The Glazer Reign Is Crumbling

Hopefully last night focused the mind of these #@&%!s that the scale of the task to strengthen this team is beyond them.

They need to get gone.

Originally Posted by Lodestar

Hopefully last night focused the mind of these #@&%!s that the scale of the task to strengthen this team is beyond them.

They need to get gone.

Or they’ll just wait for the next game we win and everyone says we’re only three players away from challenging for the league.

Originally Posted by believe

Or they’ll just wait for the next game we win and everyone says we’re only three players away from challenging for the league.

*two

Sir Jim fans:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...e95ae8 7afe2c

Disappointing if it’s actually true.

That said, if the Glazers have decided they’re staying, those two only having 20% would probably be the least worst option, rather than how it is now, or an investment firm taking a minority stake.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Disappointing if it’s actually true.

That said, if the Glazers have decided they’re staying, those two only having 20% would probably be the least worst option, rather than how it is now, or an investment firm taking a minority stake.

Wouldn’t be surprised if it was the only way they’ve agreed to hand over power. Tied by an NDA neither party can come out and say as such. But it does serve as nice propaganda for Qatar to put out they’re willing to bid whatever it takes knowing full well those 2 @#%&!s won’t give up their affiliation.

Last throw of the dice from Jim? Can’t match Qatar, trying to appeal to the Glazer’s ‘affection’ for the club?

I’ve got no problem with Joel staying on. Such a likeable guy.

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

Sir Jim fans:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...e95ae8 7afe2c

I'm shocked

Originally Posted by Ethers

Disappointing if it’s actually true.

That said, if the Glazers have decided they’re staying, those two only having 20% would probably be the least worst option, rather than how it is now, or an investment firm taking a minority stake.

They’d still be taking cash from the club in dividends

Originally Posted by Dasilvatwins

They’d still be taking cash from the club in dividends

In what scenario? If Ratcliffe had 50%? No they wouldn’t.

Originally Posted by Ethers

In what scenario? If Ratcliffe had 50%? No they wouldn’t.

Why wouldn’t they? It won’t be as much but they’d still have a certain number of shares issued to them . If they are the same shares they currently have , they will get dividends.

Obv the majority shareholder can refuse to issue but If ratcliffe wants to keep them in you can bet something like keeping their dividends would be part of the deal.

Originally Posted by Ethers

In what scenario? If Ratcliffe had 50%? No they wouldn’t.

if they have dividend paying shares they would

Would be a bit annoying not to have those @#%&!s purged from the club but as long as they sell their controlling stake then what does it matter if they own 20% of the club
None of us know or care who are the current minority shareholders in the club

If Big Jim has the controlling stake in the club then like the Glazers now he would have full control of the club

Originally Posted by Dasilvatwins

Why wouldn’t they? It won’t be as much but they’d still have a certain number of shares issued to them . If they are the same shares they currently have , they will get dividends.

Obv the majority shareholder can refuse to issue but If ratcliffe wants to keep them in you can bet something like keeping their dividends would be part of the deal.

Once he’s in control of the club, he does what he wants. You think they’re going to make some verbal agreement to keep paying dividends and he’s going to be bound by that? Don’t be soft ffs.

Ratcliffe will not be paying dividends to himself, and thus he will not be paying dividends to the Glazer bros, should they remain. It’s a non-issue.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Once he’s in control of the club, he does what he wants. You think they’re going to make some verbal agreement to keep paying dividends and he’s going to be bound by that? Don’t be soft ffs.

Ratcliffe will not be paying dividends to himself, and thus he will not be paying dividends to the Glazer bros, should they remain. It’s a non-issue.

Yep

The reason they want to retain shares is that they believe the value of the club will hugely increase at some point in the future and that’s when they’ll cash in those shares

They’re playing the long game

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

Yep

The reason they want to retain shares is that they believe the value of the club will hugely increase at some point in the future and that’s when they’ll cash in those shares

They’re playing the long game

is he taking the club off the stock exchange?

Who decides whether dividends are paid and how much ?

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

Yep

The reason they want to retain shares is that they believe the value of the club will hugely increase at some point in the future and that’s when they’ll cash in those shares

They’re playing the long game

Correct.

It’s a shit scenario, and I think every United fan would prefer they were gone completely. But if it’s the only scenario they’re going to agree to, we have to reluctantly take it imo.

Originally Posted by Surfers do Charlie

Who decides whether dividends are paid and how much ?

the board