United Thread - 2023/24

[ShorehamCitizen]

Makes a mockery of the champions league doesnt it. Cant win your league for over 30 years yet can win the champions league in the mean time.

They than say they are the best team in Europe when they arent the best team in England lol fucking knobheads

To me, whoever wins the Champions League winning domestic league in a single season, really are the best team in Europe.

For example, it was with us undisputed, while the years in recent times Real kept winning it, either Barca or Athletico were depending on the season in question as they only won their League once in that 5 year run. This is however with the exception of the season before last season; they won both their league and the Champions League.

 

[At-Swim-Two-Birds]

Still struggling to see Ratcliffe's 25% stake as anything more than a vanity project. He's paid the Glazers a billion for the privilege of taking on the responsibility of on field success. If his long term aim is ownership then he's walked into a prisoners dilemma. ie If he is successful then at best the price of buying the Glazers out goes up. At worst the Glazers decide they like it and want to hang around.

Maybe its like his venture into sailing which has been described as like standing in a cold shower whilst watching a bonfire of £50 notes. Anyway, crack on Jim theres a roof to fix.

 

[Robinho's Subbuteo]

View attachment 102520

And the first team to present 3 prestigious trophies on an old, shit up door mat.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Still struggling to see Ratcliffe's 25% stake as anything more than a vanity project. He's paid the Glazers a billion for the privilege of taking on the responsibility of on field success. If his long term aim is ownership then he's walked into a prisoners dilemma. ie If he is successful then at best the price of buying the Glazers out goes up. At worst the Glazers decide they like it and want to hang around.

Maybe its like his venture into sailing which has been described as like standing in a cold shower whilst watching a bonfire of £50 notes. Anyway, crack on Jim theres a roof to fix.

It’s difficult to get the full facts but I believe he has first option on the remaining Glazer family shares at a pre-agreed price of $33 a share, which is the price he’s paid at the moment, I think. So it looks like he’s investing cautiously to ascertain the situation. It’s some way to go to get from the current $20 a share (based on the historical performance) but I’ll be honest and reckon it looks like a sensible way to do it for both parties. If he fails he can bail out, but if he’s successful then the Glazers have succeeded in getting a nice little golden handshake.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It’s difficult to get the full facts but I believe he has first option on the remaining Glazer family shares at a pre-agreed price of $33 a share, which is the price he’s paid at the moment, I think. So it looks like he’s investing cautiously to ascertain the situation. It’s some way to go to get from the current $20 a share (based on the historical performance) but I’ll be honest and reckon it looks like a sensible way to do it for both parties. If he fails he can bail out, but if he’s successful then the Glazers have succeeded in getting a nice little golden handshake.

Except it's only a first option if they want to sell, of course. Why would they want to sell? If it's going well they can pay themselves increasing dividends (after three years) for doing, basically, nothing. They can presumably use the shares as collateral, if they haven't already? Why would they be in a hurry to sell?

 

[dickie davies]

It’s difficult to get the full facts but I believe he has first option on the remaining Glazer family shares at a pre-agreed price of $33 a share, which is the price he’s paid at the moment, I think. So it looks like he’s investing cautiously to ascertain the situation. It’s some way to go to get from the current $20 a share (based on the historical performance) but I’ll be honest and reckon it looks like a sensible way to do it for both parties. If he fails he can bail out, but if he’s successful then the Glazers have succeeded in getting a nice little golden handshake.

Forgive my ignorance, but investing a billion quid isn’t cautious (well not to me) and if he does have to bail out, does that mean the shares he’s bought at $33 will be sold at $20 so he’ll lose over $300M

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Except it's only a first option if they want to sell, of course. Why would they want to sell? If it's going well they can pay themselves increasing dividends (after three years) for doing, basically, nothing. They can presumably use the shares as collateral, if they haven't already? Why would they be in a hurry to sell?

AFAIK they will end up with 49% ownership which puts them in a precarious position should Ratcliffe and the remaining shareholders want to force them out. I do think they will sell enough to allow Ratcliffe to become majority shareholder if things work out.

This is why we should all be taking as much pleasure as possible right now, just in case they do sort themselves out. And it’ll be doubly as funny if they don’t.

 

[halfcenturyup]

AFAIK they will end up with 49% ownership which puts them in a precarious position should Ratcliffe and the remaining shareholders want to force them out. I do think they will sell enough to allow Ratcliffe to become majority shareholder if things work out.

This is why we should all be taking as much pleasure as possible right now, just in case they do sort themselves out. And it’ll be doubly as funny if they don’t.

But doesn't the Glazers' 49% share hold about 70-75% of the voting rights due to the 10:1 structure? A long way to go before they lose control, I think.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Forgive my ignorance, but investing a billion quid isn’t cautious (well not to me) and if he does have to bail out, does that mean the shares he’s bought at $33 will be sold at $20 so he’ll lose over $300M

I assume so. If you can afford to lose $300M then it’s not that much of a risk in my eyes. It’s just a question of scale. If you had £1000 to gamble with a chance of doubling the money but ending up with a cash out option of £700 it’s not disastrous.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

But doesn't the Glazers' 49% share hold about 70-75% of the voting rights due to the 10:1 structure? A long way to go before they lose control, I think.

Possibly, I’ve not bothered to read the full details but I just don’t think Ratcliffe would enter an agreement that restricts him getting his return in the future.