Do you have an example of anything that he is the first or only one to report?
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Do you have an example of anything that he is the first or only one to report?
https://www.theedgemarkets.com/node/659837
Nice little article about the Qataris at PSG. The standout for what we could expect being:
Nice little article about the Qataris at PSG. The standout for what we could expect being:
Yes having a Portugeuse feeder club for all the top SA talents that the league consistently attracts would definitely pay dividends long term...
We've only just started waking up as a club to the untapped potential of investing in talents from that region of the world in recent years.
I’m sure that some of the Glazer stooges at the club are shifting very uncomfortably in there seats right now, and hoping that the Glazers stay put.
Almost sounds like a cartel. Could see there being issues/claims regarding collusion in the future. We are talking about two clubs competing in the same competition and, supposed to be, at the same level. It takes multiple-club ownership to a whole new level of dodgy.
Brexit makes it much harder for us to buy from Braga I'd have thought.
These type of things are problematic because they are far from what has happened with PSG. PSG initially built a very complete team and built a stable and coherent core of players. It's extremely strange to see people make that type of points when they are purposely ignoring what actually happened at PSG, the imbalance was created relatively recently when with Leonado's initial departure which coinceded with the need to replace some key players, Antero Henrique failed to do it and instead put all his eggs in a couple of player, that strategy isn't representative of PSG under QSI, it's actually an outlier and a costly one.
The interesting thing there would be where would we sit relative to PSG in this hierarchy? Say the next Messi was unearthed and pulling up all sorts of trees at Braga, who gets first dibs on him?
Yeah sounds like too many jobs for the boys merchants worried about proper people being put in place
If I'm not mistaken what Castle is describing is the Red Bull model. United and PSG wouldn't purchase players from Braga but purchase players themselves and loan them to Braga. Basically a higher end version of the Liefering, RB Salzburg and RB Leipzig connection.
@Berbaclass with linking us to the real journalism in here and the thread needed it.
Muppetiers and Duncan Castles ffs
What’s next, The Daily Star?
Muppetiers and Duncan Castles ffs
What’s next, The Daily Star?
Sheikh Jassim shagged my quiche claims Jacqueline, 38 in Barnsley
That’s a nice thing that Qatar brings to the table, that Ineos is incapable of. The more I read about it, the sweeter a Qatari acquisition seems.
Problem?@Berbaclass with linking us to the real journalism in here and the thread needed it.
Muppetiers and Duncan Castles ffs
What’s next, The Daily Star?
The Neymar transfer happened in 2017 and they've continued on that path. The point is that United would be serving the reputation of the Qatari state and that leads to bad sporting decisions.
Ineos could provide the exact same thing through Nice and Lausanne.
I get that bit, I was just thinking they would still need a work permit to play at United, which they might not have before Brexit. Thinking further I suppose we would only want a player if he was particularly successful there, so maybe he could come as 'special talent' then. Just trying to work it out.
Fesshole@Berbaclass with linking us to the real journalism in here and the thread needed it.
Muppetiers and Duncan Castles ffs
What’s next, The Daily Star?
Channel name?
Which is six years after the purchase of the club and the aforementioned second build which was done by Antero Henrique and deemed a failure by QSI. And no PSG didn't continue on that path, after the sacking of Henrique PSG has gradually improved the balance of the team but the issue with the purchase of Neymar and Mbappé in 2017 is that it put them in a situation where they have to juggle with FFP, selling a lot of promising players to be in line with FFP.
Portugal has historically been a very good springboard for South American talents to adjust to Europe. I would choose Braga over Ratcliffe’s clubs.
We already are, feeder clubs.
Yes, you’re polluting this thread with Muppetiers drivel every day and then getting super defensive when people criticise them because you hang out on their discord.
They’re a bunch of American kids with no contacts whatsoever. They were proved to be bullshit merchants on several occasions on their very own sub Reddit two years ago. I know this because I was a member there. Any serious media outlet with actual contacts doesn’t call themselves “Muppetiers” ffs.
If we’re allowed to pollute the thread with terrible sources like The Muppet Babies, does that also mean that Indykaila is fair game? Because he’s about as reliable as that lot.
So Mbappe on loan once PSG wins the league with 5 games to spare?
You’re just showing how little you actually know.
Anyone questioning the order of importance or where would the top talent go PSG or United…
He states in the article United would be top and also if you consider the investment in United would be something to the tune of 7bln Vs 300m they paid for PSG you begin to understand which club would be top of the pile.
Shame it’s nonsense though since Sheik Jassim does not equal QSI.
He states in the article United would be top and also if you consider the investment in United would be something to the tune of 7bln Vs 300m they paid for PSG you begin to understand which club would be top of the pile.
Shame it’s nonsense though since Sheik Jassim does not equal QSI.
Perfectly fine. Anyone who is underperforming should be under review and dealt with. That’s fine.
I just don’t get why this mean Arnold and Murtough fit within those categories. People just follow a narrative without having their own opinion. What’s has Murtough failed in, out of interest?
They needed a work permit even before Brexit? The tweet is about non-EU nationals.
Last summer transfer window, where he failed to get the manager what he wanted/needed before the season started and we ended up dropping 6 points and overpaying for Antony.
Starting the season with a CF who wanted out and another who can't stay fit.
ETH doing a good job doesn't paper over his errors
A lot is pointing towards this process reaching its climax in the coming week or two. A few thoughts.
What is happening in the process?
Overall, evaluating the value of MUFC is not hard, nor does it require a due diligence from a broader point of view. The Manchester United plc reports using the IFRS standard which is established by the EU for all companies listed on a regulated market. Besides, financing agreements have also been made available. While a bidder of course will want to perform its due diligence and verify key aspects of the club as well as taking part of the latest up to date financials -- both Ineos and the Qataris have for a long time been able to evaluate the target of this process.
The Raine Group has performed three rounds of bidding, first the indicative bid and then two de facto bids. These bids are made for the Glazers' shares of the club (more on that later). All -- three -- parties are advised by top advisers and are more or less on equal footing in these negotiations. There have been talks about the Glazers playing the bidders, threatening keep the club, and what not. Those aspects should perhaps not totally be disregarded -- but not far from it. If you engage JPM or Goldman Sachs or players like that for a multi-billion transaction -- you won't be pushed around in the negotiations. What is the point of a third (fourth) round of bidding? The next point is probably pointing at the highest bidder, and telling the other side that they will be out of the running in 24h if they do not counter that offer. After that, you should have a preferred bidder.
What remains after a preferred bidder is appointed?
Whomever buys the club needs to be approved by the PL. That process can be started before a takeover is executed.
Ultimately, buying the Glazers' shares can be done through a simple transaction note. There will be no meaningful reps and warranties given that it is a public transaction. The buyer will undertake to replace the Glazer siblings on the board, not much more. Hence, the club could potentially have a new owner within weeks.
But what about the remaining 31%? Well, it is here it gets a bit tricky -- and this is a topic that ultimately will depend on Cayman Island cooperate law. First of all, must you buy those shares if you buy the Glazers shares? No. In the UK and all of the EU, anyone acquiring more than 30% of the votes in a company must make a so called mandatory bid for the remaining shares. The reason for this is that anyone buying a share in a listed company should be able to assume that the company will be run in a way that is best for all shareholders. If someone comes in and buy a controlling share, the minority owners must be given an opportunity to exit their investment in light of the new circumstances. This is -- not -- the case on the Cayman Islands.
So why buy the remaining shares of Manchester United plc -- if you don't have to, and since you would controll the club anyway by just buying the Glazers' shares? That is a good question. There are no guarantee that Ineos for example would want to buy those shares. Why not invest that money into the club instead? There is however one big advantage of buying the minorities' shares. If you own all shares of a company, you can wheel 'nd deal with it anyway you want. Lets say you want to lift land owned by the club out of the club and develop it in a separate entity -- its just a little paper work if you own all shares. If there are 150,000 minority shareholders, you better make darn sure that you pay market value for any asset you transfer from the club to another company. And even if you do all you can -- you could still see some litigation. It is impossible to know how the parties would act, but from my view point it is natural to assume that the Qataris would want 100% of the shares while I don't quite see the upside for anyone with Ineos sucking up the shares listed at NYSE.
But anyway -- if you want to buy the minority shares listed at the NYSE -- how is it done? Well you cannot get each and every 150,000 (just picking a random number) minority owner to sell their shares to you. Hence there are mechanisms in place to enable taking a company private. As I understand it, we could either see (a) a public tender offer to the minority (someone sends out a press release and say 'If you want to sell your MUFC plc shares, fill out this form, and we will buy them'), and if bidder owns 90% of the shares after the tender offer, it gets the right to redeem the outstanding shares, or (b) through a take private merger. Given how majority owner friendly Cayman Island law is, I think (b) would be the method used. Ineos or the Qataris create a BidCo (Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)). That BidCo proposes to merge with Manchester United plc. In the merger, the owner of the BidCo gets 100% of the shares in Manchester United plc and the current shareholders of MU plc gets 100% cash. Takes say a month or two to execute. If a minority shareholder in the club thinks the terms of the merger were worthless -- they can take it to court and ask for more pay. Some surely would. If you want to acquire 100% of the shares -- is it better to first acquire Glazers's 69% and then merge or does it make more sense to also acquire the Glazers' shares through a merger? This could impact the arguments of the minority owners going to court asking for more pay. I can't provide any input on if it would matter, but I would bet on that given how flexible Cayman Law is, it doesn't.
What happens to the debt?
As soon as someone takes control of the Glazers' shares of the club -- it will trigger the so called Change of control-clauses of the plc's debt agreements. This means that within stipulated time frames, that debt becomes immediately repayable. So in terms of the actual debt agreements, the Glazers debt will not survive a takeover. The buyer can either (a) pay back the debt, (b) refinance the debt in the name of the club, or (c) refinance the debt in a company higher up in the buyers' group. When Ineos say that they won't put any new debt on the Manchester United plc -- I think it would sound odd that they would engage JPM and GS to issue a bunch of new bonds in Manchester United plc. I think they would do that higher up in the Ineos group. But there is some uncertainty there.
The Qatari would probably cash the debt. I think the talk about Qataris only using "cash" is a bit irrelevant. Qatar's GDP to debt ratio is 40% which is low for a country. Ineos' debt ratio is probably a few times its turnover, which is normal/on the higher side for the average company, but not high for a company with a M&A strategy.
Who will win the bidding?
I want to add one word of caution here, if anyone is absolutely convinced that the Qataris will win the bidding. A group of people in Qatar is driving this project. Right? No matter what anyone says, its common sense that they don't have £5bn burning a hole in their wallet. The bid will be financed with funds which the royal family controls. Hence, someone is setting a budget for the bid. We don't know what that budget is. It could be 10bn. It could be 5bn. I don't think its far fetched to speculate on that someone gave the green light to the entire project -- as long as the price wasn't crazy. You can have 8bn, 5bn for the club and 3bn for the work after getting it. If they want 100% of the shares, and Ineos would settle for 69% -- Ineos wouldn't have to pay absurd money.
I have said from day 1 that the Qataris are the favorites. I would still bet on them if I had to bet, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.
What about Zilliacus?
The only way he has a shot is if he is fronting the Saudis.
What is happening in the process?
Overall, evaluating the value of MUFC is not hard, nor does it require a due diligence from a broader point of view. The Manchester United plc reports using the IFRS standard which is established by the EU for all companies listed on a regulated market. Besides, financing agreements have also been made available. While a bidder of course will want to perform its due diligence and verify key aspects of the club as well as taking part of the latest up to date financials -- both Ineos and the Qataris have for a long time been able to evaluate the target of this process.
The Raine Group has performed three rounds of bidding, first the indicative bid and then two de facto bids. These bids are made for the Glazers' shares of the club (more on that later). All -- three -- parties are advised by top advisers and are more or less on equal footing in these negotiations. There have been talks about the Glazers playing the bidders, threatening keep the club, and what not. Those aspects should perhaps not totally be disregarded -- but not far from it. If you engage JPM or Goldman Sachs or players like that for a multi-billion transaction -- you won't be pushed around in the negotiations. What is the point of a third (fourth) round of bidding? The next point is probably pointing at the highest bidder, and telling the other side that they will be out of the running in 24h if they do not counter that offer. After that, you should have a preferred bidder.
What remains after a preferred bidder is appointed?
Whomever buys the club needs to be approved by the PL. That process can be started before a takeover is executed.
Ultimately, buying the Glazers' shares can be done through a simple transaction note. There will be no meaningful reps and warranties given that it is a public transaction. The buyer will undertake to replace the Glazer siblings on the board, not much more. Hence, the club could potentially have a new owner within weeks.
But what about the remaining 31%? Well, it is here it gets a bit tricky -- and this is a topic that ultimately will depend on Cayman Island cooperate law. First of all, must you buy those shares if you buy the Glazers shares? No. In the UK and all of the EU, anyone acquiring more than 30% of the votes in a company must make a so called mandatory bid for the remaining shares. The reason for this is that anyone buying a share in a listed company should be able to assume that the company will be run in a way that is best for all shareholders. If someone comes in and buy a controlling share, the minority owners must be given an opportunity to exit their investment in light of the new circumstances. This is -- not -- the case on the Cayman Islands.
So why buy the remaining shares of Manchester United plc -- if you don't have to, and since you would controll the club anyway by just buying the Glazers' shares? That is a good question. There are no guarantee that Ineos for example would want to buy those shares. Why not invest that money into the club instead? There is however one big advantage of buying the minorities' shares. If you own all shares of a company, you can wheel 'nd deal with it anyway you want. Lets say you want to lift land owned by the club out of the club and develop it in a separate entity -- its just a little paper work if you own all shares. If there are 150,000 minority shareholders, you better make darn sure that you pay market value for any asset you transfer from the club to another company. And even if you do all you can -- you could still see some litigation. It is impossible to know how the parties would act, but from my view point it is natural to assume that the Qataris would want 100% of the shares while I don't quite see the upside for anyone with Ineos sucking up the shares listed at NYSE.
But anyway -- if you want to buy the minority shares listed at the NYSE -- how is it done? Well you cannot get each and every 150,000 (just picking a random number) minority owner to sell their shares to you. Hence there are mechanisms in place to enable taking a company private. As I understand it, we could either see (a) a public tender offer to the minority (someone sends out a press release and say 'If you want to sell your MUFC plc shares, fill out this form, and we will buy them'), and if bidder owns 90% of the shares after the tender offer, it gets the right to redeem the outstanding shares, or (b) through a take private merger. Given how majority owner friendly Cayman Island law is, I think (b) would be the method used. Ineos or the Qataris create a BidCo (Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)). That BidCo proposes to merge with Manchester United plc. In the merger, the owner of the BidCo gets 100% of the shares in Manchester United plc and the current shareholders of MU plc gets 100% cash. Takes say a month or two to execute. If a minority shareholder in the club thinks the terms of the merger were worthless -- they can take it to court and ask for more pay. Some surely would. If you want to acquire 100% of the shares -- is it better to first acquire Glazers's 69% and then merge or does it make more sense to also acquire the Glazers' shares through a merger? This could impact the arguments of the minority owners going to court asking for more pay. I can't provide any input on if it would matter, but I would bet on that given how flexible Cayman Law is, it doesn't.
What happens to the debt?
As soon as someone takes control of the Glazers' shares of the club -- it will trigger the so called Change of control-clauses of the plc's debt agreements. This means that within stipulated time frames, that debt becomes immediately repayable. So in terms of the actual debt agreements, the Glazers debt will not survive a takeover. The buyer can either (a) pay back the debt, (b) refinance the debt in the name of the club, or (c) refinance the debt in a company higher up in the buyers' group. When Ineos say that they won't put any new debt on the Manchester United plc -- I think it would sound odd that they would engage JPM and GS to issue a bunch of new bonds in Manchester United plc. I think they would do that higher up in the Ineos group. But there is some uncertainty there.
The Qatari would probably cash the debt. I think the talk about Qataris only using "cash" is a bit irrelevant. Qatar's GDP to debt ratio is 40% which is low for a country. Ineos' debt ratio is probably a few times its turnover, which is normal/on the higher side for the average company, but not high for a company with a M&A strategy.
Who will win the bidding?
I want to add one word of caution here, if anyone is absolutely convinced that the Qataris will win the bidding. A group of people in Qatar is driving this project. Right? No matter what anyone says, its common sense that they don't have £5bn burning a hole in their wallet. The bid will be financed with funds which the royal family controls. Hence, someone is setting a budget for the bid. We don't know what that budget is. It could be 10bn. It could be 5bn. I don't think its far fetched to speculate on that someone gave the green light to the entire project -- as long as the price wasn't crazy. You can have 8bn, 5bn for the club and 3bn for the work after getting it. If they want 100% of the shares, and Ineos would settle for 69% -- Ineos wouldn't have to pay absurd money.
I have said from day 1 that the Qataris are the favorites. I would still bet on them if I had to bet, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.
What about Zilliacus?
The only way he has a shot is if he is fronting the Saudis.
You're in France, so probably have a better idea than me, but I'm fairly sure that the rest of the football world doesn't see it that way. Blaming one man is an interesting strategy. I'm sure a fan of the Glazers would like to use Woodward in the same way.
He’s pretty much right although I don’t have an issue with their content being posted it shouldn’t be considered reliable by any stretch.
Also I’d like to point out Muppetiers are obsessed with transfers , they keep banging on about which midfielder or striker we’ll be bringing in , in the summer and who ETH wants. It’s all complete nonsense and they flit from one popular name to another.
If you want proof of this and since you’re in the discord , please reference Darwin Nunez from last summer and FDJ.
Not to mention for the sale of the club they were hankering on about there being 2/3 silent bidders from their sources and he claimed one Paguliga or whatever his name is and Liberty media.
He could still be proven correct but up until this point everyone widely knows it’s Jassim, Daddy Jim and Elliot.
Because they are rational and sensible beings, who view things in a balanced manner?
Who’s saying it should be treated as gospel? He posted a tweet which is an opinion that I share hence me posting it.
That weird boomer @Mr. Robot has some issues with that for whatever reason.
Yes I know. Berba said 'Yeah we kinda do with Brexit. Makes it much harder for us to buy directly from South America. Having a team like Braga would be brilliant.'
Still don't get it, must be me.
- Status