Ratcliffe can match any offer and even if he can’t, he can sell along with the Glazers at a higher price than he paid, so he doesn’t lose anything.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
His 5b included debt and infrastructure meaning the glazers were getting 3.4b - that is why they didn’t accept.
God only knows. He keeps talking about being here for the long term. He also offered the biggest bid for the club and he showed great versatility in modifying the bid time and time again. That suggest that he really wants the club.
Having said that the possibility of a sovereign fund is there. The way United was put for sale was amateur at best. The Glazers chose to sell
a- with no head start that they wanted to sell. Qatar and Saudi had already bought clubs which disqualified them from buying another club up till UEFA changes its rules
b- in the middle of a recession when interest rates are at the roof. That crippled the typical US buyer
c- At a time when Russia was plagued by sanctions. That kicked all Russian Oligarchs out of the scene
This time round everyone knows that United might be on the market in 18 months time and has a good idea of how much it would cost.
Legacy
He’s 71
After considering Ratcliffe's angle here a little bit more, I'm starting to come around. At first, it felt like the provisions in the deal were mostly favourable to the Glazers.
However, from Ratcliffe's point of view, it works because:
It's a guaranteed "no loss" investment for him for the duration of the drag-along rights. Which is about the best you can hope for in this current climate. But, more importantly, with the rights to operating the football club, it means that he's buying himself time to right some of the wrongs the Glazers have made over the past decade. And, in doing so, presumably significantly increasing the value of the club along the way.
To me, it still feels like an inherently short term move from Ratcliffe. But one that's likely to result in signficant profits because 1) they will absolutely improve the day-to-day running of the club and 2) the "football market" is still very much trending up, despite the macro economic factors.
But I don't see any obvious route to full ownership for Ineos. Hopefully I'm wrong, though!
Maybe. But after thinking about a bit more, I think it's mainly an investment. A short to mid term investment, at that. See my most recent post just above.
Maybe the legacy thing factors in, though. I'm in no position to say.
Well done.
I’m not sure what some posters don’t understand it’s written in black and white legally filed documentation with the SEC in plain English.
As mentioned
300m includes additional shares taking him up to 29%
18 months time SJR has first refusal on any additional shares purchased even if someone like Qatar comes in with a massive offer he can match it and win.
Glazers plan is to be out within 3 years, unilateral agreement on terms of sale, SJR must make an offer for all shares within 18 months , otherwise club can be sold to another group but SJR will have first refusal. In addition the offer for remaining shares if offered must be at current price 33 per share.
It’s right there in front of you and you lot still refuse to believe there’s a roadmap to full sale.
It’s got to be stubbornness.
As mentioned
300m includes additional shares taking him up to 29%
18 months time SJR has first refusal on any additional shares purchased even if someone like Qatar comes in with a massive offer he can match it and win.
Glazers plan is to be out within 3 years, unilateral agreement on terms of sale, SJR must make an offer for all shares within 18 months , otherwise club can be sold to another group but SJR will have first refusal. In addition the offer for remaining shares if offered must be at current price 33 per share.
It’s right there in front of you and you lot still refuse to believe there’s a roadmap to full sale.
It’s got to be stubbornness.
Well it was a genuine question because telegraph are reporting something along the line of Glazers being able to sell Ratcliffes shares on his behalf after 3 years.
@TheReligion can also elaborate on his blunt “no” should he wish
I've not read the 250+ pages yet. But from what's being reported, I've seen no reporting that's suggested the deal comes with an obligation to purchase all shares within any time frame, nor that "The Glazers plan is to be out within 3 years, unilateral agreement on terms of sale".
But that's very interesting.
Can you please reference the relevant part of the document so that I can verify the details of this?
PS: You got the 18 months wrong. It's 18 months "drag along" for the Glazers. Ratcliffe's first refusal right to the Glazers' b-shares is 12 months.
Last edited:
Time to get lean and mean!
That's not what The Telegraph are reporting. They are saying that for 18 months from the date the transaction is completed, the Glazers can force Ratcliffe to sell his shares to any third party, as long as the offer is above the $33 per share Ratcliffe is paying for his shares.
Ratcliffe, on his side, has first refusal to any of the Glazers' b class shares during the first 12 months after the transaction is completed. Which means that if the Glazers want to sell any of those, Ratcliffe can buy them as long as he matches the offer of any third party.
The Glazers won’t be resuming control as you suggested. The drag along rights mean that SJR would have to sell his share should a full offer for the club come in after that point of a suitable value. SJR would also have first option to meet the value.
It’s blatantly obvious the Glazers want to go in full.
71 is the new 41.
Imagine if they've partnered with INEOS to sort out the sporting side of things before a full on sale to Qatar/State in 3 years time
Would be typical of the Glazers. The fact that's even in the contract is so fecking bizarre
Would be typical of the Glazers. The fact that's even in the contract is so fecking bizarre
i think it’s very clear now the Glazers won’t be staying and want to go…
Everyone should be delighted
Will this stop you moaning?
Agree! But do you feel like there's anything coming out here that suggests it will be Ratcliffe/Ineos who completes a full purchase?
It appears more like a classic quid pro quo of bringing in outside help to pump up the value of the asset before trying again with a full sale.
The Glazers want to sale but there is always the possibility that not all of them want out. I three years time, given our issues there chance that the club's valuation would have risen to 7b - 10bn is very low so a deal is likely to be concluded at 6b - 7b.
Sir Jim was bidding for majority control, his business dealings show that he doesn't mind joint ventures and other collaborations. Joel and Avram didn't want out and thats why he had to go down this route. What I think will happen is that he will buy out the other four within three years and continue owning the club with Joel and Avram. To do this he won't need to part with an outrageous amount.
The oil states that looked to have an interest in football already own other clubs. Maybe the Qataris have requested a bit of time to get out of PSG but that's unlikely given how abrupt the bidding process ended. Which state is there that is rich enough but hasn't bought a club and has the vanity to want to be involved in United I three years time? Dubai don't seem rich enough and would they have the appetite to take on their cousins who bailed them out during the financial crisis?
The valuations being touted by the Glazers make a PE takeover unrealistic because if you take the club at 6b - 10b as they seem to expect is there any prospect for growth to make it profitable? I don't think a full sale is on the cards as many think but it's just the Glazers keeping their options open should a buyer turn up. My money is on SJR buying out the four who want out and/or getting majority control via the stadium upgrade.
Ok thank you best friends
Yes, hopefully it’s been put in place with the idea that Ratcliffe will complete a full buyout in the next couple of years
I’m just slightly concerned of the prospect of United finally becoming title challengers again under Blanc and co, just for the Glazers to then receive a huge offer from a Todd Boehly which means Ratcliffe is forced to sell too
Only if the price is right.
A lot of the moaning around this deal, and comments like ‘this is the worst deal possible’ were wrong though. There is actually a pathway for INEOS to take over in full and it’s now very clear that the Glazers want to go within the next few years.
It’s actually a great outcome.
They have included the drag on clause because they don’t want to be here otherwise why bother.
They’ve given up sporting control, 25% and offered first refusal, along with more shares to match investment.
I mean it’s obvious they are gradually stepping away but wanted to maintain the chance of a big sale in the future.
Those trying to slag the SJR deal off and brand it the worst thing for the club now look like morons.
What's that pathway? I don't see any obvious pathway, which is what I've written in my previous comments.
If anything, the likeliest outcome here is that no full sale is completed by the time the drag along expires 18 months after the completion of the deal. Which sets the stage for a prolonged power battle between Ratcliffe/Ineos and the Glazers.
The narrative that ratcliffe has now given the Glazers some financial oxygen to survive for another 2yrs makes sense now.
Surviving on £900million fr the next 2-3 yrs before possibly a much bigger payday then
Which is pretty much what the Glazers were looking for - a way to split up with the wantay foursome that ensures that they aren't screwed on the variation and what SJR had bid, majority control with Joel and Avram staying, and had it not been for the minority shareholders who threatened to sue that is the deal they would have agreed.
Where he outsmarted Jassim was that he read the underlying situation accurately and was able to vary the terms of his proposal to buy time and silence the minority shareholders. I wouldn't be surprised if he isajority owner by the end of 2024. Joel and Avram get to stick around and wait for their streaming and super league holy grail.
Yah but the Glazers will be gone… they are going…
Dubai's ICD fund is big enough to take on United, but they don't invest big in sports and there's nothing to suggest that it will change in the foreseeable future. Maybe Qatar will continue to sell of their stake in PSG (sold 12,5% this month) and come back with QSI the next time.
Well the pathway is he can have first refusal to match a bid?
It also seems clear he’ll get more shares with further investment.
What they've added in the agreement allows and ensures that glazers don't get strung up if an eventual buyer comes up looking for a full buyout. It's stretching it to infer that means they want to go. There is also no written obligation for glazers to sell any more stake, so no pathway for INEOS full takeover either.
Interesting take. You may well be on to something. And I hope you're reading it right!
I think that would be a great outcome for the club, if it transpires.
I think pictures maybe required
QSI without the cover of a Jassim like figure would just be too toxic and I suspect it wouldn't get the regulatory approval. Qatar can freely buy into Spurs or any other club but I don't think they will be freely accepted at United. The political storm just won't be worth it in my view.
It’s stretching to say the Glazers want to go?
They’ve just given 25% of the club up, immediately relinquished ALL sporting control AND have included options to match a full bid AND drag on SJR if he doesn’t want to sell in full with them.
I mean its in black and white. They have got a full exit strategy.
Nobody wanted that. Don’t create a strawman. Most fans I know supported the Qatar bid because they promised to write-off the 1b debt which is like a weight tied to our leg and they also promised to invest an additional 1b in infrastructure. Sir Ratcliffe gave no such assurances (although he has since promised to invest 300 million). There was nothing wrong with wanting those things for the club and we had no other options. Only somebody from the middle-east could afford to blow so much money on a vanity project.
Either way, I am satisfied although I was anti SJR. At least some thing is changing and I hope that brings better days. The status quo is unbearable. The Glazers have to be the most inept owners for a club in the history of football (barring probably the chicken owners from my country).
Maybe for a very young minority, but for most it was about getting the Glazers out and investment in the club. Simple as that.
But it looks like Sir Jim is coming prepared with a plan and a vision, and I for one look forward to seeing what the future brings with him calling the sporting shots.
We all want the club to be the best it can be after all.
If I take one thing from this thread it’s:
Nobody here knows what the feck they are on about and just like to moan for the sake of it.
Nobody here knows what the feck they are on about and just like to moan for the sake of it.
J and A are totally committed to United, they just don't have the buy-in of their siblings and certainly not the money to buy them out. SJR solves these issues and absolves them of any responsibility for any failures on the pitch. Having got over 500m now, which is close 100m each, the two now have the means to hold on even without dividends so they can ride on SJR's investments and effort for a long time.
- Status