The Glazer Reign Is Crumbling

Originally Posted by Lodestar

Unless ETH wants Mount.

ETH wants a lot players. He wants De Jong & Bellingham doesn't mean he will get them, so he may have to settle for a Glazer target.

Posting illegitimate news from twitter stock tweets and Robin Hood isn't a valid source.

I doubt this is the case here....but people influence others to buy stocks all the time so they can pump and dump them. Buy the rumour, sell the fact. If Ratcliffe & the Glazer's are the fact, the stock will take a nose dive.

On another note.....I hope someone pies Avram Glazer tomorrow.

They’re operating business as usual atm, they’re working on the basis the Glazers stay and the club isn’t sold with the according budgets and targets.

Originally Posted by 92ToBury

It's Jim's policy on the debt that is concerning. The only thing that his bid has said is that there will be no new debt, not that they'll be getting rid of the old debt.

The old debt has to be dealt with when there is a change of control in the club
Now he could restructure that debt onto the club but that’s highly unlikely
Far more likely that debt is restructured against INEOS itself as they would get much better terms

Originally Posted by westcoastvan

On another note.....I hope someone pies Avram Glazer tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Bit much that really isn’t it.

It is if you take it really seriously.

And anyway, Hamas don't do aways.

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

It is if you take it really seriously.

And anyway, Hamas don't do aways.

Pity

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

It is if you take it really seriously.

And anyway, Hamas don't do aways.

Ooooh, you’re so edgy. I sense a tattoo coming on.

https://twitter.com/centredevils/status/1664743991407964160?s=46&t=46osAsCMaSbh7vgQsN2lEQ

Oh goody.

They’re going to stay. Waiting for the season to finish and a decent transfer window to try and soften the blow. We’re never getting rid of them

Worth a read…

https://twitter.com/SwedishRumble/status/1664796872236474373?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1664796872236474373%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

Originally Posted by Finport Red

Worth a read…

https://twitter.com/SwedishRumble/st...5Es1_&ref_url=

That’s a very good read, and seems to make a lot of sense.

It's a stupid article that is fundamentally flawed.

It treats the other investors as a non entity which might be true in deciding whether the sale happens and to whom, but if they aren't bought out then they still need renumeration every year.

The glazers will only be getting a little bit more than the Chelsea sale because they don't own 100% of the club. It's a ridiculous comparison that makes no sense. It's like saying Mr A sells his house with no mortgage on it for £500k. Mr B has a 50% mortgage on a house worth £1.1m. Mr B only gets £100k more if he sold his house but it's a much better house than Mr A. So the buyer(92) should just pay more to make it right?

What do you mean by remuneration every year? Dividends? There won’t be any

Your comparison doesn’t really make sense and the maths are wrong.

But other than that, good post.

https://twitter.com/utdplug/status/1664920672055832577?s=46&t=46osAsCMaSbh7vgQsN2lEQ

Hold off an announcement until after final, so that they can attend without fear of backlash….because they’re staying.

Of course there are dividends. And any new owner who hadn't purchased the shares wouldn't own 100% of the club. It's a stupid argument to say 92 should just pay more because the Glazers would only get a similar amount to the total Chelsea sale for their shares.

The club is worth whatever anyone is willing to pay for it. Ineos will have a number and so will 92. Saying someone should "just pay more" is the stuff of fantasy investment.

You were right about the maths though, schoolboy error

Originally Posted by Dr Stranger

https://twitter.com/utdplug/status/1...aSbh7vgQsN2lEQ

Hold off an announcement until after final, so that they can attend without fear of backlash….because they’re staying.

They won't stay. They simply don't have the money to invest at the level we need (e g. ground redevelopment) and piling on more debt isn't going to cut it.

Originally Posted by Dr Stranger

https://twitter.com/utdplug/status/1...aSbh7vgQsN2lEQ

Hold off an announcement until after final, so that they can attend without fear of backlash….because they’re staying.

Maybe they are letting the boss concentrate on today, you should try it....

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

Maybe they are letting the boss concentrate on today, you should try it....

Stay on topic and apologise.


https://www.utdforum.com/forum/showp...2&postcount=12

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

The old debt has to be dealt with when there is a change of control in the club
Now he could restructure that debt onto the club but that’s highly unlikely
Far more likely that debt is restructured against INEOS itself as they would get much better terms

That's only if the creditor has included a change of control clause on the arrangement. Depending who and why the money is owed, it can simply remain on the business. If the buying party is not borrowing money to pay for the business, there will similarly be no obligation to clear the debt as part of the acquisition.

Originally Posted by Dr Stranger

Stay on topic and apologise.


https://www.utdforum.com/forum/showp...2&postcount=12

No idea what you are going on about....

They are hardly going to be making any announcements today on the sale
FFS....

Enjoy your day