Olivia
Online
John Garis
@JohnnyGaris
Business Owner, Accountant & Football fanatic. Sports tragic, Man Utd supporter!
Newcastle
Joined February 2011
633 Following
146 Followers
1.1K Posts
@GeoffLemonSport I think it was the application of this law that’s the issue though, rather than the law itself. Ensuring laws are equitably and reasonably enforced is just as important as the law itself.
Haha how good is this? 😂
The Fonz shouting out Postecoglou.
@endahiggins88 It’s come up in every press conference! But he is his former manager so understandable.
@richardajkeys Keys, you’re in no position to comment on anyone else’s behaviour for the rest of your days champ! Jog on!
Here Adam Crafton brilliantly explains how conniving and underhanded Richard Arnold was with his attempts to reintroduce Mason Greenwood into team.
United fans are very quick to knock poor journalism. This is a time to applaud excellent journalism 👏
@piersmorgan @Lionesses You forgot thanks to Australia & New Zealand for being such incredible hosts!
@Ankaman616 Some of the comments are a bit hard on you Carl! 🤣
Fans have a point regarding the prices. It’s just the way it is with the big boys. If you’re going to a preseason game, you have to accept it will be a lottery. But…you gotta pay for those transfer fees somehow don’t you!!
@markgoldbridge Twat! You have no idea!
@Sjopinion10 You mean like you lot did in 2013? This entire series has been England complaining about things they’ve previously taken advantage of themselves! Grow up and stop whinging!
@MancRedDevil1 @ManUtd @lauriewhitwell @TheAthletic What a ridiculous post! As far as I’m concerned that’s a law suit right there. You can’t slander and call into question Laurie’s and the Athletic’s integrity with a baseless, unfounded tweet like this. I hope you’re punished within the law in due course.
💣🚨Finally some reliable news on the Ineos bid to the Glazers.
The Financial Times is reporting that Ineos' bid is for all the Glazers' shares, but the shares would be acquired in two steps. In step one, all Glazer siblings would pro rata to their holdings sell enough shares to Ineos for Ineos to take control of the club. In the second step, Ineos would buy the reminding shares held by the Glazers over the coming years.
1. First of all, does Ineos bid allow for the Glazers to stay? Is it a "full sale"? I know that this is an infected question.
Ultimately, it's a matter of definition, or about playing with words. But I would say this, the best potential new owner for this club as well as the worst potential new owner of the club -- could acquire control of the club in the manner proposed by Ineos. It is a fairly common procedure to divide a sale of a business into two or more tranches (especially in certain industries). There is no negative effect of this structure for the club, it doesn't mean that Ineos will be a good new owner, nor a bad new owner, or better or worse than 9-2 -- but Ineos takes full control of the club from day one, and towards the Glazers become obligated to buy their reminding shares over the coming years.
2. There is plenty of other interesting information in the FT article. One comment reads:
“The penny has started to drop,” said one of the people. “There’s no requirement to make an offer for all shareholders.”
This is obviously an aspect that has frustrated people around the bid process, since a bid for all shares requires a bigger capital investment from a bidder which makes it harder to reach the Glazers' ask. Chelsea sold for £2.6bn. The Glazers' fully control and do what they want with MUFC. Isn't it sufficient for a new owner to gain the same level of control of the club as the Glazers has now? The rumored offer valuing the club at £5bn from 9-2 for 100% of the shares would pay the Glazers £2.9bn if the debt totals £781m. That is just 300m more than what the owner of CFC got for the club...
PSG, City and MUFC today all have majority owners, who has a very little impact on those clubs, i.e. the clubs are still soley run by Qatar, Abu Dabi and the Glazers respectively. It is perfectly possible for a new owner of this club to not acquire the shares held by the NYSE, as we have covered numerous times before.
Why does 9-2 want to acquire 100% of the shares when 69% of the shares are enough? Two reasons. 9-2 will by all accounts make heavy infrastructure investments in Manchester, including on the land owned by MUFC. One, a football club shouldn't be building train stations and what not, so in all likelihood, 9-2 would lift that land out of the club and place in different JVs, which is common procedure for them and infrastructure projects. Nothing odd with that. If 9-2 own 100% of the club, they can do this in an afternoon. If there are minority owners -- selling land from the club to the majority owner is legally complicated. Must be done for "market value", can easily result in litigation etc. Two, if you own 100%, you can sell down to 51% and still control the club. That 49% you can sell has a lot of value. If you own 69%, you can only sell 19%. If 9-2 buys 100%, make those infrastructure investments, sell of minority stakes in the club and especially different ventures, they can recover big parts of their initial investment.
What is my point with this? Not taking sides nor declaring one of the bidders better than the other, I don't think it is fair to proclaim that SJR is outbidding 9-2 by getting into bed with the Glazers through shady arrangements. Ineos bid is stuctured in a normal way, as is 9-2's bid. Ineos bid is reportedly higher. In fact, it only takes an offer with a purchase price of just over £2.9bn (which is what the Glazers get from an an offer assigning MUFC an enterprise value of 5bn) to the Glazers to outbid 9-2 and get full control of the club. 9-2's bid is simply not putting the bar very high for rival bidders.
Much have been said about Ineos lack of communication, but I wonder if its not in the interest of those wanting 9-2 to walk away with control of the club, to ask why they won't settle with just acquiring the 69% held by the Glazers? Pay 4.14bn for those shares, and you own the club within a week probably.
3. How high is Ineos bid? A bid is always based on am enterprise value ("EV"). If the EV is say 6bn, to get the purchase price which is to be paid, you take 6bn add (+) cash in the business and subtract (-) the debt. According to the FT, Ineos bid is valuing the club "at more than £5bn, including debt". Since our debt total app. 781m, this means that Ineos' bid is based on an EV of more than 5.781bn. Even if the reports out there aren't a wonder in terms of clarity, as I understand them, 9-2's offer is based on an EV of around or just short of 5bn. Hence, it does seem like Ineos bid just is significantly higher.
4. But since the Glazers' Class B shares has 10 votes each, and automatically will convert to Class A shares with 1 share each if sold, won't the Glazers still control the club even if Ineos buys almost all of their shares? The plan is the following according to the FT article:
"[A] 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."
Another possible solution is for the Glazers to convert their shares to class A shares, but I recon the above solution is a little better for the Glazers/Ineos since they would maintain a higher degree of control over the NYSE share holders.
5. "...no deal is expected imminently..."
This is the toughest pill to swallow. From someone "briefed" of the board meeting last week, the FT has obtained the following information:
"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."
What can those issues be? Big transactions take time, and there can be a myriad of questions that must be settled. At the same time, this process has been ongoing for quite some time now.
Every time the negotiations result in a change of the structure of the transaction, the legal side must review it and solve any issues. Put and call options are to be issued? They must be drafted, reviewed and agreed upon between all parties. Financial obligations of the parties must be secured. Etc etc etc. But with that said -- at this point -- a fairly major change in the transaction structure could delay the procedure a week, a week and a half, due to the lawyers.
Resolutions to amend the Articles of Association of MUFC is necessary, they might require a General Meeting that must be convened in due order. There is a meeting coming up on the 28th of June, at which it might be planned that certain resolutions will be passed.
In addition, you have the "human factor". People (the Glazer siblings) getting insecure about some aspect or two, and needing time to think it through.
How much time could be remaining? I would like to say that the 'number of issues that must be worked out'' is not an excuse to delay the process at all. It is just a pretty ugly excuse by the Glazers to keep flexibility when hammering out the details. Sure, if negotiations result in changes to the deal structure, it might create issues that might take time, but those issues are always solved.
My take is this, the Glazers are not professional business people. My experience is that people like them tend to get insecure, and their reaction is to handle insecurity with delay. Something feel scary? Push it away, and let it be for a while, and it will feel less scary. When experienced people make transactions, they commit to it and to get it done as fast as possible. Why? Time is risk, and the faster one transaction get done, they can take the profit from it and move on to the next business opportunity. If a Glazer sibbling clears 500m from this deal, and had it been done in January, S&P 500 is up with 12% since. Had they closed the transaction 1 Jan, put the money in an index fund, they got 560m each today. This strategy to suck out the last penny from a buyer even if it takes a year -- is just not how it usually is done, simply because its bad business. Delays like this are just amateurish.
Is it possible to say anything about when we might expect the transaction to close? Nah, not really. The Glazers are obviously hammering out the final details with Ineos -- while keeping the door open for 9-2 to improve its offer. Lets say that the current proposed transaction structure was pitched the first time 2 weeks ago -- in a process that has been ongoing since November -- they should be able to have everything done, sealed and delivered in a couple of weeks. But at the same time, the same thing could have been said in mid March. Sure the AGM on 28th June could be of significant, but only in terms of it being a formal step necessary to close the transaction. I.e. usually you agree and enter into agreements on a transaction, that are conditional upon final approval or a final action like changing the AoA if necessary, at a AGM/EGM, and then the transaction is closed the following day. So we should definitely not have to wait to the AGM to have passed to get news on an agreed deal.
But ultimately, what remains is the Glazers making up their minds. That can take 6 hours, 6 days or 6 weeks. Its anyone's guess.
https://t.co/FnqbxGXV0Z
![SwedishRumble's tweet photo. 💣🚨Finally some reliable news on the Ineos bid to the Glazers.
The Financial Times is reporting that Ineos' bid is for all the Glazers' shares, but the shares would be acquired in two steps. In step one, all Glazer siblings would pro rata to their holdings sell enough shares to Ineos for Ineos to take control of the club. In the second step, Ineos would buy the reminding shares held by the Glazers over the coming years.
1. First of all, does Ineos bid allow for the Glazers to stay? Is it a "full sale"? I know that this is an infected question.
Ultimately, it's a matter of definition, or about playing with words. But I would say this, the best potential new owner for this club as well as the worst potential new owner of the club -- could acquire control of the club in the manner proposed by Ineos. It is a fairly common procedure to divide a sale of a business into two or more tranches (especially in certain industries). There is no negative effect of this structure for the club, it doesn't mean that Ineos will be a good new owner, nor a bad new owner, or better or worse than 9-2 -- but Ineos takes full control of the club from day one, and towards the Glazers become obligated to buy their reminding shares over the coming years.
2. There is plenty of other interesting information in the FT article. One comment reads:
“The penny has started to drop,” said one of the people. “There’s no requirement to make an offer for all shareholders.”
This is obviously an aspect that has frustrated people around the bid process, since a bid for all shares requires a bigger capital investment from a bidder which makes it harder to reach the Glazers' ask. Chelsea sold for £2.6bn. The Glazers' fully control and do what they want with MUFC. Isn't it sufficient for a new owner to gain the same level of control of the club as the Glazers has now? The rumored offer valuing the club at £5bn from 9-2 for 100% of the shares would pay the Glazers £2.9bn if the debt totals £781m. That is just 300m more than what the owner of CFC got for the club...
PSG, City and MUFC today all have majority owners, who has a very little impact on those clubs, i.e. the clubs are still soley run by Qatar, Abu Dabi and the Glazers respectively. It is perfectly possible for a new owner of this club to not acquire the shares held by the NYSE, as we have covered numerous times before.
Why does 9-2 want to acquire 100% of the shares when 69% of the shares are enough? Two reasons. 9-2 will by all accounts make heavy infrastructure investments in Manchester, including on the land owned by MUFC. One, a football club shouldn't be building train stations and what not, so in all likelihood, 9-2 would lift that land out of the club and place in different JVs, which is common procedure for them and infrastructure projects. Nothing odd with that. If 9-2 own 100% of the club, they can do this in an afternoon. If there are minority owners -- selling land from the club to the majority owner is legally complicated. Must be done for "market value", can easily result in litigation etc. Two, if you own 100%, you can sell down to 51% and still control the club. That 49% you can sell has a lot of value. If you own 69%, you can only sell 19%. If 9-2 buys 100%, make those infrastructure investments, sell of minority stakes in the club and especially different ventures, they can recover big parts of their initial investment.
What is my point with this? Not taking sides nor declaring one of the bidders better than the other, I don't think it is fair to proclaim that SJR is outbidding 9-2 by getting into bed with the Glazers through shady arrangements. Ineos bid is stuctured in a normal way, as is 9-2's bid. Ineos bid is reportedly higher. In fact, it only takes an offer with a purchase price of just over £2.9bn (which is what the Glazers get from an an offer assigning MUFC an enterprise value of 5bn) to the Glazers to outbid 9-2 and get full control of the club. 9-2's bid is simply not putting the bar very high for rival bidders.
Much have been said about Ineos lack of communication, but I wonder if its not in the interest of those wanting 9-2 to walk away with control of the club, to ask why they won't settle with just acquiring the 69% held by the Glazers? Pay 4.14bn for those shares, and you own the club within a week probably.
3. How high is Ineos bid? A bid is always based on am enterprise value ("EV"). If the EV is say 6bn, to get the purchase price which is to be paid, you take 6bn add (+) cash in the business and subtract (-) the debt. According to the FT, Ineos bid is valuing the club "at more than £5bn, including debt". Since our debt total app. 781m, this means that Ineos' bid is based on an EV of more than 5.781bn. Even if the reports out there aren't a wonder in terms of clarity, as I understand them, 9-2's offer is based on an EV of around or just short of 5bn. Hence, it does seem like Ineos bid just is significantly higher.
4. But since the Glazers' Class B shares has 10 votes each, and automatically will convert to Class A shares with 1 share each if sold, won't the Glazers still control the club even if Ineos buys almost all of their shares? The plan is the following according to the FT article:
"[A] 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."
Another possible solution is for the Glazers to convert their shares to class A shares, but I recon the above solution is a little better for the Glazers/Ineos since they would maintain a higher degree of control over the NYSE share holders.
5. "...no deal is expected imminently..."
This is the toughest pill to swallow. From someone "briefed" of the board meeting last week, the FT has obtained the following information:
"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."
What can those issues be? Big transactions take time, and there can be a myriad of questions that must be settled. At the same time, this process has been ongoing for quite some time now.
Every time the negotiations result in a change of the structure of the transaction, the legal side must review it and solve any issues. Put and call options are to be issued? They must be drafted, reviewed and agreed upon between all parties. Financial obligations of the parties must be secured. Etc etc etc. But with that said -- at this point -- a fairly major change in the transaction structure could delay the procedure a week, a week and a half, due to the lawyers.
Resolutions to amend the Articles of Association of MUFC is necessary, they might require a General Meeting that must be convened in due order. There is a meeting coming up on the 28th of June, at which it might be planned that certain resolutions will be passed.
In addition, you have the "human factor". People (the Glazer siblings) getting insecure about some aspect or two, and needing time to think it through.
How much time could be remaining? I would like to say that the 'number of issues that must be worked out'' is not an excuse to delay the process at all. It is just a pretty ugly excuse by the Glazers to keep flexibility when hammering out the details. Sure, if negotiations result in changes to the deal structure, it might create issues that might take time, but those issues are always solved.
My take is this, the Glazers are not professional business people. My experience is that people like them tend to get insecure, and their reaction is to handle insecurity with delay. Something feel scary? Push it away, and let it be for a while, and it will feel less scary. When experienced people make transactions, they commit to it and to get it done as fast as possible. Why? Time is risk, and the faster one transaction get done, they can take the profit from it and move on to the next business opportunity. If a Glazer sibbling clears 500m from this deal, and had it been done in January, S&P 500 is up with 12% since. Had they closed the transaction 1 Jan, put the money in an index fund, they got 560m each today. This strategy to suck out the last penny from a buyer even if it takes a year -- is just not how it usually is done, simply because its bad business. Delays like this are just amateurish.
Is it possible to say anything about when we might expect the transaction to close? Nah, not really. The Glazers are obviously hammering out the final details with Ineos -- while keeping the door open for 9-2 to improve its offer. Lets say that the current proposed transaction structure was pitched the first time 2 weeks ago -- in a process that has been ongoing since November -- they should be able to have everything done, sealed and delivered in a couple of weeks. But at the same time, the same thing could have been said in mid March. Sure the AGM on 28th June could be of significant, but only in terms of it being a formal step necessary to close the transaction. I.e. usually you agree and enter into agreements on a transaction, that are conditional upon final approval or a final action like changing the AoA if necessary, at a AGM/EGM, and then the transaction is closed the following day. So we should definitely not have to wait to the AGM to have passed to get news on an agreed deal.
But ultimately, what remains is the Glazers making up their minds. That can take 6 hours, 6 days or 6 weeks. Its anyone's guess.
https://t.co/FnqbxGXV0Z](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fxpr99MWIAIShwP.png)
@piersmorgan “Still trusting the process”…this you? …
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Zakirullah
Seen from Germany
Lily Revin
Seen from United States
zevkkkinee
Seen from Turkey
Dana One Star 🌟
Seen from Israel
• ꧁༒𝑷𝒆𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒘𝒂𝒓 𝑩𝒐𝒚༒꧂
Seen from United States
شَــهُــودة
::London Lilly🍑🍆💦💧🏳️🌈🚻🇿🇦
Seen from South Africa
hell 
Seen from Portugal
Bloodofkirby7878
Seen from Turkey
Capon
Seen from Austria
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.7M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.5M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.2M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.4M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
90M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
84M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.4M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.4M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.2M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.3M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers