• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

PL Opposition Tidbits

Arsenal has many goal-scorers so I’m not sure that’s a huge concern if the goals are being shared all round.
 
Last edited:
Yesterdays game proved how badly they need a striker though. Depends on who is available I guess. Osimhen is probably a no go until the summer.
Toney maybe?
 
Not seen the paperwork but I expect they will have made an offer to buy the shares at a fixed price (and the current listing price will reflect that offer).
I believe the shares are listed on NYSE so I expect there will be rules about pricing. In an equivalent offer in the UK, there are rules (City Code) about the minimum price that must be paid, but I'm pretty sure they will control the price by dictating what they're prepared to pay, take it or leave it.
And they'll have had advice on the minimum price they'll need to pay to secure 8%. In practice, there'll probably be more willing sellers than they need and they'll either go first come first served or reduce the buy pro rata.

Only just saw this but last week I heard they'd committed to a price of 26 dollars per share, which are currently trading at just above 20 on the nyse.
 
Oh shit... 'This comes after Sir Jim Ratcliffe bought a 25 per cent stake in Manchester United at £26 ($33) per share, valuing the club at £4.96bn, and his portion, £1.3bn.'

Why would he pay fifty percent over the odds? @Beamrider
The official statement on the United website says they are offering $33 for both the class A and class B shares. In the case of the B shares, this is a near 50% premium on the listing value (currently around $20) as you say (and it's significantly higher than they have ever traded at - all-time peak of $26.64).
It does seem a bit odd to be honest, but I'm wondering whether Ratcliffe has essentially valued a 25% stake and then split the proceeds pro-rata across the two classes of shares, before offering the Glazers $33 per share, which they considered fair. I'd expect in reality that the two share classes should have a different value, with the A shares carrying more value due to their voting rights, but economics probably dictates that you won't be able to buy the B shares unless you pay the same price, because, reasons. I seem to recall one of the old building societies listed (might have been Halifax) and there was a whopping sell-off when the shares hit £10 because the former customers who had been issued shares when they demutualised thought £10, as opposed to £10.50, was the time to sell, because it was £10, nice round number, double figures and all.
If the listed shares are not tightly owned by financial institutions / pensions etc then there's a good chance the people who own them won't appreciate or be persuaded by the arguments around skewed value. So Ratcliffe agreed $33 as a fair price with the Glazers and has then been forced to offer the same to the public for the B shares, and probably considers there is some additional value in owning the same proportion of both classes.
I also noticed that the extra investment he's pledged to put in will be in exchange for extra shares at $33 each, so he will ultimately have over 25% of the total (although not a significant increase in percentage terms).
 
I was wondering about the additional shares. With my limited knowledge of corporate law I had assumed that the glazers had put a hard stop at 25% of class A shares because of the shit you can force legally when you get to 25.1. I don't get why Ratcliffe would want any more of the B shares as they're as useless and overpriced as club shop souvenirs. Maybe his heart is leading his head after all.
 
@Woland I also just checked on major shareholders and around 70% of the listed shares are owned by mutuals / institutions. So there is a good chance Ratcliffe already has a commitment from them to get him to 25% which would explain why the open market share price isn't closer to $33 - that's to say, if you bought a share today, you're unlikely to be able to sell it for $33 to INEOS as they already have sellers line up, so it's only really worth the medium-term trade price, which is closer to $20.
 
I was wondering about the additional shares. With my limited knowledge of corporate law I had assumed that the glazers had put a hard stop at 25% of class A shares because of the shit you can force legally when you get to 25.1. I don't get why Ratcliffe would want any more of the B shares as they're as useless and overpriced as club shop souvenirs. Maybe his heart is leading his head after all.
Agreed re the 25% and that's my thinking too. I did find it a bid odd that they would allow him to take his stake over 25%, but that only really allows you to block special resolutions which tend to be quite limited anyway. I'm also not sure the voting rights will be the same as we understand in the UK as Man Utd Plc is a Cayman company so they can probably make whatever rules they like rather than being bound by UK corporate law. They probably chose Cayman for that legal/regulatory flexibility in the first place (it isn't always about tax avoidance).
Day to day control will be via the board and the Glazers will still carry a majority in those situations.
 
Just one minor point the Glazer/woodward voting shares are “b” and the stock market shares are “a” and for clarity (as this is getting lost in the media), Trawlers Ltd (the corporate vehicle INEOS are using) will have a total of of 25% of the company comprised of 17% class B shares (by buying 25%of the Glazers holding) and 8% class A shares.

The maths is making a lot of journos heads spin :)

Under the terms of the transaction agreements, Trawlers Limited will (i) acquire 25% of the Class B ordinary shares of the Company, par value $0.0005 per share (“Class B shares”), and (ii) initiate a tender offer to acquire up to a number of shares that, at launch, will represent 25% of the Class A ordinary shares of the Company, par value $0.0005 per share (“Class A shares”), in each case at a price of $33.00 per share in cash. Subject to a sufficient number of Class A shares being tendered in the offer, Trawlers Limited would own 25% of the Club following the closing of the transaction
 
Last edited:
The end result being

Glazers 52% Class B and 3% of class A (unless they sell these to Trawlers)
Trawlers 17% class B and 8% class A
Others 20% (to 23%) class A (depending on the Glazer A sale)
 
Not PL but could be relevant to Man U and Chelsea. Ancellotti has extended his contract to 2026
 
Yesterdays game proved how badly they need a striker though. Depends on who is available I guess. Osimhen is probably a no go until the summer.
Toney maybe?
Gabriel Jesus was meant to be that goalscorer.

In my view, as with us in the Arsenal and Man U matches, it showed the importance of composure and taking your chances when they come.
 
Last edited:
Man U is in a deep hole. £1.5 billion plus spent on dross, a stadium that slowly crumbling and can’t even provide decent grub, and still in debt from funds used to buy it! It’s laughable to think that Ratcliffe’s so-reported £3000 million injection will not address any of the immediate problems except pay the interest and the Glaziers’ annual claims on revenue.

They may make condescending remarks about sports washers but many Man U fans would secretly have been glad if the sheiks had bought the club. The back room staff and top echelons, and a huge proportion of the playing side will need rebuilding at a time when almost everyone is not resting on their laurels.

All I can say is— and I know it’s not a universally popular view among Liverpool fans— thank goodness for the 2008 assets crash which exposed Gillette and Hicks and brought in FSG. Otherwise, we’d be in the same boat or worse.
 
Saw this on youtube:

2ebf345f31171930657c729795b90d9d.jpg


And thought:

19d6b5ca44d207815c09303c25b0e9d3.gif
 
Last edited:
Redcafe is sooo special these days. Here's the current voting for their game against Wigan, currently 17th in League 1 and on the back of three straight losses.

  • 19% Wigan 0:2 Man Utd
  • 11% Wigan 1:3 Man Utd
  • 9% Wigan 2:0 Man Utd
  • 9% Wigan 1:0 Man Utd
  • 8% Wigan 0:1 Man Utd
 
They're 3rd worst for goals scored in the league behind Sheffield and Burnley
 
Back
Top Bottom