Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
tenpoless said:
:lol: looks like he is giving 100% effort just to pass the ball. The focus of a shrewd businessman.
Click to expand...
In fairness if the photographer had used a wider angle you'd see our midfield just catching up into shot...
 
Plant0x84 said:
Hang on - is there a difference between 25% of shares and 25% the club? I need another drink…..
Click to expand...

Think this has got us all in our state of Christmas cheer, or Christmas beers is more fitting.

But if you take 25% of 69% and 25% of 31% you get 25% of 100% so I'm going with 25% of all shares made up of 17.25% B and 7.75% A Shares.
 
Giggsyking said:
25% of the B shares (that is ~69% of the club) = 17.25% of the club.
25% of the A shares (that is ~31 of the club) = 7.75% of the club.
in total Ineos will own 25% of the club. With 25% of the power of voting.
Click to expand...
Not quite. The only real power he holds is the 17.25% of B class shares, Glazers will still own over 51% of those important shares so still have full power of ownership
 
r0663664 said:
Why is there so much discussion on the shares he own? Whatever % Glazers still has the final say? Who care if it 5% or 25% or 38%? Frankly speaking buying part of United is dumb decision alone. Only time Glazers will sell if we continue to suck. If Ratcliffe manage somehow turn this club around, Glazers would be more than happy to stick around. Looks like a fan trying to fulfill his fantasy of owning United. Let's see what he can bring to United. Dying to see how our summer transfer would be any different.
Click to expand...
If Ratcliffe is able to turn it round with sporting control the vast majority of fans won't give a feck about the Glazers owning the club
 
George The Best said:
Not quite. The only real power he holds is the 17.25% of B class shares, Glazers will still own over 51% of those important shares so still have full power of ownership
Click to expand...

25% of B shares not 17.25%. They represent 17.25% of the total shares but carry 25% of the voting power.
 
Not quite sure how to greet this news. I always wanted anyone other than the Middle East. However, as track records go Nice are not exactly ripping up the track. Why should we believe in his management? I really& truly hope he is the saviour to rid the club of the rat infestation that is de window installers. As your favourite PM famously said Out, Out, Out.
Fingers crossed for the one and only
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheimoon
I absolutely love this news and as a conclusion to this thread I could not have dreamed it would be this positive. We’re going to thrive from here and we’re doing it with a local owner. UTFR
 
If Ratcliffe has control of the football side that leaves the Glazers in control of the commercial side. If the two conflict then the Chief Executive role will be crucial. If it's a Glazer crony then the problem persists.
 
Finally, we can get rid of the chef who served the raw chicken and not worry whether Ratcliffe would rather bring in his own man.
 
To the tune of Rat Race by The Specials:
Working for Jim Ratcliffe
You took your own bleeding time
Working for Jim Ratcliffe
You're no Sheikh of mine.
 
glazed said:
If Ratcliffe has control of the football side that leaves the Glazers in control of the commercial side. If the two conflict then the Chief Executive role will be crucial. If it's a Glazer crony then the problem persists.
Click to expand...
It's hard to see how this split will work, if it is decided that this will be the relationship between the two groups, surely one will inevitably effect the other to the extent that there's a fall out. You're not generating enough commercial revenue to sign the players we need vs you're not signing the players we need to generate enough commercial revenue.
 
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...
Trying to understand, if Ratcliffe can veto anything major that the Glazers want to do, because they don't have 66.7% of the voting shares, then that should equally mean the Glazers can veto anything Ratcliffe wants to do, because he doesn't have 66.7% either. So how can owning 51% in 18 months be described as taking full control?

What happens normally when two sides of a board disagree, does it just mean no major action can be passed ad infinitum? That seems crazy, I can't get my head round the 66.7% thing I must admit.

edit: also posted in the locked thread, sorry if you've had to read it twice.
 
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...

So the Glazers allowed Ratcliffe to have partial control/all of football ops of the club for all of £1.3billion? Or were they so desperate for some capital injection?
 
To spell this out. We are now circa £1billion more in debt. Ok maybe against a holding company but these are the facts. Why any deal didn’t involve paying the debts off that the Glazers put against the club is beyond me.
 
bstb3 said:
No, no difference in ownership (only voting).

69% of the shares are class B. SJR buys 25% which means he has 25% of those, which are 17% (69% x 25%) of the overall shares.
31% of the shares are class A. SJR buys 25% which means he has 25% of those, which are 8% (31% x 25%) of the overall shares.
17% + 8% means he has 25% of the overall shares.
Click to expand...
Giggsyking said:
25% of the B shares (that is ~69% of the club) = 17.25% of the club.
25% of the A shares (that is ~31 of the club) = 7.75% of the club.
in total Ineos will own 25% of the club. With 25% of the power of voting.
Click to expand...
Thanks chaps, that make perfect sense now I’ve pulled my head out of my ass! (I was forgetting 100% of the Glazers shares is only 69% of the club. Duh)
 
glazed said:
If Ratcliffe has control of the football side that leaves the Glazers in control of the commercial side. If the two conflict then the Chief Executive role will be crucial. If it's a Glazer crony then the problem persists.
Click to expand...

But t he CEO will still report to the Board. How many seats does Ratcliffe has there?
 
Addled said:
Not quite sure how to greet this news. I always wanted anyone other than the Middle East. However, as track records go Nice are not exactly ripping up the track. Why should we believe in his management? I really& truly hope he is the saviour to rid the club of the rat infestation that is de window installers. As your favourite PM famously said Out, Out, Out.
Fingers crossed for the one and only
Click to expand...

Genuinely interested in why you think this.

I mean a change seems good, I suppose, but I am doubtful that Brailsford will do anything much. Who is? Where do they start?
 
It’ll be a disaster this, the Glazers are still calling the shots and have taken this guy for a mug. Sir Jim is already allegedly talking about bringing back Greenwood the wrong un’ sad times and desperate moments
 
Honest to god, I don't know what to think about this. I have seen so many clubs going to toilets, Jugoplastika/Bosna, I just hope that we will move in right direction.
 
Screw the math. Does he have enough football club ownership sense to restructure the leadership, recruitment and all to better match United philosophy or at the very least the kind of style the current manager was brought in to play?
 
sullydnl said:
Regarding the bold, I don't understand what point you are making?

We know INEOS and Ratcliffe are inextricably tied. Thus Ratcliffe's purchase seeing INEOS take control of football operations, with the four seats on our two boards going to John Reece (one of Ratcliffe's two fellow shareholders in INEOS), Rob Nevin (Chairman of INEOS Sport), Dave Brailsford (INEOS Director of Sport) and Blanc (INEOS Sport CEO). We also know that, INEOS aside, Ratcliffe as an individual is extraordinarily wealthy in his own right.

So accepting that people were pointing to INEOS' wealth as a reason Ratcliffe/INEOS could take us to the top, what actual material difference do you imagine there is between INEOS making this purchase and Ratcliffe making this purchase as a mechanism for INEOS to assume control?
Click to expand...
If there’s no material difference why were people so desperate to imagine INEOS money funding everything ? Why did they base their entire justification on INEOS and not Ratcliffe?
 
JediSith said:
If there’s no material difference why were people so desperate to imagine INEOS money funding everything ? Why did they base their entire justification on INEOS and not Ratcliffe?
Click to expand...

Presumably because INEOS were the wealthier entity, INEOS would be the ones taking operational control of the football side of the club and Ratcliffe's own wealth is inextricably linked to INEOS?

Put it this way: if they had known this would be the arrangement at that time, why wouldn't they still have taken INEOS' wealth into account? It remains a central reality to this arrangement.
 
Forget about the money and share. Let's focus on getting rid of those idiots that cause us a decade of catastrophic failure. Then focus on establishing a proper football structure like any other club.
 
Yakuza_devils said:
Forget about the money and share. Let's focus on getting rid of those idiots that cause us a decade of catastrophic failure. Then focus on establishing a proper football structure like any other club.
Click to expand...

By all accounts we were in the process of restructuring under Arnold
 
So now people do not care that there is no defined path to majority ownership (let alone a 100% one), and they are happy with this outcome? Basically indifferent to the fact the Glazers can stay on indefinitely, no idea about what will happen to the crippling debt, how will new investment happen? All because we are now partially owned by a “local lad”?

I was fine with SJR beating Qatar as long as he had a defined path to at least majority ownership. However people treating this as a win and thinking since he has control of the footballing side would mean the whole Board will be focused on making us a footballing powerhouse again are just deluding themselves. Glazers will always put commercial over football and they still own 72% of the voting rights, thus can basically do as they please at the Board level, including deciding our transfer kitty every window.
 
Once this club starts to be run properly you will be astounded at how successful we are going to be.
 
NK86 said:
So now people do not care that there is no defined path to majority ownership (let alone a 100% one), and they are happy with this outcome? Basically indifferent to the fact the Glazers can stay on indefinitely, no idea about what will happen to the crippling debt, how will new investment happen? All because we are now partially owned by a “local lad”?

I was fine with SJR beating Qatar as long as he had a defined path to at least majority ownership. However people treating this as a win and thinking since he has control of the footballing side would mean the whole Board will be focused on making us a footballing powerhouse again are just deluding themselves. Glazers will always put commercial over football and they still own 72% of the voting rights, thus can basically do as they please at the Board level, including deciding our transfer kitty every window.
Click to expand...

Agree. It is an outcome that could potentially spawn yet more pitfalls.

What is going to happen to infrastructure improvements such as Stadium and training facilities and why would Ratcliffe fund those to improve the assessment and raise the overall value of the club with the Glazers doing jack?

There has to questions answered and I expect the M.U.S.T and certain journalists to ask those questions.
 
Yorke to Cole said:
What is going to happen to infrastructure improvements such as Stadium and training facilities and why would Ratcliffe fund those to improve the assessment and raise the overall value of the club with the Glazers doing jack?
Click to expand...
As reported today, as SJR invests in the club he is compensated with further shares. It’s in his interest to invest in infrastructure if he wants to build his shareholding and take majority control of the club.
 
While I do think aspects of the football side of the club will greatly improve, the level of investment required to close the gap on City just isn't there unfortunately. We will forever regret turning our noses up at Qatar.
 
Blood Mage said:
While I do think aspects of the football side of the club will greatly improve, the level of investment required to close the gap on City just isn't there unfortunately. We will forever regret turning our noses up at Qatar.
Click to expand...
Agree but *we* didn't do shit. Didn't even get a vote. Glazers did what they wanted to do. Fans never mattered
 
Status
Not open for further replies.