club up for sale. Explicitly so, since they only prioritised the full sale offers for 10-months of the process through multiple bidding deadlines using a specialist business broker in Raine Group and mentioned "sale" in the strategic alternatives SEC statement. Sure, I'll concede that the statement to the SEC was ambiguous enough to keep all options open (as they should) but once they had two very credible and determined buyers offering more than double the market valuation of the asset and in some cases nearly tripling long term institutional shareholders return on investment ($12-$14 to $38-$42) I would say they were chasing a full sale and traders/investors agreed.
The Glazers will be made very aware of their fiduciary responsibility at the start of this process once they inform the SEC of "strategic alternatives." Regardless of who our favourite bidder is or who the Glazers would prefer to do business with they have a responsibility to make decisions that most benefit shareholders investments and what's best for the asset. They can't be seen to neglect either of those. What I'm saying is, is that if Jassim's consortium is correct in the statements we've seen throughout this process then it does provide major stumbling blocks for this minority investment in the eyes of the shareholders because legally speaking (potentially, if there's appetite) they've been pushed aside for Glazer greed. Every offer, every meeting including time and place will be filed to the SEC so there's no hiding here.
You remember Nine Two's last statement following withdrawal from the process? It was scathing towards the Glazers and the moving of goalposts despite the offer to them, the shareholders and the asset (future investments) being way and beyond a reasonable valuation. It was a very deliberate use of language. It could be a long road ahead. The counter argument, and I guess this is where the Glazers are right now, is how do we get Jim's offer in a place that is at least equal to or better than the offer we blew up for a full sale so that we can avoid potential legal trouble. This is the reason for the near constant PR regarding Ratcliffe's offer since Nine Two backed away from a crooked negotiation - they're trying to gain support for it to get it through.
Nine Two played this process with a clear strategy to try and back the Glazers into a corner they couldn't get out of with their offers once they knew Ratcliffe wasn't buying 100% of the club. Every offer came with a significant premium to all shareholders and with pledged investment to the asset. People say the pledged investment was worthless because the Glazers don't care about that, well legally it could matter because any court will rule on the offer that best serves the shareholders and the future stability of the asset. So I believe that was Jassim's strategy for this takeover - play the long game and ensure your offer is legally the best offer for as cheap as possible.
As for the "Qatar have pulled out." Well, there's nothing official on that is there? They may well have told the Glazers and Raine to do one and refused to engage further because that's essentially what we've been told but that doesn't mean they're officially out because no official primary source has stated that as a matter of fact. I think they wanted to update everybody what the Glazers were doing chasing this minority offer whilst leaving the parasites to figure out how they're going to get it over the line. That's my assumption. Time will tell and this nightmare 18-year life sentence continues. Personally, I want Jim to offer 100% if he's serious.
I think the Glazers may end up reaching out to the Nine Two group to reopen negotiations in better faith than previously if they can't work through the complexity of this minority offer and satisfy shareholders.
Last edited:
Nice are second now? Wow is that why the people saying he doesn't know what he's doing as he is failing at Nice have suddenly went quiet?
Qatar owning the club would be more sportswashing yes but the filip is a debt free club and pretty much instant investment across every area of the club and probably the local community.
Ineos and particularly Ratcliffe the club remains a commercial enterprise looking to breathe life into that department and with minimal improvements as well as driving down wages ie Casemiro, Varane, Sancho, with Qatar at the helm the club changes irrevocably and for the better regardless of one's opposition to being state owned.
Ineos and particularly Ratcliffe the club remains a commercial enterprise looking to breathe life into that department and with minimal improvements as well as driving down wages ie Casemiro, Varane, Sancho, with Qatar at the helm the club changes irrevocably and for the better regardless of one's opposition to being state owned.
They've not lost a league game this season. Sitting 2nd place, 1 point behind PSG. With two young players the CAF would be very happy to sign.
Some of your points are fair. But Radcliffe is not doing this for commercial reasons, in fact the opposite. He will never make money from United, he is doing it as sport is his passion. Unloading over the hill players is also not about driving down the wage bill but building a team for the future.
You can argue that, sure, but the official line was 'exploring options', not just a sale. So the Glazers will fall back on it.
They'll also argue Qatar's consent money (billions for the local area) should be spent on the club and pursuing it was in shareholder's interests. They are, after all, about money. Big mistake from Qatar to disclose this information early.
Qatar have pulled out, chief.
The Glazers will sort it out with Ratcliffe faster than deal with Qatar in any faith, let alone good.
We'll see, chief, but prepare for disappointment if you think this hold-up is an opportunity for Qatar.
Dearie me.
In case you aren't aware, Qatar pulled out.
- Status