So why was the debt the first concern about the glazer takeover and the concern that remained even when United were winning league tittles and CL? Let’s not revise history. The level of debt is a major handicap.
You think it stops at 300m?
Yea I’m not reading all that. As I said, Have a Merry Christmas.
Because I couldn't be arsed reading pages paragraphs upon paragraphs of rules when I know there's posters on here have already done it?
Yep, we had a very clear chance to compete at the top again and rebuild United from the ground up, but now we have to settle for this pile of crap and hope and pray for a miracle.
What is even the point?!
It appears the Glazers were never looking for a full sale bar a ludicrous amount of money. So the Quatar thing isn't worth clinging onto
It’s not guessing, it was common sense. You just chose to ignore it.
Or maybe they just wanted to shut the moaners up at the time
Miguel Delany says: "Ratcliffe has actually been discussing minority since May, when it became apparent Glazers wouldn’t sell Football side will revert to Ferguson/Gill structure - no longer have to run major buys past Glazers. Budget allocated"
Not really. Worst case scenario would have been the status quo, with absolutely no changes to the way the club is run.
Yeah that's a truly fecked thing to write and suggest.
Glad you won't be sick then!
Actually, he's getting equity for that $300mn. Glazers are agreeing to put that money towards the stadium instead of pocketing that amount.
What I’m saying is that the writing is on the wall. The Glazers want to cash in IMHO. Think of it this way… there are these siblings, some of whom have no interest in owning a football club. And when they realize they will need to improve the stadium, meaning capital from their pockets, or loans, they are reluctant to commit. So, obviously, sell the club. But not all siblings agree with the valuation… some want to hold on. Those that don’t can sell to SJR. Or, they can issue new shares which dilutes all shareholders equally.
The club is issuing new shares for that amount - the 300m isn't a transaction between him and the Glazers.
This is how I interpreted it too.
Glazers were on their knees. In one year they would be selling whole club. Now, show goes on.
After reading the official statement from the club, he is obtaining 25% of the B shares — this indicates that he’ll be purchasing directly from the Glazers. They will either be equally diluted or he’ll purchase individually. In addition 25% of the A shares. We don’t know if they will convert to voting shares — I would imagine so. We don’t know the board bylaws. The 300m will be treated as a capital injection most likely, meaning all shareholders will be diluted equally. Also, my guess is that those will also be voting shares… That would give him 31% of the voting shares. I see this as effectively controlling the company.
Skeptics seem to be under the impression that the 6 Glazers are a unified bloc and will maintain control through their combined voting power. Personally I don't think that's the case; like you, I also believe this will give him effective control.
I re-read the official statement. He’ll have 31% of the company and be the biggest individual shareholder by far. It’s an incredibly powerful position. The total outlay initially committed is more like 2b.
