Glazers would consider selling minority stake

Unsuccessful, that’s the one.

Originally Posted by AK14

https://twitter.com/centredevils/sta...G3ZSRYD9nchUpg

Ratcliffe.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Probably not a good sign if they can’t manage something as basic as walking.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Probably not a good sign if they can’t manage something as basic as walking.

Here's the actual tweet

https://twitter.com/MarkOgden_/status/1567876213397413891

Originally Posted by armchair

Here's the actual tweet

https://twitter.com/MarkOgden_/statu...76213397413891

Terrible article. Actually claims the Glazers bought Ronaldo.

Originally Posted by 92ToBury

Terrible article. Actually claims the Glazers bought Ronaldo.

I think the they in that context is united.

however, it does say they bought united "by investing just £270m of their own money" and that is absolute %@#$&!s.

Originally Posted by jem

I think the they in that context is united.

however, it does say they bought united "by investing just £270m of their own money" and that is absolute %@#$&!s.

No, they say that during the Glazer ownership we have spent over 1.7 billion on transfers including Ronaldo, Pogba and Di Maria. Wouldn't mind if Ronaldo hadn't "only" been 12.5m, nowhere near our big buys.

I love how whenever they are mentioned it’s always the last 10 years or something .

Like purposely forgetting the first 7-8 years when they “invested” £#%&! all and only started doing so once moyes arrived.

Originally Posted by jem

I think the they in that context is united.

however, it does say they bought united "by investing just £270m of their own money" and that is absolute %@#$&!s.

Is buying the original shareholding (30% or whatever) investing? That must have been their own money or at least not the club's.

Originally Posted by redhegemony

Is buying the original shareholding (30% or whatever) investing? That must have been their own money or at least not the club's.

not one red cent. they borrowed everything.

Originally Posted by jem

not one red cent. they borrowed everything.

interesting - who funded the original share purchase?

Originally Posted by redhegemony

interesting - who funded the original share purchase?

They didn't have any 'money', a few failing shopping malls. They are financial fraudsters, the whole buyout was a con job. How the FA or the financial regulators didn't call this out at the time Utd was a regulated PLC at the time and it simply should not have been allowed to go ahead

Originally Posted by redhegemony

interesting - who funded the original share purchase?

debt specific to the acquisition and more general lines of credit. they didn't have any money.

Originally Posted by jem

debt specific to the acquisition and more general lines of credit. they didn't have any money.

but they 'borrowed' it ?

Did the money borrowed against the club to buy it then pay them back eg buy their own shares?

Originally Posted by jem

debt specific to the acquisition and more general lines of credit. they didn't have any money.

Maybe do a longer post on this jemima and explain how these crooks got hold of the club.

I still can't believe there wasn't at least a 'referral' at the time, that rat Woodward must have had his hands in a lot of pockets

Originally Posted by redhegemony

but they 'borrowed' it ?

Did the money borrowed against the club to buy it then pay them back eg buy their own shares?

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).

Originally Posted by TripDownMiseryLane

Maybe do a longer post on this jemima and explain how these crooks got hold of the club.

I still can't believe there wasn't at least a 'referral' at the time, that rat Woodward must have had his hands in a lot of pockets

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.

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.

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.

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).

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%?

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%?

110% club paid all their fees for everything, the club was stolen.