United Thread - 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
jacko74 said:
What gets me is the BBC technically isn't even a commercial entity "due to the unique way it's funded" so it isn’t actually reliant on advertising revenue... yet it's still just as determined, if not more so, than the commercial media and broadcasters to blow smoke up the arse of Manchester united football club and its supporters.
Click to expand...
You'd think after "sir Jimmy Saville" they might of of cleaned there act up.
There's no English in today's press, it's as yank as the verbal toy you buy your Granddaughter for christmas.
Just yankee dollar $$$$
 
hgmhjgb.jpg
 
I don't know why anybody would want to pay that amount of money and not have full control of the acquisition.

The only benefit I see is Jim using the club as a giant advertising hoarding.

If Ineos appears on the front of that Man Utd shirt and anything Utd related then I think that pretty much confirms it.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Yes but there are two classes of shares. The Glazers hold the 'B' Class shares, which carry 10 votes per share. The rest are 'A' Class shares, which carry 1 vote per share.

Under normal circumstances if anyone outside the Glazer family buys the B Class shares, they revert to A Class shares. However Ratcliffe has bought 25% of each class of shares but with the proviso that the B Class shares he's bought retain their voting rights. So he has 25% of united shares.

The interesting thing is that he's paid $33 per share, but the shares were still being quoted at just under $20 on the NYSE. Normally you'd expect the price to reflect a significant transaction like that but it's been known about for a while and the share price has only briefly gone over $25. That tends to suggest that the market thinks Ratcliffe has overpaid. We'll see when the NYSE opens tomorrow (as Boxing Day isn't a public holiday in the USA) but I doubt it'll move much.

What's largely being ignored in this is that the Glazers apparently benefit to the tune of $900m by selling their own shares. Im guessing they won't be putting any of that into ground improvements or players.
Click to expand...
I’ll watch the bid/asked spread tomorrow before the open but given that Ragcliffe can only tender for 25% of the A shares technically only 25% of A holders holdings are worth $33, so 25% of the difference between 20 and 33 or $3.25 would seem the maths of any share price movement. Even so, since maybe all the shares won’t be tendered (though I assume they will be but maybe some holders think it’s worth more than $33) and the deal is still subject to approval and only $200m of the $300m PIC comes at the close (the rest due by end of 2024) and the Glazers still control the commercial aspect and Ragcliffe hasn’t necessarily been the most successful sporting franchise owner there could be a lot of moving parts, and I’m guessing the arbitrageurs will be micromanaging that spread til the deal closes.
 
Last edited:
jacko74 said:
What gets me is the BBC technically isn't even a commercial entity "due to the unique way it's funded" so it isn’t actually reliant on advertising revenue... yet it's still just as determined, if not more so, than the commercial media and broadcasters to blow smoke up the arse of Manchester united football club and its supporters.
Click to expand...
They still have to compete internally within the BBC for budget allocation - hence the perpetual arse-licking of the rags and liverpool for clicks and likes etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.