🚨💣 As more information have become public regarding the details of the bids made for MUFC, during the last 24h, this 🧵 reviews in detail what we know about the bids. Who is in the lead? Is it too close to call? Spoiler: It certainly is (!). (1/14) 🚨💣👇 twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
To speculate on who will win the auction, it is (sadly) only relevant look at it from the Glazers' perspective. Pledges to invest in the club or to pay money to minority owners on the NYSE are in all likelihood irrelevant to the Glazers. (2/14)
From the Glazers perspective, at first glance, this is how the bids stack up (if the most credible reports are to be believed). (3/14)
This is why for ex. the Wall Street investors are doubtful about 9-2's chances to pull of a merger (which would pay the NYSE shareholders $30+ per share). The share traded at $26.8 when everyone thought 9-2 would walk away with the auction, this time its still below $19.(4/14)
This should not be good news. Anyone wanting #GlazersOut should want to see more competitive bids, since with the initial bids basically paying the Glazers #CFC money, it could very well lead the Glazers holding off selling the club waiting for a third bidder.(5/14)
But there is one thing I just do not buy at all after some consideration, and that is the notion that 9-2 has put forth a bid "just to save face". Who would he save face in relation to? Some fans? Because in relation to the business world, he would look like a clown.(6/14)
I've worked with many vendor auctions and big public M&A transactions, you don't make a counter offer that at least cannot be argued to be equal to the leading bidder. In relation to this, it can be mentioned that I also don't think it is a loss of prestige for Jassim ...(7/n)
...if he loses the auction either. Being a good business man is all about being able to pick good business opportunities, of which you always are surrounded by. The right thing to do is to not overpay. (8/14)
So what exactly do we know about Ineos bid? Two options, 69% at once or 51% at once and 18% in 2026. Could reach a price per share based on a £6bn valuation.(9/14)
The 9-2 bid is said to be up towards $7.5bn in total (the first report in Le Equip said $7.2bn), or pretty exactly £6.0bn. £1bn is invested in squad and infrastructure, £780m in paying of the debt and £4.2bn net is paid to the shareholders, of which the Glazers get £2.9bn.(10/14)
The most uncertainty still lies with Ineos bid. In reality the following factors are unknown: Ineos will pay $3bn/£2.4 for 51% of the shares and Ineos will buy 18% of the shares for a variable price, £[y]bn. If [z] happens, y=£1.2 bn (£3.6bn in total, i.e. £6bn valuation).(11/14)
In all likelihood, the price is tied to the turnover (or similar). So in essence, if the reports are to believed, we know that Ineos bid could be higher, but we don't know how low it can be, and we don't know what the conditions are for the bid to be higher. (12/14)
9-2's bid would as reported pay 500-600m more up front than Ineos bid. Access to 600m over 3 years has a significant value. If the yearly return can be estimated to be 10%, this value totals 200m. This factor of course bridges the gap. (13/14)
So all in all, given the above mentioned uncertainty, I would definitely say that it is "too close to call". Exciting times ahead! (14/14)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
💣🚨New improved bid from 9-2! Good news? Who is in the lead? A word of optimism including a little caution and some other thoughts in this 🧵, tag along! 👇 (1/n) dailymail.co.uk/sport/football…
For anyone wanting #GlazersOut, it's good news. The previous reported bids have been serious but neither have perhaps been as good as reported. Nobody want a penny more than necessary paid to the Glazers, but without improved bids, the risk for delay has been significant. (2/n)
What is reportedly offered? We all know that the Glazers will take the offer that pays the most to them. The new 9-2 offer seem to put it in the same ball park as Ineos' offer -- but the Glazers would get 100% of the money directly, while with Ineos offer would 1bn later. (3/n)
🚨💣Chelsea FC is reportedly forced to sell players, not only because their squad is too big, but to comply with the FFP rules of the PL and UEFA. Can we verify if this is the case? And if so, how much must they sell for? And by when? A 🧵. 👇
Long technical 🧵, so a "Summary":
(a) Best guess is that CFC must sell players for app. 30-60m before 30 June under PL rules, but it is very hard to say with any certainty.
(b) It seems to be almost a certainty that CFC will breach UEFA rules in 24'.
(Contin.) Summary:
(c) Instead of no player signings this summer (alongside the massive sales), they might opt to make that breach in 2024 fully aware that they then must get their finance in order with no leeway under UEFA orders during the period between 2025-2028.
I like Antony Elanga a lot, as a proud Swede, and I think his play this season to a large extent has been marred by poor confidence. But I 100% think he should be sold, not loaned out. Why? He does not at all fit into ETH's system. (2/n)
As illustrated above, what set Pep's style apart, which ETH is heavily influenced by after working with Pep in Bayern's organization and also employs, is the use of the wide wingers and inverting FBs. This is a radical changes from the inverting w:s and overlapping FBs. (3/n)
🚨This 🧵takes a look at potential scenarios for MUFC's the summer transfer window and analyze the FFP impact of different alternatives. Sometimes described as a circus, there isn't a champion in modern time that hasn't been built on transfers. Some interesting stuff 👇.💣(1/51)
To analyze a club’s transfer window, many questions must be answered. What is the transfer budget? How much can the club spend on different squad positions? Long-term depth chart. What type of players are the club looking at? Which players can the club get?(2/51)
Under FFP, I think a reasonable target number is that we can build towards a squad that can cost “£504m” per season in amortization and salaries with today’s transfer prices and going rates for wages. This could enable a squad constructed in according with the below.(3/51)
🚨 Several sources have lately reported that #MUFC's transfer budget will be just £100m due to "FFP" reasons -- besides what can be raised from from player sales. In this 🧵 we look at the reason for this and how we could potentially spend up towards 300m (!) with player sales.💣
Under the new "FFP" rules, UEFA's Financial Sustainability Regulation (i.e. "FSR") United's spending can be limited by two rules, the Football Earnings Rule and the Squad Cost Rule. (2/n)
These rules are a part of a licensing system, so when UEFA decides if we can play in Europe one season, it looks at our financial performance the prev. seasons. So what we spend this summer before the 23/24 season, will impact if we will be licensed for the 24/25 season. (3/n)
If Barca has paid absurd sums of money in an absurd way to the person making these kind of reports on single referees -- deciding their future -- I wonder if it is not the nail in the coffin for the Club in its current shape. These are recent events, (1/n)
...just getting a slap on the fingers in terms of suspension from the CL for 2 years cannot be enough, and with Barca's debt situation, that alone seems like a death stroke. So what is the background? Very brief: It is undisputed that Barca paid €7,000,000 to the VP of ...
the La Liga referee body. To keep the payments of Barca's books, the money was first paid to a third party who forwarded them to this person (his name is Negreira). There were no written agreement forming the basis for the payments. When Negreira retired, (3/n)