Glazers turn down £1.5Bn bid.

What a pisser. The only silver lining is that if they turn down £1.5Bn then they must think they can make it be worth more. You don't do that by being mid-table. The cloud is that it'll be debt on the club for a good few years if they do have to splash the cash to keep us challenging.

Red Knights' blow as they discover Glazers have already rejected £1.5bn bid for Manchester United

Manchester United's owners, the Glazer family, rejected a £1.5 billion Middle East-based offer to buy the club late last year, Telegraph Sport can disclose.

With a formal takeover bid expected to be submitted by the Red Knights, a group of wealthy individuals and financiers, within four weeks, revelations of the Glazers’ refusal to sell the club for almost double the £790 million valuation of their 2005 buy-out will only emphasise their determination to swiftly dismiss the offer.
The Red Knights, led by Goldman Sachs economist and former Manchester United PLC director Jim O’Neill, are understood to be close to finalising a £1.2 billion offer for United following discussions with Japanese investment bank Nomura and City lawyers Freshfields over the structure of the bid.

But despite an increasingly vociferous and visible campaign to drive the Glazers out, the Florida-based family are now keen for the Red Knights to make their move so the uncertainty over the club’s future can be addressed with an unequivocal statement of their intention to remain for the long term.
Sources close to the Glazers have confirmed that the family have rejected “numerous” offers for the club during their five years as owners, with the £1.5 billion bid from the unnamed Middle-East suitor understood to be the most substantial.
Throughout the Red Knights’ campaign of building support, both financially and within the club’s fan base, the Glazers have consistently maintained their stance that United are not for sale.
And the family are understood to be bemused by the continuing attempts by the Red Knights to fund a bid, despite the group being made aware by figures within the City that there is no desire in Florida to sell.
It is understood that the Red Knights have canvassed key figures within the investment bank Rothschild, who advised the Glazers during their successful takeover bid in 2005, to gauge the family’s intentions, only to be told that a sale was not on the agenda.
While the Glazers overcame fierce supporter-led opposition to complete their leveraged takeover five years ago, hostility on the terraces intensified earlier this year following the £500 million bond issue aimed at restructuring the club’s debts, with the overall figure increasing to £716.5 million.
And despite the bond issue proving a success, the green-and-gold campaign, led by the supporters’ group MUST, has subsequently provided a focal point for the fans’ opposition to the Glazers. The family have been unmoved by the protests, however, and remain intent on strengthening their grip on the club by continuing to exploit the global strength of the club’s brand.
The club’s commercial income under the Glazers has grown by 65 per cent since 2005 and United’s London-based commercial operation has generated more than £130 million in worldwide sponsorship deals and partnership agreements since opening for business two years ago.
United have also struck deals with telecommunications companies in Africa, the Middle East, India and the Far East ahead of the anticipated growth of fans being able to watch matches on mobile phones.
With £80 million banked from the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid, Sir Alex Ferguson has been told by the Glazers and chief executive David Gill that he has substantial funds if he wishes.
Ferguson’s reluctance to operate at the top end of the financial scale, borne out by his admission last week that he has “no plans to spend big this summer”, have led to the perception that the Glazers are controlling the purse strings tightly, but the owners have given Gill and Ferguson an unrestricted mandate to attract new players.
And while there are plans by supporters to protest against the Glazers again during Sunday’s final home game of the season against Stoke City, with 50,000 anti-Glazer banners and 10,000 whistles set to be handed out, the Americans are unlikely to be fazed.
They apparently regard owning United as comparable to living in the 'best house at the top of the hill’, and, with nothing to match it elsewhere, have no desire to allow anybody else to enjoy the view.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...er-United.html

Originally Posted by Spiffy

What a pisser. The only silver lining is that if they turn down £1.5Bn then they must think they can make it be worth more. You don't do that by being mid-table. The cloud is that it'll be debt on the club for a good few years if they do have to splash the cash to keep us challenging.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...er-United.html

probably horseshit, made up to try to put the frighteners on the Red Knights.

toilet sniffer - BRINGING AUTOFREDS TO THE MAIN SINCE 2009

Originally Posted by Spiffy

The only silver lining is that if they turn down £1.5Bn then they must think they can make it be worth more.

why's that good ?

oooh... we're a stock that they value very highly in their get even richer campaign !

Originally Posted by Fountz

why's that good ?

oooh... we're a stock that they value very highly in their get even richer campaign !

If they think they can build up the club and then sell it for £2Bn then they will have to invest in the team. If we're not in the Champions League and challenging for the league then the value would go down. It might mean they are less likely to cash in on Rooney.

Wont sell until mongs stop renewing.

From next season, anybody wearing GnG in the ground is like a black voting BNP.

Originally Posted by ScarFace

Wont sell until mongs stop renewing.

From next season, anybody wearing GnG in the ground is like a black voting BNP.

Until the £#%&!ing idiots stop putting gng scarfs over their brand new Utd shirts with letters and gold prem badges with mega store bags in hand,well its £#%&!ed all the way ain't it?.

Originally Posted by ScarFace

Wont sell until mongs stop renewing.

From next season, anybody wearing GnG in the ground is like a black voting BNP.

Word.

Originally Posted by f.l.a.t.s

Until the £#%&!ing idiots stop putting gng scarfs over their brand new Utd shirts with letters and gold prem badges with mega store bags in hand,well its £#%&!ed all the way ain't it?.

Nike get all the money from the megastore not United.

Originally Posted by Sandman

Nike get all the money from the megastore not United.

So the glazers get £#%&! all profit?,now stop it.

So its ok to wear a Utd top and a gng scarf?.

Originally Posted by f.l.a.t.s

So the glazers get £#%&! all profit?,now stop it.

So its ok to wear a Utd top and a gng scarf?.

If people want to that's up to them, it's not really for any of us to say what people should and shouldn't be doing.

And as far as I remember Nike own the rights for all the merchandise in the megastore and every replica shirt sold worldwide. It's all part of the £302.9 million they paid to be United's kit manufacturers. So the amount of shirts sold doesn't make a difference to the Glazer's. I'm sure someone will know more about it than me, but I'm pretty sure that's the deal.

Originally Posted by Sandman

If people want to that's up to them, it's not really for any of us to say what people should and shouldn't be doing.

And as far as I remember Nike own the rights for all the merchandise in the megastore and every replica shirt sold worldwide. It's all part of the £302.9 million they paid to be United's kit manufacturers. So the amount of shirts sold don't make a difference to the Glazer's.

My fellow red i have no argument with you,i am just asking the point is one political point mixed with another a point?.

I don't try to tell people what to do or say in the life of Utd,but come on why wear a gng scarf and shop in the mega store?.Surely you get my point?.

All shops buy the shirts from nike, then sell to the public making a profit.

The megastore is a shop but owned by United, so once they've bought the shirts from Nike then all profits made on the sale price are Unites/Glazers.

This season was ok wearing GnG in the ground as you'd probably already paid for the tickets...

But next season is different, if you pay the money which gives the very reason for owning us, to the Glazers, then it's abit silly moaning in anyway about them.

Thats not saying you're a @#%&! going, just you kinda lose the right to complain about the owners as you're a major part in why they are here/wont sell.

Dont renew and they'd sell, simple.

Originally Posted by ScarFace

All shops buy the shirts from nike, then sell to the public making a profit.

The megastore is a shop but owned by United, so once they've bought the shirts from Nike then all profits made on the sale price are Unites/Glazers.

This season was ok wearing GnG in the ground as you'd probably already paid for the tickets...

But next season is different, if you pay the money which gives the very reason for owning us, to the Glazers, then it's abit silly moaning in anyway about them.

Thats not saying you're a @#%&! going, just you kinda lose the right to complain about the owners as you're a major part in why they are here/wont sell.

Dont renew and they'd sell, simple.

I don't think that's true.

Manchester United, the world's richest soccer club, has signed a sponsorship and merchandising deal with sports gear giant Nike worth a massive $439 million.

United, which has won the English league title six times in the past eight years and was European champion in 1999, said it would grant exclusive rights to sponsor its gear, manufacture and sell its merchandise and operate the club's existing retail operations.

The agreement starts in August 2002 when the club's current sponsorship contract with Umbro expires and will run for 13 years, although Nike will have the option to end the arrangements in 2008.

Nike's payments will be reduced if the team does not finish in the top half of England's Premier League or it does not compete in European competitions, the club said in a statement.

Shares in United gained around 1 percent Friday to 226 pence but were not that far from this year's low of 193p amid concerns about soaring player costs and a proposed shake-up of soccer's multi-million pound transfer system.

Former world champion Brazil has an agreement worth a record $100 million spanning a 10-year period but that covers only kit.

http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/13...deal-with-nike

The floor space of the current megastore is actually owned by United's kit sponsors, Nike, who operate the store.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Trafford

So like I said it doesn't make a difference to the Glazers if people do or don't buy the merchandise.

united is a unique sporting entity, there is no other club which can be privately owned which is remotely comparable (real and barca could be but their ownership structures preclude their being privately owned). i have no idea whether this particular story is true or not but it's plain that there will never be a lack of potential buyers. the club could even be refloated on the stock market if the glazers wanted rid.

well at least the minimum price is set.

Not a shred of detail. Nothing. Others may believe it (the bid, or bids) happened, I certainly don't. To me, the 'story' is meant to give prospective buyers an indication of where the Glazers would like the bidding to head towards, nothing more.

I'd be interested to find what percentage of the sale fee Gill will end up with...

Originally Posted by Wafty Crank

Not a shred of detail. Nothing. Others may believe it (the bid, or bids) happened, I certainly don't. To me, the 'story' is meant to give prospective buyers an indication of where the Glazers would like the bidding to head towards, nothing more.

I'd be interested to find what percentage of the sale fee Gill will end up with...

Nail on head!

No way would they turn down that money, as it would get them off, and leave them with a profit. They've no other way of making that kind of profit, unless we had our own TV rights.

More or less a planted story to say, we'll sell for x amount.

Originally Posted by Wafty Crank

Not a shred of detail. Nothing. Others may believe it (the bid, or bids) happened, I certainly don't. To me, the 'story' is meant to give prospective buyers an indication of where the Glazers would like the bidding to head towards, nothing more.

I'd be interested to find what percentage of the sale fee Gill will end up with...

Exactly and I'm surprised more on here haven't already sussed that.

'A secretive Middle East consortium'

'£1.5 billion'

Originally Posted by Sandman

I don't think that's true.





So like I said it doesn't make a difference to the Glazers if people do or don't buy the merchandise.

You are right to a greater degree but Nike only get the profits from Nike products sold in the shop.

United have ranges of non Nike products, their own casual clothes range, books, pens, cups, pictures etc which they will take the profit from.