Manchester United reaches agreement for Sir Jim Ratcliffe to acquire 25% of the company

Status
Not open for further replies.
devilish said:
First of all them being good commercial wise is a myth. United was already a commercial juggernaut by the time they bought us and the Glazers were lucky to be riding the EPL money wave on the biggest and meanest super yacht in football. Actually prior to them coming, we were the top dogs commercial wise. These days our infrastructure is rotting, we're serving raw chicken to customers, our debt keep piling up and we're losing money. That's hardly the gold standard of running a club commercially
Click to expand...

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/sto...announce-premier-league-record-annual-revenue

We are nowhere near losing money. This myth needs to stop.
 
devilish said:
Can you please explain me these details please. I am not being sarcastic or anything like that. I want to spend the Christmas with less things to worry about

The football side is something the Glazers had never given a feck about. Else they wouldn't have kept Woodward and Murtough for this long
Click to expand...

They were just employees and all major decisions required the Glazers to agree. I think it was Joel who had the final say on all matters. Football or commercial.

This should no longer be the case for football matters.

In sure we will get more details on time and obviously see how it works in practice.
 
JagUTD said:
They were just employees and all major decisions required the Glazers to agree. I think it was Joel who had the final say on all matters. Football or commercial.

This should no longer be the case for football matters.

In sure we will get more details on time and obviously see how it works in practice.
Click to expand...

I repeat what I said. I would support this bid as long as there's a clear path for INEOS/SJR to buy the club (which also include deadlines).
 
spiriticon said:
Fair enough. I'm actually amazed we can have record revenues and still lose money but that's actually how it is.

Still not enough to make the Glazers twitch though. You need the revenues to come down significantly
Click to expand...

The Glazers are just shit owners. The earlier they leave the better. That should be every prospective owner's aim.
 
devilish said:
The Glazers are just shit owners. The earlier they leave the better. That should be every prospective owner's aim.
Click to expand...

I agree. But you need a seismic economic shock to the club to force them to leave soon. Otherwise, they can draw our blood for a long, long time to come.

I thought COVID lockdown might be a gamechanger, but it turns out its still not enough.
 
spiriticon said:
I agree. But you need a seismic economic shock to the club to force them to leave soon. Otherwise, they can draw our blood for a long, long time to come.
Click to expand...

We had that seismic economic shock (Covid and interest rates going to the roof). That's why they put the club on sale. I hope that SJR was bright enough to have forced a clause that would see him owning the club in the short-mid term. Else they will never sell
 
devilish said:
We had that seismic economic shock (Covid and interest rates going to the roof). That's why they put the club on sale. I hope that SJR was bright enough to have forced a clause that would see him owning the club in the short-mid term. Else they will never sell
Click to expand...

Yeah it's not enough though. They could still string the sale along for 2 years, and they still had enough cards to get Jim to whittle his interest down from 100 to 25%.

It would take about another 10 years, or a relegation, to shake things up to the point where it's unbearable.
 
I’ve had a lot of experience in acquisitions and limited partnerships. There is a lot of handwringing which really isn’t necessary. The reason the Glazers did it this way is that they didn’t reach their target valuation. Now, we don’t know if the 25% of the voting shares is coming from some of Glazer kids, or if all the Glazers will be diluted. When you realize that 69% of the corporation is owned by the Glazers, obtaining 25% of the company in Class B voting shares is essentially giving SJR full control. It means he’ll have roughly 38% of the voting shares, and he’ll be the largest shareholder.

Most major board level decisions require 66.7% of the shares/board to approve a resolution. When I say “major”, I mean new injection of capital, new shareholders, issuance of new shares, purchase of assets over, say, a certain amount, like 10m. As such, Sir Jim likely has veto power over any resolution raised by the Glazers, because they won’t have the 66.7% to outvote him. That’s why he has operational control. In addition, he’s added another 300m in capital injection commitments, which dilutes the Glazers further, by another 5-6%… meaning he’ll have 30%+ of total shares and 45% (roughly) of the voting shares.

On top of that, he’s committed to buy 25% of the class A non-voting shares @$33 a share. That’s a premium of $13 per share! As this happens, the value of the A shares will go up… and we know there is a vehicle to convert Glazers voting shares to non-voting shares which they can sell on the open market, or Sir Jim also has right of first refusal.

‘Look… the beginning of the end of the Glazers is here. This is a very savvy move by Sir Jim. TheCaf is saying the Glazers are “smart” and Sir Jim is “stupid”. No! This was the only way to get the Glazers out without meeting the undeserved sky high valuations they were demanding.

It’s happening people… the Glazers are on their way out. My guess is that Sir Jim will take full control, and own 51% of the voting shares with 18 month. The Glazers will be completed out, or just a minority shareholder, which is very common in These types of transactions.
 
Jordi Cruyff 99 said:
I don't get this. It's not like they don't know that Ratcliffe's arrival is imminent. Also, not sure what Christmas Eve has to do with anything. We are not living in some Christmas film. A lot of people couldn't care less about Christmas and don't celebrate it, for various reasons.
Click to expand...

Alot of people do care and do celebrate it.
 
DSG said:
I’ve had a lot of experience in acquisitions and limited partnerships. There is a lot of handwringing which really isn’t necessary. The reason the Glazers did it this way is that they didn’t reach their target valuation. Now, we don’t know if the 25% of the voting shares is coming from some of Glazer kids, or if all the Glazers will be diluted. When you realize that 69% of the corporation is owned by the Glazers, obtaining 25% of the company in Class B voting shares is essentially giving SJR full control. It means he’ll have roughly 38% of the voting shares, and he’ll be the largest shareholder.

Most major board level decisions require 66.7% of the shares/board to approve a resolution. When I say “major”, I mean new injection of capital, new shareholders, issuance of new shares, purchase of assets over, say, a certain amount, like 10m. As such, Sir Jim likely has veto power over any resolution raised by the Glazers, because they won’t have the 66.7% to outvote him. That’s why he has operational control. In addition, he’s added another 300m in capital injection commitments, which dilutes the Glazers further, by another 5-6%… meaning he’ll have 30%+ of total shares and 45% (roughly) of the voting shares.

On top of that, he’s committed to buy 25% of the class A non-voting shares @$33 a share. That’s a premium of $13 per share! As this happens, the value of the A shares will go up… and we know there is a vehicle to convert Glazers voting shares to non-voting shares which they can sell on the open market, or Sir Jim also has right of first refusal.

‘Look… the beginning of the end of the Glazers is here. This is a very savvy move by Sir Jim. TheCaf is saying the Glazers are “smart” and Sir Jim is “stupid”. No! This was the only way to get the Glazers out without meeting the undeserved sky high valuations they were demanding.

It’s happening people… the Glazers are on their way out. My guess is that Sir Jim will take full control, and own 51% of the voting shares with 18 month. The Glazers will be completed out, or just a minority shareholder, which is very common in These types of transactions.
Click to expand...

Is it not 25% of the 69% (17.25% of the club) and then upto 25% of the 31% (7.75% of the club) so exactly 25% of the total shares?

I agree that the path to them being gone is right in front of us though. Wouldn't be surprised if the Glazers with the smaller share holdings will be gone by the end of 2024
 
Last edited:
Club statement says Ratcliffe was advised by JP Morgan. Aren't they ones running the European Super League?
 
the_cliff said:
I don't think you read the article that you posted. It literally says we still made a loss of 42 million.
Click to expand...

I read that we made record revenues in another article which I couldn't find, so I used this one.

But yes, people have let me know that we still made a loss which I find staggering.
 
Ayoba said:
Timing? What the feck is he on about?
Click to expand...
What Neville has forgotten is that United are on the stock exchange and have to announce boardroom changes the second they’re ratified. They can’t just postpone the press release for a couple of weeks because it’s ’bad timing’. Any trading done in that time could come under scrutiny for insider trading.
 
P0GBA said:
Club statement says Ratcliffe was advised by JP Morgan. Aren't they ones running the European Super League?
Click to expand...
Means nothing though. They're one of the largest banks in the world, and they're involved in a ton of large transactions.
 
P0GBA said:
Club statement says Ratcliffe was advised by JP Morgan. Aren't they ones running the European Super League?
Click to expand...

Standard practice for an investment bank to be involved in such a large deal.
 
Can we have a poll on if you're happy with this or not? It'd just be interesting to see the general consensus on this here.
 
They say timing is everything...

Announced on Christmas Eve:
‘Manchester United reaches agreement for Sir Jim Ratcliffe, Chairman of INEOS, to acquire up to a 25% shareholding in the Company.’

With Sir Jim purchasing the shares though a company he owns called Trawlers Ltd

...just in time for this:

“On the first day of Christmas my true-love gave to me,
An Eric Cantona.

On the second day of Christmas my true-love gave to me,
Two Cantonas, And an Eric Cantona.

On the third day of Christmas my true-love gave to me,
Three Cantonas, Two Cantonas, And an Eric Cantona.

Repeat to

On the twelfth day of Christmas my true-love gave to me,
Twelve Cantonas, Eleven Cantonas, Ten Cantonas, Nine Cantonas, Eight Cantonas, Seven Cantonas, Six Cantonas,
Fiiiiiiive Caaaaantoooooonaaaaaaas,
Four Cantonas, Three Cantonas, Two Cantonas, And an Eric Cantona.

United, United, United!”

​
Merry Christmas Everyone!
 
rimaldo said:
ignorant fans?
Click to expand...
You speaking from past experience? If I had to guess I’d say you was probably 1 of thousands wanting Arteta out when you was finishing 8th and losing games with him. Now your FINALLY challenging your coming out of your shell…
 
DJ_21 said:
You speaking from past experience? If I had to guess I’d say you was probably 1 of thousands wanting Arteta out when you was finishing 8th and losing games with him. Now your FINALLY challenging your coming out of your shell…
Click to expand...

jokes on you. i didn’t even support arsenal when arteta was shit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.