Are people really buying the BS from Castles?
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
That’s probably in the context of things finally looking up under Arnie and Johnny M and a fear of losing that progress if starting from scratch which is understandable. Maybe not entirely realistic but understandable.
Good post and the below isn't aimed at you Mainoldo.
I'd also like to add that I've never said that Murtough was the Messi of DoFs like one daft post insinuated earlier. But what I have said is that we should give Murtough time to create the structure, which will benefit both the head coach and the club in the mid to long-term, potentially. Then we can judge his work.
And if someone can please tell me what experience a DoF needs to create a structure that will enable us to compete with big clubs like Liverpool, Bayern, Madrid etc, I would love to hear your thoughts.
Surely false, isnt it supposed to be totally different managment? I doubt they'll be making or even commeting ideas as stupid as this only to get nervous feelings in UEFA. It's an idea that crossed someones mind and decided to put it as news.
Why stay at Brighton or risk your development by moving to United with Kane coming in when you can move to France and develop in a top league with CL fooball?
Plus it’s United, we have a huge pull of our own and then you have to factor in the owners simply not selling talent to any other English club. Do they want to wait out 5 years plus an option of one to join Liverpool? Why join a United led group in that case.
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.
Bruh you add more value to this thread then the rest combined.
Great work
It would be different management, just under the same umbrella... Like City Group and the RB lot.
United doesn't have a particularly big pull, it doesn't have more pull than many other clubs and that was the case when Ferguson was around. Footballers primarily care about money and finding the best situation for themselves and United has experienced that many times.
I don't think our transfer policy ever recovered from DdG's girlfriend agreeing Manchester was uglier than the back of a fridge.
I think used to have a bigger pull because we were a safe bet to win something in your career (ala Sheringham) In recent years that hasn’t been the case which is why we’ve had to pay bigger fees and more wages to attract the players we’ve wanted, but to all players as only being interested in money when they make a transfer is harsh and inaccurate for me.
Is it what she said?
But serisouly United are an attractive destination but it's not a club with a remarkable pull. If we are honest historically only one club has a remarkable pull, the rest have to heavily rely on current circumstances.
We weren't bigger pull. And professional Footballers are primarily focused on making money, then within clubs that offer the money that they want they will pick the best situation for themselves. Few players will pick a club above money, the way they will be used or the prospect for trophies.
People need to keep in mind that if money wasn't their primary motivation most players would play for very different clubs many of them wouldn't be near Europe.
Has connections in Portugal with Mendes obviously. Might be some truth in it.
Does anyone know what the “takeover update” is on the Talk of the Devils podcast?
Strongly imagine it’ll be nothing new, but thought I’d ask
Strongly imagine it’ll be nothing new, but thought I’d ask
We signed the best midfielder in the world from the CL winners after finishing 6th and being in the EL a mere 12 months after signing Varane with Ole in charge.
Are you sure you’re a United fan? Genuine question
He was under contract until 2025. We only got him because RM wanted to sell for the right price. Did anyone else bid?
Did I tell you that United had no ability to sign big players? No, that's not what I said nor what the topic of the conversation was, in fact Varane picking Real Madrid instead of United in the first place is an illustration of my point. United doesn't have a remarkable pull and if accepting that reality makes me less of fan then I can live with that.
You Cyberman are a true fan and I'm not.
Two years is a long time contract wise and Madrid tried to change his mind before accepting the deal. Nobody else was in because he wanted to come here.
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.
Great piece, so we are all to assume that the current bids of the rumoured £5bn is only for the 69.0% of The Glaziers sibling shares and Ed Woodward 0.50% and by conclusion does not necessarily include the £620m debt which would have to be paid if and when the new owners took control ?
I didn’t say we had a bigger pull than everyone else, I said United had a huge pull.
Maybe calm down and read my post before responding and misrepresenting my point there buddy?
Oh no somebody joined little known Madrid after the players hero talked him into turning down Manchester United 10 years ago. United pull in shambles .
I read your post and unless your argument about huge pull isn't to create a hierarchy that puts United remarkably higher then what exactlly was the point about huge pull?
And don't worry i'm perfectly calm, especially in presence of such a fan.
Read the interviews. Varane was perfectly willing to sign for United at the time after SAF made contact and a deal was provisionally agreed. It was the opportunity to sign Phil Jones (ha) instead that saw United withdraw and Madrid come to the fore.
As a side note, for people wondering about the impact of Qatar potentially upon the 'glamour' or prestige or aura of United, they might want to investigate how Madrid became such a big name in the first place on the European scene in the 1950s/60, specifically the relationship between the club and General Franco/the authoritarian Spanish state...
United didn't withdrew. Varane had both offers on the table and picked Real Madrid after phone calls from Zidane and Mourinho. He picked Real Madrid which is perfectly fine.
Money plus life/lifestyle (weather/culture/language, etc.) is also a very big pull. If Madrid/Barca/Milan, etc. offer you similar money to United (which especially 1-2 decades ago was the case and in the 90s United were paying even lower salaries than some other PL clubs, let alone top European clubs), then player in most cases will prefer Spain/Italy.
Equally important for the players is that their families prefer those countries. Then if it has to be England then it better be London than Manchester.
Just look at FdJ, despite Barca treating him like s*** and ETH being here, he didn’t come.
Now that doesn’t mean that United can’t or won’t sign big players (as we have many times), but United failing to sign big players is not always United‘s or the board‘s fault. If a player or their family don’t want to move then that’s not on the club.
Equally important for the players is that their families prefer those countries. Then if it has to be England then it better be London than Manchester.
Just look at FdJ, despite Barca treating him like s*** and ETH being here, he didn’t come.
Now that doesn’t mean that United can’t or won’t sign big players (as we have many times), but United failing to sign big players is not always United‘s or the board‘s fault. If a player or their family don’t want to move then that’s not on the club.
You haven’t read my post, that much is clear.
I’m simply talking about Uniteds pull in response to your post about players wanting to go elsewhere as if United are just a run of the mill club getting lost in the shuffle.
And yes, United have a massive pull in world football as per my examples, don’t be ridiculous.
London is overrated and is a point that belongs in 2002. I can’t think of one player the two Manchester clubs missed out on because they wanted to move to London.
It may be overrated to you but not to rich people. And without thinking for more than 3 seconds Hazard transfer in 2012 comes to mind.
Now it is well reported that Fergie/United didn’t want to pay the agent fee, but bottom line is we missed out on a great player.
So you are suggesting that players always want to go to United, they have never picked other clubs?
I'm the one being ridiculous when you are literally ignoring reality, which is that many players have picked other clubs and that includes during the best years under SAF.
11 years ago?
Are there reports he just wanted London over Manchester?
Maybe the Qataris can build old Trafford and the surrounding area on a mounted platform so it's closer to the sun and we can compete with the exotic locations on that front too.
Varane himself says otherwise. He was interviewed in the Sunday Times 2-3 weeks ago and literally stated that United withdrew, leaving Madrid as the only bidder. He also followed United growing up.
I have no idea what you’re talking about at this stage.
Are you trying to frame it was unless we have a 100 percent hit rate on who we want to buy then we don’t have a huge pull? Many other EPL sides signing multi CL winning players in their prime while struggling as a club?
It just seems you want to continue arguing without knowing what you’re arguing about
'I was very close to coming here,' he says. 'I think we were agreed, Lens and Manchester, but then, I don't know, I think Manchester changed their mind. Another opportunity would arrive and the Bernabeu wasn't bad!
Fair enough, then Varane told two different stories.
You are the one who argued about a general point, with your "United has a huge pull"
Look I am not interested in a deep discussion about which city the footballers prefer. You said you can’t think of a single player and I named you a player.
Every UK city has a disadvantage to some other European cities in terms of weather, language, etc. anyway when it comes to attracting players (assuming salaries are similar). Then when it comes to England I have read and heard enough rich peoples‘ views that London is their preferred city in UK.
I honestly don‘t believe United have a bigger pull than most other top clubs in PL and Europe. Players will go after money, where they can make the most out of their career/win stuff, where their families want to live, etc.
And I personally don’t care. United is an English club in Manchester and whoever has an issue with that can and should stay away.
But you haven’t mentioned anybody we missed out on because they wanted to move to London. You even gave the reason why Hazard turned us down.
Plus Chelsea is a weird club to pick anyway, we literally signed 3 childhood Chelsea fans over them in the last 8 years.
Edit you brought it up!
Last edited:
Just to add to all that, no-one's denying that Madrid are extremely attractive as a proposition because of their winning history, willingness to spend exorbitant amounts of money (even more, accounting for inflation than United and City) as well as factors like the weather, established links with South American agents. For lots of Iberian and SA players in particular, everything else being roughly equal, that's a bigger pull.
But so many the recent 'failures' when it comes to players like Hazard, the Silvas, and before that even Robben going to other clubs in the UK have been a combination of 'grey' payments made to players and more so to agents, clubs being doped (Chelsea then City) way beyond the relatively strong spending United could engage in at a domestic level in the 1990s based on success or associated income and, post 2008 in particular, executive incompetence or lax standards that eventually, post SAF, created toxic feedback effects. The whole London thing is a muchness by comparison with the level of wealth and access to rapid personal transport/commuting facilities players in the top bracket possess. Manchester in the late 2000s was already heavily invested in with great restaurants, clubs and cultural facilities - you just had fewer of them, but it's not like a player, if they wanted to stay around rather than commuting, would be looking for a new 'spot' every week.
Before that, the club was competing with a similarly 'doped' Italian league with owners operating more along the lines of prestige (as well as winning political capital and partnerships for non-footballing matters like real estate) similar to that promised by Qataris - and even with that, plus Italy's generally fairer climate, United were still a proper top-table draw when Edwards actually committed to spending anything .
That's why removing the Glazers is so important, regardless of how well the team does this season, even who gets recruited to scout or assist in football direction. There's a miasma or stain attached to them with a whole array of agent stories about the third-rate cackhanded operations compared to other PL title-aspirant clubs, as well as a set of practical impediments like the speed of decision-making and the wildly misjudged role of the gruesome two (Avram and Joel) re. managing spending across the club rather than being silent owners leaving everything to a competent chairman, that can only be mitigated rather than gone beyond.
But so many the recent 'failures' when it comes to players like Hazard, the Silvas, and before that even Robben going to other clubs in the UK have been a combination of 'grey' payments made to players and more so to agents, clubs being doped (Chelsea then City) way beyond the relatively strong spending United could engage in at a domestic level in the 1990s based on success or associated income and, post 2008 in particular, executive incompetence or lax standards that eventually, post SAF, created toxic feedback effects. The whole London thing is a muchness by comparison with the level of wealth and access to rapid personal transport/commuting facilities players in the top bracket possess. Manchester in the late 2000s was already heavily invested in with great restaurants, clubs and cultural facilities - you just had fewer of them, but it's not like a player, if they wanted to stay around rather than commuting, would be looking for a new 'spot' every week.
Before that, the club was competing with a similarly 'doped' Italian league with owners operating more along the lines of prestige (as well as winning political capital and partnerships for non-footballing matters like real estate) similar to that promised by Qataris - and even with that, plus Italy's generally fairer climate, United were still a proper top-table draw when Edwards actually committed to spending anything .
That's why removing the Glazers is so important, regardless of how well the team does this season, even who gets recruited to scout or assist in football direction. There's a miasma or stain attached to them with a whole array of agent stories about the third-rate cackhanded operations compared to other PL title-aspirant clubs, as well as a set of practical impediments like the speed of decision-making and the wildly misjudged role of the gruesome two (Avram and Joel) re. managing spending across the club rather than being silent owners leaving everything to a competent chairman, that can only be mitigated rather than gone beyond.
- Status