Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Theon said:
This was going to my question - couldn’t find an answer online when this was initially announced on Christmas Eve. So the £300m investment will result in new shares being issued for that value? Any idea what ownership % that would take INEOS to if it’s over and above the initial 25%?

Going forward do you know how further investment and dilution would work in practise? Presumably issuing new shares would require Board approval so does that mean it can be blocked by the Glazers - i.e. if INEOS wanted to invest £2bn into infrastructure is that an open pathway to ultimately gaining majority control?
Click to expand...

Anyone know the answer to this i.e. whether SJR is likely to get majority control through further investment and how much autonomy he’ll have in doing this
 
This is the United of old

he has brought the manchester back to Manchester United

thank you
 
Utd heap said:
It's a joy to visit now.

Invest a few quid in the concourse and the roof, that's what we need.

I don't want a 'great facilities' soulless bowl. I've seen Arsenals ground, even Spurs. Don't even mention West Ham.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, but a renovation on par with Madrid is the best of both worlds. You retain the atmosphere and character of the ground while improving on the facilities and functionality, although from what I’ve read it seems Old Trafford would be a nightmare in terms of redevelopment due to the current internal layout.
 
3 years no dividends is amazing, means no money out of the club and indicates a full sale in potentially 3 years (cash in)
 
Theon said:
This was going to my question - couldn’t find an answer online when this was initially announced on Christmas Eve. So the £300m investment will result in new shares being issued for that value? Any idea what ownership % that would take INEOS to if it’s over and above the initial 25%?

Going forward do you know how further investment and dilution would work in practise? Presumably issuing new shares would require Board approval so does that mean it can be blocked by the Glazers - i.e. if INEOS wanted to invest £2bn into infrastructure is that an open pathway to ultimately gaining majority control?
Click to expand...

Yes, the sterling equivalent of 300M dollars would go straight in to the club's cash flow from the proceeds of the sale of new shares.
The number of new shares created will depend on the price per share agreed for that transaction. At, say, a convenient 30 dollars a share, 10m new shares are created meaning total number of issued shares goes from about 165m to 175m. 165/175 (94%) would be the dilution factor- so someone who owned 10% of the club pre issue would own 9.4% after. JR would own about 41m (165/4) of the "old" shares, which when combined with the 10m new shares, would give him about 29% (51/175) ownership.
His voting power would be north of 25% with the exact value determined by the A/B split in the new issue.
So, the size of the investment and the set price per share are key to dilution and ownership for this and any further issue of shares. Parties would have to agree terms and prevailing market condition would play a role.
Most decisions at board level are by majority rule (50+%). Some key decisions require north of 2/3 of the votes, so currently (and even with the 300m dollar equity investment), the Glazer voting bloc would hold sway on little and large. I wouldn't expect too much discord at board level- the hot-button issues that can arise are largely known as is the means by which they can be resolved. We'll just have to see how workable this compartmentalized football operation malarkey is.

There could be an options pathway for JR to acquire further control which might be reflected in an amended articles of association. The legal standing of B shares will need to be altered to accommodate this deal. The devil is in the fine print and all that stuff will be disclosed in due course.
 
There are details in the filing that suggest INEOS has three years to buy the rest of the shares if they don’t they can open them up to other bidders.

It all reads as if the Glazers want to sell the club but no one could afford it and so theu drafted an agreement with INEOS, it’s quite the eye opener , they want to sell the club.
 
Tom Van Persie said:




Click to expand...


Should have scrolled down and wouldn't need to be hopefully. The signs are all there that they are gone and it's simply a matter of time.

Ratcliffe immediately showing that he doesn't suffer fools and isn't where he is through chance.
 
So basically INEOS will need to complete a full takeover within 3 years otherwise the Glazers can resume their control?
 
Plant0x84 said:
Lovely stuff :drool:
Smacks of a sale in all but name. 3 years without control of the football club and I predict the Glazers will be gone.
Click to expand...

I remember the dark days where it was just Wumminator, me, you and a couple of others fighting the good fight against the armies of Qatar. Now look at us, basking in glory.

See you in the ETH threads!
 
Last edited:
TheReligion said:
Very interesting

I wonder if a few may change their opinion on this being the ‘worst deal in the world’ for the club upon reading that..
Click to expand...


It does show that the devil is in the detail. But it has been a long 18 years and I would not blame any fan for worrying that the Glazers will (somehow) hang around forever.
 
Frosty said:
It does show that the devil is in the detail. But it has been a long 18 years and I would not blame any fan for worrying that the Glazers will (somehow) hang around forever.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Some though aren’t worried. They are just overly negative miserable cnuts.

I don’t mind worried Caftards.
 
Good news then about sporting control.

Whether Ineos are competent or not at least the one thing we can say from their time at Nice is they ain't afraid to sack an underperforming manager. None of this humming and hawing and throwing seasons away on failed projects.

And no more untouchable players just because Joel is in love with them.
 
Utd heap said:
It's a joy to visit now.

Invest a few quid in the concourse and the roof, that's what we need.

I don't want a 'great facilities' soulless bowl. I've seen Arsenals ground, even Spurs. Don't even mention West Ham.
Click to expand...

Agreed, all the new grounds look really similar. They're so soulless and dull.

Big Ben Foster said:
I really liked the Sir James Arthur yada yada yada ChemE autocorrect they used to have. Sad they got rid of it.
Click to expand...

"Sir James Arthur" would remind me of that guy who won the X factor a few years ago so hopefully they don't go with that.
 
hobbers said:
Good news then about sporting control.

Whether Ineos are competent or not at least the one thing we can say from their time at Nice is they ain't afraid to sack an underperforming manager. None of this humming and hawing and throwing seasons away on failed projects.

And no more untouchable players just because Joel is in love with them.
Click to expand...
@hobbers in positive post shocker :lol: :wenger:
 
Marcelinho87 said:
He’s already committed more than he’s likely to get in return over the years, Glazers “only” made £160m ish for dividends - he isn’t here to make money.
Click to expand...

A billionaire who isnt in a new project to make money? :lol: :lol: :rolleyes:

The delusion is strong with you. He must be very smart because he is a multi-billionaire. He knows business better than the Glazers because he has built a very successful company etc.

There are always two sides to a coin. I expect him to want to make money. He didnt get to become a billionaire by being charitable or by moving to a tax-free haven.

I have no issues with Ratcliffe making money from his investment, including from dividends. He is a businessman afterall.
 
I hope they rip this club to pieces and start again.

I'd rather they give it a go than carry on with this total mess. They need to strip this backroom and playing side apart from top to bottom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.