Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
VP89 said:
Do you think the board and shareholders at INEOS will absorb the Manchester United debt and expect no monetary return from doing so?


Also this
Click to expand...

Aren't brexiteers meant to be full of liberty, freedom and altruism?Just like they brought back the billions back from Brussels and distributed freely back to the NHS.

That's why Sir Ratty lives in the philanthropic capital of the world, Monaco -- and from there he will initial his battle to take back Manchester to Manchester United.
 
sglowrider said:
Aren't brexiteers meant to be full of liberty, freedom and altruism?Just like they brought back the billions back from Brussels and distributed freely back to the NHS.

That's why Sir Ratty lives in the philanthropic capital of the world, Monaco -- and from there he will initial his battle to bring Manchester back to Manchester United.
Click to expand...

Technically most of them don't live in Monaco just have it down as official residence for tax reasons... We all would if we could.
 
VP89 said:
Didn't know that.
However do we believe he won't use debt to finance the stadium?
Click to expand...

I don't know how he plans to finance anything but what I do know is debt itself isn't bad if financed properly and not left to rot... That is where the Glazers failed us, they took for themselves and never once paid down the debt and just let it accumulate.

I would hope a sensible business like INEOS would approach debt differently.
 
Marcelinho87 said:
I don't know how he plans to finance anything but what I do know is debt itself isn't bad if financed properly and not left to rot... That is where the Glazers failed us, they took for themselves and never once paid down the debt and just let it accumulate.

I would hope a sensible business like INEOS would approach debt differently.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree that debt is inevitable if you're not state run
 
So just to clarify, who decides if one of these bids is accepted?
Obviously, the 6 Glazers own 69% (i think??) each of them owning a different %. The other 31% is owned by shareholders bought on the new york stock market.

I guess the bids are for 100%? but obviously, each shareholder could decide not to sell. So practically how does this all work?
 
Nytram Shakes said:
While I hate defending the Glazers, we did spend over 200 million this summer, we aren't a bottomless pit of money.
Click to expand...

But if you look at the summer beyond 'We did spend over 200m' headline and analyse what happened then the defence of the Glazers gets kind of weak.

For a start, Anthony, we could have got him for £25-30m cheaper if we went in for him at the start of July. Martinez instead of paying £49m we could have got him for £30-35m again, we waited to long on Timber and Ajax where selling other players so we had to pay an extra £15m plus to get him.

Straight away theirs £40-45m wasted money, just wasted and it's all down to the clowns that the Glazers have put in place to run the club.

So yes your right we're not a bottomless pit of money, but the Glazers persisted with Woodward, Arnold, Murtough etc etc over all these years and they have wasted so much money, so for us to have absolutely no money for a transfer fee is the Glazers fault.
 
Nytram Shakes said:
So just to clarify, who decides if one of these bids is accepted?
Obviously, the 6 Glazers own 69% (i think??) each of them owning a different %. The other 31% is owned by shareholders bought on the new york stock market.

I guess the bids are for 100%? but obviously, each shareholder could decide not to sell. So practically how does this all work?
Click to expand...

My assumption is that the majority of voting rights decides, if a higher percentage wants to go then it leaves the minority with no choice.
 
georgipep said:
When you want to understand something, why not try to search and find information about it?



This tweet thread is from a user who is also active on the RedCafe and has written about this.

Don't pretend to know what you are talking about when you are too lazy to even try finding information.

Using strong words like "spread misinformation" may make you seem knowledgeable and authoritative, but don't make you such.
Click to expand...

Great post. Thank you.
And thank you @Messier1994 for the Twitter analysis thread. Good that some can be objective and not be blinded by the ME wealth.
 
Nytram Shakes said:
So just to clarify, who decides if one of these bids is accepted?
Obviously, the 6 Glazers own 69% (i think??) each of them owning a different %. The other 31% is owned by shareholders bought on the new york stock market.

I guess the bids are for 100%? but obviously, each shareholder could decide not to sell. So practically how does this all work?
Click to expand...
I believe at this stage the Glazers are not involved but informed.
Raine is currently handling the sale of the club and will be working under commission to get the best price possible that will be the only remit.

So the meetings this week and next will be between Raine and reps from the buying parties.

Imagine its like buying a house and the Raine group is essentially the estate agents.

The 69% is on the market for sale and that is what all bidders are bidding for you can not bid for the shares on the NYSE through Raine or the Glazers - the NYSE are open shares and there is nothing stopping Jassim going in and buying them all now.

But the indication is that they will focus on the 69% then try and take up the other shares on the market in the coming months but it can take several months to hit 90% ownership by which point they can conduct a "squeeze out" which essentially forces the remaining 10% to be sold at current market value.
 
croadyman said:
The Sun clearly trying to rattle us with that headline tomorrow,just hope no one reliable reports something similar later today
Click to expand...

We’ll see plenty of this because they are trying to drive the price up. Reality is they have proceeded to a 2nd phase and are laying on presentations and providing due diligence to the bidders so they are marketing and attempting to sell still clearly.

Given club has gone backwards commercially for a while now I find the idea they can set up a new company and suddenly unearth vast riches a bit like pie in the sky, especially given how much negativity will come from them staying.
 
Steve Bruce said:
But if you look at the summer beyond 'We did spend over 200m' headline and analyse what happened then the defence of the Glazers gets kind of weak.

For a start, Anthony, we could have got him for £25-30m cheaper if we went in for him at the start of July. Martinez instead of paying £49m we could have got him for £30-35m again, we waited to long on Timber and Ajax where selling other players so we had to pay an extra £15m plus to get him.

Straight away theirs £40-45m wasted money, just wasted and it's all down to the clowns that the Glazers have put in place to run the club.

So yes your right we're not a bottomless pit of money, but the Glazers persisted with Woodward, Arnold, Murtough etc etc over all these years and they have wasted so much money.
Click to expand...
I 100% agree on the wasted money and overpaying. The biggest issue we have had in the post-Fergie era is not the amount we have spent but how we have spent it. The club's money has been wasted by idiots not knowing what they are doing in the transfer market. The Glazers have to take responsibility for that as they put these people in charge.

I'm not defending the Glazers, I'm simply saying as fans we should not want the club going out and spending huge sums in January after spending 200 million in the summer. That kind of spending is reckless and will lead to greater financial issues down the line.

We should be asking how have we gotten to the position where the squad has so many gaps when we have spent so much money, not complaining that the club isn't spending more.
 
Offside said:
Most journos are stealing a living with guesswork when it comes to transfers, but with this it’s a whole new level. They haven’t a clue and are tweeting the same speculative crap over and over.
Click to expand...

Glad someone else has seen it too.

They have such big opinions about themselves. All the stuff they are tweeting is contradictory of what someone else is saying too.

It's all BS. Hardly anyone knows what's going on except the bidders and the owners.
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
I believe at this stage the Glazers are not involved but informed.
Raine is currently handling the sale of the club and will be working under commission to get the best price possible that will be the only remit.

So the meetings this week and next will be between Raine and reps from the buying parties.

Imagine its like buying a house and the Raine group is essentially the estate agents.

The 69% is on the market for sale and that is what all bidders are bidding for you can not bid for the shares on the NYSE through Raine or the Glazers - the NYSE are open shares and there is nothing stopping Jassim going in and buying them all now.

But the indication is that they will focus on the 69% then try and take up the other shares on the market in the coming months but it can take several months to hit 90% ownership by which point they can conduct a "squeeze out" which essentially forces the remaining 10% to be sold at current market value.
Click to expand...
So basically the bidders present to Raine, who then make a recommendation to the Glazers? What Happens if the Glazers are spit, they aren't just one person each owns a different %.
I guess the deal just falls through?
 
cyberman said:
I’m not sure this is the slam dunk you make it out to be. Even at the end they’re talking about adding debt to the club for stadium etc.
Click to expand...
Of course, the entire acquisition is financed by debt. The question was about wiping out the existing debt. Which will happen regardless of who buys the club.
 
VP89 said:
Do you think the board and shareholders at INEOS will absorb the Manchester United debt and expect no monetary return from doing so?


Also this
Click to expand...
Of course they will expect return. Why would they buy the club otherwise?
This is business. Another reason I don't want Qatar/Saudi Arabia owners. They do not obey the laws of business and that is the clearest indication that they have ulterior motives.
 
Rolaholic said:
We already have other threads specifically for any moral crusades and discussions surrounding the ethics/societal dynamics of the potential new owners if that's more towards someone's focus
Click to expand...
This thread is where we discuss our potential new owners. Including any implications, social or otherwise, that would reflect on Manchester United.

Funny how some posters want to censor discussion in this thread because one you look into Qatari ethics it doesn't support their take over bid. I guess it's a case of some fans are more easily bought off than others.
 
enghuei said:
I’m glad 2 other posters before me have pointed out the flaws in your argument.

As I said before, at no point did SJR’s team mention anything about wiping off United’s current debt, thus please do not spread misinformation about them doing so.
Click to expand...
I suggest you read again what is explained in very easy to digest manner in the tweet thread. Every buyer will have to wipe out the existing debt. That is how those loans work.

Again, refrain from using strong words when you have zero knowledge about the topic.
 
cyberman said:
I’m not sure this is the slam dunk you make it out to be. Even at the end they’re talking about adding debt to the club for stadium etc.
Click to expand...
But it is! The whole arguement is Qatar will clear the debt whereas INEOS won’t. This shows clearly not only do INEOS have the facilities in place to clear the debt from the club, but they would be contractually obliged to do so as part of the takeover.
The interview UWS did recently with Lord O’Neil is an interesting listen and he suggested that INEOS could even convert the debt into equity and offer fans a shareholding in the club - when viewed in the light of INEOSs fan centred statement is a very interesting idea.
As for the stadium it has to be financed somehow, we have already been told INEOS will take the debt not the club and the mistake many are making is thinking the Qatar bid represents ‘free money’ when it may actually prove to be a harsher cost than simply repaying a financial agreement.
 
Plant0x84 said:
But it is! The whole arguement is Qatar will clear the debt whereas INEOS won’t. This shows clearly not only do INEOS have the facilities in place to clear the debt from the club, but they would be contractually obliged to do so as part of the takeover.
The interview UWS did recently with Lord O’Neil is an interesting listen and he suggested that INEOS could even convert the debt into equity and offer fans a shareholding in the club - when viewed in the light of INEOSs fan centred statement is a very interesting idea.
As for the stadium it has to be financed somehow, we have already been told INEOS will take the debt not the club and the mistake many are making is thinking the Qatar bid represents ‘free money’ when it may actually prove to be a harsher cost than simply repaying a financial agreement.
Click to expand...
You can’t post the thread as a gotcha then try to talk away parts of that thread that doesn’t agree with your point?

A 2b odd debt is much worse! It’s just semantics at that stage
Even then I wouldn’t take this random thread as gospel. I dont know why it’s posted as if it’s some sort of authority
 
VP89 said:
Do you think the board and shareholders at INEOS will absorb the Manchester United debt and expect no monetary return from doing so?
Click to expand...

they don't get monetary return but they do get an asset worth 5 billion quid, so its not like they're doing it out of kindness
 
Tarrou said:
they don't get monetary return but they do get an asset worth 5 billion quid, so its not like they're doing it out of kindness
Click to expand...
Is it actually worth 5bn quid? The market cap is almost half that?
 
Nytram Shakes said:
So basically the bidders present to Raine, who then make a recommendation to the Glazers? What Happens if the Glazers are spit, they aren't just one person each owns a different %.
I guess the deal just falls through?
Click to expand...
I dont think you enter this process without agreement prior.
All the noise about the family being split is, in my opinion, nonsense.

Imagine a situation where (using the house analogy again) where you are 4 siblings that inherit a mansion worth 4million, three of you want to sell and the fourth does not but the fourth basically handles all paperwork. You cant force that fourth person to sell through peer pressure and put it up for sale behind their backs.

The whole thing would have been agreed prior to the listing, make no mistake this is a full sale, there is no prospect of the other two staying on unless there is some sort of new deal reached with the buyers. No matter what happens the club is being sold fully and it has been agreed by all siblings. They arent figuring it all out as they go..

However it is entirely possible that post buy out the two other glazers join a new ownership with a percentage of the club a new.

That would mean other siblings get their cut and the two others or one other can buy back into the club as an investment which I would hope would not be the case.
 
Woziak said:
Please read there are many articles saying that Arsenal wanted him as a left back not a centre back and offered about €40-42m and Ajax themselves were surprised with the United bid of €50m that was £46m for Martinez. I’ve sent just one link to this, I’m not making anything up about the complete incompetence of our board to get transfers done or do you disagree on that in which case I have to ask the question are you really a united fan ?

https://talksport.com/football/1172...ester-united-arsenal-transfer-fee-height/amp/

United fans now argue about semantics, the reality is the glaziers have caused this, it’s a well known fact in the last 10 years since we. Lost SAF and David Gill we are widely recognised as ‘worst in class’ at transfers and regularly take too long and pay far too much to get a transfer done, normally recruiting football mercenaries like ; A Di Maria, R Falcao, H Mkytaryan, A Sanches, P Pogba, E Cavani, Ronaldo second signing, Memphis Depay, A Martial, the list is endless. I mean we even paid £10m more than we could have paid for Feillani when he had a reduced fee built into his contract by a specific date providing we moved quicker.

like I said worst in class!
Click to expand...


So was the 43m Euros bid accepted from Arsenal? This notion that we could have saved 40m is complete joke.

Right, so if someone does not agree with you, they are not a United fan?

Well, I dont think its rocket science to say Glazers have caused this mess. However; we have been bad at transfers but if you actually see what has happened over the last year, the whole structure has changed. Why are we painting Murtough and Woodward with the same brush?
 
Tarrou said:
I think it is yeah

If Chelski are sold for 2.75, then surely we're worth about 5

We have five times as many fans at least
Click to expand...
That's not how it works. When you look at the monetary worth of an asset it's more intrinsic than the number of fans.
 
TrebleChamp99 said:
I dont think you enter this process without agreement prior.
All the noise about the family being split is, in my opinion, nonsense.

Imagine a situation where (using the house analogy again) where you are 4 siblings that inherit a mansion worth 4million, three of you want to sell and the fourth does not but the fourth basically handles all paperwork. You cant force that fourth person to sell through peer pressure and put it up for sale behind their backs.

The whole thing would have been agreed prior to the listing, make no mistake this is a full sale, there is no prospect of the other two staying on unless there is some sort of new deal reached with the buyers. No matter what happens the club is being sold fully and it has been agreed by all siblings. They arent figuring it all out as they go..

However it is entirely possible that post buy out the two other glazers join a new ownership with a percentage of the club a new.

That would mean other siblings get their cut and the two others or one other can buy back into the club as an investment which I would hope would not be the case.
Click to expand...
That's a very positive outlook. I hope its true, but equally, it could be just let's put this out there and make a decision based on what comes back. I mean the glazers have never said they will sell, they have said that one of the options they are looking at in order to raise funds. But I hope you are right, but we'll see I guess.
 
VP89 said:
That's not how it works. When you look at the monetary worth of an asset it's more intrinsic than the number of fans.
Click to expand...

we’re a much bigger club than Chelsea, and generate more revenue as a result.. hence being more valuable

And there are two bidders willing to pay 5bn, maybe more
 
Tarrou said:
we’re a much bigger club than Chelsea, and generate more revenue as a result.. hence being more valuable

And there are two bidders willing to pay 5bn, maybe more
Click to expand...
There has been valuations drawn out by experts in football finance and they have drawn a market valuation of the club to be around half of what the Glazers want/what is already being bid. I think that settles it.
 
VP89 said:
There has been valuations drawn out by experts in football finance and they have drawn a market valuation of the club to be around half of what the Glazers want/what is already being bid. I think that settles it.
Click to expand...

I've seen articles stating we're worth £5bn. Forbes I think had us at $4.6bn. I saw one saying we were worth £1.3bn!

They are all using different valuation techniques and it's hard to value prestige.

But the Glazers are asking 5bn, and there are takers
 
romufc said:
So was the 43m Euros bid accepted from Arsenal? This notion that we could have saved 40m is complete joke.

Right, so if someone does not agree with you, they are not a United fan?

Well, I dont think its rocket science to say Glazers have caused this mess. However; we have been bad at transfers but if you actually see what has happened over the last year, the whole structure has changed. Why are we painting Murtough and Woodward with the same brush?
Click to expand...


I never said £40m on one player I said all the players collectively and that has been proven, I understand what your saying but a quick question did Arnold and Murtough waste time chasing a pipe dream of FDJ all summer being photographed on multiple occasions visiting Barcelona FC then at the last moment when they realised he wasn’t coming get lucky with Casemeiro ?

I actually happen to think Arnold giving time might be a quite good CEO however is he and Murtough recognised as being best in class across the Industry?
 
georgipep said:
This tweet thread is from a user who is also active on the RedCafe and has written about this.

Don't pretend to know what you are talking about when you are too lazy to even try finding information.

Using strong words like "spread misinformation" may make you seem knowledgeable and authoritative, but don't make you such.
Click to expand...

Excerpts from the tweet (can't link media yet)

" So what does it mean that Ineos’ banks (JPM and Goldman), “would cover” MUFC’s debt? It can mean two things. Either they guarantee to refinance the debt under the MUFC plc’s umbrella, or under Ineos’ umbrella "

"This debt is either just left on the club’s balance sheet (like CFC always had a huge interest free debt to Abramovich), or set off in a share issue by the club (i.e. Ineos’ would increase"

So what does it mean if there is talk about Ratcliffe ‘not adding new debt to the club’? To me it certainly sounds like Ineos wouldn’t lump this debt back at the club after a takeover. I don’t really see the point of it.

While ‘the Glazers’ debt’ is cleared if Ineos buys the club, but he can’t promise that the club won’t take on any debt in relation to the new stadium

No offence to the OP of this thread, kudos to them for taking the time out to explain it but it's hardly incontrovertable proof that the club won't be taking any more debt on. I get people have their preferences but this proves absolutely nothing.
 
Ahriman said:
Excerpts from the tweet (can't link media yet)

" So what does it mean that Ineos’ banks (JPM and Goldman), “would cover” MUFC’s debt? It can mean two things. Either they guarantee to refinance the debt under the MUFC plc’s umbrella, or under Ineos’ umbrella "

"This debt is either just left on the club’s balance sheet (like CFC always had a huge interest free debt to Abramovich), or set off in a share issue by the club (i.e. Ineos’ would increase"

So what does it mean if there is talk about Ratcliffe ‘not adding new debt to the club’? To me it certainly sounds like Ineos wouldn’t lump this debt back at the club after a takeover. I don’t really see the point of it.

While ‘the Glazers’ debt’ is cleared if Ineos buys the club, but he can’t promise that the club won’t take on any debt in relation to the new stadium

No offence to the OP of this thread, kudos to them for taking the time out to explain it but it's hardly incontrovertable proof that the club won't be taking any more debt on. I get people have their preferences but this proves absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
@georgipep i suggest you have a look at this post about @Messier1994 twitter thread.

you too @Plant0x84
 
Tarrou said:
you've convinced me

forget the other valuations, and the two bids of 4.5bn/5bn

and the fact Chelsea cost 2.75 as we're clearly worth less
Click to expand...
Manchester United is not an asset that has intrinsic worth of 5bn according to the football experts. I don't need to do any convincing.

Whether Sheikh Jassim or SJR want to buy the club for more is another matter - they are bidding off other facets that are not related to club worth. Sentiment and personal ambition comes into play.

So when you say "they get an asset worth 5bn" that's wrong in intrinsic terms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.