United Forum
Go Back   United Forum > Manchester United > Love United, Hate Glazer
Reply
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 10:16 AM
Sullingtons
 
Thumbs up Where were the Red Knights when the original takeover happened?

Oh, that's where - two of them were making fees from it. As underwriters and legal advisors.

Well done lads. Top Reds etc etc.
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 10:31 AM
red @rmy
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sullingtons
Oh, that's where - two of them were making fees from it. As underwriters and legal advisors.

Well done lads. Top Reds etc etc.
Magaluf
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 10:33 AM
forzagarza
 
Default

Had they got sucked into the vortex that is your left nostril?
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 10:36 AM
elephantstone
 
Default

some were still at school

hth
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 10:37 AM
redloner
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sullingtons
Oh, that's where - two of them were making fees from it. As underwriters and legal advisors.

Well done lads. Top Reds etc etc.
Could you be more specific?
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 10:38 AM
Withers
 
Default

IIRC Harris claimed to have somebody from the Middle East lined up however they wanted the backing of the fans before getting involved.

It wasn't forthcoming from certain sections apparently so we never got to find out if there was a half reasonable alternative out there.

Somebody with a better memory than me may be able to elaborate.
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 10:44 AM
forzagarza
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Withers
IIRC Harris claimed to have somebody from the Middle East lined up however they wanted the backing of the fans before getting involved.

It wasn't forthcoming from certain sections apparently so we never got to find out if there was a half reasonable alternative out there.

Somebody with a better memory than me may be able to elaborate.
Yeah there was defaintly soemone else. Also they were at a disadvantage as one of the main shareholders were the Glazers already.
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 10:47 AM
Sullingtons
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redloner
Could you be more specific?
No

I'm only going off the story in the Times that one is a senior partner at Freshfields and O'Neill works for GS, who are one of the underwriters.

I'm just playing devil's advocate really. But it's strange how not many if any of them were outspoken during the takeover (apart from Hytner, top red) and now there's an opportunity they dress themselves up as the savior, they come calling.

Typical cavelier attitude from the City - make money from a poorly leveraged deal, then make money from another when shit hits the fan.
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 11:15 AM
redloner
 
Default

Mark Rawlinson (Freshfields) advised the club on the Glazer takeover. Allen & Overy advised the Glazers. All the lawyer can do in the situation in 2005 is advise the board (which included Jim O'Neill) on what was legal and what wasn't.

Ultimately, the decision not to call the bid as hostile was one taken by the board, with David Gill.

Now, Rawlinson will have detailed information on the situation back then and that may be invaluable in the tabling of a bid.

Goldman Sachs was not involved in the 2005 takeover. The Glazers had N M Rothschild handle that. Goldman Sachs was involved in the recent bond issue, but as soon as that was completed, Jim O'Neill commented in his personal capacity that the offer was too risky and the debt could damage the club. I don't suppose he has the power of veto over a deal not part of his job description.

I'm not saying this lot are perfect, but in comparison to the Glazers...
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 11:16 AM
carlosartorial
 
Default

Jim O'Neill was on the United Board, he was #%&!ed off as soon as the Glazers wrestled control.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...icle530860.ece
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 11:23 AM
Sullingtons
 
Default

I actually think they seem ok, was just being provocative tbh. I just wondered if anyone had questioned their integrity as yet.

They thrive off doing big deals, so what their personal reward is because fanship is hardly going to be enough. I presume they'll earn at some point.
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 12:14 PM
forzagarza
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sullingtons
I just wondered if anyone had questioned their integrity as yet.
Tufty has
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 03:11 PM
believe
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by forzagarza
Tufty has
Is he a red knight?
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 08:17 PM
Chris Quayd
 
Default

Harris was in talks with Nomura, a Japanese investment group. There were rumblings in the aftermath that the Shareholders United leadership didn't take Harris and Nomura seriously enough until it was too late, though nothing was ever revealed.

In my opinion SU did a pretty decent job, its easy in hindsight to say they could have done things better but the biggest reason the Glazers werent stopped is because United fans couldn't build enough of a shares bloc to stop a takeover. If after the 91 flotation someone like SU had been around slowly building up shares theres a good chance they would have reached 10% (blocking any type of takeover), long before Magnier and Mcm@&%!, De Mol and the Glazers ramped up the share price.

The glory period on the pitch meant that the majority of United fans didn't concern themselves with the boardroom/future. The same could be levelled at any other set of fans in this country but it's gone now.

Manchester United still has the potential to grow (though not under the current ownership) and though I don't expect much to happen in the short-term with the red knights in the future I can see them running the club in a manner that most of all safeguards the long-term future of the club in a manner that is palatable for supporters.
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 08:21 PM
#%&! KFC
 
Default

Whatever happened to Olly 'but please call me Oliver' Houston
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 08:36 PM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default

Quote:
Manchester United still has the potential to grow (though not under the current ownership) and though I don't expect much to happen in the short-term with the red knights in the future I can see them running the club in a manner that most of all safeguards the long-term future of the club in a manner that is palatable for supporters.
a more realistic approach would be to accept that the club has in fact grown between 2005 and 2010, and, assuming a continuing high level of success on the field (competing strongly at the top of the game) and the continued bankrolling of the club and the competitions it enters by television/tv audiences and sponsorship, will continue to grow for the foreseeable future.

one key consideration that has possibly been overlooked somewhat - particularly in fanzine/forum land - is that what is palatable for one supporter may not be palatable for another. for example, it has apparently been accepted that even in the event of the glazers being replaced we will continue to be bled dry by the money-lending industry that enabled them to take over in the first place. and yet apparently finding a billion quid is the easy part. i'm still waiting to discover at exactly what point (figure) over-leveraged becomes managably leveraged?
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 08:59 PM
believe
 
Default

I'd say it's grown because of increased ST prices and full stadiums.
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 09:24 PM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by believe
I'd say it's grown because of increased ST prices and full stadiums.
amongst other things
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 09:26 PM
Chris Quayd
 
Default

"a more realistic approach would be to accept that the club has in fact grown between 2005 and 2010, and, assuming a continuing high level of success on the field (competing strongly at the top of the game) and the continued bankrolling of the club and the competitions it enters by television/tv audiences and sponsorship, will continue to grow for the foreseeable future"

how exactly have current regime helped the club grow? the increased match day revenues are a result the investment in the ground sanctioned by the plc and hiking the prices up.

the increase in sponsorships deals you can give credit to the glazers for, though you have to take into account that the nike deal aside, the plc were failing in to maximise our sponsorship deals (one of the reasons we were being eyed up in the first place. even so the increase in sponsorships has accounted for a very small proportion of turnover.

as far as tv rights have gone, they are done collectively by the premier league and any growth there is matched by growth for our domestic rivals.

summer tours to asia/usa/china were already commonplace under the previous and other than cutting back on staff and some belt tightening on expenses the glazers haven't done anything differently.

with regards to the future then the biggest opportunity for the club would be ground expansion, something that will not happen under the current ownership as it will require them either putting their own money in or borrowing of the banks over a long period of time due to the amount of credit they already have in their name and also becuase a return on the investment would take at least years.

so you ask about palatable? well I would say fans would find it palatable to know that their season ticket money was going on reducing the debt, not maintaining it. fans would also find it much easier to part with their money if even with a slight reduction in prices they could see investment in the ground. 20,000 havent renewed in the last five years and are probably not going to under the current owners, but with a change at the top and in the way fans are treated then they could be persuaded to return.
 
Unread 02-03-2010, 09:36 PM
Tumescent Throb
 
Default

i haven't got time to read that properly right now, but a brief scan seems to indicate it's all pretty familiar from the past 15 or 20 years if we're honest - and no doubt was a major persuasive lever in the successful enticement of the money-lending industry into bankrolling the takeover

just to point out though that i didn't give credit to anyone in particular for the fact that the club has grown between 2005 and 2010, i just pointed out that it has, and that, given the scenario i mentioned, it will continue to grow
Reply
Thread Tools
Similar Threads for: Where were the Red Knights when the original takeover happened?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How many 'Red Knights' are there in total? Rossi the Red Love United, Hate Glazer 41 12-03-2010 09:17 PM
Red Knights. More like Red Dwarves! koppas Love United, Hate Glazer 5 03-03-2010 09:31 AM
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:18 AM.

Copyright 2006 - 2023 utdforum.com. This site is in no way affiliated to Manchester United Football Club.