I'm not saying they don't want to go or will never go.
All I'm saying is that the agreement allows them to go if they get a full bid of their valuation. Or stay indefinitely. That is what is in black and white, rest is inference.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
All I'm saying is that the agreement allows them to go if they get a full bid of their valuation. Or stay indefinitely. That is what is in black and white, rest is inference.
It’s not stretching though, it’s the obvious conclusion to take from the facts. They have an exit strategy and have stepped away from the club.
That’s extremely positive and it baffles me why people would still moan and call this deal horrendous for the club.
Speak for yourself, I'm omniscient. Though I like to moan for the sake of it.
Anyway, one thing that I like about SJR bid is that he demonstrated flexibility, he put himself in a situation that should allow him to gain full ownership if he wants to. Also one thing that shouldn't be discounted is that INEOS are important actors in the middle east, I don't doubt that they could find investors for United among their current partners in the oil-chemical industry.
Not moaning anymore (mostly
), I'm content for now. Jim having full sporting control is something to definitely look forward to. Also like i said earlier, both Jim and glazers have got themselves a great deal.But there is no obligation to increase/decrease stakes for both parties. Should that even matter to us fans? I guess not, given Jim will be running the sporting side regardless of what % glazers are left with.
Considering how little fuss there actually has been made of PIF owning Newcastle, I'd say nothing will stop Qatar from owning United either. Qatar has already invested heavily in UK and most likely have already develop strong ties with the key players on the political scene. I'd like to think a regulatory would have stopped sovereign wealth funds from owning clubs, then again see City and Newcastle. Not even the loan ban went through.
At least we now have a new piñata to beat up. Tired about moaning about the Glazers. New shiny object now.
He has to get the Sporting Director and new Manager hires absolutely spot on and maybe fund a little of the transfer budget in the summer so that next season is a big improvement. If he gets the first few decisions wrong he will certainly be targeted for criticism.
What's your point exactly? The guy became a billionaire in the possibly most unfashionable industry in the world. Do you think that in 50 years time anyone will remember some guy who made it big in the petrochemical business? Of course not. However if either SJR or INEOS are able to put United back on its feet then that would be the legacy he'll be remembered for. John Henry Davies stumbled into history because of a dog. He's remembered for saving Newton Heath from going bust and in changing the club's name to Manchester United. The Edwards family were into another unfashionable industry (ie meat packaging and processing business), yet everyone remembers the Edwards at United as they were the club owners in one of the most prestigious in the club's history. Meanwhile Knighton is still laughed across the world, decades after his 'show' at OT. It took him just few minutes on the United's pitch to achieve that. A stand up comedian would probably sell a kidney for that.
The popularity and the romanticism surrounding this club makes it so easy for someone who does well to build legacies.
Per the agreement, $300m is earmarked for the stadium but can also be used for other purposes.
It's different when it's Man United.
The major impediment was FFP, which meant Qatar had to go through their plant Jassim, and he royally screwed it up.
I don’t see how they could sack ETH anytime soon. Their entire mandate is to do things differently and to bring about change in the footballing side of things that’s gonna take time, possibly 2-3 seasons time.
In many ways, it probably suits them to retain ETH until the end of the season regardless of how it’s going. It gives them time to really see what is worth keeping and what is worth offloading. It also means they can forget about this nonsense “top 4 target” that keeps leading to knee jerk actions and signings.
Actually have a long term sustainable football policy that doesn’t require an amazing manager to navigate all the dysfunctional sh*te hangover from the yanks.
I really want ETH to turn it around. Who doesn’t love a story of somebody who looked finished and turned it around? I mean how satisfying would it be if ETH was able to slowly turn things around. The potential success is unlimited , especially when you look at him blooding youngsters in a way we haven’t seen in decades.
Peolle want quick fix solutions. People getting hung up on all these wrong records need to take a step back. I honestly didn’t know what it would or will take for the clubs fortunes to change but do we all really expect it to be a linear upward graph simply because United spent money , like they always have?
The optimist in me feels like ETH is literally taking one for the team right now. That the issue isn’t coaching, it’s injuries/fatigue, other dramas , lack of luck and serious pressure all mixed up.
United has not been a club in a position to challange for the league or CL for over a decade. And yet people talk about it as if it should be. United spends money poorly, everybody accepts that and yet they expect United to do better, based on what? It really is like the Gary Neville statement “it’s Manchester United” trumps all facts and evidence that shows United is on average a 5th/4th place team in England and a Europa level team.
That is the truth of United and that’s where we have been.
In many ways, it probably suits them to retain ETH until the end of the season regardless of how it’s going. It gives them time to really see what is worth keeping and what is worth offloading. It also means they can forget about this nonsense “top 4 target” that keeps leading to knee jerk actions and signings.
Actually have a long term sustainable football policy that doesn’t require an amazing manager to navigate all the dysfunctional sh*te hangover from the yanks.
I really want ETH to turn it around. Who doesn’t love a story of somebody who looked finished and turned it around? I mean how satisfying would it be if ETH was able to slowly turn things around. The potential success is unlimited , especially when you look at him blooding youngsters in a way we haven’t seen in decades.
Peolle want quick fix solutions. People getting hung up on all these wrong records need to take a step back. I honestly didn’t know what it would or will take for the clubs fortunes to change but do we all really expect it to be a linear upward graph simply because United spent money , like they always have?
The optimist in me feels like ETH is literally taking one for the team right now. That the issue isn’t coaching, it’s injuries/fatigue, other dramas , lack of luck and serious pressure all mixed up.
United has not been a club in a position to challange for the league or CL for over a decade. And yet people talk about it as if it should be. United spends money poorly, everybody accepts that and yet they expect United to do better, based on what? It really is like the Gary Neville statement “it’s Manchester United” trumps all facts and evidence that shows United is on average a 5th/4th place team in England and a Europa level team.
That is the truth of United and that’s where we have been.
The exit strategy is definitely in there, and they had to put that drag along because no buyer would allow for football operations to be managed by someone else.
However, they had a buyer for 5 billion now and they refused to sell. It points to the fact that they still have that insane valuation they want met, maybe more further down the line. Do we think anyone, barring a nation state, will ever be interested at those valuation levels. There was just Qatar now and I am not sure even they would pony up those numbers.
So the exit plan is there for them in case someone insane comes in to match their valuations, but there is no guarantee they will ever get those met.
Can’t anyone match the highest bid without a clause? Why would The Glazers ever accept a lower bid?
It’s a nothing clause, let’s be honest
Great post. I agree with everything. The [insert manager] in /out shit must stop.
With Sir Jim and Ineos in we can choose to embrace this exciting opportunity, accept things have not been great for years and stand behind the manager and players.
Stop the moaning folks
I imagine they knew this ESL court case was going through and thought if it happened, the club would be worth a few bill more. Taking on Ratcliffe in the short term guaranteed the fee he offered, but also guarantees an inflated fee if the ESL plans pushed the clubs value through the roof. If it doesn’t come to fruition, they’ve still got an out at at least $33 per share.
Haven’t had a chance to review the agreement but there are different types of ROFOs. I suspect the way SJR’s works is that if he matches the offer then they have to sell to SJR, so the clause has teeth. Anyone else coming in wouldn’t have that same benefit, and in any event it’s also easier to sell to an existing shareholder than a third party (for various legal and technical reasons, including in this case that SJR would already have the EPLs blessing).
Bloody brilliant post. Stay here please. We need sanity restored every day not just after a win.
No, I agree about the legacy part, I said that as well. I was replying to the “long term” bit there, it’s unlikely to be a very long term project for him given his age, so he’s going to want to make an impact quite quickly rather than it being a long term build for him.
A billionaire who isnt in a new project to make money?
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.
Everything a Billionaire buys isn't just to make more money, look at Abramovic, they need to enjoy what they have earned sometimes as well.
I have no doubt he wants and intends for the value of his purchase to increase (he'd be stupid not to) but he didn't invest in this club solely to make money like the Glazers did. He did it mainly because he's a Utd fan and a football fan. He bid for Chelsea but it was a bit half arsed, he has jumped through hoops and spent a year trying to get this deal over the line so you can tell he is passionate about this and it's about more than just money.
It's similar to an Art fanatic billionaire owning a Picasso or a car nut Billionaire owning a McLaren F1, they can/will make money on their purchases as their value increases but the main reason they have them is because they love them.
I'm guessing he would get a lot more enjoyment attending and winning big Cup finals as the owner of his boyhood club and making £0 than he would receiving another 40 million in dividends each year that he wouldn't even notice as it gets tacked on to the end of his other 18 billion quid. The glazers on the other hand don't even show up to big games because they don't want to have to spend on travel expenses, this mentality change from wanting to make the most to wanting to win the most will be huge.
Yes and No,Great post. I agree with everything. The [insert manager] in /out shit must stop.
With Sir Jim and Ineos in we can choose to embrace this exciting opportunity, accept things have not been great for years and stand behind the manager and players.
Stop the moaning folks
The clauses basically protect INEOS/SJR/Trawlers in the event that someone comes in now to offer more cash they have first refusal in the first 12 months, to me, that indicates an intent for them to acquire all shares within that 12 months. Deeming the second clause redundant which is...
The Glazers have protected the value of their shares with a clause indicating that within 18 months/3 years they will trigger the purchase of additional shares (full valuation to INEOS) and that purchase must be at least for the $33 per share currently agreed. In addition IF INEOS do not take up that option the Glazers will have the option of selling their shares and INEOS must sell theirs if the club hasn't been fully taken over in the 18month/3 year period.
Essentially they've tied all the loose ends up that ensure Glazers get maximum value and INEOS will be the majority shareholder in due course.
If there's any doubt on that last point, they have already agreed and will have 29% based on their 300m investment AND they indicated in their statement to the fans that they have a long term plan and vision for the club.
I would be amazed if we don't see them gradually buying up shares, much like the Glazers did in their original takeover.
So it seems Glazers do want out, but for now they want Sir Jimmy to improve the footballing side in the hope of raising the value to a point they can sell their shares at a higher value.
Qatar could come back a year from now and offer $40 a share and Jimmy has to match it or sell up.
it’s genius from the Glazers considering they pocket around £900m (dividends for next couple years) right now. And are absolved of any upcoming football failures but will significantly profit from any upturn.
We slander the Glazers a lot and rightfully so. But from a business point of view, the way they used our club is a blueprint for extracting money out of an iconic entity like Utd.
Qatar could come back a year from now and offer $40 a share and Jimmy has to match it or sell up.
it’s genius from the Glazers considering they pocket around £900m (dividends for next couple years) right now. And are absolved of any upcoming football failures but will significantly profit from any upturn.
We slander the Glazers a lot and rightfully so. But from a business point of view, the way they used our club is a blueprint for extracting money out of an iconic entity like Utd.
I look at it as being "One small back step for the Glazers. One giant leap for Manchester United."
We have no real idea what is going to happen going forward but after their sh thouse running of the club I"ll take anything that brings in some type of change.
We have no real idea what is going to happen going forward but after their sh thouse running of the club I"ll take anything that brings in some type of change.
Considering Qatari ones wouldn't raise an offer to their valuation and in reality, were only offering 4bln for the shares I don't think they will be coming back in.
Jimmy is either going to own us outright in 3 years or try to do a deal with any potential new buyers.
Or cash out at a higher rate if potential new buyers offer is good. Which let’s face it anything above $33 a share is good.
Or cash out at a higher rate if potential new buyers offer is good. Which let’s face it anything above $33 a share is good.
Things have significantly changed. It’s clear now Glazers want to go and it’s clear what price will get it done. Variables being how well we perform on the pitch and how much value SJR can add.
But the price is set and so is a timeframe.
Yeah but wouldn’t it be up to the other party to up their offer? The Glazers would just wait and try to bleed every penny out no matter how long it takes as we’ve already seen.
Surely it doesn’t mean if Jim matches it then it stops there and he wins?
It’ll never be a deadlock situation, one party will have to drop out for the Glazers to accept the bidding process is over.
What's the price they want then?
Why couldn't he afford to buy the rest of the shares? Even if the club increases to an unrealistically high figure of £10 billion in 3 years time he would only need around £4.8 billion seeing as though the Glazers only own 49% now (maybe even be less by then). Google says he is worth £18.3 billion as of today and he will have another 3 years of building his own wealth through his business/investments and interest payments to increases that further.
What's that got to do with it? it's not their money.
Trust fund kids.
Without commenting on the contents of the filing - as I haven't read it. The conclusion you're presenting here seems to be that either Ratcliffe buys the club (first refusal) or he makes a small fortune on his shares from someone overpaying for it? Seems like good business to me.
Great post
Maybe it's only me but after taking time to read the whole document, it was in a very bad font, paragraphs etc. I can say it's not as doom and gloom as I thought.
Glazers are definitely going out in 18 - 36 months. Probably why Glazers wouldn't sell to Qatar is the work around 33/per for every single share+debt payment and it fitting on Qatar amount.
Probably Glazers did want to sell outright but it became problematic working out numbers for everyone and Ratcliffe decide to stagger the takeover.
I think, we should accept and see it how it is. This was bigger than our pay grade and we made alot of wild assumptions. Probably a billionaire called Ratcliffe knows what he is doing.
Glazers won't stay for much if they can't control football aspect and Ratcliffe won't carry the Glazers forever while he's making the footballing decision and carrying the heat.
It's as positive as it has ever been around the ownership of the club.
Glazers are definitely going out in 18 - 36 months. Probably why Glazers wouldn't sell to Qatar is the work around 33/per for every single share+debt payment and it fitting on Qatar amount.
Probably Glazers did want to sell outright but it became problematic working out numbers for everyone and Ratcliffe decide to stagger the takeover.
I think, we should accept and see it how it is. This was bigger than our pay grade and we made alot of wild assumptions. Probably a billionaire called Ratcliffe knows what he is doing.
Glazers won't stay for much if they can't control football aspect and Ratcliffe won't carry the Glazers forever while he's making the footballing decision and carrying the heat.
It's as positive as it has ever been around the ownership of the club.
It's got nothing to do with a quick fix solution. Don't understand how pro ETH fans keep parroting this line.
It's to do with the Managers performance over a sustained period of time. It's been the case for over 10months.
It's to do with the Managers performance over a sustained period of time. It's been the case for over 10months.
It's a matter of liquidity, he may be worth 18.3bn but he doesn't actually have 18.3bn immediately available, he needs to sell assets or borrow and it's not necessarily a good idea for him to convert his current assets quickly or borrow at rates that aren't optimal.
The biggest takeaways from the SEC filing appear to be:
1. Ratcliffe has right of first refusal on Glazer Class B shares for a year.
2. Glazers can force a sale of Ratcliffe’s share if they can find a buyer for full ownership after 18 months.
So Ratcliffe has a year to make his move if he wants to own the club outright without getting into an open bidding war on the market.
1. Ratcliffe has right of first refusal on Glazer Class B shares for a year.
2. Glazers can force a sale of Ratcliffe’s share if they can find a buyer for full ownership after 18 months.
So Ratcliffe has a year to make his move if he wants to own the club outright without getting into an open bidding war on the market.
Surely the biggest and most powerful one is the Glazers are going to be gone totally in the near future
What I read is Ratcliffe would still get first refusal to match the offer even after 18 months if somebody offered the higher price, but obviously could be priced out of it.
2. And at €33 per share price?
Presume Glazers advisors wanted that in case we do well with SJR/team in… gives them until end of next season
- Status