Club Sale | It’s done!

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

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.

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

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

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.

I’m getting this from the sky sports summary. So yeah they could have missed that bit.

What I understood it as is the glazers telling Ratcliffe to meet their asking price in 12 months before something else changes like a more lucrative TV deal or a European super league.

 

[didz]

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.

I think this is a great post, but unfortunately we are Manchester United, so people will keep telling us that we are because reasons.

Massive pay packets aside, it must be so disheartening playing for us, when you know that nothing you do will ever be good enough until we're convincingly winning multiple major titles, and you also know firsthand that there's a very long way to go before that point is anything but a pipe dream.

I don't really know how you fix a problem like that. Hopefully the new guys have some ideas!

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

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

I think they are looking at the next TV deal, which is the biggest revenue bump and deciding factor for club valuations. Also interest rates being brought down globally might unearth new buyers that weren’t around for this round of bidding.

 

[clarkydaz]

I think they are looking at the next TV deal, which is the biggest revenue bump and deciding factor for club valuations. Also interest rates being brought down globally might unearth new buyers that weren’t around for this round of bidding.

The next TV deal is years away now though isnt it, maybe they thought there was a chance with the superleague still

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

I think they are looking at the next TV deal, which is the biggest revenue bump and deciding factor for club valuations. Also interest rates being brought down globally might unearth new buyers that weren’t around for this round of bidding.

Thought we’d just had TV deal (reduced)?

Rates should come down but it’s predicted to be 2-3 years before anything of note (i.e. 1% or more) especially in UK. Not sure that’ll impact on buyers in coming 18 months unless select Middle East buyers where rates don’t come into it (as much).

Think it’s just Raine covering their massive fee to show they added something to the equation. If superleague resurfaced

 

[devilish]

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.

Well it depends

a- I met my share of rich people and all of them think they will last forever.

b- each person is different. I once listened to an old interview of SJR (it was over an hour long and had little to do with football) and he strikes me the kind of person who loves turning poorly run business into successful ones. That's his niche and what truly excites him as opposed to let's say Berlusconi who was all about instant success

c- Legacy can outlast the owner. Take the Agnellis as an example. In 1923 Eduardo Agnelli wanted to strengthen his family business reputation outside Turin and thought he could achieve it by buying a then relatively small club in the city and transform it into a juggernaut. That club is known as Juventus and is possibly the earliest and most successful form of sportswashing in football history. The Agnellis became such a household name that even Mussolini couldn't toy with them too much and they went on surviving the WW2 onslaught despite FIAT being pretty involved in producing tanks and airplanes for the regime. The family owns Juventus till this very day. This sort of soft power can play an important role in giving INEOS a more 'modern' and 'likeable' image. That's something Ratcliffe had been working hard upon by financing Team Sky and holding a stake in Mercedes two of the 'sexiest' brands in sports. As I said before, INEOS might be a juggernaut but its in a dull industry. The average guy know of INEOS because of its association in sports.


There again SJR might easily be working behind the scene to take United on a solid footing, possibly win a couple of trophies in the process only to then sell his stake for a neat profit. Which is why this deal is so attractive for INEOS and the Glazers. It gives them options.

 

[Loon]

Well, at least this information will mean there'll be no more people saying the man spent over a billion and has no control like he's some kinda mug.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Well it depends

a- I met my share of rich people and all of them think they will last forever.

b- each person is different. I once listened to an old interview of SJR (it was over an hour long and had little to do with football) and he strikes me the kind of person who loves turning poorly run business into successful ones. That's his niche and what truly excites him as opposed to let's say Berlusconi who was all about instant success

c- Legacy can outlast the owner. Take the Agnellis as an example. In 1923 Eduardo Agnelli wanted to strengthen his family business reputation outside Turin and thought he could achieve it by buying a then relatively small club in the city and transform it into a juggernaut. That club is known as Juventus and is possibly the earliest and most successful form of sportswashing in football history. The Agnellis became such a household name that even Mussolini couldn't toy with them too much and they went on surviving the WW2 onslaught despite FIAT being pretty involved in producing tanks and airplanes for the regime. The family owns Juventus till this very day. This sort of soft power can play an important role in giving INEOS a more 'modern' and 'likeable' image. That's something Ratcliffe had been working hard upon by financing Team Sky and holding a stake in Mercedes two of the 'sexiest' brands in sports. As I said before, INEOS might be a juggernaut but its in a dull industry. The average guy know of INEOS because of its association in sports.


There again SJR might easily be working behind the scene to take United on a solid footing, possibly win a couple of trophies in the process only to then sell his stake for a neat profit. Which is why this deal is so attractive for INEOS and the Glazers. It gives them options.

Yeah all great points

 

[reddev3]

Trust fund kids.

I still don't know what that has to do with it though. Do you really think Jim wouldn't spend his own money on something he really wanted in his twilight years because it meant his kids would have little bit less to fritter away on hookers and blow?

He doesn't owe them anything and even if he did there would still be more money left over for them do anything they could imagine in their lifetimes if he chose to purchase Utd, even at £10 billion valuation.

It's pretty clear that if he wants total control of the club he can have it in the next 3 years or so.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Why do people talk about Ratcliffe as if he's 90? He just turned 71, appears to be in good health, and has access to the best care money can buy. Chances are good he'll be around for a while still.

He also looks to be in significantly better shape than 63-year-old Avram Glazer.

 

[Red Dreams]

United is his passion.
He is a fan like the rest of us who grew up supporting our club.
The difference is he has the money to buy the club.
We really dodged a bullet with the Qatar bid failing.

 

[devilish]

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.

Very few managers survive a takeover and the reason is quite easy to understand. New owners mean new people and it usually translates to a drastic move of goalposts. Many rightly point out the absence of top football people who can help ETH in terms of transfers. There again such absence made it easier for ETH to persuade people to get him the players he wanted. That will probably end if Mitchell or/and Ashworth end up Sporting director/DOF/Head of recruitment. Also note that certain people might be more comfortable working with certain people then others. Ashworth had previously worked with Potter and is doing very well with Howe while Mitchell like working with Pochettino. An established relationship is highly desirable in two, very similar roles, that live in symbiosis with one another. The last thing a decent DOF would want is to bring players in only for the manager to refuse playing them. That's something Murtough is quite specialized in (VDB, Fred etc)

 

[Revan]

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.

Where does this comes from? From everything I've seen is that SJR has a first refusal for the first 12 months (essentially, if Glazers want to accept a bid, they are obligated to accept the same bid from SJR if he decides to match it), and Glazers can force SJR out within the first 18 months as long as the price is higher than $33/share.

I think the first refusal does not mean much. Glazers are going to accept the highest bid anyway if they decide to sell. Just that in case of equal bids, SJR gets the club.

 

[reddev3]

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.

Where did I say he did? The poster said he couldn't afford to buy the Glazers out in 3 years time if the Valuation hit £10 billion and I said he easily could. Liquidity isn't an issue if he's buying something 3 years in the future as he has ample time to plan and prepare as well as 3 more years to build his wealth through any investments and INEOS.

 

[RedDevilUnited369]

What's the price they want then?

something competitive over $33 a piece.

 

[bosnian_red]

Where does this comes from? From everything I've seen is that SJR has a first refusal for the first 12 months (essentially, if Glazers want to accept a bid, they are obligated to accept the same bid from SJR if he decides to match it), and Glazers can force SJR out within the first 18 months as long as the price is higher than $33/share.

I think the first refusal does not mean much. Glazers are going to accept the highest bid anyway if they decide to sell. Just that in case of equal bids, SJR gets the club.

Yeah pretty much that, if whoever bids above 33$ per share for the whole club, SJR can match it to get the club or is forced to sell, which is pretty much common sense anyway. It's a 1% advantage for him in the bidding wars to come.

 

[Marcelinho87]

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.

I am going to go out on a limb and say it was SJR that pitched the idea to them and the tampa goons all clicked together and saw it for the genius move it is.

No way do I attribute them to anything genius, they have made money but because of the powerhouse we are not because of their business acumen

 

[spwd]

something competitive over $33 a piece.

So we don't know the price then..

 

[Spoony]

Where does this comes from? From everything I've seen is that SJR has a first refusal for the first 12 months (essentially, if Glazers want to accept a bid, they are obligated to accept the same bid from SJR if he decides to match it), and Glazers can force SJR out within the first 18 months as long as the price is higher than $33/share.

I think the first refusal does not mean much. Glazers are going to accept the highest bid anyway if they decide to sell. Just that in case of equal bids, SJR gets the club.

What's Ratcliffe getting out of it then?

 

[MDFC Manager]

What's Ratcliffe getting out of it then?

Substantial profit if he chooses not to match any full buyout bidder.

 

[sullydnl]

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.

This is true.

Though with INEOS taking control of football operations as is and one of INEOS' co-owners (himself worth a reported $7.7b) reportedly being appointed to United's PLC board, it wouldn't be overly surprising if it's not just left to SJR to finance a full buy-out. The fact that they haven't financially invested in this arrangement doesn't preclude them from doing so when the opportunity for full control arrives.

 

[Offsideagain]

The current shareprice is $20.40 per share, a long way from the $33 Ineos is paying the Glazers and Class A shareholders for the 25% stake in the club. I think the 'no dividends for three years' will prevent any hostile moves on the shares but who knows. No mention has been made about the current debt as far as I can see.The reported £250m to 'refurbish' OT will be a patch and mend job when a complete new stadium is needed. Fees alone would be 10's of millions. Reckon the rest would rewire the place and fix the roof and stick some fancy cladding around the outside. One thing is for sure, we won't be buying overpriced bang average players again or old knackered guys looking for a last pay off, not with this Ineos team in charge. They will look at all the jobs and decide if they are all necessary or need to be full time. I predict a boardroom falling out within two years too. Why?. Well the majority owners won't like being told stuff by the minority owners especially if it costs them money. I personally would have liked the full sale option, new stadium and no debt but will have to settle for this.

 

[Revan]

What's Ratcliffe getting out of it then?

Pure guess but he just bought 25% of shares, and his 300m investment is gonna give him another 4% or so. I assume he is gonna gradually buy the stocks available in exchange, and is gonna try to buy the shares from the remaining Glazer siblings.

The Glazers are not necessarily a unified block, so some of them might be willing to sell soon. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that there will be many other involved parties (we saw only Qatar being interested), and the value of the club significantly increasing is very low.

So I guess he is gonna try to improve the club by having sporting control, and build relationships with the Glazer siblings so he can increase his shares if/when they decide to sell. Of course, if Qatar comes back with an 8 billion offer or so, then he will be forced out of the club but actually gain profit from his shares.

It is not an ideal scenario, but it probably was either this or continue with Glazers further destroying the club.

 

[devilish]

Where does this comes from? From everything I've seen is that SJR has a first refusal for the first 12 months (essentially, if Glazers want to accept a bid, they are obligated to accept the same bid from SJR if he decides to match it), and Glazers can force SJR out within the first 18 months as long as the price is higher than $33/share.

I think the first refusal does not mean much. Glazers are going to accept the highest bid anyway if they decide to sell. Just that in case of equal bids, SJR gets the club.

I have to disagree.

a- The Glazers has shown that they are thin skinned nepo babies who would mix emotions with business. The way they shut down prospective buyers because they made them look bad or the knee jerk reactions on everything (+ the Greenwood's mess, panic buys etc) show that. Ratcliffe will be working with these people now so plenty of eggs are bound to break in the process. The last thing SJR would need is having the Glazers sell to someone else simply because SJR was mean to them.

b- As this deal kind of showed, the Glazers can get very creative when they want something really bad. What's stopping them from making a deal with let's say Jerry Jones for less money if that means they get a stake in the Dallas Cowboys? What if a El Thani came in offering them a side deal in Qatar in exchange for them selling at a lower price? That would screw Ratcliffe up (imagine if the Glazers accepted a 33 dollar per share when every share is worth 40 dollars) which might be exactly what the Qatari royal family might want having been outwitted by SJR twice.

What that clause show is that Jimmy doesn't trust the Glazers.

 

[devilish]

Pure guess but he just bought 25% of shares, and his 300m investment is gonna give him another 4% or so. I assume he is gonna gradually buy the stocks available in exchange, and is gonna try to buy the shares from the remaining Glazer siblings.

The Glazers are not necessarily a unified block, so some of them might be willing to sell soon. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that there will be many other involved parties (we saw only Qatar being interested), and the value of the club significantly increasing is very low.

So I guess he is gonna try to improve the club by having sporting control, and build relationships with the Glazer siblings so he can increase his shares if/when they decide to sell. Of course, if Qatar comes back with an 8 billion offer or so, then he will be forced out of the club but actually gain profit from his shares.

It is not an ideal scenario, but it probably was either this or continue with Glazers further destroying the club.

Jimmy can't buy more class A shares unless all the goblins agree to that sale.

 

[Revan]

Jimmy can't buy more class A shares unless all the goblins agree to that sale.

All of them? I believe with 67% of the votes, the club can change anything. SJR is already the majority shareholder, so if another 4 of the Glazers agree to sell to him, he will have over 2/3 of the votes even if Avram/Joel do not want to sell. Isn’t more like if class A shareholders sell stocks to entities who are not class A shareholders, then the stocks get converted to class B. But SJR is already a share A shareholders so it is more similar to one of Glazers selling to another Glazer (which means that the stocks remain share A).

I might be wrong though, as I said, mostly guessing and trying to make 2+2 together, and still did not read the full new status.

 

[Plant0x84]

Can we kill the narrative that this initial $300m is all that will be spent on OT? It’s plainly ridiculous.
Let’s just wait a few weeks more until the deal is ratified and hear what they plan when they are allowed to talk in detail!

 

[DownRiver]

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.

This who drag along clause is great for United fans and long term stability of the club.

We will either have Ratcliffe make a move in the next couple years to buy the club, or the Glazers will sell the whole club to someone else. Even if Ratcliff buys majority 51% share of the club will not suit the Glazers, as no one will buy the rest of their shares if they can’t get B shares for no football control.

It seems that the selling of the whole club will be forced somehow and I am all for that. In the mean time, hopefully the football side will be sorted by then.

 

[Redstain]

So Ratcliffe will be forced to match a rival offer in the next few years or he will be forced to sell his shares to someone else. Sounds like the Glazers have got themselves a great deal in the short-term with the potential of a bigger offer to come from Ratcliffe or elsewhere.

Exactly, all it's done is given them time while the clubs value appreciates which is in line with their prediction of the revenues for 2027.

 

[devilish]

All of them? I believe with 67% of the votes, the club can change anything. SJR is already the majority shareholder, so if another 4 of the Glazers agree to sell to him, he will have over 2/3 of the votes even if Avram/Joel do not want to sell. Isn’t more like if class A shareholders sell stocks to entities who are not class A shareholders, then the stocks get converted to class B. But SJR is already a share A shareholders so it is more similar to one of Glazers selling to another Glazer (which means that the stocks remain share A).

I might be wrong though, as I said, mostly guessing and trying to make 2+2 together, and still did not read the full new status.

That's what the muppetiers said, unfortunately and he is more pro ineos than Ratcliffe

 

[Loon]

How much could the club's value increase in 18 months?

 

[Redjazz]

Where does this comes from? From everything I've seen is that SJR has a first refusal for the first 12 months (essentially, if Glazers want to accept a bid, they are obligated to accept the same bid from SJR if he decides to match it), and Glazers can force SJR out within the first 18 months as long as the price is higher than $33/share.

I think the first refusal does not mean much. Glazers are going to accept the highest bid anyway if they decide to sell. Just that in case of equal bids, SJR gets the club.

No. The club can not be sold in the first year. If its sold within 3, then JR would, at the very least, gets his money back.
The time restrictions are there to protect his investment. They don't speak to the Glazers intentions.
The ROFO stuff relates to B shares and is open ended, It gives either party (JR or the Glazers) first call on buying B shares from the other should they wish to sell.
After 18 months, if the Glazers are still in control, they can drag and tag JR in to a full sale if they so wish.

 

[Rood]

Being Xmas and all I have not managed to read many of the details of the deal - has it been clarified which 25% of Glazer B shares are being sold?

Is each Glazer selling part of their shareholding or are specific ones selling all their shares?

 

[TheReligion]

Being Xmas and all I have not managed to read many of the details of the deal - has it been clarified which 25% of Glazer B shares are being sold?

Is each Glazer selling part of their shareholding or are specific ones selling all their shares?

They are all losing a portion each I believe

 

[Josep Dowling]

United is his passion.
He is a fan like the rest of us who grew up supporting our club.
The difference is he has the money to buy the club.
We really dodged a bullet with the Qatar bid failing.

Billionaires don’t become billionaires by being nice people. He wouldn’t waste over billion pounds just because he’s a fan. It’s an investment like any other.

 

[AneRu]

Billionaires don’t become billionaires by being nice people. He wouldn’t waste over billion pounds just because he’s a fan. It’s an investment like any other.

He has better options where he can make money, here he will probably maintain his wealth but give himself an unprecedented level of social capital and build a legacy doing something he obviously loves. He won't spend stupid money like Abramovic but he isn't coming in looking to extract value like the Glazers.

 

[TrebleChamp99]

Being Xmas and all I have not managed to read many of the details of the deal - has it been clarified which 25% of Glazer B shares are being sold?

Is each Glazer selling part of their shareholding or are specific ones selling all their shares?

Equal part of all shares.

This thread sums it up excellently, advise everyone to read it.

Glazers are protected over maxiumum value of the shares, SJR is protected as the eventual owner of the club in various ways.

 

[Livewire1974]

2. Glazers can force a sale of Ratcliffe’s share if they can find a buyer for full ownership after 18 months.

Thats generally a standard term, unusual and somewhat odd that it is time limited.

 

[AneRu]

Jimmy can't buy more class A shares unless all the goblins agree to that sale.

The other four goblins want/wanted out and I guess this is the main reason the club got into the strategic review in addition to the need for funding options for the stadium. The need for the stadium is still there, we have wasted another half a billion on rubbish signings so there is still massive work to be done. I don't think the four goblins who want out have changed their minds and I suspect the 12 month clause has them in mind.

Those are the shares that will give SJR a pathway to majority control and I think Joel and Avram will still be with us for a fair bit. This also suits SJR because he never wanted full ownership and it will be cheaper to get control and invest in infrastructure rather than spend 6bn for total ownership and still find yourself laden with a crumbling, dated stadium when you can spend 4bn to get control and 1bn on the stadium.

I think the two goblins will force, from SJR, a concession where their shares will be sold for a higher price later on for them to agree to maintain their siblings' shares as class B after the said transaction. The Glazers, Joel and Avram in particular, preferred INEOS specifically because they weren't interested in a full buyout until they ran into minority shareholder resistence.