Manchester United's owners, the Glazer family, rejected a £1.5 billion Middle East-based offer to buy the club late last year, Telegraph Sport can disclose.

Colour clash: Manchester United fans who want the Glazer family to sell the club might be disappointed at the family's resolve
 
With a formal takeover bid expected to be submitted by the Red Knights, a group of wealthy individuals and financiers, within four weeks, revelations of the Glazers’ refusal to sell the club for almost double the £790 million valuation of their 2005 buy-out will only emphasise their determination to swiftly dismiss the offer.

The Red Knights, led by Goldman Sachs economist and former Manchester United PLC director Jim O’Neill, are understood to be close to finalising a £1.2 billion offer for United following discussions with Japanese investment bank Nomura and City lawyers Freshfields over the structure of the bid.

But despite an increasingly vociferous and visible campaign to drive the Glazers out, the Florida-based family are now keen for the Red Knights to make their move so the uncertainty over the club’s future can be addressed with an unequivocal statement of their intention to remain for the long term.

Sources close to the Glazers have confirmed that the family have rejected “numerous” offers for the club during their five years as owners, with the £1.5 billion bid from the unnamed Middle-East suitor understood to be the most substantial.

Throughout the Red Knights’ campaign of building support, both financially and within the club’s fan base, the Glazers have consistently maintained their stance that United are not for sale.

And the family are understood to be bemused by the continuing attempts by the Red Knights to fund a bid, despite the group being made aware by figures within the City that there is no desire in Florida to sell.

It is understood that the Red Knights have canvassed key figures within the investment bank Rothschild, who advised the Glazers during their successful takeover bid in 2005, to gauge the family’s intentions, only to be told that a sale was not on the agenda.

While the Glazers overcame fierce supporter-led opposition to complete their leveraged takeover five years ago, hostility on the terraces intensified earlier this year following the £500 million bond issue aimed at restructuring the club’s debts, with the overall figure increasing to £716.5 million.

And despite the bond issue proving a success, the green-and-gold campaign, led by the supporters’ group MUST, has subsequently provided a focal point for the fans’ opposition to the Glazers. The family have been unmoved by the protests, however, and remain intent on strengthening their grip on the club by continuing to exploit the global strength of the club’s brand.

The club’s commercial income under the Glazers has grown by 65 per cent since 2005 and United’s London-based commercial operation has generated more than £130 million in worldwide sponsorship deals and partnership agreements since opening for business two years ago.

United have also struck deals with telecommunications companies in Africa, the Middle East, India and the Far East ahead of the anticipated growth of fans being able to watch matches on mobile phones.

With £80 million banked from the sale of Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid, Sir Alex Ferguson has been told by the Glazers and chief executive David Gill that he has substantial funds if he wishes.

Ferguson’s reluctance to operate at the top end of the financial scale, borne out by his admission last week that he has “no plans to spend big this summer”, have led to the perception that the Glazers are controlling the purse strings tightly, but the owners have given Gill and Ferguson an unrestricted mandate to attract new players.

And while there are plans by supporters to protest against the Glazers again during Sunday’s final home game of the season against Stoke City, with 50,000 anti-Glazer banners and 10,000 whistles set to be handed out, the Americans are unlikely to be fazed.

They apparently regard owning United as comparable to living in the 'best house at the top of the hill’, and, with nothing to match it elsewhere, have no desire to allow anybody else to enjoy the view.