Club Sale | It’s done!

[Nori-]

They legally cannot lie on these filings but ok.

You're right about that but you can also leave things out.

Sheikh Jassims party openly said they were stepping away from negeotiations months ago and would only deal with the Glazer family directly.

Assuming thats the case, these would be private discussions, off the record etc.

Things like that are not official, or in filings so do not tell the whole story.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Apparently this investment gives us an incredible amount to spend ffp wise so he’s chatting shit as per usual

(blatantly copied from people who seem to understand the txn/rules. Regarding the monies he’s putting in (subscription) for the second lot of shares, to go from 25% to 29%)….

“the subscription is an allowable form of capital contribution under PL/UEFA rules. Ordinarily, a club is only allowed to take 5M in reportable losses/season (this is, losses arising out of transfers, wages, etc) for the 3 year reporting period, for a total of 15M in losses. However, a club may take up to 35M in losses/yr, if 30M/yr of these losses are covered by an owner's capital injection. Unsurprisingly, the glazers have never done this. As such, on literally the first day of SJR's ownership, we will be able to maximize our FFP potential.”

 

[Solius]

You're right about that but you can also leave things out.

Sheikh Jassims party openly said they were stepping away from negeotiations months ago and would only deal with the Glazer family directly.

Assuming thats the case, these would be privae discussions, off the record etc.

Things like that are not official, or in filings so do not tell the whole story.

Yeah but using that logic I can say there was a third bid that would’ve been for 20bn but they left that out as it wasn’t official. We can only base it on what we’re actually seeing in these filings as anything else is just pointless speculation.

 

[Redjazz]

Proof of funds is a very basic requirement which they couldn’t even fulfill.

Its a customary requirement not a necessary one. At all stages- from the first bid to the last- the Qatar bid was allowed access to diligence material even though they hadn't provided "customary financing commitment letters".

 

[Zen86]

The Qatar bid always seemed a bit suspect. Not that I’m saying it wasn’t serious, but if the Qataris really wanted to buy, they easily have enough weight to do it.

 

[Wumminator]

How many of the posters in this thread are having to delete the Qatari flag from their profiles and quietly hoping this won’t be used to mock them for years?

 

[Loon]

He sure didn't do much blowing out of the water.

 

[Judas]

The Qatar bid always seemed a bit suspect. Not that I’m saying it wasn’t serious, but if the Qataris really wanted to buy, they easily have enough weight to do it.

To me its a simple as that.

 

[Loon]

How many of the posters in this thread are having to delete the Qatari flag from their profiles and quietly hoping this won’t be used to mock them for years?

People who openly supported the Glazers for years have got away with it. Some are still talking cobblers in this thread.

 

[Wumminator]

People who openly supported the Glazers for years have got away with it. Some are still talking cobblers in this thread.

Who?

 

[Cloud7]

How can changes at a failing club be brutal?

They're gonna be publicly flogging Murtough outside OT

 

[Blood Mage]

I think the Qatar bid would have run into too much legal trouble with the PSG situation to be honest. It was obviously a state bid, therefore we would have had the same owners as PSG.

 

[golden_blunder]

It's about managing expectations. If the idea Qatar had a chance lingers, SJR has a certain level of success he has to achieve to stop the "what if" brigade.

Say his idea of success is securing top 4 for the next few seasons, there will be people that say "If we had Qatar, first place would have been the goal"......but because they are being painted as never serious, the bar is "well with the Glazers owning 100% we couldnt even get top 4". Theyre managing expections early on, which isnt a good sign IMO.

You’re overthinking it

 

[Loon]

Who?

I'm sure they know who they are!

 

[Plant0x84]

Funds would have been checked right at the start of the sale process, it's how they funnel out the pretenders from the serious bidders. How would Sheikh Jassims group have got so far with no guarentees of funds? 1 year of negeotiating and the Glazers didn't believe he could pay? I doubt it.

Why would one of the richest oil producing countries in the world (assuming they were financing this) struggle to prove they could cough up £5b?

And if they knew they couldnt buy the club, why pretend you could and embarass yourself? It doesnt add up.

A blatent attempt by the Glazers to win over support for their new business model.

So you are saying the Glazers/club/Raine have falsified a legal document?

 

[Plant0x84]

Yeah but using that logic I can say there was a third bid that would’ve been for 20bn but they left that out as it wasn’t official. We can only base it on what we’re actually seeing in these filings as anything else is just pointless speculation.

Approx. 2.5k pages of it to be fair!

 

[Plant0x84]

He sure didn't do much blowing out of the water.

Plenty of blowing hot air though it seems!

 

[Ish]

Move on, lads. Ffs.

 

[Loon]

I'm looking forward to seeing Ratcliffe give a detailed interview and answer all questions rather than hide away under any clauses.

 

[pascell]

Oh, Ben Jacobs. Give it a rest

Willing to bid more, but pulled out because they felt they were being fleeced/played, that's contradictory to say the least.

 

[UnitedSofa]

The amount of people flat out disbelieving the truth that’s in front of them & calling BS, should be astounding. But it’s not.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Direct quote from the Form TO (for reference, Jassim is described as “Bidder A” in the document):

“Raine indicated to Bidder A that it needed to provide details of its intended financing sources in connection with its acquisition proposal and that its acquisition proposal DID NOT provide the shareholders with sufficient value… Bidder A’s proposal did not provide customary financing commitment letter”

On 3 occasions, Jassim was asked to provide proof of financing. He never did. He also was unwilling to offer parity in price for A and B shares— which the club considered an essential element of any deal

 

[RedDevil@84]

Move on, lads. Ffs.

No no. We need to re-discuss things that were discussed and argued upon, about 1500 pages back.

 

[RedDevil@84]

On 3 occasions, Jassim was asked to provide proof of financing. He never did

Is "trust me bro" not good enough?

 

[Herschel Krustofsky]

Forget Scooby Doo, this whole the last few pages have a distinct wacko / QAnon vibe.

Next folks will be trying to tell me birds are real

 

[Redjazz]

after reviewing the sec papers, looks like the Glazers are desperately want to leave fully only to find there is no feasible offer to go through. Bidder A (SJ) at one point offer 34 for Class B and 24.x for class A and BoD rejected it for the reason of inequality of class A and Class B(possible of litigation)

"Desperately" is a tad strong but the big takeaway from the Sec filings is that their original ambition was for a complete sale of the club. The bid you mention would have yielded them (the Glazers) close to what they required but agreeing such a deal as directors would have inevitably invited A shareholder lawsuits (against them as directors) on the grounds that A shareholders were hugely disadvantaged in the deal. The difference in share price is simply too big.

Looking at these filings in tandem with those issued recently (in particular the governance agreement in the JR deal) you get to see what JR's ambition is wrt to ownership; he wants majority control (50+% voting power) through the purchase of the Glazer's B shares.
The governance agreement speaks to his rights and obligations as both a minority shareholder and as a majority shareholder and the mechanism by which he could become the latter (having first call on Glazer B shares) is also detailed. It's not a clear pathway as neither party needs to get on board.

 

[Wumminator]

Forget Scooby Doo, this whole the last few pages have a distinct wacko / QAnon vibe.

Next folks will be trying to tell me birds are real

People have constantly made themselves look like fools and posted nonsense for thousands of page and now have been irrevocably and forever made to reflect on this fact. However, instead of doing this they are literally having to double down on their nonsense.

It’s actually really interesting,

 

[Sir Matt]

Jassim’s proof of funding: “Trust me, bro.”

 

[Herschel Krustofsky]

People have constantly made themselves look like fools and posted nonsense for thousands of page and now have been irrevocably and forever made to reflect on this fact. However, instead of doing this they are literally having to double down on their nonsense.

It’s actually really interesting,

It’s a really hard read though!!

 

[horsechoker]

Jassim’s proof of funding: “Trust me, bro.”

"you know I'm good for it mate"

 

[jasT1981]

 

[RedDevil@84]

Looks like the bid team has been called to the embassy to talk about the media reports, bringing shame to Qatar.

 

[BarstoolProphet]

I think the Qatar bid would have run into too much legal trouble with the PSG situation to be honest. It was obviously a state bid, therefore we would have had the same owners as PSG.

Which legal trouble? They have managed to portray it that officially QSI and QIA are now two completely separate entities so they could even have used QIA as the front for the bid if they really wanted to. NAK even sits on the UEFA board. Look how easy Ratcliffe has managed to circumvent the ownership rule, by just creating a proxy company.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Clowns… quoting Ben Jacobs.

It’s easy to prove. I await the official SEC letter inviting United to comment on their mistakes and then be punished.


OR… they’re talking sh!t.

One or the other

 

[strandty]

Clowns… quoting Ben Jacobs.

It’s easy to prove. I await the official SEC letter inviting United to comment on their mistakes and then be punished.


OR… they’re talking sh!t.

One or the other

Literally a criminal offence if they’ve not fully disclosed to the SEC or willingly lied. Definitely Qatar trying to save face…or Jacobs just spouting shite.

 

[Revaulx]

Interesting, why would the manager have any say in a long-term facilities planning decision?

Cause we have been awfully run. Hopefully our new structure would tell him to jog on.

One of the few positives of this season has been the successful introduction of academy players into the first team. Surely separating the youngsters’ training facilities from the first team’s would be a retrograde step?

It would make it a lot harder to maintain a consistent footballing “philosophy” across all levels for a start, as the different groups of coaches would be physically separated.

 

[DownRiver]

What are people really doing here?

On one end, a few months ago, Jassim has unlimited money and now, it was all fake and was skint.

You can’t have it both ways, boys.

 

[Ish]

No no. We need to re-discuss things that were discussed and argued upon, about 1500 pages back.

Absolutely. People should get lives.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

It's about managing expectations. If the idea Qatar had a chance lingers, SJR has a certain level of success he has to achieve to stop the "what if" brigade.

Say his idea of success is securing top 4 for the next few seasons, there will be people that say "If we had Qatar, first place would have been the goal"......but because they are being painted as never serious, the bar is "well with the Glazers owning 100% we couldnt even get top 4". Theyre managing expections early on, which isnt a good sign IMO.

I’ve read some utter bollox in my time but this might just take the biscuit.

I’ll see you in the flat Earth thread pal.

 

[Oldyella]

One of the few positives of this season has been the successful introduction of academy players into the first team. Surely separating the youngsters’ training facilities from the first team’s would be a retrograde step?

It would make it a lot harder to maintain a consistent footballing “philosophy” across all levels for a start, as the different groups of coaches would be physically separated.

Totally. There's also the impact of 'togetherness' fostered by all being in the same facilities etc.