Yah so he can rename us to Mars United and use Doge as branding. At least everyone gets Teslas and OT becomes self sustainable in terms of energy consumptionElon Musk
Realistic buyers...
- Thread starter Rozay
- Start date
They are. Only United fans don’t rate anyone who wears a red shirt. We are the second best team in the land, and those players have all been amongst the best that we have had in recent times. De Gea is overpaid, I give you that, and I think Martial’s was a bit premature at that wage. Rashford has scored about 19 goals this season, to go with his 20 last season, is an England regular, and was the top scorer in the CL before we got knocked out. Pogba has been one of the best players in the PL this year when he’s played, he’s a World Cup winner, World Cup final goalscorer at that and the most expensive player in the league. These are the definition of ‘top players’ - unless you are reserving that title for 3 or 4.
Probably be a consortium of some sort especially one with sporting roots. Just like FSG took over Liverpool, I can see Guggenheim take us over.
Who are Guggenheim?
This might just be the only palatable suggestion I've seen on this thread.
A consortium led by the Gary Neville and the likes? How realistic is that? I have no clue.
Is it that profitable? I'm no expert but the figures don't look like it.
And whoever comes in needs to address the stadium, the forever increasing player wages and the fact we haven't won a proper trophy for seven years. It's going to take some real money to get us back on top.
Disagree with the OP though, unless he has a working knowledge of all extremely rich people across the planet it's not possible to say there are few buyers.
I struggle to see how anyone can value the club at 5 billion?
From an investment point of view there is no return on money.
The glazers paid (borrowed, stole) for just under £800million. The clubs costs have massively increased, we are in the midst of a pandemic, a financial crisis is surely to follow and all of the clubs assets are depreciating, the Stadium is in massive decline. Our playing squad holds some value but those aren't assets that can be profited on and probably aren't worth the amount paid to bring them together. Wages are astronomical.
The club barley turns a profit, probably a loss this year. We have dept that amounts to what the club was worth 15 years ago.
From an investment point of view there is no return on money.
The glazers paid (borrowed, stole) for just under £800million. The clubs costs have massively increased, we are in the midst of a pandemic, a financial crisis is surely to follow and all of the clubs assets are depreciating, the Stadium is in massive decline. Our playing squad holds some value but those aren't assets that can be profited on and probably aren't worth the amount paid to bring them together. Wages are astronomical.
The club barley turns a profit, probably a loss this year. We have dept that amounts to what the club was worth 15 years ago.
And he can use Old Trafford as a rocket launching and landing facility with 70000 spectators seated and Pogba doing the dab before take off.
This thread is just a reminder that as long as football is as profitable as it is now, we're not really going to get anything better than the Glazers. Unless your idea of "better" is some dreadful regime or oligarch who wants to use the club for reputation-building. We can perhaps hope for a better version of the Glazers? Ie, some billionaire with better judgment than they have, who understands the need to invest wisely and that footballing achievement is the basis of the clubs value?
Is there any evidence that the Glazers are going to sell or have we just taken for granted that they will sell? From a business point of view why would they sell?
They will still claim a healthy dividend and milk the club for all its worth and can sell shares with no voting rights anytime. The CL will probably be revamped to create an even bigger source of revenue. Don’t be surprised if Woodward changes his mind later this year and decides to stay.
They will still claim a healthy dividend and milk the club for all its worth and can sell shares with no voting rights anytime. The CL will probably be revamped to create an even bigger source of revenue. Don’t be surprised if Woodward changes his mind later this year and decides to stay.
Doubt they will. The apology sure doesn't seem to point in that direction.
It's worth 4.2 billion currently, in Forbes' estimation. I would assume the value would be expected to continue to grow over the coming years, so 5 billion doesn't seem like an outrageous asking price. I suppose its attraction as an investment object would reside primarily in that value, not unlike real estate. Plus the potential for further commercial development of the brand.
Yeah a lot less profitable right now with the empty stadiums - you're right. Be ironic if Coronovirus killed the Glazer ownership
I actually rate and like Rashford, Pogba way too inconsistent and somewhat injury prone to be earning what he earns very overpaid in my eyes, when he does it week in week out for a few months il agree with you, we've yet to see that. Martial is terrible seems to go missing as soon as there's a genuine challenge for his place when strikers such as Shearer are condemning your will and desire and work ethic it's safe to say he doesn't justify his wage, De Gea has made a lot of errors and genuinely isn't inspiring confidence in his defenders, on a huge wage and is now well overpaid based on his form.
The finances tied up in Martial, Pogba and De Gea could be a lot better invested elsewer. They will all be phased out in the next season or two and replaced. Which for me would be the correct decision.
Quite a funny little comment the only united fans don't rate anyone wearing a red shirt. United fans are allowed to call out players who don't justify their wage. They arnt untouchable from constructive criticism. Let's not make them untouchable eh. Have a good day.
Not many people will spend 4 or 5 billion on a football team, we need 1 super rich Utd fan to buy it or go 50/50 with a fans group,
I'm sure millions of fans would gladly buy into Utd if it would help
I'm surprised someone hasn't started a fund me page
I'm sure millions of fans would gladly buy into Utd if it would help
I'm surprised someone hasn't started a fund me page
Why couldn't a global fan trust, that would reach 51% ownership, work? United are reported to have 150 million fans worldwide. You'd need 20 million people to put in on average $100 to reach 2 billion dollars (roughly half of the current valuation). Your Beckhams, Conor Mcgregors, etc... could throw in substantially more. I think a world wide crowd funding approach, if done correctly, could actually get very close to the amount needed. Such a trust could be run and administered by a UK based executive committee composed by fans that have the best interest of the club at heart and that have a variety of types of technical expertise (footballing, financial, marketing come to mind).
I'm based in France, but would be more than happy to throw in somewhere between $100 - $500 if it was set up properly, with no expectation of voting rights or anything like that. I would see it more as an investment in protecting something special that I share with my son, and more than happy to see the true decision making power in the hands of local, UK based fans. I think the UK government could lend in a hand in forcing the sale and/or ensuring the solidity of the trust structure.
I'd add that this type of approach strikes me as superior to just putting the club back on the stock market, as it wouldn't open the club to a takeover.
I'm based in France, but would be more than happy to throw in somewhere between $100 - $500 if it was set up properly, with no expectation of voting rights or anything like that. I would see it more as an investment in protecting something special that I share with my son, and more than happy to see the true decision making power in the hands of local, UK based fans. I think the UK government could lend in a hand in forcing the sale and/or ensuring the solidity of the trust structure.
I'd add that this type of approach strikes me as superior to just putting the club back on the stock market, as it wouldn't open the club to a takeover.
So every 7th person on the planet is a Utd fan
Yeah I understand all of that, however in real estate you expect annual rental yield of between 2 and 5%, although the glazers have taken dividends they have been nowhere near that amount.
Apart from a hope that it appreciates in value as an asset I can't see any logical reason to buy it unless you're a fan.
Newcastles available for £300 million, the remaining 3.9 billion will go a long way in having them above our level. Why pay an over inflated price for Manchester United when they could just turn Newcastle into the next city, except this time with some fans.
Last edited:
Ok cheers
3 options.
1: Manchester United Supporters´s Trust. I´d like that, but is it realistic?
2: Another businessman/woman, which would not change a thing. If you invest money, you seek to make money, and there is no reason to believe the Glazers are any worse than what we would have gotten instead.
3. Someone not seeking to make money, but using the club as a method of laundering their name. If they lose money, it would still be worth it (if they are allowed to own a PL club, people will think they cannot possible be that bad, right?) Personally, I´d rather keep the Glazers.
1: Manchester United Supporters´s Trust. I´d like that, but is it realistic?
2: Another businessman/woman, which would not change a thing. If you invest money, you seek to make money, and there is no reason to believe the Glazers are any worse than what we would have gotten instead.
3. Someone not seeking to make money, but using the club as a method of laundering their name. If they lose money, it would still be worth it (if they are allowed to own a PL club, people will think they cannot possible be that bad, right?) Personally, I´d rather keep the Glazers.
I'd buy United but I 'm 5 billion short 
But would the wages be sustainable? I bet they'd sky rocket.
Our actual top players should be getting paid about that 200-300k level. Martial did get that high a wage too early though, and obviously us giving De Gea such a ridiculous wage when he'd already had one poor season was stupid. But that is the type of wage that players who are actually at the top level should be getting paid, and no doubt Bruno will rightfully be bumped up to that level soon (likely at the end of the season). If we don't, they'll rightfully just move on to other teams who will pay them those wages.
Our issue is more that our squad players are on far too high a wage, often double what they would get at any other club. Apparently the likes of Mata is on 160k, Matic and VDB on 120k, Henderson 100k, Telles 93k, Bailly 80k, Jones 75k, Romero 70k, etc. There's just no need for any of that.
At current climate you would struggle to find a buyer for Queens park raisins let alone Manutd
Btw, Frank McCourt now owns Marseille - you can probably guess how that's going for them.
Glad to be rid of that carpetbagger.
This is some next level thinking, it's almost the only right thing to do
We are the martyrs.
The people looking at solutions, whether in UEFA, the FA, the government or elsewhere, are going to have to get creative and smart here.
50+1: Big questions over whether this is really possible. There's an excellent article by Uli Hesse about the German example here: Could a fan-friendly ownership model like Germany’s work in English football? | European Super League | The Guardian
Also, let's not forget that RM and Barcelona are both completely fan-owned. That is evidently no guarantee against avaricious behavior, and in some respects it must make it harder rather than easier to run a club sustainably. Fans, after all, generally want instant success and big signings more than they want the things that long-term financial sustainability require. And before anyone gets snarky with RM/Barca fans over that, try imagining what would happen if Man Utds chief executive was elected by the fans, and there was one candidate arguing we absolutely had to bring in Haaland or Mbappe to make the team competitive, and another arguing that the economic realities of the pandemic means we have to be realistic about big signings.
Making changes to the ownership test, and clearly outlawing certain practices such as saddling clubs with debt originating from the owners, could I think be very important, but it won't fix most of the problems that already exist.
Finally, it should be possible to ensure that clubs cannot simply take matters into their own hand by enshrining the power of regulatory bodies more clearly in laws and regulations. Both nationally and at the European level.
Beyond ensuring that some limitations are imposed on what owners can or can't do, the underlying issue remains: How revenue streams affect competitiveness and sustainability.
You could make a case that football has become too profitable for its own good. The more profitable it is and the bigger the financial growth potential, the more it will both attract and empower owners whose primary motive is profit. I feel it is far too rarely questioned that financial growth is really something football needs? The game didn't work less well, or produce a lower quality of entertainment or engagement, when there was far less money in it. Getting far more money into it is unlikely to improve it. So, why not make changes that makes football if not less profitable, then at least less primed for further growth? Most clubs would profit from that.
The problem of course is that UEFA and FIFA does not want to go in that direction, but on the contrary has consistently been driving the commercialisation of football. Not just by being lenient with who gets to own football clubs, they're in the fecking vanguard. That's why the Euros is now a ridiculous 24-team competition, and we have the Nation's League. Someone from the SL, I think it was Agnelli, actually made a valid point here. He argued that UEFA has to decide whether it wants to be a regulatory body or a commercial actor, because currently they're both, and they do not combine well. I think exactly that ought to be the focus at the European level. UEFA and the national associations should be given enhanced regulatory powers, more clearly grounded in legislation. But they should also be solely that. They should not be taking any profits from the Euros or the European cup tournaments, other than reasonable compensation for overhead costs.
Still expect them to buy Newcastle eventually. The Super League would likely have put them off Newcastle and would have made Manchester United too expensive for them (probably the ESL's only redeeming feature actually - no MBS takeover in the Premier League).
Have you seen some of the stuff they are doing in Yemen? They have torn the country apart.
The glazers are not the answer, but neither are the Saudis. I honestly don’t know if there exists a billionaire who has the cash to buy us and is not a scumbag.
There were rumors that they were interested in buying Chelsea. I could be wrong though.
I think that Elon Musk joke kinda got lost without quoting the original post.
Elon Musk joke?
The grass is not greener on the other side. Do not forget what happened to Blackburn Rovers. The Indian Chicken company took over and it was a disaster for them.
Were the Glazers really fit and proper buyers? I mean they bought the club with a loan. So I guess potential buyers don't need to have tens of billion.
I just hope if anybody buys United they won't be worse than Glazers like Saudis for example.
We laugh at city and I don't want us be like them just a state funded toy and propaganda machine.
I just hope if anybody buys United they won't be worse than Glazers like Saudis for example.
We laugh at city and I don't want us be like them just a state funded toy and propaganda machine.
Jim Ratcliffe seems the dream but he’s clearly a smart cnut so he’s staying away.
Yeah it's savage. My post was tongue in cheek. I'm no friend of the House of Saud.
Maybe unfashionable to say but I don’t want a billionaire sugar daddy who’ll turn us into a club that’s effectively turned the editor on FM2021 and given us a transfer budget of £999,999,999
I want us to continue to be self reliant, using money the club generates itself though match day, broadcast and sponsorship revenues.
Becoming a plaything for a billionaire would be something I’d absolutely hate.
I want us to continue to be self reliant, using money the club generates itself though match day, broadcast and sponsorship revenues.
Becoming a plaything for a billionaire would be something I’d absolutely hate.
If we are able to repay the debt and have the Glazers re-list the club and leave, that would be the ideal scenario. The club makes enough money to be self sustaining, probably more so than any other club in Europe. Even with the debt we can match our rivals spending on transfers and wages.