The Glazer Reign Is Crumbling

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

I've asked this but nobody seems to have an answer. It's truly baffling. "Big United fan, loves the club" but won't shift the worst thing to happen to the club since Munich. Its a bit odd that he's one of the richest men on the planet, his company makes billions a year - but he won't, or can't, afford to remove the parasites.

Jesus mate.

We get it, no-one hates the Glazers more than you, 'cos you're the toppest of top reds, blah, blah, blah. However, you do realize of course that even if Ineos bought every single one of the Glazer's class B (voting) shares that there'll still be a float of class A's out there, and there's literally nothing to stop them buying as much of those as they want, right? To wit, if they want to own part of United there is nothing anyone can do short of taking the club private, and I'd love to be in the board meeting where SJR pitches to the Ineos board that they stump up another unnecessary 3 billion quid because Magic off of Fred hates the Glazers so very much.

Originally Posted by shenwen

How wouldn't it? What am I missing? How would somebody still owning a significant number of shares not be in a position to profit from that? The spike in share price today for example?

So, basically abolish the stock market then? Sounds plausible.

Originally Posted by BigJim

J

So, basically abolish the stock market then? Sounds plausible.

Jesus mate

Busy as £#%&! at the ground press everywhere

Originally Posted by shenwen

Jesus mate

He's kind of got a point.


As long as the glazers don't have any major influence, as long as the club is returned to being run correctly - as a profitable business that is geared towards success on the pitch - who cares who the minority shareholders are? The glazers, either way, currently hold a £5b asset so I don't see how they lose either way. This is about the club 'winning', not the Glazers somehow losing. They're @#%&!s but they're savvy businessman.

The current choice is that, or qatari overlords.

Originally Posted by shenwen

Jesus mate

What? We're a publicly listed company. We can't influence who buys our shares. All these years I thought 'Glazers Out' meant out of the running of the club; out of controlling the club. I didn't realize it actually meant no one with the surname Glazer owning a single solitary non-voting share.

You lot spout like you've got no clue what you're looking at.

Originally Posted by Whip Hubley

He's kind of got a point.


As long as the glazers don't have any major influence, as long as the club is returned to being run correctly - as a profitable business that is geared towards success on the pitch - who cares who the minority shareholders are? The glazers, either way, currently hold a £5b asset so I don't see how they lose either way. This is about the club 'winning', not the Glazers somehow losing. They're @#%&!s but they're savvy businessman.

The current choice is that, or qatari overlords.

Why can’t that same logic apply to the Qataris?

Originally Posted by believe

Why can’t that same logic apply to the Qataris?

Don’t think they’re spending 5billy for minority shares.

Originally Posted by shenwen

How wouldn't it? What am I missing? How would somebody still owning a significant number of shares not be in a position to profit from that? The spike in share price today for example?

So you would rather they profit from those shares under a Qatar sale than profit from the sale of those shares under a Ratcliffe ownership

They'll probably make more money selling all the shares now to Qatar at this huge inflated price than selling them a few years from now but if they go with the Ratcliffe offer they obviously think they'll be some huge financial growth in football which I'm really not sure about

What hurts the most about all this is the way it has turned posters against each other.

When it’s done I hope we can all sheikh hands and move on.

Not being happy with any outcome is an option, and fits the forum mindset

Originally Posted by shenwen

How wouldn't it? What am I missing? How would somebody still owning a significant number of shares not be in a position to profit from that? The spike in share price today for example?

But they’re also profiting by the Sheikh putting in a bigger bid? In both scenarios, they’re not getting any of the clubs money.

Originally Posted by BigJim

Jesus mate.

We get it, no-one hates the Glazers more than you, 'cos you're the toppest of top reds, blah, blah, blah. However, you do realize of course that even if Ineos bought every single one of the Glazer's class B (voting) shares that there'll still be a float of class A's out there, and there's literally nothing to stop them buying as much of those as they want, right? To wit, if they want to own part of United there is nothing anyone can do short of taking the club private, and I'd love to be in the board meeting where SJR pitches to the Ineos board that they stump up another unnecessary 3 billion quid because Magic off of Fred hates the Glazers so very much.



So, basically abolish the stock market then? Sounds plausible.

Christ, what an absolute load of churlish %@#$&!s. Wanting the Glazers out is me saying I'm a top red? Grow up you utter @#%&!.

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

Christ, what an absolute load of churlish %@#$&!s. Wanting the Glazers out is me saying I'm a top red? Grow up you utter @#%&!.

No, saying it over and over and over again makes you a try-hard. You moan about people not addressing your points, so answer mine. In what universe can you dictate whether the Glazers own shares in a publicly listed United?

Originally Posted by Patty_b

It's almost as if INEOS are conducting their business properly and professionally, and unlike other parties that have bid, aren't leaking utter nonsense on an almost daily basis and using a bot army on twitter to try and drum up support and muddy the rival bidder.

Almost as if INEOS is a proper, respectable business going through the negotiations properly, and not a despot state that seems to have trouble conducting football business respectfully and legally.



Preferable to Qatari ownership hands down.

People claiming they want the Qataris because otherwise the Glazers might some some minority stake with zero control just stinks of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Actually it stinks of bullshit, because most probably don't really give a shit about that the Glazers having a minority stake and zero control, and just get hot under the collar at the thought of broken competition with bottomless pockets. Unfortunately admitting that would effectively be admitting they're the same as the plastic City fans they've been deriding for the past 15 years.

Superb ! - I'd actually rather be relegated than owned by Qatar.
As horrendous as the Glazers have been our achievements over the last 20 years have been despite them not because of them.

Originally Posted by BigJim

No, saying it over and over and over again makes you a try-hard. You moan about people not addressing your points, so answer mine. In what universe can you dictate whether the Glazers own shares in a publicly listed United?

What? I'm not arsed if it's impossible to stop the Glazers owning shares or whatever, I'm saying that I want the takeover (by ANYONE) to have the clout to buy them out. What aren't you getting?

A try hard The entire thread is about the "Glazer Reign crumbling" but I'm a try hard for mentioning I'm desperate for the Glazer reign to crumble. £#%&!ing hell, make it make sense you clown.

I'm not sure if this has any basis in truth or not, but I can't help seeing Qatari ownership as us ending up with Neymar, Mbappe and Antonio £#%&!ing Conte.

I just fear they won't take ten Hag seriously. Again, just a feeling.

Why would they get rid of one of the best young managers in Europe?

I’d say it’s far more likely the Qatari’s would ask ETH for his shopping list.

And at the same time be cracking on with fixing the crumbling infrastructure.



Meanwhile Jim Glazer would be parading Mason Mount as his marquee signing and sticking a bit of bodge tape on the roof.

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

What? I'm not arsed if it's impossible to stop the Glazers owning shares or whatever, I'm saying that I want the takeover (by ANYONE) to have the clout to buy them out. What aren't you getting?

A try hard The entire thread is about the "Glazer Reign crumbling" but I'm a try hard for mentioning I'm desperate for the Glazer reign to crumble. £#%&!ing hell, make it make sense you clown.

Which is your new position after you previously just said you wanted the takeover to have the clout to compete with City and Liverpool, correct?

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

What? I'm not arsed if it's impossible to stop the Glazers owning shares or whatever, I'm saying that I want the takeover (by ANYONE) to have the clout to buy them out. What aren't you getting?

A try hard The entire thread is about the "Glazer Reign crumbling" but I'm a try hard for mentioning I'm desperate for the Glazer reign to crumble. £#%&!ing hell, make it make sense you clown.

You're trying a little bit too hard with your insults too. It doesn't show a great deal of confidence in your actual argument my friend. So what does 'glazers out' actually mean to you? If they have a minority stake and no control of club affairs nor dividends, doesn't that constitute them being 'out'? If the agreement also includes a facility for Ineos to remove them bit by bit over a period of time, doesn't that constitute 'glazers out'? If this is what it took to wrest control from them against a competing bid with deeper pockets, can't you understand why SJR had to sweeten the pot somehow? Are you really that dense?

You should step away now, because you're screeching hysterically and displaying no comprehension of the matter at hand. No offence.

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

What? I'm not arsed if it's impossible to stop the Glazers owning shares or whatever, I'm saying that I want the takeover (by ANYONE) to have the clout to buy them out. What aren't you getting?

there are many different factors consider and each of us assigns a different priority to each factor, which informs which bid we ultimately prefer.

you have assigned a very high priority to ensuring that the glazers own 0% of the club's shares.

apologies if this comes across harsh, but i think you and others are either completely misunderstanding the concepts of capital markets, share ownership, and the influence/power/control that minority shareholders have.

or you are being deliberately disingenious and presenting this as your priority when actually all you are really interested in is united signing mbappe etc