- Joined
- Dec 12, 2016
- Messages
- 294
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
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
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.I agree they earn probably the going rate for top players, the only problem being they arnt top players. Their performances don't match their wages, I'm pretty sure Ole will be looking to offload all mentioned at some point and get value for wages in new players.
Who are Guggenheim?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.
This might just be the only palatable suggestion I've seen on this thread.Kingdom of Norway!
Is it that profitable? I'm no expert but the figures don't look like it.It's an incredibly profitable business - it really doesn't need billionaire owners. The problem is that shareholders will want dividends whoever they are - unless they are sportswashing dictators or media moguls with a gameplan.
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.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 consumption
Doubt they will. The apology sure doesn't seem to point in that direction.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.
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.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.
Yeah a lot less profitable right now with the empty stadiums - you're right. Be ironic if Coronovirus killed the Glazer ownershipIs 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.
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.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.
So every 7th person on the planet is a Utd fanWe apparently have a global fan base of 1.1 billion. Assuming 1/10th of them can be convinced to becomes owners, we have c. 100 million fans. Our market cap is US$2.8bn ? Everyone cough up US$30 / fan and we can do this.
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.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.
Owners of the Dodgers (current MLB Champions)Who are Guggenheim?
Sound familiar?In the late 90s, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Entertainment Group bought the Dodgers from the team’s original owner, the O’Malley family. Fox in 2004 sold the team to Frank McCourt, a Boston real estate developer. Bud Selig, Major League Baseball’s commissioner at the time, later accused McCourt of saddling the Dodgers with debt and dipping into team funds to pay for personal expenses.[11]
In April 2011, MLB Commissioner Selig announced that MLB would be appointing a representative to oversee the day-to-day operations of the Dodgers. His statement said that he took that action because of his "deep concerns for the finances and operations" of the Dodgers.[12] This event occurred shortly after an LA Times report that McCourt had obtained a personal loan from Fox to cover the team's payroll for April and May. McCourt vigorously disputed MLB's actions. Nevertheless, Selig appointed former diplomat and former Texas Rangers executive Tom Schieffer to oversee the Dodgers' finances. On June 27, the Dodgers filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.[13]
After much legal wrangling between McCourt's lawyers and MLB lawyers in bankruptcy court, he reached a deal with the league to put the team up for sale.[14]
There were three final bidders for the team: Stan Kroenke, a St. Louis real-estate already owned the Los Angeles Rams NFL football team, the Denver Nuggets NBA basketball team, the Colorado Avalanche NHL hockey team, and the English soccer club Arsenal; hedge fund manager Steven Cohen; and a group that originally included Todd Boehly and Mark Walter, the former president and current C.E.O. of Guggenheim Partners, a Chicago-based global financial services company, and former professional basketball player Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr.[15]
Guggenheim Baseball Management, which included Boehly, Walter and Johnson, was formed to acquire the team in March 2012 from McCourt.[16]
On March 27, 2012, McCourt agreed to sell the team to Guggenheim Baseball Management for a record price of $2.15 billion, the highest ever paid for a professional sports team at the time.[17] McCourt separately sold the land surrounding the stadium for $150 million to the same group, while maintaining some economic interest in the property. According to Guggenheim Baseball Management, McCourt will have no control or influence over the land, but will profit from potential future development of it. Also, the new ownership will pay $14 million to rent the parking lots surrounding Dodger Stadium from an entity half-owned by McCourt.[18] The sale officially closed on May 1, 2012, ending McCourt's turbulent period as Dodgers owner.[19]
Ok cheers
But would the wages be sustainable? I bet they'd sky rocket.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 consumption
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.I thought Rashford was on more than he was to be honest. But yeah I think they are all on too much. Like I've said I think there should be caps. We have players like Martial being one of our highest earners, earning what double Bruno and Maguire? If they all rightly started demanding Martials salary we would be screwed.
Btw, Frank McCourt now owns Marseille - you can probably guess how that's going for them.Ok cheers
This is some next level thinking, it's almost the only right thing to doIf they're funding our transfers it's money not spent on wars and terrorism.
We are the martyrs.Nobody nice has this sort of money. Take the Saudi money. If they're funding our transfers it's money not spent on wars and terrorism.
The people looking at solutions, whether in UEFA, the FA, the government or elsewhere, are going to have to get creative and smart here.But would the wages be sustainable? I bet they'd sky rocket.
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).Nobody nice has this sort of money. Take the Saudi money. If they're funding our transfers it's money not spent on wars and terrorism.
Have you seen some of the stuff they are doing in Yemen? They have torn the country apart.Nobody nice has this sort of money. Take the Saudi money. If they're funding our transfers it's money not spent on wars and terrorism.
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.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.
Elon Musk joke?I think that Elon Musk joke kinda got lost without quoting the original post.
Jim Ratcliffe seems the dream but he’s clearly a smart cnut so he’s staying away.Btw, Frank McCourt now owns Marseille - you can probably guess how that's going for them.
Glad to be rid of that carpetbagger.
Yeah it's savage. My post was tongue in cheek. I'm no friend of the House of Saud.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.
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.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.