The Glazer Reign Is Crumbling

A year to the day since the gimps instructed the banks to handle the sale of the club.

Course they did.

Originally Posted by Chorlton74

A year to the day since the gimps instructed the banks to handle the sale of the club.

Course they did.

A year ffs

They're absolutely horrible. Worst thing is, they don't give a £#%&!. Such promise and hope when this was announced. @#%&!s.

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

A year ffs

They're absolutely horrible. Worst thing is, they don't give a £#%&!. Such promise and hope when this was announced. @#%&!s.

They have zero concern for the club beyond what optimises their return.

Originally Posted by Lok

Of course you could have such agreements. It's extremely common in business.

How?

Anything can be changed with enough board votes. It's the very reason boards of directors exist, otherwise no founders could ever be booted out of the companies they created could they?

Originally Posted by Sheik JaBooty

How?

Anything can be changed with enough board votes. It's the very reason boards of directors exist, otherwise no founders could ever be booted out of the companies they created could they?

Shareholders' agreements are used all the time to regulate how a Board acts. And it's not always on a one director/one vote basis. No point in having a shareholders' agreement if it doesn't provide for someone to have a veto on some matters.

Originally Posted by avocado

Shareholders' agreements are used all the time to regulate how a Board acts. And it's not always on a one director/one vote basis. No point in having a shareholders' agreement if it doesn't provide for someone to have a veto on some matters.

loving all these Warren Buffet's we've got on the board

Originally Posted by silv

loving all these Warren Buffet's we've got on the board

When you consider the standard of board level knowledge and the financial successes of 90% of this forum, it’s quite sad we didn’t have a Fred challenge at the takeover.

Originally Posted by believe

When you consider the standard of board level knowledge and the financial successes of 90% of this forum, it’s quite sad we didn’t have a Fred challenge at the takeover.

You're assuming that Big Jim isn't already on here.

Have billpig and Jim been seen in the same place at the same time ?

Originally Posted by avocado

Shareholders' agreements are used all the time to regulate how a Board acts. And it's not always on a one director/one vote basis. No point in having a shareholders' agreement if it doesn't provide for someone to have a veto on some matters.

You can't just say "shareholder agreements" and leave it at that. Agreements are changed all the time, usually by the board members who have the voting power to change them. Look at the shit show that's going on with open AI at the moment, or when Apple got rid of Jobs. I've never heard of an agreement or corporate constitution that cannot be changed by a board of directors with enough votes - which the Glazers have btw.

Obviously if Ratcliff's investment comes with future purchase options for the Glazer's voting shares or a super majority is required on footballing matters that exceeds SJR's holdings, then that has to be honoured, but absent that, they can do what they want.

Originally Posted by Surfers do Charlie

You're assuming that Big Jim isn't already on here.

Have billpig and Jim been seen in the same place at the same time ?

Probably more important to query if have seen Billpig and jem in the same room

Gave up following this ages ago. Will we be keeping the x6 Glazers as directors, or are some being boardroom banished. Might help lift some of our curse if at least darcie goes. What do her and Kevin even do? There's a guy on the director list who appears to have spent most his time in the middle east with Ralph Lauren. Is the amount (or lack) of football expertise pretty similar across most pl boardrooms? Clown world.

I’m hoping that Jim will communicate properly with the fans if not actively involving supporters groups in decisions in some way.

At the very least I’d like to see him showing his face on here regularly.

Originally Posted by Sheik JaBooty

You can't just say "shareholder agreements" and leave it at that. Agreements are changed all the time, usually by the board members who have the voting power to change them. Look at the shit show that's going on with open AI at the moment, or when Apple got rid of Jobs. I've never heard of an agreement or corporate constitution that cannot be changed by a board of directors with enough votes - which the Glazers have btw.

Obviously if Ratcliff's investment comes with future purchase options for the Glazer's voting shares or a super majority is required on footballing matters that exceeds SJR's holdings, then that has to be honoured, but absent that, they can do what they want.

I can leave it there, because it's right. It's also my day job, not a product of a quick Google search. Would you challenge Sparky on the Knowledge?

Originally Posted by Chorlton74

A year to the day since the gimps instructed the banks to handle the sale of the club.

Course they did.

And in that time i think we've learned that the media in this country haven't the foggiest idea what's going on

Originally Posted by Sparky***

And in that time i think we've learned that the media in this country haven't the foggiest idea what's going on

Wonder what all those Qatar ITK accounts will change to now...

A year is £#%&! all, we weren't selling a bike on Facebook market place FFS

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

Wonder what all those Qatar ITK accounts will change to now...

A year is £#%&! all, we weren't selling a bike on Facebook market place FFS

They’ll probably go back to linking us to Jordan Pickford. I’m more interested in seeing which of the gullible Gary’s on here will keep linking to their tweets.

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

Wonder what all those Qatar ITK accounts will change to now...

A year is £#%&! all, we weren't selling a bike on Facebook market place FFS

It’s not that different.

My missus recently tried to sell a handbag on there and ended up dealing with some Asian bloke who had no intention of ever stumping up the cash.

Was reading today that apparently Nice and United can't both play in Europe next season because of Ineos ownership?

How does that work then because i'm quite sure i've seen RB Leipzig and RB Salzburg playing in the champions league

Originally Posted by Sparky***

Was reading today that apparently Nice and United can't both play in Europe next season because of Ineos ownership?

How does that work then because i'm quite sure i've seen RB Leipzig and RB Salzburg playing in the champions league

Maybe what you were reading was %@#$&!s?

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

Maybe what you were reading was %@#$&!s?

I see. You make a good point sir