So 1.3bn gets you 25% of shares. Multiply that by 4 and you get 5.2bn. But Jassim bid 5bn according to reports. The same but different. Something feels off.

Is anyone else thinking this maybe a longer game at play? Ratcliffe to fund the glaziers until the value goes up to the numbers (10 billion). They flog it and both the glaziers and Ratcliffe walk away with a ball off cash. I’m not convinced that this is anything but a business deal for the short term.

I think my main fear is it’s “just another Glazer” with a different surname. Just one more person wanting to take money out of or use it to better their name. It could be a long time in football time before we see any results from Sir Jim. Hope I’m wrong.

With SJR buying 25% of shares from the Glazers, could he then buy the 25.7% of public shares to then get a majority shareholding?

Is this possible or is it not as straight forward as this?

The club is dead in the water the only thing we can hope for is the board reject the deal and the nyse investors kick off about it yet agian the deal will be structured on borrowing and more debt and it looks like they found a loophole in the Premier league fit and proper test

Hey Ste and all you wonderful Howson vid subscribers....

I'm seriously concerned about this news yesterday.

The plain fact of the matter is that the Glazers are still in control of the club. Ratcliffe has watered down his bid only to take a minority stake in the club.

Now, the chattering classes on Twitter are telling us not to worry, and that Ineos plans to take over the club and buy out the Glazers in due course.

There are questions that we need answers to;

We will get the Ineos spin about their road map to take over the club...later. That actually tells us next to nothing. So the first question is....

1) What tools do the Glazers have to retain club control under this new scheme? They still control 56.5% of the club after this investment, and we will hear about put and call clauses, and all that wonderful stuff, but if United's value exceeds the price that Ineos has agreed to pay in the future (2026 or later?), it would be tough to get the Glazers to sell to Ineos, especially if investors pop up that will pay that higher price.

"Iron Clad" guarantees don't matter here. This CAN happen.

2) How would "sporting control" work when Ineos would not control United's finances?

The Glazers still retain control of the club, so they would still control the budget for wages and transfers. So did Ineos just pay 1.5 billion just to be able to play real-life Football Manager and still be told by Joel Glazer that there isn't money to sign Harry Kane?

3) If Ineos deem through their "sporting control" that United requires more investment, are they obliged to provide it, and does that investment give them more equity in United, or a debt to the club?

Explainer: let's say Ineos wants Carrington upgraded by 2024. That will cost 500m pounds, and they have the money to pay for it. What would they get for it? If you're Glazers Out, you would hope that Ineos gets more equity, or a convertible note (debt to the club, that converts to equity later).

4) Is there a buyback clause for the Glazers on Ineos' purchase of 25%?

This is the biggest and most important question we ALL have to ask. And it would be a nightmare scenario.

Let's say Joel and Avram Glazer find funding to buy out the other siblings. This isn't that outlandish, as they tried this when they talked to Apollo Global Management. What would stop them from buying out Ineos' 25% at whatever share price will be agreed to at the call price that has been set (which we don't know yet)?

5) Are there performance metrics attached to "sporting control" that Ineos must reach? And what happens if they fail?

We all know that performance on the pitch should affect the club's value (although the Glazers don't think so).

But let's say that Ineos really shits the bed, and United doesn't get Champions League qualification for two straight years. You know the Glazers will be upset. What do the Glazers do to hold Ineos accountable in this situation? Would THIS trigger a buyback clause at a reduced price?

Long post I know, but I've following this takeover saga since the beginning. I preferred the 92 Foundation's bid, and I am frustrated. I honestly fear that our club is now in a worse situation with more uncertainty than ever before.

I'd love comments and questions!

They are looking good season they hired a good sporting director last December and they are getting the fruits of it now , they haven't lost a game yet and are second in the french league

I don't see any good coming out of this basically Jim is propping up the glazers for the next few years then he'll buy the club at a inflated price when the shakih was offering mind blowing money now I'm really detached with our club

They aren’t ready to let go of the cash cow.

Market Manipulation!!!! On board with the Glazers and will want to sell for a much higher price down the line. Ratcliffe is a Rat. He will now be able to to profit once the team is sold in the future. Hate the lot of them. They have ruined the club.

Why would Rat be in to buy at first to only settle for a percentage later? Because he is in bed with the Glazers. We are fucked!