Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
DomesticTadpole said:
Everybody keeps saying SJR wouldn't take dividends out of the club, so if the Glazers keep doing it why wouldn't he as well?
Click to expand...

The board approve the dividends so if INEOS are majority owners and in control they’d be making the decisions not the Glazers.

There are already multiple sources confirming the majority is reference to fact Glazers don’t own all the shares. INEOS want 100% of the Glazer shares which but that would only make them majority owners.
 
The Ineos statement is worrying, no mention in reinvesting in the new stadium or training ground. Vague and was just based on being British. Sir Jim Brexit will be no big change, we need it. He's a fan argument can go away too, he's a 70 year old tory that is looking to make money. Least the Qatar bid had points, Jim won't fix it.
 
If you have to get onto the media and clarify what your statement meant not long after releasing it (presumably after weeks of preparation?), it means you made a mess of it.
 
On the basis of statements, Qatari bit is more attractive: they promise to invest in the club, whereas INEOS doesn’t.

On the other hand, SJR is a local Manchester guy…
 
Amir said:
OK, so the bottom line is you want the big transfer money.
Click to expand...

Money has always played a huge factor in football. Apart from the occasional one time winner (ex Blackburn or Leicester) the league was, for most part, dominated by those with deep pockets. United under SAF broke numerous British and world records for transfers while concurrently owning the best training facilities, the best academy and the best stadium in the country. That cost money. Back when SAF-Wenger used to dominate the EPL title, I was never too concerned about losing out on one league title simply because I knew that the club will bounce back by throwing money at the problem if needed. When Roman Abramovich came in, things changed and when the Abu dhabi entered the scene things got more difficult and things will get worse once the Saudis start pumping money into Newcastle. Don't take me wrong, under the ideal circumstances, careful management can still make you win trophies. Yet Liverpool (who were far better managed then INEOS and QSI put together) won just 1 league title. Are you happy with the scraps? I am not.

On top of that our facilities are a shambles. The stadium alone should cost us 2B and then there's Carrington, the squad and the academy, to think about. The Qatari are committed to sort all of that and more without dragging us into debt. INEOS can't even commit themselves to buy all of the club and their statement stinks of something Boris Johnson would come out with.

Honestly none of them perfectly fit the criteria of what I think a great owner should be. For example both QSI and INEOS had made huge administration mistakes in terms of managing the club some of whom at par with those the Glazers had done. However we all know that the secret of making mistakes is to be able to sort them out and while the Qatari had shown eagerness, ample resources and ambition to do that with PSG, SJR clubs seem quite happy not winning stuff. Not to forget Ratcliffe's age. Assuming that the Chelsea season ticket holder and failed Chelsea FC buyer is more committed to us then he's towards the country he claim to love (he left the UK for tax purposes and had threatened to close shop in Middlesbrough if EU pollution rules are implemented) then one has to take in account that he's 70. Once he kicks the bucket will INEOS show as much commitment to us then Ratcliffe did?
 
English football history is coming to an end. If Manchester United is bought by some of these dictators in the Middle East, our club is unfortunately 100% identical to Manchester City.

Absolutely all titles from the day a possible purchase is carried out belong to the dictators.

The FA can burn in he*l if they allow this purchase. English football is coming to an end, dictators in the Middle East are taking over.

Manchester City is dead and buried, it has become Mansour's. In the same way, Manchester United will be nothing more than Hamad's if the purchase goes through.
 
ShinjiNinja26 said:
Anyone still advocating for Jim Ratcliffe’s debt ridden Brexit bid that would potentially see the Glazers waiting on can’t be considered a Utd fan imo.
Click to expand...
The debt wouldn't be United's debt (whatever debt there is), he would clear United's debt, and they would keep the money within the club. What's the problem? We don't need anything other than someone managing us smartly, clearing our debt and just keeping the money within the club.
 
Alemar said:
On the basis of statements, Qatari bit is more attractive: they promise to invest in the club, whereas INEOS doesn’t.

On the other hand, SJR is a local Manchester guy…
Click to expand...

that tips the balance
 
Roboc7 said:
The board approve the dividends so if INEOS are majority owners and in control they’d be making the decisions not the Glazers.

There are already multiple sources confirming the majority is reference to fact Glazers don’t own all the shares. INEOS want 100% of the Glazer shares which but that would only make them majority owners.
Click to expand...
Others have said the 30% shares are owned elsewhere. Would it be worth Joel and Avram buying them out.
 
I cant believe there are people wanting Goldman Sachs to be part of the united future :lol:. Do you really know who they are?
 
crossy1686 said:
I would say that people's heads have been turned to Qatar once they saw the INEOS bid and PR. If INEOS were offering the same things there wouldn't even be a discussion would there?
Click to expand...

Obviously Ineos can't offer what Qatar can money wise, but can maybe offer more than that longer tern, as it worries me more that Qatar buying us will mean we lose respect from the football world, and the edge you get when it means something to win trophies.
 
Tarrou said:
they won't get to decide that though
Click to expand...

They can demand it in general meetings.

"A minority of the shareholders have the right to demand a so called minority dividend to be distributed. Such right belongs to shareholders having at a minimum one tenth (1/10), or a lesser amount stipulated in the articles of association, of all the shares in the company. Half of the profits of the financial period, deducted by the items that according to the articles of association shall be left undistributed, may be demanded to be distributed to the shareholders as a minority dividend.

A shareholder may not, however, demand a sum exceeding eight per cent (8 %) of the company’s equity to be distributed as dividend. A condition for a minority dividend to be distributed is furthermore that the company has distributable assets and that the distribution does not compromise the solvency of the company. Possible dividends distributed for the financial period prior to the annual general meeting shall be deducted from the amount to be distributed.

The demand concerning the distribution of a minority dividend shall be presented at the annual general meeting before making the resolution on the use of the profits. The demand of the minority may only be directed to the profit of the previous financial period but not to other distributable assets indicated on the balance sheet.

The articles of association may have differing provisions regarding minority dividends. This means that the rights of minority shareholders may be both improved and restricted by a provision in the articles of association. The right to a minority dividend may, however, be restricted only with the consent of all shareholders."

Link: https://virtuallawyer.fondia.com/en/articles/minority-dividend
 
Wow Sir Jim is purely using any tactic to get us. Not arsed about the club. He’s evil if he’s giving them ownership. The the love of the club, step down and allow the Qataris to get the club.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
What? I am talking of this made up scenario where people are going mental over something which hasn't even been mentioned by anyone with relevance, just people running with batshit ideas in here.
Click to expand...
The PR statement from INEOS mentions majority ownership, not full purchase like others, mentions nothing of the debt, unlike others and mentions a bid of £4b plus "further incentives", unlike others who offer an outright purchase price. If you're naive to PR statements I can see why you would take the 'wait and see' approach but I think it's fairly safe to assume some things after this statement.

And anyway, people have been presuming the Qataris are going to come in and stop funding gay charities and the women's team also so there's massive assumptions being made on every page of this thread.
 
Brownie85 said:
Not sure why SJR would want to put up with more fan protests and bad publicity by keeping the Glazers around. If he did that, then I can't see too many people being happy. Fans want the Glazers out and if SJR keeps them around and leeching from the club, the the protests will keep going I bet
Click to expand...
Because he doesn't have enough money for complete takeover and especially to go in race with Qatari group. So in this way he is giving Glazers money and share in club.

Very very smart bid by him.
 
I think a majority INEOS ownership with the Glazers retaining a stake for a period would be perfect.

It would give Ratcliffe time to transition into the role of Club owner and assess what personnel he'd like to fill key positions with. This would create minimal disruption to the current structure which has an upward trajectory on the field. Why would we want to risk disturbing that?

The hate that some have for the Glazers is clouding so much to the point where people are happy to see the club damaged as long as they're out ASAP. Crazy imo. There's no rush here.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
And you are a prime example of what i was taking about, by the tone of your post. You'll likely be queuing up to defend a regime if they take over.
Click to expand...

Because I don't believe I am "selling my soul" by not caring all that much about who owns a sports team I support?

As I said drama queen.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
The statement from Ineos is pretty shockingly bad ignoring Qatar. The incentives bit part of the offer also doesn’t sit well with me either.

I’d obviously take him over the Glazers but there’s a possibility he will keep them on board with a minority stake.
Click to expand...

But they'd just vanish into the background, and have no say in anything, it should surely also keep the price down for Sir Jim, allowing him to invest more into stadium.

If it was a minority stake for Sir Jim, then it's big fat no, but with it been majority, I'm not sure it's such an issue.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
Others have said the 30% shares are owned elsewhere. Would it be worth Joel and Avram buying them out.
Click to expand...

The rest of the shares are on the stock exchange but have virtually no voting rights. INEOS would maybe buy them eventually or possibly just leave them as they are as dividend is minimal.
 
IWat said:
I am gay. If Qatar win this I genuinely hope the club goes to crap.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that mate, and sorry about the replies you're getting. Completely understand why you would feel that way.
 
AlexUTD said:
They can demand it in general meetings.

"A minority of the shareholders have the right to demand a so called minority dividend to be distributed. Such right belongs to shareholders having at a minimum one tenth (1/10), or a lesser amount stipulated in the articles of association, of all the shares in the company. Half of the profits of the financial period, deducted by the items that according to the articles of association shall be left undistributed, may be demanded to be distributed to the shareholders as a minority dividend.

A shareholder may not, however, demand a sum exceeding eight per cent (8 %) of the company’s equity to be distributed as dividend. A condition for a minority dividend to be distributed is furthermore that the company has distributable assets and that the distribution does not compromise the solvency of the company. Possible dividends distributed for the financial period prior to the annual general meeting shall be deducted from the amount to be distributed.

The demand concerning the distribution of a minority dividend shall be presented at the annual general meeting before making the resolution on the use of the profits. The demand of the minority may only be directed to the profit of the previous financial period but not to other distributable assets indicated on the balance sheet.

The articles of association may have differing provisions regarding minority dividends. This means that the rights of minority shareholders may be both improved and restricted by a provision in the articles of association. The right to a minority dividend may, however, be restricted only with the consent of all shareholders."

Link: https://virtuallawyer.fondia.com/en/articles/minority-dividend
Click to expand...

isn't that a Finnish website?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.