Don't know why it needs to be stated the club won't get any of the proceeds.
Glazers selling a significant amount of shares
- Thread starter Livewire1974
- Start date
People thinking if you sell shares you should be giving money to the company? 
Yes I am going to buy shares in Apple and sell them, to give the money back to Apple.
Yes I am going to buy shares in Apple and sell them, to give the money back to Apple.Excellent DD. Tits = jacked. MOASS triggered. Rocketship.
Yeh understandably its complex how you can take a loan out to buy something then sell it for profit without the obligation to pay back the initial loan. Which I think is the case. I'm guessing because of who the loan was taken against?
Glazers controlling only 69% of the shares pretty much guarantees we won't be bought out by a nation state (thankfully) no?
I mean, why would they want to drop 2.5b and not own the whole thing?
I mean, why would they want to drop 2.5b and not own the whole thing?
Yeah, loan would have been taken against the club, and is repaid through income/profit from operations. Shares are owned by the Glazers, and when sold, money is theirs. Value of shares is obviously impacted by a lot of factors, including amount of debt the club has etc.
It's not significant but could be significant depending on who buys the shares if they have enough money to launch a formal offer for the rest. Exciting times for the club.
It's hope. And hope has been lacking from the club for awhile.
It's hope. And hope has been lacking from the club for awhile.
Am I the only one who doesn't understand a word of this?
To get a reaction from angry United fans
Good assessment. And while like many I would prefer Manchester United not to be owned by the way the current owners do, they may not be the worst type of owners.
Owning a football club is a strategic decision and only works well when success of the football club itself is the priority.
As has been reported, the revenues from this sale will not go to the football club. This will take their share ownership of United to 69%.
So maybe they will gradually go down to just over the 50% figure.
People thinking if you sell shares you should be giving money to the company?
While their debt is still on the club, yes, they should be putting something back in.
Because people have not much idea on what shares are and how do they work. Otherwise they wouldn’t make such stupid comments.
Obviously you're not on reddit.
So 31% is owned by others. I wonder how much they'd drop down to. Surely it makes more sense for them to sell the whole lot for far more than the share price.
Meh. Unless it’s 100% of the shares then I ain’t interested.
So Ariel Investment are buying up the shares.
So, out of who, how, why and why now, we know two.
They may have tried and failed to find a buyer at a higher price
Or more probable is that the Glazer spawn don't all agree so some are selling
Either way they still have nearly all the voting rights so retain complete control
Could be. Ariel passing notes to them in 0.1% circles, knowing that some of the Glazer spawn desperately want to cash in as been rumored.
Could be as Machiavellian as that, with Ariel trying to worsen whatever friction there may be between the Glazers.
One possibility is that somehow related to the fan-ownership thing.
It's more to do with the fact that again they are profiting from the club instead of servicing the debt, because they aren't liable for the debt due to the how-is-it-even-legal leveraged buy-out.
I don't think this matters because they'd be buying it for control, not for profit
so as long as they have 51% and control of the board that would do
and of course, they can buy up the rest of the shares from the open market too
Yeah, about 95% post sale.
It's not really about agreeing\disagreeing, it's more about using a mechanism that gives some of the glazers the flexibility to sell a significant portion of their holding while ensuring that the remaining glazers retain overall control. The whole A\B share split was designed for this. Each glazer can act individually but the collective is protected.
The latest sale involved the conversion of 9.5 million B shares to A shares. That minimally increases the power of non glazer shareholders but significantly alters the power base within the family: Those with the most B shares (Joel and Avram) have more power.
But...but, they placed a huge amount of debt against our club in a highly controversial purchase. Surely they have a moral obligation???People thinking if you sell shares you should be giving money to the company?
Joking aside as it's obvious they'll never put any of their own money into the club - do you think they would have been able to get away with this if they had purchased an NFL team in the same way? Absolutely not.
So they have basically sold a certain amount of shares that doesnt really lessen their control in any way and made a fortune out of it.
Good day at the office if you can manage it I guess.
Who is buying the shares then? Are they only available in 1 block or can they be split by multiple buyers?
Good day at the office if you can manage it I guess.
Who is buying the shares then? Are they only available in 1 block or can they be split by multiple buyers?
Ariel is secretly owned by a Phil Jones / Fred partnership guaranteeing themselves playing contracts.
Well yeah, control in a company is everything, but I don't see guys from that part of the world laying down a couple of billion without being 100% the owner, its an ego thing.
We wondered what it would take to get rid of the Glazers. Apparently building a world class team and still looking poor was the answer
Something looked fishy on the chart last week when I sold at $20.
The glazers know Ole is not the one.
The glazers know Ole is not the one.
Trying to find the posts that say this though.
Anyway, I think this is nothing too relevant. Just a way to liquidate cash.
sure, but there are mechanisms in place to take a public company private again.. it varies by country/state so I don't know the rules, but it will be possible once they own a certain amount of shares
Why should you? It´s your shares..
95% of this forum have absolutely no clue how a public companies finances work. Regardless - this is extremely bearish for United’s future. They sold at a ~13% discount to the market price. You don’t do that unless you’re projecting some very tough times ahead.
I don't
Yeah I get the fury. They own the shares though, irrespective of how they acquired it, ergo, the money goes to them.
It's possible they realise that without a long term investment plan their asset will begin to deterioriate in value no matter how much liquidity they pour in. The current strategy is reaching the point of diminishing returns (in English we can't even beat Everton at home.)
Last edited:
I think there has always been signs that Joel and Avram had more interest in the club than the other siblings, although IIRC Bryan Glazer did show up at OT at some point - everytime the share price gets around $20 there is usually a big seller that sends the price down and it's likely the other Glazers
Feels like I’m back in the 90’s
Read it on the link in here.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/before-the-internet-there-was…-teletext.466025/#post-27889089
My totally unsubstantiated conspiracy theory is that Avram Glazer realises that a top four spot just became a lot harder with the Saudi deal going through and that's why he sold his shares. The level of investment required to guarantee finishing above Liverpool, Newcastle, Chelsea and City is quite large.