The Manchester United takeover process is now being described as “fluid” following last week’s farcical deadline collapse that has fuelled speculation over the possibility of the Glazers remaining in charge.
Yet the declared bidders Sheikh Jassim and Sir Jim Ratcliffe remain the frontrunners, despite the offer for a minority stake from US hedge fund Elliott and another late submission from Finnish entrepreneur Thomas Zilliacus that appears to have been given short shrift by Raine Group, the New York bank in charge of the auction.
Sources have indicated that they hope to receive some indication of the next steps from Raine in the next seven days. But it is unclear whether that will be a decision around a preferred bidder, who would then enter a period of exclusivity and be granted access to sensitive financial documents to complete their due diligence, or a whittling down of options.
Of the leading candidates, Ratcliffe’s INEOS group is committed to ensuring that their takeover would not be funded by external debt, while the Qataris want to be the club’s sole owners.
But if the Glazers own 69 per cent of the shares, what happens to the remaining 31 per cent and do those minority shareholders have any say over the current sale process?
That the club is listed on the New York stock exchange rather than London's FTSE makes it far easier for the Glazers and prospective buyers, explains Dr Naaguesh Appadu, senior research fellow at Bayes Business School.
“If we’re talking about a firm listed on the UK stock exchange, if someone buys 75 per cent of the firm it can be delisted and then when you reach 90 per cent of the company you own can squeeze out the remaining 10 per cent. But that’s in the UK,” Appadu says.
“However if it’s on the US stock exchange, 51 per cent is enough for the firm to take a decision on the rest of the shareholdings. If there’s a proposition to take over more than 51 per cent, the 31 per cent won’t have any say.
“If part of the 31 per cent might not accept to sell their shareholdings, whoever is going to buy the Glazers’ 69 per cent will still control the company and shareholdings. Therefore if ever the remaining shareholders want to buy shares it’ll be at the original price - they had a choice to sell it but never sold it so then won’t have that choice."
The minority owners can argue about the price their shares are sold for, a process known as dissent, but they are unable to do much more than demand some extra money.
“There can be no resistance," Appadu adds. "They don’t have the power. The Glazers, even if most of their shares are leveraged, own 69 per cent and that means the rest don’t control the firm.”
United are controversially linked to another country, though: the Cayman Islands. The club’s parent company was registered there in 2012 as part of a restructuring linked to it being listed.
Yet their presence is little more than a PO box and, as Appadu, adds “that has nothing to do with the shareholdings or takeover, it’s only for tax purposes.”
And while the “fluid” stance currently in place has brought further questions around the Glazers’ intentions, all indications are that if a deal is agreed the completion of the transaction should move forward quickly - with the new owners in place for the start of next season.
Dr Appadu adds: “Once there is an agreed buyer it should go very fast. Most of the financial information is already available and the legal side should be straightforward. As long as there’s no litigation it should be over by summer - once the Glazers accept a bid soon.”
