Glazers would consider selling minority stake

They borrowed the money to buy the shares then transferred the debt to the club once the takeover was complete IIRC. Not a single penny of their own money was risked or spent.

Originally Posted by dunk

They borrowed the money to buy the shares then transferred the debt to the club once the takeover was complete IIRC. Not a single penny of their own money was risked or spent.

I really don't want to go back through the details, it's too depressing, but these fraudsters didn't personally 'borrow' or risk anything, it was an out-and-out an fraud that they pulled and Woodward did the paperwork on.

How the financial regulators let it through is inexplicable.

And now they pull 30 mill a quarter

Originally Posted by TripDownMiseryLane

Pretty sure I read at the time was that their only 'assets' were negative equity, money losing shopping malls. The whole deal was a scam and unsurprisingly the financial regulators didn't bat an eyelid.

Don't forget they already owned Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Originally Posted by jem

if I understand you correctly, then... no. the acquisition debt funded the purchase of the shares they didn't own (because they... um.... already owned the rest).

there was a time when I could have done a 5 sec c&p. tbh, I don't think there is any incontrovertible proof of how they financed the initial stake building (as no one was paying attention), but I think commerzbank credit lines.

I've always wondered - how long was it from when they first started purchasing shares to when they launched the takeover?

Originally Posted by redhegemony

Yeah but did the money borrowed against the club go to pay off the lenders for the original shares?

So did they borrow 100% of the clubs value or 70%?

the (jpm and pn) money they borrowed to buy the club went to the existing shareholders to buy their shares.

those existing shareholders don't include them. they didn't need to buy the shares they already owned.

the acquisition debt was then dumped on the club.

whether they borrowed 100% in total depends on how they financed building the initial stake. but they didn't have any money, so fair to assume it was borrowed.

Originally Posted by Fat Al

I've always wondered - how long was it from when they first started purchasing shares to when they launched the takeover?

they had to declare when they had a 3% stake by law. that announcement was made in september 2003. they hit over 30%, after buying the magnier and mcm@&%! stake, in may 2005. at which point, a bid was mandatory.

Originally Posted by jem

the (jpm and pn) money they borrowed to buy the club went to the existing shareholders to buy their shares.

those existing shareholders don't include them. they didn't need to buy the shares they already owned.

the acquisition debt was then dumped on the club.

whether they borrowed 100% in total depends on how they financed building the initial stake. but they didn't have any money, so fair to assume it was borrowed.

they had to declare when they had a 3% stake by law. that announcement was made in september 2003. they hit over 30%, after buying the magnier and mcm@&%! stake, in may 2005. at which point, a bid was mandatory.

Ok so on a pedantic point they had 'bought' (however they financed it) 30% of the club's shares. They then borrowed money to buy the remaining 70% of shares which then became club debt.

So they had put 30% of 'their own money (or someone else's) into the club. Be interesting to know if this has been paid off.

Why had nobody else come up with this idea before (or used it since?)?

Originally Posted by jem

the (jpm and pn) money they borrowed to buy the club went to the existing shareholders to buy their shares.

those existing shareholders don't include them. they didn't need to buy the shares they already owned.

the acquisition debt was then dumped on the club.

whether they borrowed 100% in total depends on how they financed building the initial stake. but they didn't have any money, so fair to assume it was borrowed.

they had to declare when they had a 3% stake by law. that announcement was made in september 2003. they hit over 30%, after buying the magnier and mcm@&%! stake, in may 2005. at which point, a bid was mandatory.

Cheers ears.

Originally Posted by redhegemony

Why had nobody else come up with this idea before (or used it since?)?

the idea being a leveraged buyout?

um... I guess no one thought of it.

Originally Posted by redhegemony

Ok so on a pedantic point they had 'bought' (however they financed it) 30% of the club's shares. They then borrowed money to buy the remaining 70% of shares which then became club debt.

So they had put 30% of 'their own money (or someone else's) into the club. Be interesting to know if this has been paid off.

Why had nobody else come up with this idea before (or used it since?)?

Well based on the Glazers shitty business acumen & lack of any knowledge about football, I'm sure a group of Fredsters could form a consortium to buy a football club on someone else's money.

Originally Posted by jem

the idea being a leveraged buyout?

um... I guess no one thought of it.

As its been such a financial success for them why hasn't it been copied or are financial institutions not that keen?

When the Irish crowd pulled out, after the fergie horse business, they built up their holding, with no tangible assets and none of their own money, when it got to 30% there should have been a referral on the basis of how come these guys with no money are buying a major PLC, never mind the biggest sporting club in the world. No one batted an eyelid.

Originally Posted by redhegemony

As its been such a financial success for them why hasn't it been copied or are financial institutions not that keen?

er... yeah. why doesn't everyone buy successful companies using borrowed money? why doesn't everyone have a property portfolio? and why doesn't everyone with an instagram account get sent expensive stuff for free? all good questions.

https://twitter.com/kieranmaguire/status/1574288426907717633?s=46&t=zBXMalh6rh7_PumPe5mUJQ

https://twitter.com/swissramble/status/1574282542508810240?s=46&t=zBXMalh6rh7_PumPe5mUJQ

Feels like we’re stumbling blindly towards financial ruin, doesn’t it..

14 million to Ragnick?!! How much of that went to the dude watching remotely?

https://twitter.com/swissramble/status/1574282606820184067?s=46&t=0UPXPeFWIVYfgFTOZ_4D6Q

Originally Posted by signed dc

14 million to Ragnick?!! How much of that went to the dude watching remotely?

https://twitter.com/swissramble/stat...IVYfgFTOZ_4D6Q

7 months at the club, so £2 million per month.

Must've been the best paid man in football for the first half of 2022

That £14m has to have been for him and his coaches, total, surely?

Originally Posted by Patty_b

7 months at the club, so £2 million per month.

Must've been the best paid man in football for the first half of 2022

We cut his consultant role didn't we ?

So he still had a year to do till Erik £#%&!ed him out the door....

Do hope the guy in Moscow watching streams got his cut though ...

GengenFraud

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

We cut his consultant role didn't we ?

So he still had a year to do till Erik £#%&!ed him out the door....

Do hope the guy in Moscow watching streams got his cut though ...

GengenFraud

That could be it. Most expensive steaming service in the world.

https://twitter.com/projectfootball/status/1577300881200058371?s=46&t=_4Na_H4mFI06mKw5IBiZ2w