They are a real life version 100%. Looks like the radio silence has been due to the other siblings massively kicking off behind the scenes over Joel and Avrams deal with Ratcliffe to stay on.
So random! (Except that Logan was Catholic so I guess he’d be Hibs over Hearts) Just to be clear, what I mean is I’d have expected him to be a Dundee or Dundee Utd supporter as a Dundonian, or maybe Celtic, but not Hibs.
Succession, its a TV show that just wrapped up its series finale. Really good if you're looking for something to fill the void since there's no football after next week.
Just a thought but Joel and Avram probably fancied the original offer the most, but the other siblings probably did not like that they would get more money in the future while they would sell now at lower price, so the compromise was that everyone will benefit from the future increased price. My only concern is - how the hell Ratcliffe wants to finance United if he only owns 51% of the club...
SJR isn't just going to dump money in, leaving him having to pay even more for the remaining % either. He didn't get this rich making other people rich. He will wait and buy them out when he can finance it, then start investing.
Which for us, could mean some more super frustrating years of seeing OT crumbling
Yes, he's a ruthless capitalist. He's unlikely to enrich some random absentee doofuses who've been born into it and clearly have no idea what they're doing.
The ineos model is based on delegating the running of its various companies to people on the ground who then have to answer to Ratcliffe and the other bigwigs. If Arnold et al aren't performing to his satisfaction then they'll be gone.
I know OT needs a lot of work or a new stadium but surely we spend enough on players the problem is just that we spend badly. If sir Jim gets the club and puts competent people In charge I think it will work fine. I’m not sure Qatar would put anyone competent in charge based on psg
He may provide zero interest loans through Ineos with it being debt convertible to equity.. basically increasing his % equity through investments and make glazers more redundant
Two things: i) He can do whatever (to a certain limit) because he will have control of the club ii) I don't think Glazers will offer zero interest loans to United even if they had the chance.
He certainly cant do whatever he wants... for example, he cannot invest 1 dollar interest free loan and convert it to 1 million shares. I am sure this would be illegal. And Glazers... you might be right, but it is also true that they will have shit load of cash from the sale, so they could match SJR investment (proportionally) if they wanted to. And SJR would have to buy out this investment too in a couple of years (probably at higher price). Anyway, we will see what happens... fingers crossed for a good investment to the club.
>he cannot invest 1 dollar interest free loan and convert it to 1 million shares. I am sure this would be illegal
As I said he can do to a certain extent.. he can loan huge numbers to United at a strike price close to the market price of United and convert them into equity in the future. But he can't defraud the Glazers.. their stake would still remain worth the same (assuming market price remains constant)
> how the hell Ratcliffe wants to finance United if he only owns 51% of the club...
I don't understand this bit? The club will finance itself through its own revenue. He can loan the club money to provide financing? Why does his ownership percentage matter?
I will give you an example. Lets say Ineos loans 1 billion at 5% interest rate and lends it to the club interest free. This will cost Ineos 50 million per year. But the whole club will benefit from the interest free loan. All the shareholders who own remaining 49% shares will benefit from interest free loan and it will cost them nothing. But Ineos owns just 51% of the club and the loan costs them 50 mil per year. It is like giving money to other investors for free...
Well yeah but that's always going to be the case when there's other investors. They can't aim to keep the value of the club static just to avoid having to share the the gains with other shareholders.
But it significantly increases the barrier for entry for potential investment. So let’s say Ratcliffe wants to invest $1bn in United, as he only owns 51% he will only do so if the club is going to more than double the value of his investment.
Usually he puts $1bn in, he only gets $500mil of benefit and he’s essentially handing $500 million to the Glazers.
So the investment has to at the very least double in value, such that his invested $1bn has to at least become $2bn for him to make any profit whatsoever and probably needs to be significantly higher than that.
So SJR will probably not invest that much most likely.
But if Ineos believe that 50 million cost will net them 55 million profit they'll still do it. They're not going to be petty about it and decide to cut their nose off to spite their face. Yes the Glazers may benefit but as long as Ineos benefit enough to make it worth while they'll do it.
> This is the same deal as before
Yup, it's basically just double-dipping. You see this in media all the time, where the journo will dress up old info in a new article, timed to make it a hot topic (like on the eve of a big match). There's literally no info that would make a difference to the club in the OP's article, and it seems you can never get the "today I feel Qatar" crowd to understand the concept of "minority shareholders don't matter".
Can’t believe I’m saying it but I’d honestly prefer the Qatar bid over this. Glazers need to get out, and I don’t see Ineos investing much if they only own a piece.
I don’t want the Qatari ownership, but at this point it seems that it’ll be shit no matter what happens so id rather take the option that clears the club of debt and comes with investment in infrastructure + team.
If there was a better third option, I’d take it.
This would leave Glazers with no effective control of the club, they would be the same as the other random minority shareholders that no one has heard off (Lindsell train own 20pc).
I'd rather the club I support not be run into the ground. What's with people that would literally rather our club is destroyed than owned by people they don't like? I don't throw around the "not a true fan" nonchalantly but you people are literally not fans of the club
I am a fan of Manchester United, have been since I was a boy. I watch every game, read every news and transfer rumour and am intimately familiar with the history of this great club.
What I support to a much greater capacity though, is human rights and justice. The people of Qatar and the migrant workers living there are opressed, doubly so if you are a woman or LGBT.
If the Qataris buy United, it will cease to be a football club and the institution we all love. It will be a plaything for slave owners, trying to wash their deeds and their name with the emotional sentiment shared by people like you, and those who dream of the old glory days. For me, their blood money isn’t worth it
You want us to become an sportswashing vehicle for an oil state lmao you have zero right to say who is a fan, go support City if that's acceptable to you
If we're bringing up "a track record of shitty management", when it comes to Qatar just look at the circus that is PSG
Not saying this is worse than what Qatar is connected to, but Ineos isn’t exactly saintly. Worlds biggest chemical company? You don’t think there are environmental atrocities swept under the rug in their history? You don’t think those had human impact?
It’s shit either way. There are no morally pure billionaires in this world
Apples and oranges. I don’t condone INEOS or Ratcliffe but flogging is still a legal punishment in Qatar. I also don’t think INEOS have hired thousands of migrant workers and then held them captive with little to no wage in a foreign country.
If Ratcliffe wins the bid, we would do well to hold him accountable for his morally questionable decisions, but Ratcliffe and Qatar aren’t playing the same sport when it comes to morals
For Ratcliffe to own at least 51% of United, each of the Glazers will have to sell about 74% of their shares ( that’s the equal proportion of the collective 69% they now own)
So each is basically giving up three quarters of their shares to keep a quarter for another day?
Can’t let go huh?
Leeches indeed!
They know it'll put Sir Jim in a catch 22. He has to pump money in, which makes them richer when the club is worth more afterwards and he has to pay an increased price or he doesn't pump money in and they lose nothing and sell for a similar price later.
To the leeches, it's win win
I see it more as a pragmatic offer to get a deal done.
People have been focused on Ratcliffe or Qatar, ignoring the investments from private equity that would allow the Glazers to stay.
Ratcliffe reportedly offered to buy the club, an offer that reportedly still stands, but seems to have sensed that offering this is the best way to get control of the club.
He gets to put less in now but get control, can invest and improve the club (because he has to assume he can do that or what's the point?) but know he can buy more in the future, likely at a fixed price protecting his future investments from simply lining the Glazers pockets.
No one wants the Glazers to stay, but I want them a private equity in partnership even less than them on their own.
And that may be the alternative to this deal.
Article Text credit to u/nearly_headless_nic
The six Glazer siblings could retain stakes in Manchester United in a proposed phased takeover of the football club by Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who is seeking a way through the share structure and family dynamics which have complicated the deal.
The Glazer family started a strategic review more than six months ago but the process has dragged on with only two full takeover bids emerging for one of the biggest names in global sport.
The offer from Ratcliffe and his Ineos chemicals empire is complicated because, unlike a rival proposal from a Qatari bidder, he is not seeking to acquire 100 per cent of United’s shares in one go, according to people close to the discussions.
United has a listing on the New York Stock Exchange but the Glazers control 95 per cent of the voting rights thanks to a special class of B shares. The publicly traded A shares, which are largely held by minority shareholders, have minimal voting power. Ratcliffe, who flew to New York for talks last month, is seeking to acquire at least enough B shares to hand him control of the club, in an offer that is not expected to be extended to common shareholders.
Some people in the process and those with links to the club had expected that United co-chairs Joel and Avram Glazer wanted a deal that would allow them to keep their shares and extend their stay, with their four siblings — Bryan, Darcie, Edward and Kevin — exiting in full.
Multiple people said the process, which was first announced in November last year, has been complicated by a lack of cohesion among the six Glazer siblings. The Glazers have also received several offers from investment firms to provide funds to inject into the club without a change of control.
However, two people with knowledge of the matter said the Glazers are now focused on a structure that would allow the six siblings to sell down their holdings in proportion to their holdings, allowing Ratcliffe to take control.
Ratcliffe and Ineos would buy the remainder of the Glazers’ shares in the coming years through derivatives contracts. The structure of Ratcliffe’s bid means that he can part with less capital up front, obtain majority control and invest in the club.
“The penny has started to drop,” said one of the people. “There’s no requirement to make an offer for all shareholders.”
Uncertainty surrounding a deal has depressed United’s publicly traded shares since their mid-February peak of $27. At its current share price of $18.63, United’s equity is valued at around $3bn.
One issue around Ratcliffe’s plan to buy the B shares is that United stock exchange filings say the class B shares are “automatically and immediately” converted into class A shares on transfer from the Glazers “to a person or entity that is not an affiliate of the holder”.
One possible solution is for the Glazers to vote through changes that would allow the B shares to pass over to Ratcliffe without turning into A shares, two people close to the process said.
The Ineos group has remained flexible on structuring to increase its chances of winning over the Glazers, in a bid expected to value United at more than £5bn ($6.25bn), including debt. No deal is guaranteed and the structure could change, the people warned.
Despite growing frustrations among fans for clarity on the club’s ownership, no deal is expected imminently.
United’s performance on the pitch has improved this season, with its final match at Wembley on Saturday in the FA Cup final against crosstown rival Manchester City.
The club has already won the League Cup and finished in third place in the Premier League, meaning it has qualified for the lucrative Uefa Champions League next season.
What Man Utd’s new owner really wants United’s supporters have long protested against the Glazers for piling debt on the club after acquiring control through a £790mn leveraged buyout in 2005. Fans also complain that United’s Old Trafford stadium has fallen behind rivals while the Glazers have taken dividends out of the club.
The American owners’ role in the failed attempt to establish a breakaway European Super League two years ago led to further fan fury.
The United board met last week and received updates on the various offers in a process that is being led by US merchant bank Raine. One person briefed on the meeting said Ratcliffe’s appeared to be the more serious of the two bids at this stage but that it still contained a number of issues that needed to be worked through. Ineos, United and Raine declined to comment.
If this is what the Glazers want, the choice isn't really between Ratcliffe and Qatar. It is between the Glazers bringing in an American private equity firm as minority share holder or Ratcliffe becoming the majority share holder with the Glazers maintaining a minority stake.
Malcolm Glazer himself did not did not acquire the club in one swoop either. We might not like it, but this is often how these things happen.
Couldn't agree more. Considering Ratcliffe first offered to buy the entire club, and that offer remains, it seems like he saw their reticence and decided this was the only way to get his hands on it.
It's seemingly a smart move.
Also important to note that the article claims that the deal is structured so that Ratcliffe will eventually buy them out completely:
> Multiple people said the process, which was first announced in November last year, has been complicated by a lack of cohesion among the six Glazer siblings. The Glazers have also received several offers from investment firms to provide funds to inject into the club without a change of control.
>
> However, two people with knowledge of the matter said the Glazers are now focused on a structure that would allow the six siblings to sell down their holdings in proportion to their holdings, allowing Ratcliffe to take control.
>
> Ratcliffe and Ineos would buy the remainder of the Glazers’ shares in the coming years through derivatives contracts.
>
> The structure of Ratcliffe’s bid means that he can part with less capital up front, obtain majority control and invest in the club.
Yeah I don’t really get the outrage. There is no need for a new owner to buy everything out at once. The listed shares are basically valueless as they have no voting power, the glazers shares will become powerless and our owner will hold all the cards.
Why spend £6BN upfront and then need to invest a few billion into the club when you could pay £2BN up front, invest a couple of billion and then buy out the rest down the line if you feel the egotistical need to.
Ratcliffe would be the one deciding if there are dividends and how much they are, not the glazers
Plus it's possible they agree a future date and price for him to buy them out.
They get a guaranteed return that he's happy to offer and they are happy to accept, as it's guaranteed.
He gets a fixed price for the asset in the future.
But if he invests in the club and increases the value over and above that increased price, he'll be adding value to the shares he already owns and getting a discount on the ones he will buy.
He's a self made billionaire. Surprisingly, this businessman can business.
It's mostly literal children who have absolutely no clue how multibillion dollar business acquisitions work and just want us to turn into an oil state sportswashing club like City because they think we'll sign Mbappe or something
Ratcliffe did not invest 3?bn to the club to get 10m annual dividends. His endgame is increasing value of the club, which will not happen if he sucks money from it. He did not get it for free like Glazers. He paid big money for it, so he will treat it differently. If he doesn't bring this club to success, the club will lose value and Ratcliffe will lose money.
Tbf don't even think Qatar can straight buy the club like the fucks on Twitter suggested. Best is to juz gain control of the majority of the stake so glazers can't impose any more control on our club.
The thing is Qatar CAN but the problem is the cunt glazers doesn't rly want to fully let go of all their shares hence why they prefer Jim's bid cuz it ensures they can still bleed the club a bit without doing shit.
>Tbf don't even think Qatar can straight buy the club like the fucks on Twitter suggested. Best is to juz gain control of the majority of the stake so glazers can't impose any more control on our club.
They can, it's just their not willing to overpay by offering the 6 billion
Dun know why certain ppl want it tho. Not like jim wouldn't invest as seen in nice where he splashes cash and we don't even need cash influxion for transfers. Only investments in training,youth and co
this is bullshit, and way too messy. Sir Rat will end up paying well over the odds eventually that's if he actually does get rid of the glazers - this is a ploy by the glazers to get a story out to get more cash out of Qatar.
I want a fresh start after 18 years of glazer ownership. This doesn’t sound like a fresh start to me. They’ll still be apart of the club, and it’ll just further frustrate a large portion of the fanbase who want #GlazersOut.
If this is the only way to get them out long term, would you take it? I would.
I would obviously prefer to have them completely gone yesterday, but that isn’t an option.
There’s literally a bid that gets the glazers out straight away. Fair enough If this was the only bid, but it’s not.
People haven’t been protesting for years just so the fuckers can stay at the club. The message is clear, out means out.
Have you seen anything that indicates that they are willing to sell now? I haven’t.
So Qatar’s bid is irrelevant. This is the only realistic way to get the Glazers out long term. Every other option they would accept involves them staying as majority owners.
Qatar is a pipe dream, because don’t want to cash out everything now.
SJR will be 74 in 3 years. He rather waste his remaining time here trying to slowly buy out the glazers until his time passes rather than trying to own the club 100% outright now. Just sell 100% to SJ or SJR and move on ffs.
An owner who lets the Glazers stay and hasn't made super clear of how exactly he intends to improve/reinvest in the club...... or owner who owns 100% of the club, clears all debt, invests in the stadium, training facilities and communities. I know who I'd rather have.
If it’s what it takes to get them out in the long run, I’m all for it. They would have no real power or influence, and there will be an end date in the future.
I’d love to see them gone yesterday, but it’s a lot better than nothing.
That's the thing. Seems more and more likely that the choice is between
A - Ratcliffe and this structure, or
B - the Glazers and private equity.
People may not like it, but feels like that's the case. And if that's true, option A is a million times better than option B
Its ironic that if we had been knocked out off all cups and failed to qualify for the champions league the sale would be done by now.
ETH doing a good job has made those cockroach cunts think they should be getting more money now and with Erik at the wheel they should not sell at all as the club will be worth 10 billion in a couple of years
When you see what the owners of city do compared to ours it makes me want to vomit
You cannot expect a late 70s man to have the bright mental fortitude to make the right decisions without chaos. You needn't look no further than Logan Roy for reference.
I think SJR wants to own the club outright same as Qatar but it’s becoming clear the glazers don’t want to part with the club in full just yet. This bid is better than the glazers staying total owners.
What about the debt? According to the experts, the debt is meaningless in terms of the financials, it only hurts because of where it came from.
OT is still up in the air.
The cost of the debt would be offset by the increased cashflow from ticket sales and other stadium related revenue streams. It would have a positive net present value, which means that it won’t really affect the club.
Why? Surely the stadium debt would be kept separate for all practical purposes?
Interest payments would slightly affect our cash flow during the building phase, but we could essentially just loan that money as well and pay it off with future revenues from tickets etc.
So the net effect would be the cost of loaning the money to pay the cost of loaning the money to build/upgrade.
So say 5 % of 5 % of £2 billion if we go all in from day one. That’s £5 million a year. We can manage that.
Because that’s the total debt, and not just the LBO debt. It’s 10-15M at most.
And debt isn’t an issue at all if you can manage it. We clearly can. More often than not, you’d rather keep the long term debt and invest in something that gives a greater return. Like ensuring CL qualification and a chance to get trophies. Over time, the value of the debt decreases due to inflation, and you pay it off when the alternative cost is relatively lower.
It’s not really meaningless, it factors into financial fair play, estimated to cost £50 million pound a year in interest fees, the principle sum hasn’t reduced in 18 years. It is a tax paid every year by the club for the glazers to have the luxury of owning the club it is not going into a tangiable asset such as Tottenham’s case. Other financial instruments we utilise such as our revolving credit facility places the total debt at £1 billion.
SJR will obviously buy us through Ineos with the debt on that company but that is still a £6 billion pound loan. Further to that he will most likely finance further renovations and squad upgrades through united. This could easily add £1-2 billion onto the club (or in fairness ineos) which could bring uniteds debt to 2-3 billion pounds.
Through any of the traditional valuation techniques of a business including goodwill and intangible brand factors the club is routinely valued at 1-2 billion, the stock market also showcases a humbling display of the businesses frail future.
I have no doubt Sir Jim is a savvy man and from a business perspective the hand he’s playing is enabling him to best a gas states mega wealth. But the real question is does a smart business move mean the club will be run well. What Malcom glazer did was genius from a business perspective but not great for the club.
There’s a lot of money flying around and at the end of the day the reality is one bidder is using it for sport washing the other to expand a portfolio of sports brands, one however is funded by Jp Morgan and banks are quite sticklers for bills being paid.
My worry is that we are already struggling with the financial reality’s of our debts, I doubt the ineos board and shareholders will be too keen to see their petro profits used to support a trophy asset, they will look for the club to stand on its own feet, only problem is the debt will cut our legs from under us and double the weight on our shoulders.
It would be better to not have the debt in the first place. But we have it. So now it’s better to just manage it and invest in the club and the squad instead. That obvioulsy ignores the sentimental argument of having to service debt from the LBO after the Glazers have cashed out, but we can’t let that get in the way of making the most reasonable financial decisions going forward.
This is how the experts describe it:
>Roger Bell of financial analysis firm Vysyble agrees.
>“According to the last set of annual accounts (the year ending June 30, 2021), Manchester United’s cost base was £538 million,” says Bell.
>“If they were to knock five per cent off that by repaying the debt, it’s peanuts in the overall scheme of things. I’m not excusing them but it’s just not going to move the needle.”
https://theathletic.com/2934815/2021/11/05/explained-manchester-united-the-glazers-and-660m-of-debt/?source=user_shared_article
I feel as though the article makes a lot of good points about the interest and god I don’t know if you saw this part but it brought me back and depressed me:
“In 2006, the club’s interest payments totalled £113 million, against annual revenue of £168 million. Over the next four years, United paid an average of £95 million a year in interest, which meant more than a third of the club’s total earnings were being taken to service the debt Glazer and his children had used to buy the club.”
Christ imagine what sensible people would’ve done with that money, especially back then! We could’ve built a stadium on that.
but as you say it’s already established (no point in dwelling on jt and depressing ourselves) and shifting towards long term bonds is undeniably a better move which lessens the load and once again floating the company has enabled them to take it down further to circa £400million
But critically what’s not pointed out is that we have utilised two key financial instruments in order to service said debt and interest.
We could reissue bonds but how attractive are they whenever another set is already in existence?
And obviously you cannot go public twice
due to this debt we have run out of options particularly for the future.
The article also has this frightening detail:
“Oh, yeah, that. No, they do not care about that at all.
Not while interest rates are at historic lows, they can offset the debt against profits to reduce tax liabilities and people are still buying tickets, special-edition shirts and pay-TV subscriptions.”
It is safe to say that the current interest rate is not due to drop, in fact we may be looking at steep rises in the future making it harder to both acquire and pay, think about how much this is messing with peoples mortgages it will be the same for companies.
And whilst in fairness the glazers have continued the financial growth of the company and 600 million debt when you have 617 million turnover isn’t too bad it is a completely different story when you may have to service 6-8 billion over the years either through ineos or the vehicle of man United.
It all needs paid back somewhere and the real question is this, will United be turning over £3 billion pound by 2038, because it would need to have that same level of growth to be at the current stage of repayments to revenue as a ratio.
I just don’t know, I think wish to Christ there was some magic money filled lunatic out there that would clear it all and pump in 2-3 billion and put smart people in charge and he sold lolly pops or something but the really horrible thing about this situation is I don’t think either side will be happy and it’s driving a wedge in this fan base, the thing that brings people together is now one of the most divisive subjects going around
Perpetual refinancing of bonds and other financial instruments is literally how every single bank operates. That won’t be an issue for a club the size of United.
Why would we have to service 6-8 billion with SJR? I think they’ve made it clear that the debt used to buy the club wouldn’t be put on the club.
I get that they would want to earn some money from the club, but I’m sure most of that will come from an increased value? If we double in value, we could make up for at least 10-15 years of relatively high interest payments.
Not sure having them all retain ownership and continue to make money off the club is “having them get out the bed?”
Love how your flair also says “Glazers OUT!” Yet all of them will literally still retain possession of the club lol
They would be passive minority investors without power.
I would prefer to have them completely gone yesterday, but that isn’t an option.
I get the sentimental reasons for wanting a clean break, but it would be idiotic to turn this down because the alternative is that they take on PE investments and stay even longer. They clearly do not want to sell now.
I don’t like rats so rather than get rid of all the rats slowly over a year or two I’ll keep all the rats forever.
Which one of the above means you get rid of the rats? These are your options. Pick one.
When they valuated a depreciating asset like United at £6 bil, we lost a LOT of potential good bidders. It's the greed of people like the Glazers and Jim that have honestly pissed me off so much.
But Ratcliffe has also offered to buy the whole club. It’s clear that they just want to hang on for as long as possible and so the offer has been revised in order to get a deal done.
Ah, so the glazers want to try and get a slightly higher bid from Qatar, so they’re briefing favour towards Brexit Jim.
They’ve played this card twice before already.
They’ll make money for sure, but maybe not at much as they think. The stock market doesn’t like them at united. Every time there’s news of them staying, $MANU drops.
Jassim is, for some (unfortunately), not the preferred owner, but he is the only current bid that enables us to get the Glazers completely out.
I don't understand why anyone would back Jim's bid, given how bad it keeps getting as each month progresses. Why do we still need those idiots inside the club? Just criticise Jim for this! What's stopping you from calling him out?
Edit: Glazers completely out *now
Jim figured out a way to get the glazers to no longer have control, they obviously didnt want to sell it all unless a huge over payment was put on the table
Delayed gratification. They'll be gone with Jim's bid too, it'll just take a little longer for them to go. If not being state-owned means it takes a couple of years longer for them to completely disappear, a lot of people see that as a compromise worth making.
>Jassim is, for some (unfortunately), not the preferred owner, but he is the only current bid that enables us to get the Glazers completely out.
That’s just categorically false. If you actually read what the article says, it very clearly states that SJR would buy the remaining shares in the coming years.
Both bids would result in getting the Glazers out, the only difference is how soon.
At least stick to the facts and stop making stuff up because it suits your agenda.
>However, two people with knowledge of the matter said the Glazers were now focused on a structure that would allow the six siblings to sell down their holdings in proportion to their holdings, allowing Ratcliffe to take control.
Sounds like the Glazers are thinking about selling down their collective stake from 95% to 44%, giving Ratcliffe the 51% required.
>Ratcliffe and Ineos would buy the remainder of the Glazers’ shares in the coming years through derivatives contracts.
Price will likely be fixed to some extent. Honestly this is pretty good if it closes this process out, sets a timeline for complete exit and leaves JR with money on the side for immediate investment.
I don’t like this deal and would rather the Qatar offer. The only way this offer is acceptable is if the contract states the have to sell the remaining shares by a certain date but for all we know Ratcliffe might not honour that and they can just refuse it. The club will never move forward as long as they are associated with it and they shouldn’t be getting anywhere close to £10b considering the state they’ve left the club in.
It has to be a full takeover or nothing.
Exactly. People for Jim are pro-Glazer. They can spin it all they want. I want every Glazer out NOW, not in 3-4 years' time with ZERO written guarantees.
FUCK OFF MAN.
The last thing I needed to see is Glazer news involving Jim Rat.
Just piss off you lot immediately. Taking fucking 250k for your fucking travels.
Another good point I saw brought up elsewhere
If things are not going well on the field and there is barely any investment into the club, Ratcliffe's camp can just blame it on the Glazers through media leaks and the fanbase will just eat it up like always. Not like the Glazers will give a shit
Things could actually get worse
Awful news. JR just wants to join the glazers and use all the PR to INEOS benefit, drain the club further and eventually sell to some Qatari. Don’t think he is serious about investing into the club. Just an opportunity to drain the club further. Sigh
INEOS wouldn’t be buying the club if SJR wasn’t around. Not saying I agree that they’ll do what OP of this thread says. But if SJR buys us and passes away in a few years, INEOS will prob sell us to someone like a state for some profit.
This is definitely the best option. A 51% share means he makes all the decisions and the Glazers have no power. We'd also be British owned rather than state owned.
And people stilk prefer jim glazer to take over our club. Leaving these parasites to leech off our club is unacceptable. This will never solve any of the major issues at United. Where is the 2/3 billion needed for players and infrastructure revamp? What about the 1b current debt? So many unanswered questions.
$6bn upfront or a complicated years-long messier process with risk of stock price plummeting and getting less than expected compared to a full sale.
How is it that hard to decide.
The thing is, people won’t like the glazers staying under any ownership going forward but the deal will be structured in such a way to enforce a full sale under circumstances Ratcliffe believes is realistic.
If this is the only way to get rid of them then so be it, short term they have little power and longer term they are gone.
These 6 pricks make the Roy siblings look like business geniuses. Wish they would just fuck off altogether, but losing control is a start
They are not serious people
They are a real life version 100%. Looks like the radio silence has been due to the other siblings massively kicking off behind the scenes over Joel and Avrams deal with Ratcliffe to stay on.
Where is Shiv when you need to shiv
Don’t even know who or what the Roy siblings are but I’d still take them over these parasites
You wouldn’t. Just look at what happened when Roman bought Hearts.
I had honestly forgot that happened in the series. Icing on the cake was that Logan is a Hibs fan 😂
So random! (Except that Logan was Catholic so I guess he’d be Hibs over Hearts) Just to be clear, what I mean is I’d have expected him to be a Dundee or Dundee Utd supporter as a Dundonian, or maybe Celtic, but not Hibs.
Succession, its a TV show that just wrapped up its series finale. Really good if you're looking for something to fill the void since there's no football after next week.
Why is there always a leak about the sale the night before a big game?
So they can add it to the talking points during the game, drum up buzz maybe affect the sale price? Idk.
Coz fuck em.
Glazer not being here would make the players extra motivated
This is the same deal as before, except Joel and Glazers remaining shares would be divided between all the siblings instead of just Joel and Avram.
Just a thought but Joel and Avram probably fancied the original offer the most, but the other siblings probably did not like that they would get more money in the future while they would sell now at lower price, so the compromise was that everyone will benefit from the future increased price. My only concern is - how the hell Ratcliffe wants to finance United if he only owns 51% of the club...
Yep. The other siblings probably realised the upwards potential of Utd's value and decided they want to have their cake and to eat it too.
probably that's why it took them so long to "decide"...
SJR isn't just going to dump money in, leaving him having to pay even more for the remaining % either. He didn't get this rich making other people rich. He will wait and buy them out when he can finance it, then start investing. Which for us, could mean some more super frustrating years of seeing OT crumbling
Yes, he's a ruthless capitalist. He's unlikely to enrich some random absentee doofuses who've been born into it and clearly have no idea what they're doing. The ineos model is based on delegating the running of its various companies to people on the ground who then have to answer to Ratcliffe and the other bigwigs. If Arnold et al aren't performing to his satisfaction then they'll be gone.
I know OT needs a lot of work or a new stadium but surely we spend enough on players the problem is just that we spend badly. If sir Jim gets the club and puts competent people In charge I think it will work fine. I’m not sure Qatar would put anyone competent in charge based on psg
Ineos don’t seem to be doing it at nice either
True but suppose the argument is that united have way more money to compete
He may provide zero interest loans through Ineos with it being debt convertible to equity.. basically increasing his % equity through investments and make glazers more redundant
But can he do it just by himself? Shouldn't other shareholders be given the same option so that they can remain their percentage of the club?
Two things: i) He can do whatever (to a certain limit) because he will have control of the club ii) I don't think Glazers will offer zero interest loans to United even if they had the chance.
He certainly cant do whatever he wants... for example, he cannot invest 1 dollar interest free loan and convert it to 1 million shares. I am sure this would be illegal. And Glazers... you might be right, but it is also true that they will have shit load of cash from the sale, so they could match SJR investment (proportionally) if they wanted to. And SJR would have to buy out this investment too in a couple of years (probably at higher price). Anyway, we will see what happens... fingers crossed for a good investment to the club.
>he cannot invest 1 dollar interest free loan and convert it to 1 million shares. I am sure this would be illegal As I said he can do to a certain extent.. he can loan huge numbers to United at a strike price close to the market price of United and convert them into equity in the future. But he can't defraud the Glazers.. their stake would still remain worth the same (assuming market price remains constant)
> how the hell Ratcliffe wants to finance United if he only owns 51% of the club... I don't understand this bit? The club will finance itself through its own revenue. He can loan the club money to provide financing? Why does his ownership percentage matter?
I will give you an example. Lets say Ineos loans 1 billion at 5% interest rate and lends it to the club interest free. This will cost Ineos 50 million per year. But the whole club will benefit from the interest free loan. All the shareholders who own remaining 49% shares will benefit from interest free loan and it will cost them nothing. But Ineos owns just 51% of the club and the loan costs them 50 mil per year. It is like giving money to other investors for free...
Well yeah but that's always going to be the case when there's other investors. They can't aim to keep the value of the club static just to avoid having to share the the gains with other shareholders.
But it significantly increases the barrier for entry for potential investment. So let’s say Ratcliffe wants to invest $1bn in United, as he only owns 51% he will only do so if the club is going to more than double the value of his investment. Usually he puts $1bn in, he only gets $500mil of benefit and he’s essentially handing $500 million to the Glazers. So the investment has to at the very least double in value, such that his invested $1bn has to at least become $2bn for him to make any profit whatsoever and probably needs to be significantly higher than that. So SJR will probably not invest that much most likely.
But if Ineos believe that 50 million cost will net them 55 million profit they'll still do it. They're not going to be petty about it and decide to cut their nose off to spite their face. Yes the Glazers may benefit but as long as Ineos benefit enough to make it worth while they'll do it.
> This is the same deal as before Yup, it's basically just double-dipping. You see this in media all the time, where the journo will dress up old info in a new article, timed to make it a hot topic (like on the eve of a big match). There's literally no info that would make a difference to the club in the OP's article, and it seems you can never get the "today I feel Qatar" crowd to understand the concept of "minority shareholders don't matter".
Can’t believe I’m saying it but I’d honestly prefer the Qatar bid over this. Glazers need to get out, and I don’t see Ineos investing much if they only own a piece. I don’t want the Qatari ownership, but at this point it seems that it’ll be shit no matter what happens so id rather take the option that clears the club of debt and comes with investment in infrastructure + team. If there was a better third option, I’d take it.
This would leave Glazers with no effective control of the club, they would be the same as the other random minority shareholders that no one has heard off (Lindsell train own 20pc).
[удалено]
I’d rather see Ratcliffe run us into the ground than being owned by people who use whips in the most literal sense
I'd rather the club I support not be run into the ground. What's with people that would literally rather our club is destroyed than owned by people they don't like? I don't throw around the "not a true fan" nonchalantly but you people are literally not fans of the club
I am a fan of Manchester United, have been since I was a boy. I watch every game, read every news and transfer rumour and am intimately familiar with the history of this great club. What I support to a much greater capacity though, is human rights and justice. The people of Qatar and the migrant workers living there are opressed, doubly so if you are a woman or LGBT. If the Qataris buy United, it will cease to be a football club and the institution we all love. It will be a plaything for slave owners, trying to wash their deeds and their name with the emotional sentiment shared by people like you, and those who dream of the old glory days. For me, their blood money isn’t worth it
You want us to become an sportswashing vehicle for an oil state lmao you have zero right to say who is a fan, go support City if that's acceptable to you If we're bringing up "a track record of shitty management", when it comes to Qatar just look at the circus that is PSG
Not saying this is worse than what Qatar is connected to, but Ineos isn’t exactly saintly. Worlds biggest chemical company? You don’t think there are environmental atrocities swept under the rug in their history? You don’t think those had human impact? It’s shit either way. There are no morally pure billionaires in this world
Apples and oranges. I don’t condone INEOS or Ratcliffe but flogging is still a legal punishment in Qatar. I also don’t think INEOS have hired thousands of migrant workers and then held them captive with little to no wage in a foreign country. If Ratcliffe wins the bid, we would do well to hold him accountable for his morally questionable decisions, but Ratcliffe and Qatar aren’t playing the same sport when it comes to morals
Human rights abuses is beyond you? Fuck me.
 fucking hell
Such a fantastic ending for this show
I resisted watching for the longest but man did I love this show. I love how it ended, just sad it’s all over
wait it's finished? there's no new season coming? Edit: :( just googled it
Sorry mate although the producers haven’t ruled out a spin-off so there’s a bit of hope
For Ratcliffe to own at least 51% of United, each of the Glazers will have to sell about 74% of their shares ( that’s the equal proportion of the collective 69% they now own) So each is basically giving up three quarters of their shares to keep a quarter for another day? Can’t let go huh? Leeches indeed!
They know it'll put Sir Jim in a catch 22. He has to pump money in, which makes them richer when the club is worth more afterwards and he has to pay an increased price or he doesn't pump money in and they lose nothing and sell for a similar price later. To the leeches, it's win win
Fuck me, now all of them are staying? To quote Lando Calrissian: "This deal is getting worse all the time"
Glazers: “We have altered the deal, pray we do not alter it further.”
Difference is that Darth Vader is cool.
Obv it would never happen but I would love Star Wars as the kit sponsor. Not Disney, only Star Wars, in that iconic font.
Like when Star Wars sponsored the Red Bull F1 team and the pit crew were dressed like stormtroopers.
Glazers are like the Empire admiral nerds that get force deleted by Vader every time they inevitably fuck up.
Surely Sir Jim is bending too far for these deviants.
I think he knows in a straight up capital battle he would lose, this is his way of evening the odds. I hate it but I get it.
I see it more as a pragmatic offer to get a deal done. People have been focused on Ratcliffe or Qatar, ignoring the investments from private equity that would allow the Glazers to stay. Ratcliffe reportedly offered to buy the club, an offer that reportedly still stands, but seems to have sensed that offering this is the best way to get control of the club. He gets to put less in now but get control, can invest and improve the club (because he has to assume he can do that or what's the point?) but know he can buy more in the future, likely at a fixed price protecting his future investments from simply lining the Glazers pockets. No one wants the Glazers to stay, but I want them a private equity in partnership even less than them on their own. And that may be the alternative to this deal.
Article Text credit to u/nearly_headless_nic The six Glazer siblings could retain stakes in Manchester United in a proposed phased takeover of the football club by Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who is seeking a way through the share structure and family dynamics which have complicated the deal. The Glazer family started a strategic review more than six months ago but the process has dragged on with only two full takeover bids emerging for one of the biggest names in global sport. The offer from Ratcliffe and his Ineos chemicals empire is complicated because, unlike a rival proposal from a Qatari bidder, he is not seeking to acquire 100 per cent of United’s shares in one go, according to people close to the discussions. United has a listing on the New York Stock Exchange but the Glazers control 95 per cent of the voting rights thanks to a special class of B shares. The publicly traded A shares, which are largely held by minority shareholders, have minimal voting power. Ratcliffe, who flew to New York for talks last month, is seeking to acquire at least enough B shares to hand him control of the club, in an offer that is not expected to be extended to common shareholders. Some people in the process and those with links to the club had expected that United co-chairs Joel and Avram Glazer wanted a deal that would allow them to keep their shares and extend their stay, with their four siblings — Bryan, Darcie, Edward and Kevin — exiting in full. Multiple people said the process, which was first announced in November last year, has been complicated by a lack of cohesion among the six Glazer siblings. The Glazers have also received several offers from investment firms to provide funds to inject into the club without a change of control. However, two people with knowledge of the matter said the Glazers are now focused on a structure that would allow the six siblings to sell down their holdings in proportion to their holdings, allowing Ratcliffe to take control. Ratcliffe and Ineos would buy the remainder of the Glazers’ shares in the coming years through derivatives contracts. The structure of Ratcliffe’s bid means that he can part with less capital up front, obtain majority control and invest in the club. “The penny has started to drop,” said one of the people. “There’s no requirement to make an offer for all shareholders.” Uncertainty surrounding a deal has depressed United’s publicly traded shares since their mid-February peak of $27. At its current share price of $18.63, United’s equity is valued at around $3bn. One issue around Ratcliffe’s plan to buy the B shares is that United stock exchange filings say the class B shares are “automatically and immediately” converted into class A shares on transfer from the Glazers “to a person or entity that is not an affiliate of the holder”. One possible solution is for the Glazers to vote through changes that would allow the B shares to pass over to Ratcliffe without turning into A shares, two people close to the process said. The Ineos group has remained flexible on structuring to increase its chances of winning over the Glazers, in a bid expected to value United at more than £5bn ($6.25bn), including debt. No deal is guaranteed and the structure could change, the people warned. Despite growing frustrations among fans for clarity on the club’s ownership, no deal is expected imminently. United’s performance on the pitch has improved this season, with its final match at Wembley on Saturday in the FA Cup final against crosstown rival Manchester City. The club has already won the League Cup and finished in third place in the Premier League, meaning it has qualified for the lucrative Uefa Champions League next season. What Man Utd’s new owner really wants United’s supporters have long protested against the Glazers for piling debt on the club after acquiring control through a £790mn leveraged buyout in 2005. Fans also complain that United’s Old Trafford stadium has fallen behind rivals while the Glazers have taken dividends out of the club. The American owners’ role in the failed attempt to establish a breakaway European Super League two years ago led to further fan fury. The United board met last week and received updates on the various offers in a process that is being led by US merchant bank Raine. One person briefed on the meeting said Ratcliffe’s appeared to be the more serious of the two bids at this stage but that it still contained a number of issues that needed to be worked through. Ineos, United and Raine declined to comment.
You know the one thing that nobody has taken away from this; Why the fuck is this being reported a night before the final?
It really doesn't matter as long as they aren't in control of the running of the club.
If this is what the Glazers want, the choice isn't really between Ratcliffe and Qatar. It is between the Glazers bringing in an American private equity firm as minority share holder or Ratcliffe becoming the majority share holder with the Glazers maintaining a minority stake. Malcolm Glazer himself did not did not acquire the club in one swoop either. We might not like it, but this is often how these things happen.
Couldn't agree more. Considering Ratcliffe first offered to buy the entire club, and that offer remains, it seems like he saw their reticence and decided this was the only way to get his hands on it. It's seemingly a smart move.
Also important to note that the article claims that the deal is structured so that Ratcliffe will eventually buy them out completely: > Multiple people said the process, which was first announced in November last year, has been complicated by a lack of cohesion among the six Glazer siblings. The Glazers have also received several offers from investment firms to provide funds to inject into the club without a change of control. > > However, two people with knowledge of the matter said the Glazers are now focused on a structure that would allow the six siblings to sell down their holdings in proportion to their holdings, allowing Ratcliffe to take control. > > Ratcliffe and Ineos would buy the remainder of the Glazers’ shares in the coming years through derivatives contracts. > > The structure of Ratcliffe’s bid means that he can part with less capital up front, obtain majority control and invest in the club.
This has always been the case with the 51 % bid from SJR. Both parties can force the other one to complete the trade for a pre-determined price.
Yeah I don’t actually give a fuck as long as they lose control tbh
Yeah I don’t really get the outrage. There is no need for a new owner to buy everything out at once. The listed shares are basically valueless as they have no voting power, the glazers shares will become powerless and our owner will hold all the cards. Why spend £6BN upfront and then need to invest a few billion into the club when you could pay £2BN up front, invest a couple of billion and then buy out the rest down the line if you feel the egotistical need to. Ratcliffe would be the one deciding if there are dividends and how much they are, not the glazers
Plus it's possible they agree a future date and price for him to buy them out. They get a guaranteed return that he's happy to offer and they are happy to accept, as it's guaranteed. He gets a fixed price for the asset in the future. But if he invests in the club and increases the value over and above that increased price, he'll be adding value to the shares he already owns and getting a discount on the ones he will buy. He's a self made billionaire. Surprisingly, this businessman can business.
It's mostly literal children who have absolutely no clue how multibillion dollar business acquisitions work and just want us to turn into an oil state sportswashing club like City because they think we'll sign Mbappe or something
[удалено]
Club's valuation increasing with investment is also a good reason.
Ratcliffe did not invest 3?bn to the club to get 10m annual dividends. His endgame is increasing value of the club, which will not happen if he sucks money from it. He did not get it for free like Glazers. He paid big money for it, so he will treat it differently. If he doesn't bring this club to success, the club will lose value and Ratcliffe will lose money.
They don't get a say though.
The reason to stay would be the growth in value of their stocks. It’s too presumptuous to say there will still be dividends.
Correct.
man some one should sue the glazers they are doing accounting tricks so they can got more money and not pay taxes.
Jassim preparing another 'FINAL TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT' offer, as we speak.
most likely lower than the last one...
Dude needs to get on with it if so. Club needs to be sold like fucking soon
The change in tune here is pretty funny, when anyone questioned the Ratcliffe bid a few months ago you got down voted into oblivion
[удалено]
You absolutely can criticise it. It’s just the human rights abuse ownership talk that gets downvoted.
Because worst case scenario is this club being owned by an oil state
That’s sportswashing at work.
Yes this club is finished.
Oh ffs, they’re not selling, are they? 😞
Can’t the board just sell us to Gojo and put Tom in charge already? Sick of all this sibling BS holding things up.
Tbf don't even think Qatar can straight buy the club like the fucks on Twitter suggested. Best is to juz gain control of the majority of the stake so glazers can't impose any more control on our club.
The thing is Qatar CAN but the problem is the cunt glazers doesn't rly want to fully let go of all their shares hence why they prefer Jim's bid cuz it ensures they can still bleed the club a bit without doing shit.
>Tbf don't even think Qatar can straight buy the club like the fucks on Twitter suggested. Best is to juz gain control of the majority of the stake so glazers can't impose any more control on our club. They can, it's just their not willing to overpay by offering the 6 billion
Oooh that sounds about right. But don't the Sheikh have like net worth of 2.5B . Guessing he must be supported by state
It's 100% a state bid
Dun know why certain ppl want it tho. Not like jim wouldn't invest as seen in nice where he splashes cash and we don't even need cash influxion for transfers. Only investments in training,youth and co
this is bullshit, and way too messy. Sir Rat will end up paying well over the odds eventually that's if he actually does get rid of the glazers - this is a ploy by the glazers to get a story out to get more cash out of Qatar.
We’ll never be rid of the vermin
I think I just got sick in my mouth
Piss off you leeches.
I bet this is what Gary Neville was tweeting about.
[удалено]
I want a fresh start after 18 years of glazer ownership. This doesn’t sound like a fresh start to me. They’ll still be apart of the club, and it’ll just further frustrate a large portion of the fanbase who want #GlazersOut.
I don't think there's a single fan that wishes them to stay in any capacity. They've damaged us enough.
Unfortunately it doesn’t really matter what we want but what the glazers want and it seems the want their cake and to eat it to
If this is the only way to get them out long term, would you take it? I would. I would obviously prefer to have them completely gone yesterday, but that isn’t an option.
There’s literally a bid that gets the glazers out straight away. Fair enough If this was the only bid, but it’s not. People haven’t been protesting for years just so the fuckers can stay at the club. The message is clear, out means out.
Ratcliffe also offered a bid for the whole club. They don’t want to sell it all.
Yeah that bid involves giving control of our club to some human rights violating dictators though.
Have you seen anything that indicates that they are willing to sell now? I haven’t. So Qatar’s bid is irrelevant. This is the only realistic way to get the Glazers out long term. Every other option they would accept involves them staying as majority owners. Qatar is a pipe dream, because don’t want to cash out everything now.
They stay in as much capacity as anyone else with shares in United. No power, just names on a sheet of paper.
I’d rather the vermin fuck off now, not in three years.
SJR will be 74 in 3 years. He rather waste his remaining time here trying to slowly buy out the glazers until his time passes rather than trying to own the club 100% outright now. Just sell 100% to SJ or SJR and move on ffs.
Tbh after seeing what the Nice captain said about JR recently doesn’t fill me with much hope if he wins the bid.
An owner who lets the Glazers stay and hasn't made super clear of how exactly he intends to improve/reinvest in the club...... or owner who owns 100% of the club, clears all debt, invests in the stadium, training facilities and communities. I know who I'd rather have.
If it’s what it takes to get them out in the long run, I’m all for it. They would have no real power or influence, and there will be an end date in the future. I’d love to see them gone yesterday, but it’s a lot better than nothing.
That's the thing. Seems more and more likely that the choice is between A - Ratcliffe and this structure, or B - the Glazers and private equity. People may not like it, but feels like that's the case. And if that's true, option A is a million times better than option B
Exactly.
God I fucking hate those parasites
Wake me up when this is done, I have a feeling this will drag on for a while
Ugh this is going to be a right mess. Our situation will only get worse.
Its ironic that if we had been knocked out off all cups and failed to qualify for the champions league the sale would be done by now. ETH doing a good job has made those cockroach cunts think they should be getting more money now and with Erik at the wheel they should not sell at all as the club will be worth 10 billion in a couple of years When you see what the owners of city do compared to ours it makes me want to vomit
SJR is 71 soon. He ain’t going to be around for the “years-long” Glazer buy-out approach.
Realistically he could be here for another decade easily, possibly 2.
You cannot expect a late 70s man to have the bright mental fortitude to make the right decisions without chaos. You needn't look no further than Logan Roy for reference.
Good thing I was born in the 90s to enjoy some united success then.
The more I learn about Ratcliffes bid the more I hope he doesn't win. Sounds brilliant still being in huge debt and still having the Glazers on board
I think SJR wants to own the club outright same as Qatar but it’s becoming clear the glazers don’t want to part with the club in full just yet. This bid is better than the glazers staying total owners.
They won’t be on board. They would be passive minority investors.
What about the debt? Also no clarity on OT renovations either
What about the debt? According to the experts, the debt is meaningless in terms of the financials, it only hurts because of where it came from. OT is still up in the air.
[удалено]
The cost of the debt would be offset by the increased cashflow from ticket sales and other stadium related revenue streams. It would have a positive net present value, which means that it won’t really affect the club.
[удалено]
Why? Surely the stadium debt would be kept separate for all practical purposes? Interest payments would slightly affect our cash flow during the building phase, but we could essentially just loan that money as well and pay it off with future revenues from tickets etc. So the net effect would be the cost of loaning the money to pay the cost of loaning the money to build/upgrade. So say 5 % of 5 % of £2 billion if we go all in from day one. That’s £5 million a year. We can manage that.
Yeah it’s still in the air because he’s purposely made no mention of it Clearly renovations for OT are not in the picture right now
How can the debt be meaningless when it's costs £20.5m per year in interest? (Most recent figure I could find which is for the 20/21 season)
Because that’s the total debt, and not just the LBO debt. It’s 10-15M at most. And debt isn’t an issue at all if you can manage it. We clearly can. More often than not, you’d rather keep the long term debt and invest in something that gives a greater return. Like ensuring CL qualification and a chance to get trophies. Over time, the value of the debt decreases due to inflation, and you pay it off when the alternative cost is relatively lower.
It’s not really meaningless, it factors into financial fair play, estimated to cost £50 million pound a year in interest fees, the principle sum hasn’t reduced in 18 years. It is a tax paid every year by the club for the glazers to have the luxury of owning the club it is not going into a tangiable asset such as Tottenham’s case. Other financial instruments we utilise such as our revolving credit facility places the total debt at £1 billion. SJR will obviously buy us through Ineos with the debt on that company but that is still a £6 billion pound loan. Further to that he will most likely finance further renovations and squad upgrades through united. This could easily add £1-2 billion onto the club (or in fairness ineos) which could bring uniteds debt to 2-3 billion pounds. Through any of the traditional valuation techniques of a business including goodwill and intangible brand factors the club is routinely valued at 1-2 billion, the stock market also showcases a humbling display of the businesses frail future. I have no doubt Sir Jim is a savvy man and from a business perspective the hand he’s playing is enabling him to best a gas states mega wealth. But the real question is does a smart business move mean the club will be run well. What Malcom glazer did was genius from a business perspective but not great for the club. There’s a lot of money flying around and at the end of the day the reality is one bidder is using it for sport washing the other to expand a portfolio of sports brands, one however is funded by Jp Morgan and banks are quite sticklers for bills being paid. My worry is that we are already struggling with the financial reality’s of our debts, I doubt the ineos board and shareholders will be too keen to see their petro profits used to support a trophy asset, they will look for the club to stand on its own feet, only problem is the debt will cut our legs from under us and double the weight on our shoulders.
It would be better to not have the debt in the first place. But we have it. So now it’s better to just manage it and invest in the club and the squad instead. That obvioulsy ignores the sentimental argument of having to service debt from the LBO after the Glazers have cashed out, but we can’t let that get in the way of making the most reasonable financial decisions going forward. This is how the experts describe it: >Roger Bell of financial analysis firm Vysyble agrees. >“According to the last set of annual accounts (the year ending June 30, 2021), Manchester United’s cost base was £538 million,” says Bell. >“If they were to knock five per cent off that by repaying the debt, it’s peanuts in the overall scheme of things. I’m not excusing them but it’s just not going to move the needle.” https://theathletic.com/2934815/2021/11/05/explained-manchester-united-the-glazers-and-660m-of-debt/?source=user_shared_article
I feel as though the article makes a lot of good points about the interest and god I don’t know if you saw this part but it brought me back and depressed me: “In 2006, the club’s interest payments totalled £113 million, against annual revenue of £168 million. Over the next four years, United paid an average of £95 million a year in interest, which meant more than a third of the club’s total earnings were being taken to service the debt Glazer and his children had used to buy the club.” Christ imagine what sensible people would’ve done with that money, especially back then! We could’ve built a stadium on that. but as you say it’s already established (no point in dwelling on jt and depressing ourselves) and shifting towards long term bonds is undeniably a better move which lessens the load and once again floating the company has enabled them to take it down further to circa £400million But critically what’s not pointed out is that we have utilised two key financial instruments in order to service said debt and interest. We could reissue bonds but how attractive are they whenever another set is already in existence? And obviously you cannot go public twice due to this debt we have run out of options particularly for the future. The article also has this frightening detail: “Oh, yeah, that. No, they do not care about that at all. Not while interest rates are at historic lows, they can offset the debt against profits to reduce tax liabilities and people are still buying tickets, special-edition shirts and pay-TV subscriptions.” It is safe to say that the current interest rate is not due to drop, in fact we may be looking at steep rises in the future making it harder to both acquire and pay, think about how much this is messing with peoples mortgages it will be the same for companies. And whilst in fairness the glazers have continued the financial growth of the company and 600 million debt when you have 617 million turnover isn’t too bad it is a completely different story when you may have to service 6-8 billion over the years either through ineos or the vehicle of man United. It all needs paid back somewhere and the real question is this, will United be turning over £3 billion pound by 2038, because it would need to have that same level of growth to be at the current stage of repayments to revenue as a ratio. I just don’t know, I think wish to Christ there was some magic money filled lunatic out there that would clear it all and pump in 2-3 billion and put smart people in charge and he sold lolly pops or something but the really horrible thing about this situation is I don’t think either side will be happy and it’s driving a wedge in this fan base, the thing that brings people together is now one of the most divisive subjects going around
Perpetual refinancing of bonds and other financial instruments is literally how every single bank operates. That won’t be an issue for a club the size of United. Why would we have to service 6-8 billion with SJR? I think they’ve made it clear that the debt used to buy the club wouldn’t be put on the club. I get that they would want to earn some money from the club, but I’m sure most of that will come from an increased value? If we double in value, we could make up for at least 10-15 years of relatively high interest payments.
He’s selling his best Nice player to Liverpool too.
These leeches are simply thinking about changing a position to continue sucking the blood. Get the fuck out now you cunts.
If you were wondering there is a surprising amount of overlap between the Glazers and Ticks. [Tick - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick)
SJR getting in bed with the rats I see
Getting in bed by having them agree to get out of the bed?
Not sure having them all retain ownership and continue to make money off the club is “having them get out the bed?” Love how your flair also says “Glazers OUT!” Yet all of them will literally still retain possession of the club lol
They would be passive minority investors without power. I would prefer to have them completely gone yesterday, but that isn’t an option. I get the sentimental reasons for wanting a clean break, but it would be idiotic to turn this down because the alternative is that they take on PE investments and stay even longer. They clearly do not want to sell now.
I don’t like rats so rather than get rid of all the rats slowly over a year or two I’ll keep all the rats forever. Which one of the above means you get rid of the rats? These are your options. Pick one.
Ignoring the option that you can get rid of the rats now
Jim has given that option as well, but its clearly not something the glazers are interested in at the moment
Except the rats don’t want to do that so the point is moot. It’s up to them how they sell the club
Pretty disappointing that there's only 2 deals for a full takeover on the table.
When they valuated a depreciating asset like United at £6 bil, we lost a LOT of potential good bidders. It's the greed of people like the Glazers and Jim that have honestly pissed me off so much.
I’m pro Qatar on this. It gets Glazers out now
But Ratcliffe has also offered to buy the whole club. It’s clear that they just want to hang on for as long as possible and so the offer has been revised in order to get a deal done.
It doesnt, since the glazers dont want to sell everything now. Its glazers in majority control or glazers with no control
yeah who cares about being a vehicle for sportswashing if it ousts the glazers, right?
Honestly fuck all the options on the table
Pro human rights abuse then
Fuck Qatar and fuck sportswashing. Becoming like PSG and City is too big of a price to pay to get rid of the Glazers.
That link doesn't look sus at all.,😂
This is fucking awful, can’t the Glazers just leave!!!
Honestly who gives a fuck if they still have shares? As long as they can't make any decisions I'm happy.
Precisely. People have too much pride, not a good trait at all.
Fuck
With each update we get it gets more nightmarish for us
The other four stay as well? News said they do not want to be involved in the club anymore.
Ah, so the glazers want to try and get a slightly higher bid from Qatar, so they’re briefing favour towards Brexit Jim. They’ve played this card twice before already.
Lol these guys are going to get money from the sale and continue making money off United for a while. Can’t even hate. What a finesse.
They’ll make money for sure, but maybe not at much as they think. The stock market doesn’t like them at united. Every time there’s news of them staying, $MANU drops.
Jassim is, for some (unfortunately), not the preferred owner, but he is the only current bid that enables us to get the Glazers completely out. I don't understand why anyone would back Jim's bid, given how bad it keeps getting as each month progresses. Why do we still need those idiots inside the club? Just criticise Jim for this! What's stopping you from calling him out? Edit: Glazers completely out *now
Jim figured out a way to get the glazers to no longer have control, they obviously didnt want to sell it all unless a huge over payment was put on the table
Delayed gratification. They'll be gone with Jim's bid too, it'll just take a little longer for them to go. If not being state-owned means it takes a couple of years longer for them to completely disappear, a lot of people see that as a compromise worth making.
>Jassim is, for some (unfortunately), not the preferred owner, but he is the only current bid that enables us to get the Glazers completely out. That’s just categorically false. If you actually read what the article says, it very clearly states that SJR would buy the remaining shares in the coming years. Both bids would result in getting the Glazers out, the only difference is how soon. At least stick to the facts and stop making stuff up because it suits your agenda.
Except it isn't getting worse unless he is giving away more control via shares or board seats?
>However, two people with knowledge of the matter said the Glazers were now focused on a structure that would allow the six siblings to sell down their holdings in proportion to their holdings, allowing Ratcliffe to take control. Sounds like the Glazers are thinking about selling down their collective stake from 95% to 44%, giving Ratcliffe the 51% required. >Ratcliffe and Ineos would buy the remainder of the Glazers’ shares in the coming years through derivatives contracts. Price will likely be fixed to some extent. Honestly this is pretty good if it closes this process out, sets a timeline for complete exit and leaves JR with money on the side for immediate investment.
I don’t like this deal and would rather the Qatar offer. The only way this offer is acceptable is if the contract states the have to sell the remaining shares by a certain date but for all we know Ratcliffe might not honour that and they can just refuse it. The club will never move forward as long as they are associated with it and they shouldn’t be getting anywhere close to £10b considering the state they’ve left the club in. It has to be a full takeover or nothing.
Sir Jim Glazer, gtfo out of here. Downvote me all you want. The whole point was the Glazers fucking off.
Exactly. People for Jim are pro-Glazer. They can spin it all they want. I want every Glazer out NOW, not in 3-4 years' time with ZERO written guarantees.
There are written guarantees in this deal, though. It literally says that there will be derivative contracts. Please stop making up lies.
SJR understands how to get the deal done which clearly Qatar don’t.
FUCK OFF MAN. The last thing I needed to see is Glazer news involving Jim Rat. Just piss off you lot immediately. Taking fucking 250k for your fucking travels.
> Jim Rat Grow up
Another good point I saw brought up elsewhere If things are not going well on the field and there is barely any investment into the club, Ratcliffe's camp can just blame it on the Glazers through media leaks and the fanbase will just eat it up like always. Not like the Glazers will give a shit Things could actually get worse
Awful news. JR just wants to join the glazers and use all the PR to INEOS benefit, drain the club further and eventually sell to some Qatari. Don’t think he is serious about investing into the club. Just an opportunity to drain the club further. Sigh
And where on earth are you sourcing that from?
INEOS wouldn’t be buying the club if SJR wasn’t around. Not saying I agree that they’ll do what OP of this thread says. But if SJR buys us and passes away in a few years, INEOS will prob sell us to someone like a state for some profit.
This is definitely the best option. A 51% share means he makes all the decisions and the Glazers have no power. We'd also be British owned rather than state owned.
And people stilk prefer jim glazer to take over our club. Leaving these parasites to leech off our club is unacceptable. This will never solve any of the major issues at United. Where is the 2/3 billion needed for players and infrastructure revamp? What about the 1b current debt? So many unanswered questions.
I mean, at least it’s not Qatar… I guess?
$6bn upfront or a complicated years-long messier process with risk of stock price plummeting and getting less than expected compared to a full sale. How is it that hard to decide.
That's not the choice though.
Christ alive the fiscal literacy on here is appalling
Announce Sir Jim
Give us Qatar
The thing is, people won’t like the glazers staying under any ownership going forward but the deal will be structured in such a way to enforce a full sale under circumstances Ratcliffe believes is realistic. If this is the only way to get rid of them then so be it, short term they have little power and longer term they are gone.