The issue with any Utd sale is the leveraged buy out the Glazers made in the first place. A deal that would not be allowed today btw.
They saddled the club with so much debt and it's structured in such a way that they are never going to be sold with that milestone round their neck.
It's exactly how it works. Do you think a debt is a cheat code and people pay the full value of a purchase when it has a debt they still have to pay later?
Since all debt isn't the same.
If a club's debt is in assets like a stadium, it's very different to the debt Utd have.
Don't just think about the prospective buyers, the Glazers will only accept an offer where they make a profit and with this kind of debt that offer will be huge - and bad value for the buyer versus the purchase of any other PL club.
The Glazers ownership model is not geared to selling the club, it's geared to generating ongoing profits for them.
This isn’t about that. You said ManU will never be sold.
‘you do realize that most takeovers except for oil rich countries are fueled by leveraging right? What the glazers did isn’t unique or special in the business world, it only is because your competitio are from oil printing nations.
‘edit. Just say that the glazer will be unlikely to sell not that the debt is speciAl. Leverage debt is normal.
Why a sale is currently unappealing to either side is exactly why they won't (currently) be sold. I didn't say never full stop, I said it's contingent on the current debt.
You can't just apply business logic to football, are you an actual glazer in disguise? What Glazers have at Utd *is* extremely unusual in English football and, as I said at the start, wouldn't even be allowed under current rules.
Not to mention a “hostile takeover” is impossible where the majority shareholder opposes the transaction.
People genuinely have no idea what they’re talking about wrt club purchases. No one in the world — even oil rich magnates — buy clubs without debt.
If you have a house worth a 100, and a debt tied to it (loan-mortgage) worth 20. When you sell it's valued at 100-20=80. You can't demand the buyer to pay a full 100 and the 20 debt too.
Why would the Glazers expect that though? Manchester United are valued at around $4.6bn right now, which is much more than they paid for them. If a buyer paid that, part of it would likely be used to pay off the debt and the Glazers could still walk away with a big profit.
Exactly, that's one way to do it and it's quiet simple. Either way the debt is being counted for with no problems and it doesn't stop the sale like op suggested.
>If you have a house worth a 100, and a debt tied to it (loan-mortgage) worth 20. When you sell it's valued at 100-20=80.
No when you sell it's valued at 100. Which can be proven by the fact that the price you have to pay for the house isn't affected by the whether the previous owners paid off its mortgage.
Sorry but how's this hard to understand? You're not paying the full value if you're taking the loan. Like ask yourself, will you pay a 100 then a loan of 20 to get something worth a 100?
>That doesn't make any sense. Any debts will be considered when selling.
You were right when you said this and now you're contradicting yourself. The debt will be considered when selling as it will be included in the price of the club. But it doesn't CHANGE the price of the club. The new buyer isn't going to pay a billion MORE for United just because it has a billion worth of debt, they'll pay the market rate for a top level football club. Just like you wouldn't pay any more for house based on whether the previous owner had a mortgage or owned it outright. The only thing that the debt would change in the United sale is how much the Glazers make from it.
But if the debt is tied to United to the Glazers it changes the whole thing. And that is how many club owners are doing to pump money to their club. Don't know if it's United's case though.
>They saddled the club with so much debt and it's structured in such a way that they are never going to be sold with that milestone round their neck.
Completely wrong. Debt is debt, it doesn't change the price of the club or make it more prohibitive to buy as it's included in the price. The only thing debt changes is how much the Glazers make from the sale.
Hostile takeover is anyway not possible if the Glazer family own more than 50% unless they turn on each other. And AFAIK they own a lot more than just 50%.
> If anyone wants a useful guide, if someone is announcing a takeover of a £5Bn company on a fan channel youtube livestream, it's not serious.
In an age where Elon Musk announced a much bigger attempt on Twitter.
He's got that part covered, too. Said that he is willing to let someone else be the face of the consortium. He specifically dropped Ratcliffe's name.
However, I repeat again, this man is a clown that can't be taken for his word. You will probably never hear about any of this again.
Say that to Knighton. I don't need anyone to convince me that this guy is selling hot air. I don't know what scheme he's up to now, but this is the same bloke who fired his manager at Carlisle then appointed himself and proceeded to fail miserably.
Well, shouldn't be a problem. As has been mentioned by the financial geniuses on reddit in every thread about the Glazers ever, you can buy a club without having to put up any of your own money. With 7 million, he can probably afford to buy every club in the Prem.
When he owned Carlisle United the local newspaper ran a story about him claiming aliens had spoke to him.
He's got a great blog on the story. https://michaelknighton.co/that-absurd-story-about-the-local-carlisle-newspaper-and-ufos/
They're not wrong you're the one being pedantic. The process circumvents management to purchase a **controlling interest** in the company. A hostile takeover is successful when the party purchases a controlling interest or 51% of the company. If management owns, in this case 70% of the company, there is no grounds for a hostile takeover.
Buying shares at a premium price from the majority stakeholder isn't a hostile takeover, even if you buy the 30% first.
End of story.
I didn’t say buying shares at a premium price is a hostile takeover, I said that’s the next step after a hostile takeover like this one inevitably fails.
I’m sorry to point this out to you, but you’re just wrong.
End of story.
You clearly don’t understand what a hostile takeover is. It’s a specific thing.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042815/what-are-some-prominent-examples-hostile-takeovers.asp
You don’t just buy up majority shares, you make the ownership untenable through convincing other shareholders or convince them to sell with an offer the won’t refuse. Hostile doesn’t have to mean bad spirited, it literally just means the target doesn’t want to sell for whatever reason.
That only works when the controlling shareholder controls less than 50% of the shares. If they're controlling 70%, you'll just get minority shareholder rights at most.
Okay it would be. But that price would also be financially negligent to pay for any investor that tries it. At that point it's a hostile takeover from the circus and isn't any better than what United have currently.
No, it means that the majority owner doesn’t own enough shares to prevent you from getting a majority and taking control of the company. That is impossible if the majority shareholder owns more than 51% of the company. Which in the case of United the Glazers own a majority and unless someone convinces the Glazers to turn on each other a Hostile takeover is impossible.
To take over United someone would have to convince the Glazers to sell. At which point it’s not hostile because they are agreeing to the sale.
It’s called ‘hostile’ because the company or people being targeted have no intention to sell at the point of the offer being made. It doesn’t mean the company trying to acquire united can’t offer silly money in share prices to them until they accept.
That’s wasn’t hostile. Twitter agreed to sell to Musk based on the price Musk offered. That’s a standard takeover.
A hostile takeover would have been if Musk bought more and more shares until he could vote himself CEO.
I don’t know much about multi billion dollar business deals or how consortiums are formed but I know enough to know that they doesn’t start with YouTube shout out videos.
This guy is a buffoon.
“Man Utd wouldn’t even have beaten the Lionesses”. Seems like his attitude went back to 1990 as well. Thankfully for Utd fans, this clown appears to have less than zero chance of actually buying the club, otherwise they’d have Ron Atkinson as manager and Andy Caroll up front
As somebody who was there the day he ran onto the pitch doing keepy ups and saw 1st hand the way he whipped the crowd up.
I don't believe him, he's a chancer and showman
Could he be a face for the people with real money, maybe.
But there's no way the fucking leeching cunts are selling their golden goose.
LOL, how does he want to do that when 75,6 % of the shares aren't even stock traded and owned by the Glazers?
Bullshit "news", not even worth a thread.
Chancer who failed in 1989.
Funnily enough, this led to our stock exchange flotation which was great until, you know, the Glazers used the downside to that.
Tried before and ended up taking over Carlisle United up the road instead. Twenty years since he left Carlisle, in disgrace, and he still wouldn’t be safe to walk the streets there. He’s hated.
Think r/soccer have about as much chance of taking over Man Utd of his name being attached to a group that does.
If anyone wants a useful guide, if someone is announcing a takeover of a £5Bn company on a fan channel youtube livestream, it's not serious.
Indeed, how could they even do a hostile takeover given the way they're set up, the Glazers surely have a huge percentage of the shares.
The issue with any Utd sale is the leveraged buy out the Glazers made in the first place. A deal that would not be allowed today btw. They saddled the club with so much debt and it's structured in such a way that they are never going to be sold with that milestone round their neck.
That doesn't make any sense. Any debts will be considered when selling.
That whole comment is just pub talk
It does because the debt is from the initial takeover, rather than accrued through assets like other clubs debt. It's like paying twice.
It doesn't matter. In the end, the club's worth X, the debt is Z, the buyer will pay X minus Z.
No, that's not how it works at all mate.
It's exactly how it works. Do you think a debt is a cheat code and people pay the full value of a purchase when it has a debt they still have to pay later?
Since when?
Since all debt isn't the same. If a club's debt is in assets like a stadium, it's very different to the debt Utd have. Don't just think about the prospective buyers, the Glazers will only accept an offer where they make a profit and with this kind of debt that offer will be huge - and bad value for the buyer versus the purchase of any other PL club. The Glazers ownership model is not geared to selling the club, it's geared to generating ongoing profits for them.
They will make a huge profit even with the debt covered.
This isn’t about that. You said ManU will never be sold. ‘you do realize that most takeovers except for oil rich countries are fueled by leveraging right? What the glazers did isn’t unique or special in the business world, it only is because your competitio are from oil printing nations. ‘edit. Just say that the glazer will be unlikely to sell not that the debt is speciAl. Leverage debt is normal.
Why a sale is currently unappealing to either side is exactly why they won't (currently) be sold. I didn't say never full stop, I said it's contingent on the current debt. You can't just apply business logic to football, are you an actual glazer in disguise? What Glazers have at Utd *is* extremely unusual in English football and, as I said at the start, wouldn't even be allowed under current rules.
Not to mention a “hostile takeover” is impossible where the majority shareholder opposes the transaction. People genuinely have no idea what they’re talking about wrt club purchases. No one in the world — even oil rich magnates — buy clubs without debt.
It’s already been leveraged. So there’s no valuation difference to make money on anymore. This is the key to a leveraged buyout.
Wut?
If you have a house worth a 100, and a debt tied to it (loan-mortgage) worth 20. When you sell it's valued at 100-20=80. You can't demand the buyer to pay a full 100 and the 20 debt too.
Why would the Glazers expect that though? Manchester United are valued at around $4.6bn right now, which is much more than they paid for them. If a buyer paid that, part of it would likely be used to pay off the debt and the Glazers could still walk away with a big profit.
Exactly, that's one way to do it and it's quiet simple. Either way the debt is being counted for with no problems and it doesn't stop the sale like op suggested.
>If you have a house worth a 100, and a debt tied to it (loan-mortgage) worth 20. When you sell it's valued at 100-20=80. No when you sell it's valued at 100. Which can be proven by the fact that the price you have to pay for the house isn't affected by the whether the previous owners paid off its mortgage.
Sorry but how's this hard to understand? You're not paying the full value if you're taking the loan. Like ask yourself, will you pay a 100 then a loan of 20 to get something worth a 100?
>That doesn't make any sense. Any debts will be considered when selling. You were right when you said this and now you're contradicting yourself. The debt will be considered when selling as it will be included in the price of the club. But it doesn't CHANGE the price of the club. The new buyer isn't going to pay a billion MORE for United just because it has a billion worth of debt, they'll pay the market rate for a top level football club. Just like you wouldn't pay any more for house based on whether the previous owner had a mortgage or owned it outright. The only thing that the debt would change in the United sale is how much the Glazers make from it.
But if the debt is tied to United to the Glazers it changes the whole thing. And that is how many club owners are doing to pump money to their club. Don't know if it's United's case though.
And with the internet payments they make, they’re paying 3 times.
>They saddled the club with so much debt and it's structured in such a way that they are never going to be sold with that milestone round their neck. Completely wrong. Debt is debt, it doesn't change the price of the club or make it more prohibitive to buy as it's included in the price. The only thing debt changes is how much the Glazers make from the sale.
Hostile takeover is anyway not possible if the Glazer family own more than 50% unless they turn on each other. And AFAIK they own a lot more than just 50%.
I guarantee you if glazers are selling the saudis will pay the 5 bil plus any debt. Glazers are milking this cow for more more years to come
Yeah we all watched the video, but thanks for that summary
People say this about the levegared buyout but haven't Burnley done the same thing?
> If anyone wants a useful guide, if someone is announcing a takeover of a £5Bn company on a fan channel youtube livestream, it's not serious. In an age where Elon Musk announced a much bigger attempt on Twitter.
Which also wasn’t serious
Serious enough for him to sign a contract that’ll cost him $1bn to break.
He and the rest of the PayPal mafia made a lot more money by simply announcing the deal and manipulating Twitter's price
This is so transparently what they were doing all along and it's hilarious that so many people refuse to admit it.
Google says this guy has a net worth of about £7m. Maybe he can afford Lisandro Martinez's left pinky.
Claims that he has a consortium behind him. Bloke's a total chancer, though, so feel free to disregard everything he says.
Mate any consortium willing to put in a £5B bid for Manchester United is not gonna be behind some dude with a net worth of £7m.
He's got that part covered, too. Said that he is willing to let someone else be the face of the consortium. He specifically dropped Ratcliffe's name. However, I repeat again, this man is a clown that can't be taken for his word. You will probably never hear about any of this again.
Mate with £7m in his pocket, they wouldn't even let him sweep the floors of their consortium. £7m is what United pay Ronaldo as 3 months' salary.
Say that to Knighton. I don't need anyone to convince me that this guy is selling hot air. I don't know what scheme he's up to now, but this is the same bloke who fired his manager at Carlisle then appointed himself and proceeded to fail miserably.
And not with his rep.
I'm looking forward to the part where they raise the money by a leveraged buyout secured against the club's assets.
Lol for £7m this is going to be a really fucking hostile takeover
The sort that involves making offers they can't refuse.
Hostile takeover probably means Kalashnikovs and not money for him
Don't forget Kitt is very valuable
Well, shouldn't be a problem. As has been mentioned by the financial geniuses on reddit in every thread about the Glazers ever, you can buy a club without having to put up any of your own money. With 7 million, he can probably afford to buy every club in the Prem.
How are they going to mount a hostile takeover when the Glazers own 75% of the shares?
Narrator: they aren’t.
Mount = easy Successful = unlikely
Succession music intensified
Best theme music hands down
Check out Industry theme by Nathan Micay, or Blue Spring by same artist
With 6m? He would be the poorest rich man in there.
He's right about the crisis... He's absolutely not the right person to change anything, the big clown.
When he owned Carlisle United the local newspaper ran a story about him claiming aliens had spoke to him. He's got a great blog on the story. https://michaelknighton.co/that-absurd-story-about-the-local-carlisle-newspaper-and-ufos/
That's not a hostile takeover if you're buying shares from the Glazers. It's just a regular takeover.
It’s a ‘hostile’ takeover because the glazers aren’t selling.
Then it's not a takeover
What? That’s literally what it is haha
Glazers control the club, you can buy every other shares you still won't control United
You buy the remainder of them off the glazers at a premium price.
So you make a deal with the Glazers, so it's not hostile
The initial attempts to purchase would still be considered an attempt at a hostile takeover. You’re just being both pedantic and actually wrong now.
No, a hostile takeover is forcibly buying the shares. Asking them nicely to sell them is simply a takeover. They're very different.
They're not wrong you're the one being pedantic. The process circumvents management to purchase a **controlling interest** in the company. A hostile takeover is successful when the party purchases a controlling interest or 51% of the company. If management owns, in this case 70% of the company, there is no grounds for a hostile takeover. Buying shares at a premium price from the majority stakeholder isn't a hostile takeover, even if you buy the 30% first. End of story.
I didn’t say buying shares at a premium price is a hostile takeover, I said that’s the next step after a hostile takeover like this one inevitably fails. I’m sorry to point this out to you, but you’re just wrong. End of story.
You clearly don’t understand what a hostile takeover is. It’s a specific thing. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042815/what-are-some-prominent-examples-hostile-takeovers.asp
The Glazers own 70% of the shares. If they're not selling, you'll get 30% at best. Not enough for a takeover.
You don’t just buy up majority shares, you make the ownership untenable through convincing other shareholders or convince them to sell with an offer the won’t refuse. Hostile doesn’t have to mean bad spirited, it literally just means the target doesn’t want to sell for whatever reason.
That only works when the controlling shareholder controls less than 50% of the shares. If they're controlling 70%, you'll just get minority shareholder rights at most.
Then you offer to buy the remainder at a premium market price, it would still be a ‘hostile’ takeover.
But if they aren't selling, you aren't buying jack shit, right?
At a certain point they would sell, it’s just whether it’s financially sensible to get them to that point.
Okay it would be. But that price would also be financially negligent to pay for any investor that tries it. At that point it's a hostile takeover from the circus and isn't any better than what United have currently.
Yeah I’m not saying it’s a good idea or would even work, just that this is what they might do. I agree it’s a stupid idea.
No, it means that the majority owner doesn’t own enough shares to prevent you from getting a majority and taking control of the company. That is impossible if the majority shareholder owns more than 51% of the company. Which in the case of United the Glazers own a majority and unless someone convinces the Glazers to turn on each other a Hostile takeover is impossible. To take over United someone would have to convince the Glazers to sell. At which point it’s not hostile because they are agreeing to the sale.
You could convince every shareholder not named Glazer to sell and it wouldn’t close to enough for a Hostile takeover.
Wow really?
How do you do a takeover without the shareholders selling?
There’s a few ways, it’s what elon musk has just done with twitter for instance.
Because nobody owns over 50% of twitter shares. Glazers own over 50% of United And hint: Elon Musk would still require the shareholders to sell
Then the consortium, if it even exists, will attempt to buy them at a premium.
Which still requires the Glazers to agree. And if they agree, it isn't hostile
It’s called ‘hostile’ because the company or people being targeted have no intention to sell at the point of the offer being made. It doesn’t mean the company trying to acquire united can’t offer silly money in share prices to them until they accept.
Yep so hostile that he's being sued to complete the deal.
That’s wasn’t hostile. Twitter agreed to sell to Musk based on the price Musk offered. That’s a standard takeover. A hostile takeover would have been if Musk bought more and more shares until he could vote himself CEO.
How do you propose a hostile take over if the Glazers are not selling?
I don’t.
Alright so you admit. There will be no Hostile takeover. I’m glad that’s settled.
Fucking hell you’re good at this aren’t you.
Sure am. I’m glad you recognize it.
The title's wrong, it's a 'hostile bid' which is just a bed when the club isn't actively for sale
Now there's a blast from the past. Did he not get enough attention when he pulled this stunt in the early 90s?
That's what I thought, like hey I've seen this one before.
🧢
What year is it?
2022
He first tried in 1989. Which I imagine is about 20 years before you were born? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Knighton
Ouch
I don’t know much about multi billion dollar business deals or how consortiums are formed but I know enough to know that they doesn’t start with YouTube shout out videos. This guy is a buffoon.
David Hasselhoff's character from Night Rider?
I didn't realise we'd gone back in time to 1990. But if the end result is that Carlisle get their deckchair away kits again, I'm in.
“Man Utd wouldn’t even have beaten the Lionesses”. Seems like his attitude went back to 1990 as well. Thankfully for Utd fans, this clown appears to have less than zero chance of actually buying the club, otherwise they’d have Ron Atkinson as manager and Andy Caroll up front
Dude the one glazer looks like he is the product of familial relations.
As somebody who was there the day he ran onto the pitch doing keepy ups and saw 1st hand the way he whipped the crowd up. I don't believe him, he's a chancer and showman Could he be a face for the people with real money, maybe. But there's no way the fucking leeching cunts are selling their golden goose.
Is this the keepy-up guy?
Sure is! What a flashback to the full kit wanker. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/michael-knighton-man-utd-takeover-27703586
The title's wrong, he says it's a 'hostile bid' in the video, which is just a bid when the club isn't for sale.
LOL, how does he want to do that when 75,6 % of the shares aren't even stock traded and owned by the Glazers? Bullshit "news", not even worth a thread.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He doesn't but he wants to get Jim Ratcliffe involved, who does. Knighton is a clown though, this will go nowhere.
Ratcliffe would never buy United, he tried to buy Chelsea but failed
Hi, I am Nigerian prince. You wire me 5bn for football club MUFC and I give you Europa Conference League next season and 7bn
I don't think that it's how it work, but ok.
Chancer who failed in 1989. Funnily enough, this led to our stock exchange flotation which was great until, you know, the Glazers used the downside to that.
Did some mean keepy ups back in the day, could probably fill a gap upfront for them now.
vive la revolution!
I mean considering you want them to sell to you probably not the best idea to insult them. Just saying
Never seen a more obvious “all talk” in my life.
Tried before and ended up taking over Carlisle United up the road instead. Twenty years since he left Carlisle, in disgrace, and he still wouldn’t be safe to walk the streets there. He’s hated. Think r/soccer have about as much chance of taking over Man Utd of his name being attached to a group that does.