Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oldyella said:
Totally. There's also the impact of 'togetherness' fostered by all being in the same facilities etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Which is why, despite his other failings, I don’t want Ineos to tell him to jog on if he objects to it!

Edit: that doesn’t mean that multiple sites don’t have certain advantages either. One mega-site could be so big that communication between different bits is non-existent anyway. And maybe the women’s team would rather have their own place that they feel belongs to them rather than just being an adjunct to a more high-profile body.
 
Last edited:
Revaulx said:
Yeah. Which is why, despite his other failings, I don’t want Ineos to tell him to jog on if he objects to it!

Edit: that doesn’t mean that multiple sites don’t have certain advantages either. One mega-site could be so big that communication between different bits is non-existent anyway. And maybe the women’s team would rather have their own place that they feel belongs to them rather than just being an adjunct to a more high-profile body.
Click to expand...

Maybe I have read it wrong? The way I read the original post was that a new smaller stadium would be shared between Salford and youth/women's teams but training would be at another larger shared complex.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
I’ve read some utter bollox in my time but this might just take the biscuit. :wenger:

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

"BREAKING: Sheikh Jassim's bid team are now seeking a "corrective statement" from #mufc’s filings."

So it looks like the 'Sheikh Jassim never had the funds' theory is being dealt with quickly and will potentially be corrected.

Now, why would The Glazers and their new partner SRJ release this misinformation right before their deal is concluded? :wenger:
 
Oldyella said:
Maybe I have read it wrong? The way I read the original post was that a new smaller stadium would be shared between Salford and youth/women's teams but training would be at another larger shared complex.
Click to expand...
Oh I see what you mean. I suppose it depends what is meant by “general training”.

I can well believe that Carrington has become too small, but there’s room there for a lot more than just a small shared stadium. I had assumed (based on nothing really) that some training was still going to be based there.
 
Redjazz said:
"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.
Click to expand...
If you read the Bidder A's transaction history, at one point the Raine have given guidance that $35.xx will be accepted for full takeover. This is contray to the media described that the Glazers are asking for the unbelievable amount of EV and they are willing to do a full exit right now.
 
Laurencio said:
Good?

Our biggest mistake the last five years has been not landing Kane, Bellingham and Rice. That the supposed biggest club in England doesn't have any of the top English players is quite disgraceful.
Click to expand...

Yeah the first two of them sting a lot,another case of not having the right people in place when they were available
 
Adisa said:
You’re clutching mate. There has been rumours that Jassim’s bid was all air long before the conflict started. Fecker never even submitted proof of financing. He was a fraud.
Click to expand...

Yeah I remember there being talk of not being able to get validity on Qatari source of funds,seems that was right all along
 
I don't care about the Qatari bid at this point. My interest in them ended the moment INEOS won. However I find it very hard to believe that such bid would reach the latter stages without passing from all the proof of funds hoops first. Raine Group has a reputation to protect and SJR is not that dumb to end up bidding against himself either. If its true then the Glazers ended up the clear winners here. They took INEOS to a massive ride thus forcing them to overspend on a 25% minority stake with no clear path to full ownership
 
devilish said:
I don't care about the Qatari bid at this point. However I find it very hard to believe that such bid would reach the latter stages without passing from all the proof of funds hoops first. Raine Group has a reputation to protect and SJR is not that dumb to end up bidding against himself either.
Click to expand...

Isn't the SEC pretty legit so we can trust that what they say is true? It looks like Jassim didn't provide good enough evidence (maybe he provided something that wasn't up to scratch) so kept getting contacted back with what he needs to send and that kept him in the "process".

Ratcliffe wouldn't have had full knowledge of what the other bids were anyway. And even if there were no other bidders, he wouldn't have been bidding against himself, he'd have been upping the price to something the Glazers see as acceptable to make a deal.
 
devilish said:
I don't care about the Qatari bid at this point. My interest in them ended the moment INEOS won. However I find it very hard to believe that such bid would reach the latter stages without passing from all the proof of funds hoops first. Raine Group has a reputation to protect and SJR is not that dumb to end up bidding against himself either.
Click to expand...

SJR was bidding against the Glazers valuation, not himself.

I can bid for a house and increase that bid twice if the seller doesn’t find my initial offers acceptable, no third party is required.

This is a legal document, let’s stop with some daft conspiracy theory that they have falsified a legal document.
 
devilish said:
I don't care about the Qatari bid at this point. My interest in them ended the moment INEOS won. However I find it very hard to believe that such bid would reach the latter stages without passing from all the proof of funds hoops first. Raine Group has a reputation to protect and SJR is not that dumb to end up bidding against himself either. If its true then the Glazers ended up the clear winners here. They took INEOS to a massive ride thus forcing them to overspend on a 25% minority stake with no clear path to full ownership
Click to expand...
You are not going to file with SEC that a party didn’t provide proof of funding when that party actually did.
Secondly, Raine were not at liberty to disclose how much Jassim actually bid. Also, it’s Raine’s prerogative to wave people through the bidding process.
However, there had been rumors as far back as January that Jassim’s bids were being massaged in the press and the people in the club were bemused. I don’t see what’s so hard to believe.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
SJR was bidding against the Glazers valuation, not himself.

I can bid for a house and increase that bid twice if the seller doesn’t find my initial offers acceptable, no third party is required.
Click to expand...

The Glazers couldn't hold the asset without external investment. That was clear from day 1. United was losing money, we ran out of cash reserves and the interest rates were at the roof. This was a buyer's market rather then a sellers one. By allegedly creating a competition that didn't exist, SJR was literally bidding against himself. Its evident that SJR had overspent on his 25% stake especially since there's no path to full ownership either. I don't want to sound controversial but if this is the truth then the only one mugged are INEOS.
 
Adisa said:
You are not going to file with SEC that a party didn’t provide proof of funding when that party actually did.
Secondly, Raine were not at liberty to disclose how much Jassim actually bid. Also, it’s Raine’s prerogative to wave people through the bidding process.
However, there had been rumors as far back as January that Jassim’s bids were being massaged in the press and the people in the club were bemused. I don’t see what’s so hard to believe.
Click to expand...

If that's the case then the only one being dubbed here is SJR who kept bidding on the assumption that there was competition when it wasn't the case. The guy overspent for a 25% stake in a struggling business with poor infrastructure + whose heavily in debt and he couldn't even get a clear path to full ownership. Meanwhile the clear winners are the Glazers who retain majority ownership, they are not obliged to sell and if they can find a better buyer who offers more money then INEOS then the Ratcliffe can be booted out whether he likes it or not. The Glazers had even saddled the 30m in legal fees on the club to be paid by everybody (including INEOS).
 
devilish said:
If that's the case then the only one being dubbed here is SJR who kept bidding on the assumption that there was competition when it wasn't the case. The guy overspent for a 25% stake in a struggling business with poor infrastructure + whose heavily in debt and he couldn't even get a clear path to full ownership. Meanwhile the clear winners are the Glazers who retain majority ownership, they are not obliged to sell and if they can find a better buyer who offers more money then INEOS then the Ratcliffe can be booted out whether he likes it or not.
Click to expand...
Glazers clearly got themselves a great deal and safety for the future, but I don't think you're right in saying Jim overpaid considering the valuation of the club. Remember, glazers wanted $35+ per share.
 
devilish said:
The Glazers couldn't hold the asset without external investment. That was clear from day 1. United was losing money, we ran out of cash reserves and the interest rates were at the roof. This was a buyer's market rather then a sellers one. By allegedly creating a competition that didn't exist, SJR was literally bidding against himself. Its evident that SJR had overspent on his 25% stake especially since there's no path to full ownership either. I don't want to sound controversial but if this is the truth then the only one mugged are INEOS.
Click to expand...

That’s pure speculation and once again, you’re claiming Raine have lied in a legal document.
It also pretends that a multi billion dollar business has been so easily swindled by the oldest trick in the book.

Neither sounds likely, together they sound like pie in the sky.

The Glazers were never accepting Ineos original offer, it was far far below their valuation.

I guess you’ll hold on to the idea though considering how much you spanked off over Qatar I guess it’s difficult now to accept you, and not Jim, were the one lead on a merry dance.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
That’s pure speculation and once again, you’re claiming Raine have lied in a legal document.
It also pretends that a multi billion dollar business has been so easily swindled by the oldest trick in the book.

Neither sounds likely, together they sound like pie in the sky.

The Glazers were never accepting Ineos original offer, it was far far below their valuation.

I guess you’ll hold on to the idea though considering how much you spanked off over Qatar I guess it’s difficult now to accept you, and not Jim, were the one lead on a merry dance.
Click to expand...

I can't care less about Jassim. SJR, Santa Claus etc. All I care is what is good for the club. Back then there was two options ie one who offered 100% ownership and a debt free club and one that did not. That's what the media (including reputable ones) said and that's what we based our opinions on. If of course the goalposts moved then my opinions would change as well. That's clear as of lately. I fully agree and backed SJR's move for Dan Ashworth, Mitchell etc.

The clear winners here are the Glazers. They got 1B+ for a heavily indebted club with shit infrastructure/squad while still retaining full control over the club. The debt is now INEOS as well, they have to foot the bill for the Glazers legal fees and if they find buyers willing to spend silly money over the club then SJR can either match that or he's booted out. Ah and I almost forgot. In 3 years time they will be asking for dividends again. So I wonder how Sir Jim or any other person can lead a merry dance on that
 
Last edited:
MDFC Manager said:
Glazers clearly got themselves a great deal and safety for the future, but I don't think you're right in saying Jim overpaid considering the valuation of the club. Remember, glazers wanted $35+ per share.
Click to expand...

Chelsea was bought for 2.5b and a 1.75b in pledged investment. They had a better squad then us, a better stadium and they were free from debt (Roman forgave all that). That 1.75b of pledged investment will be pumped into the squad which in turn should increase Chelsea's value. SJR spent 1b for a 25% stake. Our squad is shit, our infrastructure is crumbling and there's no route to full ownership. The club will have to pay the Glazers legal fees, the debt is still there, if in a years time the Glazers are able to find buyers willing to buy the club at a higher valuation then SJR is ready to match then he'll be booted out and in 3 years time the dividends will start again. That doesn't sound to me a great deal.
 
devilish said:
Chelsea was bought for 2.5b and a 1.75b in pledged investment. They had a better squad then us, a better stadium
Click to expand...

Neither of which is true.

“Better stadium”, what the feck? How low will you stoop here? It’s barely fit for use, hence why Roman was prepared to spend massive money to build a new one. The capacity is a mere 40,000 and the 150 year old stadium last got a renovation in 1998.
 
devilish said:
I can't care less about Jassim. SJR, Santa Claus etc. All I care is what is good for the club. Back then there was two options ie one who offered 100% ownership and a debt free club and one that did not. That's what the media (including reputable ones) said and that's what we based our opinions on. If of course the goalposts moved then my opinions would change as well. That's clear as of lately. I fully agree and backed SJR's move for Dan Ashworth, Mitchell etc.

The clear winners here are the Glazers. They got 1B+ for a heavily indebted club with shit infrastructure/squad while still retaining full control over the club. The debt is now INEOS as well, they have to foot the bill for the Glazers legal fees and if they find buyers willing to spend silly money over the club then SJR can either match that or he's booted out. Ah and I almost forgot. In 3 years time they will be asking for dividends again. So I wonder how Sir Jim or any other person can lead a merry dance on that
Click to expand...

Back then that Qatar offer sounded too good to be true, the sheer level of investment they were proposing didn't make sense for a private group. And of course all the papers, even the reputable ones were only reporting what the Jassim bid team said themselves.
 
devilish said:
Does it leak like a sieve?
Click to expand...

In 2016, yes, the press room roof leaked, leaks can be expected to happen on any building that hasn’t been renovated for over 25 years.

In 2023 they had another leak over one of the stands, causing lots of grumbling from Chelsea fans at how desperate they are for a new stadium.

Mate, I work as a carpenter. A new built roof or skylight can sometimes leak within the first five years and the OT one such an overblown crock of bullshit. Utd quickly fixed the leak in the roof but of course they absolutely need to look at the stadium for the future.

However, to make out that Stford Bridge is in any way a better stadium is one of the most stupid things I’ve ever read.. absolutely no one can believe that is true, which makes us wonder where you’re coming from with this. I think we all know.
 
Last edited:
stevoc said:
Back then that Qatar offer sounded too good to be true, the sheer level of investment they were proposing didn't make sense for a private group. And of course all the papers, even the reputable ones were only reporting what the Jassim bid team said themselves.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right, however you can only discuss and build an opinion upon based on the evidence being put forward to you. If the evidence change then your opinion change with it. Honestly the Jassim's bid is irrelevant at this point. Its at par to discussing how United would fare if a consortium built by Bezos and Gates were to buy the club. INEOS are in town and we should focus on their bid and how the club fare under them
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
In 2016, yes, the press room roof leaked, leaks can be expected to happen on any building that hasn’t been renovated for over 25 years.

In 2023 they had another leak over one of the stands, causing lots of grumbling from Chelsea fans at how desperate they are for a new stadium.

Mate, I work as a carpenter. A new built roof or skylight can sometimes leak within the first five years and the OT one such an overblown crock of bullshit. Utd quickly fixed the leak in the roof but of course they absolutely need to look at the stadium for the future.

However, to make out that Stford Bridge is in any way a better stadium is one of the most stupid things I’ve ever read.. absolutely no one can believe that is true, which makes us wonder where you’re coming from with this. I think we all know.
Click to expand...

Fair enough
 
Nori- said:
"BREAKING: Sheikh Jassim's bid team are now seeking a "corrective statement" from #mufc’s filings."

So it looks like the 'Sheikh Jassim never had the funds' theory is being dealt with quickly and will potentially be corrected.

Now, why would The Glazers and their new partner SRJ release this misinformation right before their deal is concluded? :wenger:
Click to expand...

I have to bridge to sell you.
 
Nori- said:
"BREAKING: Sheikh Jassim's bid team are now seeking a "corrective statement" from #mufc’s filings."

So it looks like the 'Sheikh Jassim never had the funds' theory is being dealt with quickly and will potentially be corrected.

Now, why would The Glazers and their new partner SRJ release this misinformation right before their deal is concluded? :wenger:
Click to expand...



Looks like usual noise by SJ, all PR and no substance.
 
devilish said:
Chelsea was bought for 2.5b and a 1.75b in pledged investment. They had a better squad then us, a better stadium and they were free from debt (Roman forgave all that). That 1.75b of pledged investment will be pumped into the squad which in turn should increase Chelsea's value. SJR spent 1b for a 25% stake. Our squad is shit, our infrastructure is crumbling and there's no route to full ownership. The club will have to pay the Glazers legal fees, the debt is still there, if in a years time the Glazers are able to find buyers willing to buy the club at a higher valuation then SJR is ready to match then he'll be booted out and in 3 years time the dividends will start again. That doesn't sound to me a great deal.
Click to expand...

You ever been to The Bridge? It's absolutely not better than Old Trafford
 
Nori- said:
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.
Click to expand...
The bolded is the key part.

The instant they failed with their bid and pulled out, it became increasingly likely that it wasn't a state-backed bid. Not because of any PR reason, but simply because you'd expect a bid that was truly backed by Qatar to be able to go significantly higher than what they did. Not only through money directly to the Glazers for Utd, but also by giving the Glazers significant business advantages in or related to Qatar under the table.

The fact that they also seemed to refuse to provide funding just makes that seem even more likely.

Is it certain that it wasn't a state bid? No, and we'll probably never know 100%. But based on what has happened and the information coming out, I'd say it's a significant likelihood.

Also, as for your last sentence, when have the Glazers ever cared whatsoever about the fans supporting their business model? They couldn't care less, they just want what gets them the most money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.