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

Status
Not open for further replies.
rimaldo said:
jokes on you. i didn’t even support arsenal when arteta was shit.
Click to expand...
That makes it jokes on you then.. started supporting them a couple weeks ago when you seen who was at the top of the prem… cute.
 
It was my preferred choice to take over, but I never expected the Glazers to stay on
 
Tone deaf again from the club just before Christmas. Here's another creepy old whopper to mismanage and leech off the club while keeping the probable inbreds in power. Mint!
 
GwynnieJ said:
Tone deaf again from the club just before Christmas. Here's another creepy old whopper to mismanage and leech off the club while keeping the probable inbreds in power. Mint!
Click to expand...

i have this crazy concept but maybe let’s give him a chance to be shit before we decide that he’s shit.
 
I noticed how their quote mentioned giving support to the players, the board… but no specific reference to the manager
 
giggs-beckham said:
Is it significant it saying up to 25%
Click to expand...
Technicality - the class A shareholders need to accept his tender offer. They'd be stupid not to, as it's already at a significant premium over the market price of the shares.
 
Plant0x84 said:
Club World Cup mean nothing to you? No, me neither! :D
Click to expand...

they only beat two clubs that sound like things you overhear doctors saying at the hospital when you’re getting something removed from a cavity. urethra reds and influeminense. joke clubs.
 
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...
Not sure the bedwetters and keyboard experts want to hear this to be honest.
 
rimaldo said:
they only beat two clubs that sound like things you overhear doctors saying at the hospital when you’re getting something removed from a cavity. urethra reds and influeminense. joke clubs.
Click to expand...
And dominating English football for the past 3 years…
 
Good start, hopefully it is the sign of impending positive progress.

Wouldn’t surprise me if some of the less interested Glazers start to sell off their shares individually over the next year or two.

Not sure what else people expected; the Glazers weren’t selling the full club and we only had two real bidders, one of whom is sickened off and wasn’t bidding what the Glazers allegedly wanted anyways.
 
Plant0x84 said:
I don’t understand why a seperate thread has been started when we’ve had a sale thread for a whole year!?

Maybe they should be merged?
Click to expand...
There at least 3 x ‘sack EtH threads so we’re still a bit light on takeover hot takes .

We should have a poll and a ‘would you keep or burn Ineos’ thread too.
 
Plant0x84 said:
I don’t understand why a seperate thread has been started when we’ve had a sale thread for a whole year!?

Maybe they should be merged?
Click to expand...
It’s the same for everything on here. We have about 3/4 threads on the same thing just worded differently :lol:
 
:lol: the last few posts have been gold
 
.Phil1968 said:
Let's hope this is the beginning of the end of the Glazers. Radcliffe has got to be better than the shite we've had in charge previously.
Click to expand...
Can see one of his first jobs being sacking the manager if we lose to villa and then forest.
 
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...
I think I read it’s all Glazers reducing though maybe not a pro rata reduction for all.

If the 38% (and two thirds rule) are correct, seems odd the Glazers/their advisors would allow it? If correct, also mean they can block SJR as much as he can them?
 
Herschel Krustofsky said:
There at least 3 x ‘sack EtH threads so we’re still a bit light on takeover hot takes .

We should have a poll and a ‘would you keep or burn Ineos’ thread too.
Click to expand...
DJ_21 said:
It’s the same for everything on here. We have about 3/4 threads on the same thing just worded differently :lol:
Click to expand...
So irritating and unnecessary!
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
I think I read it’s all Glazers reducing though maybe not a pro rata reduction for all.

If the 38% (and two thirds rule) are correct, seems odd the Glazers/their advisors would allow it? If correct, also mean they can block SJR as much as he can them?
Click to expand...
You can't buy 25% of the shares in proportion Class B and Class A and get to 38%. Maffs don't work out.
 
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...

And the Glazers have gone onto maximize the commercial potential of the club through numerous record sponsorship agreements, which you've conveniently ignored. Your three examples offer nothing to counter that.
 
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...
Trying to understand, if Ratcliffe can veto anything major that the Glazers want to do, because they don't have 66.7% of the voting shares, then that should equally mean the Glazers can veto anything Ratcliffe wants to do, because he doesn't have 66.7% either. So how can owning 51% in 18 months be described as taking full control?

What happens normally when two sides of a board disagree, does it just mean no major action can be passed ad infinitum? that seems crazy. I can't get my head round the 66.7% thing I must admit.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
$300m investment is bad because… the Glazers have previously taken money out of the club and SJR has to pay for his shares?
Click to expand...
The trainwreck is your comprehension of that’s your conclusion. Been around this forum long enough to see this play from you many times. Jog on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.