Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I get the negativity of some posters but can't see how this is not a good thing.

Rewind 14 months ago every single one of us would have bit your hand off for Jim buying 25% of United and getting control of football operations. I'm happy with Blanc as CEO and if the names we're being linked with in terms of sporting directors are true then this is a cause for celebration.
 
DSG said:
Oh, and by the way, I expect the club to be very active in the transfer market. Normally, profits for operations and sales of players fund transfers. With 300m in additional capital, it’s possible the club will shell out 300-400m in transfer fees.
Click to expand...
What about FFP?
 
MackRobinson said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was never wrong about Ratcliffe. You were. I was never deceived by Ratcliffe you were.

Now I ask one question. A while ago I posted about him using the publicity from United and his 25% share to promote INEOS and its products. He has acknowledged to INEOS creditors that none of INEOS money will be used for the United project. So why is the INEOS Twitter page twitting about Ratcliffe buying a minority stake in United? The only reason is to start immersing itself into the United brand.

All the so called experts who ridiculed it citing numbers that they don’t understand “INEOS make £60b a year they don’t need United” unable to differentiate between revenue, profit and understand low and high margins eg £60b revenue for £1b profit in its best year. Will soon start to see the INEOS brand feature more and more at OT and in United’s social media. Maybe then people will understand.
 
the_cliff said:
I get the negativity of some posters but can't see how this is not a good thing.

Rewind 14 months ago every single one of us would have bit your hand off for Jim buying 25% of United and getting control of football operations. I'm happy with Blanc as CEO and if the names we're being linked with in terms of sporting directors are true then this is a cause for celebration.
Click to expand...
Not at all. There was a time “full sale only” was the one thing that unified the fan base. People differed on who they wanted the club sold to, but we were all united on glazers out full sale only.
 
JediSith said:
I was never wrong about Ratcliffe. You were. I was never deceived by Ratcliffe you were.

Now I ask one question. A while ago I posted about him using the publicity from United and his 25% share to promote INEOS and its products. He has acknowledged to INEOS creditors that none of INEOS money will be used for the United project. So why is the INEOS Twitter page twitting about Ratcliffe buying a minority stake in United? The only reason is to start immersing itself into the United brand.

All the so called experts who ridiculed it citing numbers that they don’t understand “INEOS make £60b a year they don’t need United” unable to differentiate between revenue, profit and understand low and high margins eg £60b revenue for £1b profit in its best year. Will soon start to see the INEOS brand feature more and more at OT and in United’s social media. Maybe then people will understand.
Click to expand...

Because INEOS are still directly involved, having assumed responsibilty for football operations at the club. As per INEOS' own statement on Ratcliffe's purchase:

As part of the transaction, INEOS has accepted a request by the Board to be delegated responsibility for the management of the Club’s football operations. This will include all aspects of the men's and women's football operations and Academies, alongside two seats on the Manchester United PLC board and the Manchester United Football Club boards.
Click to expand...

INEOS's two seats on the board going to their Sporting Director and Sports CEO.
 
JediSith said:
I was never wrong about Ratcliffe. You were. I was never deceived by Ratcliffe you were.

Now I ask one question. A while ago I posted about him using the publicity from United and his 25% share to promote INEOS and its products. He has acknowledged to INEOS creditors that none of INEOS money will be used for the United project. So why is the INEOS Twitter page twitting about Ratcliffe buying a minority stake in United? The only reason is to start immersing itself into the United brand.

All the so called experts who ridiculed it citing numbers that they don’t understand “INEOS make £60b a year they don’t need United” unable to differentiate between revenue, profit and understand low and high margins eg £60b revenue for £1b profit in its best year. Will soon start to see the INEOS brand feature more and more at OT and in United’s social media. Maybe then people will understand.
Click to expand...
What on earth have I just read.
INEOS will use Manchester United to make more profit.
A club that needs around 2bln spent on a stadium, 500m on facilities and about 500m on the squad.

Hahahahaha, may hit up the Christmas brandy myself.
 
the_cliff said:
I get the negativity of some posters but can't see how this is not a good thing.

Rewind 14 months ago every single one of us would have bit your hand off for Jim buying 25% of United and getting control of football operations. I'm happy with Blanc as CEO and if the names we're being linked with in terms of sporting directors are true then this is a cause for celebration.
Click to expand...

I'm not as negative as many, but I 100% would not bitten any hand off 14 months ago for this deal. I wanted, and still want the Glazer gone completely.

Still, we shall see how this goes, I'm hopeful for an improvement, because it simply can't get any worse, surely.
 
the_cliff said:
I get the negativity of some posters but can't see how this is not a good thing.

Rewind 14 months ago every single one of us would have bit your hand off for Jim buying 25% of United and getting control of football operations. I'm happy with Blanc as CEO and if the names we're being linked with in terms of sporting directors are true then this is a cause for celebration.
Click to expand...

If Jim didn't give the Glazer's this easy win. We would be rid of them as they would have had to accept a full sale.
 
JediSith said:
I was never wrong about Ratcliffe. You were. I was never deceived by Ratcliffe you were.

Now I ask one question. A while ago I posted about him using the publicity from United and his 25% share to promote INEOS and its products. He has acknowledged to INEOS creditors that none of INEOS money will be used for the United project. So why is the INEOS Twitter page twitting about Ratcliffe buying a minority stake in United? The only reason is to start immersing itself into the United brand.

All the so called experts who ridiculed it citing numbers that they don’t understand “INEOS make £60b a year they don’t need United” unable to differentiate between revenue, profit and understand low and high margins eg £60b revenue for £1b profit in its best year. Will soon start to see the INEOS brand feature more and more at OT and in United’s social media. Maybe then people will understand.
Click to expand...
You didn't know what you were talking about. Neither did I.

Did you read the club statement?
INEOS delegated responsibility for management of football operations
Click to expand...
https://www.manutd.com/en/news/deta...ign=ManUtd&utm_medium=post&utm_source=twitter

I don't understand the point you are attempting to make about INEOS.
 
DSG said:
I’ve had a lot of experience in acquisitions and limited partnerships. There is a lot of handwringing which really isn’t necessary. The reason the Glazers did it this way is that they didn’t reach their target valuation. Now, we don’t know if the 25% of the voting shares is coming from some of Glazer kids, or if all the Glazers will be diluted. When you realize that 69% of the corporation is owned by the Glazers, obtaining 25% of the company in Class B voting shares is essentially giving SJR full control. It means he’ll have roughly 38% of the voting shares, and he’ll be the largest shareholder.

Most major board level decisions require 66.7% of the shares/board to approve a resolution. When I say “major”, I mean new injection of capital, new shareholders, issuance of new shares, purchase of assets over, say, a certain amount, like 10m. As such, Sir Jim likely has veto power over any resolution raised by the Glazers, because they won’t have the 66.7% to outvote him. That’s why he has operational control. In addition, he’s added another 300m in capital injection commitments, which dilutes the Glazers further, by another 5-6%… meaning he’ll have 30%+ of total shares and 45% (roughly) of the voting shares.

On top of that, he’s committed to buy 25% of the class A non-voting shares @$33 a share. That’s a premium of $13 per share! As this happens, the value of the A shares will go up… and we know there is a vehicle to convert Glazers voting shares to non-voting shares which they can sell on the open market, or Sir Jim also has right of first refusal.

‘Look… the beginning of the end of the Glazers is here. This is a very savvy move by Sir Jim. TheCaf is saying the Glazers are “smart” and Sir Jim is “stupid”. No! This was the only way to get the Glazers out without meeting the undeserved sky high valuations they were demanding.

It’s happening people… the Glazers are on their way out. My guess is that Sir Jim will take full control, and own 51% of the voting shares with 18 month. The Glazers will be completed out, or just a minority shareholder, which is very common in These types of transactions.
Click to expand...
Good insight. You should post this in the other thread.
 
JediSith said:
Not at all. There was a time “full sale only” was the one thing that unified the fan base. People differed on who they wanted the club sold to, but we were all united on glazers out full sale only.
Click to expand...
The Glazers are out. They are basically a limited partner… see my previous posts.
 
lilcurt said:
If Jim didn't give the Glazer's this easy win. We would be rid of them as they would have had to accept a full sale.
Click to expand...
Why?

There’s nothing to suggest that, they are perfectly happy for the club to limp along with rotting infrastructure, as long as we get some form of European football and sell out tickets every season there’s no pressure to sell unless at the price point they want.
 
T_Model101 said:
An amazing day, marks the beginning of the end of the Glazers
Click to expand...

If anything it marks the opposite, if Jim and his footballing changes help us to be successful then the Glazers will stick around for their annual pound of flesh.

It's still hopefully a much better situation than without Jim, but the Glazers will likely be hanging around for a while.
 
The Urban Goose said:
Yawn. I suppose you two just wanted the Qatar millions to chuck more money at everything, as though that would actually help. Maybe you should go and cry about it at Stamford Bridge.
Click to expand...
Maybe just maybe you should have looked at some of my other posts about this WTF has Stamford Bridge got to do with it.m?
Definitely did not want Qatar money never have done, has for Ratcliffe firmly on the fence about him.
But if it makes you fell better to berate my post you crack on
My post was a tad sarcastic, yes he did wonders with the British Cycling Team hopefully he can do the same here, but PL football is totally different from cycling.
 
DSG said:
Oh, and by the way, I expect the club to be very active in the transfer market. Normally, profits for operations and sales of players fund transfers. With 300m in additional capital, it’s possible the club will shell out 300-400m in transfer fees.
Click to expand...
Surely not as early as January? You're in the M&A business but I'm assuming here that SJR can't actually make any material movement before the deal is ratified?
 
DSG said:
I’ve had a lot of experience in acquisitions and limited partnerships. There is a lot of handwringing which really isn’t necessary. The reason the Glazers did it this way is that they didn’t reach their target valuation. Now, we don’t know if the 25% of the voting shares is coming from some of Glazer kids, or if all the Glazers will be diluted. When you realize that 69% of the corporation is owned by the Glazers, obtaining 25% of the company in Class B voting shares is essentially giving SJR full control. It means he’ll have roughly 38% of the voting shares, and he’ll be the largest shareholder.

Most major board level decisions require 66.7% of the shares/board to approve a resolution. When I say “major”, I mean new injection of capital, new shareholders, issuance of new shares, purchase of assets over, say, a certain amount, like 10m. As such, Sir Jim likely has veto power over any resolution raised by the Glazers, because they won’t have the 66.7% to outvote him. That’s why he has operational control. In addition, he’s added another 300m in capital injection commitments, which dilutes the Glazers further, by another 5-6%… meaning he’ll have 30%+ of total shares and 45% (roughly) of the voting shares.

On top of that, he’s committed to buy 25% of the class A non-voting shares @$33 a share. That’s a premium of $13 per share! As this happens, the value of the A shares will go up… and we know there is a vehicle to convert Glazers voting shares to non-voting shares which they can sell on the open market, or Sir Jim also has right of first refusal.

‘Look… the beginning of the end of the Glazers is here. This is a very savvy move by Sir Jim. TheCaf is saying the Glazers are “smart” and Sir Jim is “stupid”. No! This was the only way to get the Glazers out without meeting the undeserved sky high valuations they were demanding.

It’s happening people… the Glazers are on their way out. My guess is that Sir Jim will take full control, and own 51% of the voting shares with 18 month. The Glazers will be completed out, or just a minority shareholder, which is very common in These types of transactions.
Click to expand...

I have no expertise whatsoever in businesses and the mergers and acquisitions of companies. Thanks therefore for this post, which gives me some hope that the Glazers are on the way out and that some people with better understanding of football and club strategies might at last be brought in. It’s something of a seasonal gift from someone who appears to know whereof they speak. Happy Christmas mate.
 
DSG said:
This is a very savvy move by Sir Jim. TheCaf is saying the Glazers are “smart” and Sir Jim is “stupid”. No! This was the only way to get the Glazers out without meeting the undeserved sky high valuations they were demanding.

It’s happening people… the Glazers are on their way out. My guess is that Sir Jim will take full control, and own 51% of the voting shares with 18 month. The Glazers will be completed out, or just a minority shareholder, which is very common in These types of transactions.
Click to expand...
This is a great post, and you are very correct. Trawler Ltd will be majority shareholder of the club and Sir Jim will be in control.
 
There seems to be more than one version of the proportion of shares bought by SJR. Which is it?

1 version is he has acquired 25% made up of 17% B Shares and 8% A Shares.
2nd version is he has acquired 25% of B Shares.

It’s probably splitting hairs but 2nd version obviously diminishes the Glazer’s control a lot more than the first as SJR would have over a third of the voting shares.
 
DON’T PANIC ™ said:
There seems to be more than one version of the proportion of shares bought by SJR. Which is it?

1 version is he has acquired 25% made up of 17% B Shares and 8% A Shares.
2nd version is he has acquired 25% of B Shares.

It’s probably splitting hairs but 2nd version obviously diminishes the Glazer’s control a lot more than the first as SJR would have over a third of the voting shares.
Click to expand...

The club's own statement:

Under the terms of the transaction agreements, Trawlers Limited will (i) acquire 25% of the Class B ordinary shares of the Company, par value $0.0005 per share (“Class B shares”), and (ii) initiate a tender offer to acquire up to a number of shares that, at launch, will represent 25% of the Class A ordinary shares of the Company, par value $0.0005 per share (“Class A shares”)
Click to expand...
 
hobbers said:
Right so if the Glazers decide to take dividends out of the club at any point and divert funds that might have been used for footballing objectives, do you think Brailsford and Blanc can block them?

You think Joel and co wont get any say or vote on any decisions regarding the fate of Old Trafford?
Click to expand...

Ratcliffe should have a veto. Not as per the Glazers ownership terms and under UK law where 25% allows you to block decisions.

He also now holds significantly more shares than any individual Glazer and individual is the key work here, because there is no Glazer Family so in theory, Ratcliffe may only need support of 2 Glazers to make major non footballing decisions.
 
DSG said:
I’ve had a lot of experience in acquisitions and limited partnerships. There is a lot of handwringing which really isn’t necessary. The reason the Glazers did it this way is that they didn’t reach their target valuation. Now, we don’t know if the 25% of the voting shares is coming from some of Glazer kids, or if all the Glazers will be diluted. When you realize that 69% of the corporation is owned by the Glazers, obtaining 25% of the company in Class B voting shares is essentially giving SJR full control. It means he’ll have roughly 38% of the voting shares, and he’ll be the largest shareholder.

Most major board level decisions require 66.7% of the shares/board to approve a resolution. When I say “major”, I mean new injection of capital, new shareholders, issuance of new shares, purchase of assets over, say, a certain amount, like 10m. As such, Sir Jim likely has veto power over any resolution raised by the Glazers, because they won’t have the 66.7% to outvote him. That’s why he has operational control. In addition, he’s added another 300m in capital injection commitments, which dilutes the Glazers further, by another 5-6%… meaning he’ll have 30%+ of total shares and 45% (roughly) of the voting shares.

On top of that, he’s committed to buy 25% of the class A non-voting shares @$33 a share. That’s a premium of $13 per share! As this happens, the value of the A shares will go up… and we know there is a vehicle to convert Glazers voting shares to non-voting shares which they can sell on the open market, or Sir Jim also has right of first refusal.

‘Look… the beginning of the end of the Glazers is here. This is a very savvy move by Sir Jim. TheCaf is saying the Glazers are “smart” and Sir Jim is “stupid”. No! This was the only way to get the Glazers out without meeting the undeserved sky high valuations they were demanding.

It’s happening people… the Glazers are on their way out. My guess is that Sir Jim will take full control, and own 51% of the voting shares with 18 month. The Glazers will be completed out, or just a minority shareholder, which is very common in These types of transactions.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing some of your knowledge. People on here should take note.
 
pauldyson1uk said:
But does it, I am hearing and reading that there is no road to 100% but also reading that there is.
Click to expand...

Nothing official but everyone asking "why would you give up the core of your business" is answer their own question.
 
DSG said:
I’ve had a lot of experience in acquisitions and limited partnerships. There is a lot of handwringing which really isn’t necessary. The reason the Glazers did it this way is that they didn’t reach their target valuation. Now, we don’t know if the 25% of the voting shares is coming from some of Glazer kids, or if all the Glazers will be diluted. When you realize that 69% of the corporation is owned by the Glazers, obtaining 25% of the company in Class B voting shares is essentially giving SJR full control. It means he’ll have roughly 38% of the voting shares, and he’ll be the largest shareholder.

Most major board level decisions require 66.7% of the shares/board to approve a resolution. When I say “major”, I mean new injection of capital, new shareholders, issuance of new shares, purchase of assets over, say, a certain amount, like 10m. As such, Sir Jim likely has veto power over any resolution raised by the Glazers, because they won’t have the 66.7% to outvote him. That’s why he has operational control. In addition, he’s added another 300m in capital injection commitments, which dilutes the Glazers further, by another 5-6%… meaning he’ll have 30%+ of total shares and 45% (roughly) of the voting shares.

On top of that, he’s committed to buy 25% of the class A non-voting shares @$33 a share. That’s a premium of $13 per share! As this happens, the value of the A shares will go up… and we know there is a vehicle to convert Glazers voting shares to non-voting shares which they can sell on the open market, or Sir Jim also has right of first refusal.

‘Look… the beginning of the end of the Glazers is here. This is a very savvy move by Sir Jim. TheCaf is saying the Glazers are “smart” and Sir Jim is “stupid”. No! This was the only way to get the Glazers out without meeting the undeserved sky high valuations they were demanding.

It’s happening people… the Glazers are on their way out. My guess is that Sir Jim will take full control, and own 51% of the voting shares with 18 month. The Glazers will be completed out, or just a minority shareholder, which is very common in These types of transactions.
Click to expand...
Cheers for the info, makes the deal sound better than I thought, I now have one foot on the Ratcliffe side of the fence.
 
DSG said:
I’ve had a lot of experience in acquisitions and limited partnerships. There is a lot of handwringing which really isn’t necessary. The reason the Glazers did it this way is that they didn’t reach their target valuation. Now, we don’t know if the 25% of the voting shares is coming from some of Glazer kids, or if all the Glazers will be diluted. When you realize that 69% of the corporation is owned by the Glazers, obtaining 25% of the company in Class B voting shares is essentially giving SJR full control. It means he’ll have roughly 38% of the voting shares, and he’ll be the largest shareholder.

Most major board level decisions require 66.7% of the shares/board to approve a resolution. When I say “major”, I mean new injection of capital, new shareholders, issuance of new shares, purchase of assets over, say, a certain amount, like 10m. As such, Sir Jim likely has veto power over any resolution raised by the Glazers, because they won’t have the 66.7% to outvote him. That’s why he has operational control. In addition, he’s added another 300m in capital injection commitments, which dilutes the Glazers further, by another 5-6%… meaning he’ll have 30%+ of total shares and 45% (roughly) of the voting shares.

On top of that, he’s committed to buy 25% of the class A non-voting shares @$33 a share. That’s a premium of $13 per share! As this happens, the value of the A shares will go up… and we know there is a vehicle to convert Glazers voting shares to non-voting shares which they can sell on the open market, or Sir Jim also has right of first refusal.

‘Look… the beginning of the end of the Glazers is here. This is a very savvy move by Sir Jim. TheCaf is saying the Glazers are “smart” and Sir Jim is “stupid”. No! This was the only way to get the Glazers out without meeting the undeserved sky high valuations they were demanding.

It’s happening people… the Glazers are on their way out. My guess is that Sir Jim will take full control, and own 51% of the voting shares with 18 month. The Glazers will be completed out, or just a minority shareholder, which is very common in These types of transactions.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to post this. I and I'm sure many that aren't as au fait with the financial side of deals of this magnitude really appreciate the breakdown in layman's terms. I really hope this is true as it represents progress towards everyone's hope which is wrestling control away from the Glazers.
 
Plant0x84 said:
There doesn’t need to be. Road to 100%, but I do believe this is the beginning of the end and you will see Sir Jim in majority control of the club inside the next 24 months.
Click to expand...

You do know several people have quoted this post and will hold you to it on 24th December 2025 :lol:
 
DSG said:
I’ve had a lot of experience in acquisitions and limited partnerships. There is a lot of handwringing which really isn’t necessary. The reason the Glazers did it this way is that they didn’t reach their target valuation. Now, we don’t know if the 25% of the voting shares is coming from some of Glazer kids, or if all the Glazers will be diluted. When you realize that 69% of the corporation is owned by the Glazers, obtaining 25% of the company in Class B voting shares is essentially giving SJR full control. It means he’ll have roughly 38% of the voting shares, and he’ll be the largest shareholder.

Most major board level decisions require 66.7% of the shares/board to approve a resolution. When I say “major”, I mean new injection of capital, new shareholders, issuance of new shares, purchase of assets over, say, a certain amount, like 10m. As such, Sir Jim likely has veto power over any resolution raised by the Glazers, because they won’t have the 66.7% to outvote him. That’s why he has operational control. In addition, he’s added another 300m in capital injection commitments, which dilutes the Glazers further, by another 5-6%… meaning he’ll have 30%+ of total shares and 45% (roughly) of the voting shares.

On top of that, he’s committed to buy 25% of the class A non-voting shares @$33 a share. That’s a premium of $13 per share! As this happens, the value of the A shares will go up… and we know there is a vehicle to convert Glazers voting shares to non-voting shares which they can sell on the open market, or Sir Jim also has right of first refusal.

‘Look… the beginning of the end of the Glazers is here. This is a very savvy move by Sir Jim. TheCaf is saying the Glazers are “smart” and Sir Jim is “stupid”. No! This was the only way to get the Glazers out without meeting the undeserved sky high valuations they were demanding.

It’s happening people… the Glazers are on their way out. My guess is that Sir Jim will take full control, and own 51% of the voting shares with 18 month. The Glazers will be completed out, or just a minority shareholder, which is very common in These types of transactions.
Click to expand...
Great post, thank you for taking the time. I have seen acquisitions unfold first-hand so a lot of what you write here not only makes sense, but has some precedent.
 
sullydnl said:
Because INEOS are still directly involved, having assumed responsibilty for football operations at the club. As per INEOS' own statement on Ratcliffe's purchase:



INEOS's two seats on the board going to their Sporting Director and Sports CEO.
Click to expand...

This isn’t raising eyebrows? They are getting involvement and publicity without spending any of the company’s money. Yet the thing Ratcliffe fans boasted about was INEOS’ money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.