Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Giggsyking said:
The Glazers not only staying indefinitely, but also have someone to blame from now on if anything footballing wise go south. The made the perfect deal for them.
Click to expand...


What a wonderful day that we no longer need to be worried about associating with an evil slave driving, sportswashing regime of cnuts.

The champagne is out early in this house !! :D :D :D :D
 
What's Neville on about?

The timing was great IMO,a lot of people wanted it confirmed, and the day before Christmas is just an early present to those who are looking forward to, hopefully, turning a corner.

I'm pleased, Merry Xmas!
 
Last edited:
Amarsdd said:
So again, I'm asking you what would a club statement regarding that would look like?
Click to expand...

The people who have 51% of any company, control that company. Sure, they can delegate decisions to the CEO, or to a minority stakeholder, or to whomever they want. Still, 51% can change this decision whenever they like. In our case, it is not 51% it is 75% (except if there are more minority owners, I am not sure).
 
DownRiver said:
Questions:

1) Although INEOS will run football operations, they need to allocate money for transfers. It will be up to the Glazers to allocate how much money is put into the bucket for spending?

2) If INEOS run football operations, this means that if Glazers do ever sell their part of the club, no one would want to buy their stake (unless you are a hedge fund/private equity) as they will have zero say on footballing matters. This means we will not got a Qatar or Saudi Arabia etc, just money hungry investors in the future. Our only hope is the Glazers to sell their remaining stake to INEOS.
Click to expand...
(1) could be part of the contract, as in Ineos can use all the money the club generates (minus those needed for interest payments) or all the money (minus those needed for interest payments) minus 2 or 3 percent which have to be used for dividends.

So essentially whatever we are spending now + whatever of their own money Ineos puts but hopefully without spending like a drunken lunatic like we have been doing.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
Why are people still talking about "the Glazers" as if they're one voting bloc? By all accounts the four other siblings (Bryan, Darcie, Kevin, and Ed) want out entirely. Over time I believe they'll sell their stakes to SJR and there's nothing Joel and Avram will be able to do about it.
Click to expand...
Let's hope that's the case.
 
Berbaclass said:
I do because I was one of the sceptics
Click to expand...
It’s really astounding. The levels of delusions, myths people will make up to justify their support for an obvious opportunist. He went from 100% to 75% to 50% to 25%

I think the “obligation to buy” nonsense making themselves feel good for abandoning the “full sale only” demand. It’s like getting in the bed with the devil and saying “we’ll be sleeping on separate sides”
 
JediSith said:
It’s really astounding. The levels of delusions, myths people will make up to justify their support for an obvious opportunist. He went from 100% to 75% to 50% to 25%

I think the “obligation to buy” nonsense making themselves feel good for abandoning the “full sale only” demand. It’s like getting in the bed with the devil and saying “we’ll be sleeping on separate sides”
Click to expand...

Would you rather he didn’t bother then? Or we were stuck with an investor like Eliott?
 
NWRed said:
After this deal the Glazers will, collectively, still own 51.75% of the shares, all (or virtually all) class B shares. They vote and behave as a collective unit and Ratcliffe is in the minority. Believing anything else is simply deluding yourself.
Click to expand...
Do they? They largely have in the past since only Joel (and to a lesser extent Avram) seemed interested in being hands-on, so they effectively had full control by default. But there were strong rumours that different siblings wanted different results from this sale process.

I presume there will be the option to review things in the future, and if things are going badly they can remove that power from INEOS. But if INEOS improves things that is only going to increase how much the club is worth which will increase how much the Glazer's are worth, so the other four siblings will have no reason to take the power from INEOS.
 
JediSith said:
Not really. There was no factual or logical reason for anyone to believe that Jim put an obligation to buy clause. Also anyone who was using that as a justification for supporting Jim’s bid should really now reassess . But as the saying goes “it’s easier to con someone then it is to convince someone they’ve been conned “
Click to expand...
The logical reasoning was that he was providing additional capital on top of his initial investment. The thinking was that there was no way he would do this for nothing, and it turns out that is still the case, as at the end of the year, the additional capital will net him additional shares. If you also include the clause that grants him first right of refusal from the other Glazer shares, it shows that there is a path to full ownership, but it's not a direct clause as many thought.

Still no pat on the back for you.
 
Unless he has a deal to purchase the Glazers shares at a defined point in the future this deal makes no sense for Ratcliffe if he has any intention of buying out the Glazers, it can only mean he has no intention whatsoever of buying the rest of the shares.
 
Giggsyking said:
What a sad day in the history of the club. The day that the Glazers secure their place here for the rest of the clubs history.
Click to expand...

It is what it is.
The Glazers had the option of selling 100% but decided against that.
So the only other game in town was the Ineos deal. This now takes the running of the football side of the business away from the Glazers.

So I fail to see how this is bad news.
 
NWRed said:
After this deal the Glazers will, collectively, still own 51.75% of the shares, all (or virtually all) class B shares. They vote and behave as a collective unit and Ratcliffe is in the minority. Believing anything else is simply deluding yourself.

Where is this contract that stipulates that Ratcliffe now 'owns' the football side? And how did you get your hands on it?

The wording in the statement was as follows



I know this deal is sweet for the Glazers, that's what's making my blood boil.
Click to expand...

Ratcliffe's purchase also came with class B shares.


All the reports say part of the agreement is Ratcliffe taking control of football side, and they all say that the Glazers don't have any veto on it. He's not buying into being the Glazers' employee. He is a class B shareholder like the Glazers are. And based on what I read before, he will have the highest proportion of all shares now going forward. This isn't a situation that can just be voted out, common sense is also needed here that nobody would give the Glazers 1.3 billion for something that can just be voted out in a few years. Don't be ridiculous.
 
NWRed said:
Unless he has a deal to purchase the Glazers shares at a defined point in the future this deal makes no sense for Ratcliffe if he has any intention of buying out the Glazers, it can only mean he has no intention whatsoever of buying the rest of the shares.
Click to expand...
We know that he's buying 25%, which will make him the highest single shareholder. We know that he's getting roughly another 4.5% by the end of 2024. We believe (not sure if it's confirmed?) that he has first refusal on any other shares the Glazer's sell, and that most (if not all) of them have sold some in the past so will likely sell more in the future. It is likely that any future investment (past the $300m that we know about) that Ratcliffe makes into the club will be compensated with him being issued further shares.

Will he ever get 100% of the shares? Perhaps not. But it's not like there isn't any avenue for him to increase his share to a fairly significant amount.
 
Buster15 said:
It is what it is.
The Glazers had the option of selling 100% but decided against that.
So the only other game in town was the Ineos deal. This now takes the running of the football side of the business away from the Glazers.

So I fail to see how this is bad news.
Click to expand...
Think deeply why?

Do you really think majority stakeholders are not gonna meddle in the Football operations of a Football business?

Both the above are connected. In time you will see how.

This is the beginning of the end.
 
RedBanker said:
Think deeply why?

Do you really think majority stakeholders are not gonna meddle in the Football operations of a Football business?

Both the above are connected. In time you will see how.

This is the beginning of the end.
Click to expand...
Majority stakeholders who have no interest whatsoever in those football operations, or even in football as a sport? While I won't sit here and say they definitely won't get involved, it would hardly be surprising if they didn't.
 
Can someone please confirm:
The Glazers had 69% and have sold 25% to Ratcliffe leaving them with 44%.
If Ratcliffe can buy up the remaining 31% from other shareholders, that will make him the majority shareholder.
I know there are A class Shares and B Class Shares which complicates things which is why I’m doubting the above statement.
 
Glazers laughing all the way to the bank, fair do’s to the ugly cvnts, they’ve played an absolute blinder here and I at least respect them for that, they’ve got the investment they wanted which will sit nicely in their pockets and still retain majority control over us, Jimbo’s £300 million peace pipe to the fans will get the parking spaces a new lick of paint and he’ll be the one copping the flak when, surprise,surprise, we continue to be shit for the foreseeable.
They have not given any indication that they’re open to a full sale and they probably never will be if by some miracle we actually start to win things again.
I would desperately love to be proved wrong but the fact them odious toads are still here will never ever sit right with me
 
DON’T PANIC ™ said:
Can someone please confirm:
The Glazers had 69% and have sold 25% to Ratcliffe leaving them with 44%.
If Ratcliffe can buy up the remaining 31% from other shareholders, that will make him the majority shareholder.
I know there are A class Shares and B Class Shares which complicates things which is why I’m doubting the above statement.
Click to expand...
Class B shares are worth 10x as much as A shares in terms of voting rights.
 
spiriticon said:
Look guys, it's only a small step, but a step nonetheless. It will take years to modernise the club stadium and football operations. We're that bad.

At the end of the day, no one was willing to pay the 20 billion or whatever the Glazers were asking for a full sale, so this is as good as it's gonna get for now.
Click to expand...

Well said and everyone on here acknowledges this isn't the full sale we needed,however improving the structure with a DOF is a positive baby step. Will admit I am very concerned there seems no route to majority ownership though.
 
Last edited:
interesting take. There is a veil of possiblity in the statements about Jim buying more


GCIoBGHXAAAL2lO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.