Realistic buyers...

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,182
Location
Hell on Earth
We can’t talk in certainties but the crux of my point here is the purchase price renders this a totally different prospect.

I feel fairly certain that no single businessman will pay the mooted purchase price and then sit on that for years to come in the hope it will increase vastly considering football is a massively unstable footing to base such a massive investment on.

The vast growth in value has been seen in the time that the Glazers have been here. It would take many years of sustained success to sizeably increase our value from what we are looking at currently.

Teams like Everton, West Ham fit your ownership model far more imo. Buy low (but affordably) invest in the club and sell high years later.
That ship has sailed at United.

Read the article about why Jim Ratcliffe hasn’t approached Glazers to buy us and why instead he’s gone for an infinitely smaller purchase of Nice back in 2019.
This.

The only way United gets bought (at £4Billion) is either as a trophy club or a sport washing machine. Then we will have the righteous indignation protests --- and then like what happened in the past, the former owners have somehow become more palatable. Edwards compared to Glazers and the Glazers compared to XXXX.
 

Marwood

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
4,251
We can’t talk in certainties but the crux of my point here is the purchase price renders this a totally different prospect.

I feel fairly certain that no single businessman will pay the mooted purchase price and then sit on that for years to come in the hope it will increase vastly considering football is a massively unstable footing to base such a massive investment on.

The vast growth in value has been seen in the time that the Glazers have been here. It would take many years of sustained success to sizeably increase our value from what we are looking at currently.

Teams like Everton, West Ham fit your ownership model far more imo. Buy low (but affordably) invest in the club and sell high years later.
That ship has sailed at United.

Read the article about why Jim Ratcliffe hasn’t approached Glazers to buy us and why instead he’s gone for an infinitely smaller purchase of Nice back in 2019.
Just seems massively pessimistic to me.

You're sure it's possible to buy West Ham and make money but it can't be done with United.

The glazers only have one of 2 motivations to sell:

a) They feel the value has peaked and it's time to get out (either commercially or due to threat of legislation which might divest them etc)
b) They have serious enough cashflow problems.

Focusing on a) (as b is unlikely for now), my question to you would be this: If the glazers feel value has peaked, why would any other investor have a vastly different analysis and pick it up?

Especially in the current situation if it's a political football etc.

You'd more likely get somebody who invested for non financial reasons, like sportswashing.



I personally feel a figure is less important than asking people "why" somebody would want to purchase if the Glazers wanted to sell.
You really think United's value has peaked? There's a myriad of reasons the Glazers might sell. It doesn't mean that's it for the club in terms of growth.

I don't think me, you or anyone really knows what football will look like in 20 years in terms of broadcasting and league structures. Now more than ever that seems up in the air.

So to say United's value has peaked, won't go up from here, is really short sighted to me. You can't possibly know that.
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,182
Location
Hell on Earth
Putin, supposedly the richest man on Earth. We already have a Russian relationship with their airline.
 

berbasloth4

Full Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
4,466
Location
ireland
Wonder if Beckham could

Conor McGregor ? Serioulsly? Im all for Someone like Beckham Leading a consortium of Investors. But while McGregor has made Truck loads of money Especially with his whiskey not sure I would want him as an owner of Manchester United .
i was just spitballing namewise plenty of loaded uniteds all cheap even if fans werent as loaded jumped in be easy enough. Beckham and class of 92 are mates with peter lim Im pretty sure hed love a part of united too
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,182
Location
Hell on Earth
Just seems massively pessimistic to me.

You're sure it's possible to buy West Ham and make money but it can't be done with United.



You really think United's value has peaked? There's a myriad of reasons the Glazers might sell. It doesn't mean that's it for the club in terms of growth.

I don't think me, you or anyone really knows what football will look like in 20 years in terms of broadcasting and league structures. Now more than ever that seems up in the air.

So to say United's value has peaked, won't go up from here, is really short sighted to me. You can't possibly know that.
The big elephant in the room in terms of potential revenue stream for United is direct streams to United 500million fans ie MUTV. That could rocket United's valuation upwards.
 

RUCK4444

New Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
9,553
Location
$¥$¥$¥$¥$
Just seems massively pessimistic to me.

You're sure it's possible to buy West Ham and make money but it can't be done with United.



You really think United's value has peaked? There's a myriad of reasons the Glazers might sell. It doesn't mean that's it for the club in terms of growth.

I don't think me, you or anyone really knows what football will look like in 20 years in terms of broadcasting and league structures. Now more than ever that seems up in the air.

So to say United's value has peaked, won't go up from here, is really short sighted to me. You can't possibly know that.
It’s not pessimistic just realistic.

We’ve not won major trophies for years, we’ve dropped out of the top 3 most valuable clubs for the first time in decades. Ed pretty much drains the market for sponsors to boost the coffers (something he is excellent at.)

It will take major investment on top of a huge outlay to sustain the type of success that would see any sizeable increase in our current value.

Our value has peaked in the current market, that’s pretty much everybody’s take on this subject. That’s the difference in my example with smaller but well places teams that fit your outlook on it, they have much more achievable avenues for growth, plus the price tag on top of that. Which fits with the other example I mentioned of Jim Radcliffe avoiding United and choosing a much smaller club like Nice to grow.
 

Foxbatt

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
14,297
If the Saudis buy United it is not to make money. They are buying into a world brand. It would not be the same for Newcastle. They would be buying one of the top clubs in the world and do not even have to spend a lot of money. A couple of top class players and probably a change in the coaching step up would get United competing.
 

tjb

Full Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
3,309
Or we force a sale of shares by the Glazers. A consortium finance by multimillionaires and a billionaires buy the majority of those shares without taking on full ownership. Glazers are ran out and like Bayern United are owned by multiple brands and businesses fighting for majority shares rather than having a singular lazy owner.
 

Womp

idiot
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
9,262
Location
Australia
If we are to sell, it will 100% be to the saudis, I don't see anyone else seeing it as a worthwhile investment. 3-4 billion would be nothing to them.
 

Womp

idiot
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
9,262
Location
Australia
You didn't ask me but personally, I would agree with Wenger's view that when someone seriously wants to buy a club they don't make a big thing out of it in the media.

I expect if someone or a group eventually does make a realistic bid to buy the club, it's going to come out of left field.
You need to consider the fact that is an extremely small number of individuals that could afford us, even less who would see it as a worthwhile investment. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see potentially interested suitors making it public - given the fan distress currently, it will just add further pressure on the Glazers to sell.
 

kbbear

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
216
looks like the best we can hope for is if the Glazers heavily invest in the team and we win a title or two. That would quiet fans down but at the same time they would feel entitled to more money if they ever decided to sell.
 

berbasloth4

Full Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
4,466
Location
ireland
looks like the best we can hope for is if the Glazers heavily invest in the team and we win a title or two. That would quiet fans down but at the same time they would feel entitled to more money if they ever decided to sell.
kinda think this is what will happen. dont be surprised if united splash major money in summer. glazer try paper over the cracks
 

thepolice123

Full Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
12,179
People are looking for a benevolent billionaire with good intentions for the club. Good in the sense that its run the way supporters want it to be.

We probably will have more luck in find a tooth fairy.
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
57,585
Location
Canada
Best case scenario is definitely just an improvement in how they run the club. Nobody rich enough to afford the club/they won't sell anyway/anyone who wants to buy it will likely be the same anyway (or worse ethical issues).
 

R'hllor

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
15,414
If there are only few that can afford it, maybe go other way instead.
 

hungrywing

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
10,225
Location
Your Left Ventricle
Some musings:

1. Now that Ed 'gotta keep paying my JP Morgan buddies/handlers 60m per year' Woodward is gone, are there any realistic scenarios where the Glazer spawn aggressively pay off the debt?

2. I wonder how much one season of fan boycotting would impact their asking price. IIRC, this year's accounts so far showed we lose around 5m of matchday income per home game; roughly 150m/year. How much would a merchandise boycott tack on that, in theory. Please no 'FaNs WoN'T sTaY AwAy FoR tHaT lOnG U nOoB' type stuff. Just purely mathematically, how much and how fast would a boycott affect the Glazers' asking price.

The problem is - the more mess the fans make, the more the value will drop - and the less interested they will be in selling. If United are to get rid of the owners, it has to be through legislation.
Not necessarily. Like some people have said, if you can make the value drop faster than they can extract value from the club and make it clear this will continue as long as they're around, you might be able to scare them into selling. Basically give them no hope of the value ever rising. Trouble is, that means harming the club financially in the short/mid term.
 

lysglimt

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,108
Not necessarily. Like some people have said, if you can make the value drop faster than they can extract value from the club and make it clear this will continue as long as they're around, you might be able to scare them into selling. Basically give them no hope of the value ever rising. Trouble is, that means harming the club financially in the short/mid term.
Yes maybe - if we hurt them so much that they stop invest in the squad. If we are willing to lose some of our best players, drop out of the C.L and accept sinking into the same mediocrity we had under Moyes
 

stw2022

New Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
3,687
But that analysis relies on the Glazers suddenly being surprised by their own business model, which seems unlikely doesn’t it?

Their central family business is sports team ownership. They own of the most valuable sports ‘franchises’ in the world and they have done so for 15 years knowing that each year the dividends they make are less than the overall sale price potential. Their business model isn’t suddenly going to be a reason for them to sell.

They have already realised that £22m is less than £4bn and honestly the tragedy of the whole thing is that we are so lacking in intelligent analysis of the ownership situation that utterly moronic dross like that is even paid attention to.

Everyone who owns any business ever makes less per year from dividends than the overall cost of the business. Everyone who buys a buys a business knows this will happen before they buy it. To expect it to be the reason why a businessman will sell their business is just absurd
 

Adnan

Talent Spotter
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
29,863
Location
England
But that analysis relies on the Glazers suddenly being surprised by their own business model, which seems unlikely doesn’t it?

Their central family business is sports team ownership. They own of the most valuable sports ‘franchises’ in the world and they have done so for 15 years knowing that each year the dividends they make are less than the overall sale price potential. Their business model isn’t suddenly going to be a reason for them to sell.

They have already realised that £22m is less than £4bn and honestly the tragedy of the whole thing is that we are so lacking in intelligent analysis of the ownership situation that utterly moronic dross like that is even paid attention to.

Everyone who owns any business ever makes less per year from dividends than the overall cost of the business. Everyone who buys a buys a business knows this will happen before yet buy it. To expect it to be the reason why a businessman will sell their business is just absurd
I think the key caveat in this is that, it's been reported for a while now that at least 4 of the siblings don't have any interest in Manchester United. Joel seems to be the driver and if our fan base really wants to turn the screw they could by disrupting games as seen yesterday. We could also make it difficult for Sky and BT to cover our games which would give Joel a jolt.

So the question is, who has the financial capacity to buy the club? And the answer to that is probably the Saudis, who would likely end the short lived rise of City and establish United as a major force in European football again. But the down side is the ethical side of such a takeover which is a deep concern for many.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
22,545
Location
Somewhere out there
But that analysis relies on the Glazers suddenly being surprised by their own business model, which seems unlikely doesn’t it?

Their central family business is sports team ownership. They own of the most valuable sports ‘franchises’ in the world and they have done so for 15 years knowing that each year the dividends they make are less than the overall sale price potential. Their business model isn’t suddenly going to be a reason for them to sell.

They have already realised that £22m is less than £4bn and honestly the tragedy of the whole thing is that we are so lacking in intelligent analysis of the ownership situation that utterly moronic dross like that is even paid attention to.

Everyone who owns any business ever makes less per year from dividends than the overall cost of the business. Everyone who buys a buys a business knows this will happen before they buy it. To expect it to be the reason why a businessman will sell their business is just absurd
Well actually the most likely scenario from their ownership has always been to maximise the value and then sell rather than collect dividends forever.
The LBO always made that more likely due to the financial pressures of the debt on their dividend possibilities.
What he’s saying it that 4bn might be the realisation of that, it’s hardly a revelation, no shit any owner would seriously consider a profit that big.
 

Baneofthegame

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2019
Messages
2,995
No one is buying our club for 4 billion who is seeking a return on their investment.
 

AneRu

Full Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
3,066
Or we force a sale of shares by the Glazers. A consortium finance by multimillionaires and a billionaires buy the majority of those shares without taking on full ownership. Glazers are ran out and like Bayern United are owned by multiple brands and businesses fighting for majority shares rather than having a singular lazy owner.
The potential problem with that is you run the risk of competing interests causing havoc in the club's operational and strategic direction.

The problem with United is that our market valuation is not justified by the revenues we make, our revenue is approximately 20% of our market capitalization so what is the motive for a businessman to buy us at such an astronomical fee, pay off or live with the debt and then have to contend with making a profit of circa £100m whilst having to constantly spend hundreds of millions per year on transfer fees and wages just to keep up?

The only way United get sold is to the type of owner the fans would abhor, a middle Eastern, Russian or Chinese billionaire just in it for the prestige. The fans are too fragmented to ever organize themselves into a force that can takeover and run the club.
 

Micky Targaryen

Full Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
1,339
Location
Malaysia
People are looking for a benevolent billionaire with good intentions for the club. Good in the sense that its run the way supporters want it to be.

We probably will have more luck in find a tooth fairy.
Exactly. It's more like choosing the lesser evil, which is hypocrisy in itself. You don't get mega rich by being ethical.
 

AneRu

Full Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
3,066
But that analysis relies on the Glazers suddenly being surprised by their own business model, which seems unlikely doesn’t it?

Their central family business is sports team ownership. They own of the most valuable sports ‘franchises’ in the world and they have done so for 15 years knowing that each year the dividends they make are less than the overall sale price potential. Their business model isn’t suddenly going to be a reason for them to sell.

They have already realised that £22m is less than £4bn and honestly the tragedy of the whole thing is that we are so lacking in intelligent analysis of the ownership situation that utterly moronic dross like that is even paid attention to.

Everyone who owns any business ever makes less per year from dividends than the overall cost of the business. Everyone who buys a buys a business knows this will happen before they buy it. To expect it to be the reason why a businessman will sell their business is just absurd
What you are overlooking is the opportunity cost of maintaining a supposed £4bn asset that gives you just £22m per year that you have to split 6 ways. Their end game would have been some form of a super league or clubs being allowed to individually negotiate broadcast rights and the like but as things stand owning the club doesn't make sense from a purely financial pov.

Back in the day when they took over the club was somewhat undervalued and its commercial appeal underexploited but right now we have to spend in excess of £100m per year just to keep the likes of Leicester, Spurs, Liverpool and Chelsea from taking our CL spot. Failure to maintain us as a title challenging outfit is already eating into our ability to maintain the value of sponsorships if the new shirt deal is anything to go by.

The end game for such a takeover is always increasing the value and selling it off at huge premium. The football landscape has changed dramatically with the takeover of City, Chelsea and PSG making it more expensive to maintain a club at its level efficiently.
 

RedCoffee

Rants that backfired
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
1,737
If you look at the reasons for buying a football club then at 4 billion none of them make that much sense.

1.Commercial/Profitable Return.
You would need 200 million clear profit every year to make this work.
Unless the game is regulated and wages/transfer fees are capped then this is a difficult target for any investor and would ultimately make the fans unhappy due to the elevated costs of season tickets, TV subscriptions, merchandise etc.

2. Political Gain.
Russians, Chinese, Arabs trying to take control of the club for various reasons. You have to question the motives for this. I still don't understand the motives of the Man City and PSG owners. Surely it has to be political influence and therefore promoting their own countries and ideals via club success. Again this is a poor model for fans as the club is effectively being used as a front.

3. Multiple Fan Ownership.
At 4 billion you would need 8 million fans putting up 500 quid each or 4 million if you went for a 50% ownership model.
Seems an impossible stretch and who would own the other 50% and for what reason.

4. Super Rich Fan
This would be the preferred option. A buyer with an emotional connection to the club, no desire to make huge profits, a fan pleaser.
4 billion is way to much to attract this type of person. Not going to happen unfortunately.

Looks like we are stuck between a rock and a hard place for eternity.
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
7,657
Would around 200,000 fans be willing to put up £20k to purchase the club, with no return on their investment?
 

Adnan

Talent Spotter
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
29,863
Location
England
What you are overlooking is the opportunity cost of maintaining a supposed £4bn asset that gives you just £22m per year that you have to split 6 ways. Their end game would have been some form of a super league or clubs being allowed to individually negotiate broadcast rights and the like but as things stand owning the club doesn't make sense from a purely financial pov.

Back in the day when they took over the club was somewhat undervalued and its commercial appeal underexploited but right now we have to spend in excess of £100m per year just to keep the likes of Leicester, Spurs, Liverpool and Chelsea from taking our CL spot. Failure to maintain us as a title challenging outfit is already eating into our ability to maintain the value of sponsorships if the new shirt deal is anything to go by.

The end game for such a takeover is always increasing the value and selling it off at huge premium. The football landscape has changed dramatically with the takeover of City, Chelsea and PSG making it more expensive to maintain a club at its level efficiently.
I agree with this post.

I've always believed they were looking at a Super League format to milk in the long run. And now that looks to be off the table they might genuinely sell.

Tweets below from a Bloomberg journo.

 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
7,657
If you look at the reasons for buying a football club then at 4 billion none of them make that much sense.

1.Commercial/Profitable Return.
You would need 200 million clear profit every year to make this work.
Unless the game is regulated and wages/transfer fees are capped then this is a difficult target for any investor and would ultimately make the fans unhappy due to the elevated costs of season tickets, TV subscriptions, merchandise etc.

2. Political Gain.
Russians, Chinese, Arabs trying to take control of the club for various reasons. You have to question the motives for this. I still don't understand the motives of the Man City and PSG owners. Surely it has to be political influence and therefore promoting their own countries and ideals via club success. Again this is a poor model for fans as the club is effectively being used as a front.

3. Multiple Fan Ownership.
At 4 billion you would need 8 million fans putting up 500 quid each or 4 million if you went for a 50% ownership model.
Seems an impossible stretch and who would own the other 50% and for what reason.

4. Super Rich Fan
This would be the preferred option. A buyer with an emotional connection to the club, no desire to make huge profits, a fan pleaser.
4 billion is way to much to attract this type of person. Not going to happen unfortunately.

Looks like we are stuck between a rock and a hard place for eternity.
Number 3 is achievable. Even 100% ownership. Block chain technology (not knowing all the ins & properly about this) would allow us to get control of the club.

What would need to happen first is though, a collection of money to slap on the table to show the Glazers that we mean business.

Having said all that, I don't fully believe in fan ownership.
 

Traub

Full Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
10,221
Surely that's worse for the club? Fully publicly traded companies have to be accountable to only their shareholders - and shareholders only care about their return on investment. Who would the fans be protesting against then?
Generally shareholders will want long term returns, and should understand and promote re-investment back into the business to achieve this. The Glazers (or any other single owner) may have ulterior motives, for example trying to maximise short term returns before sale.
 

Eddy_JukeZ

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
16,977
I think the Glazers are going to sell at some point.

The super league was their end game way of maximizing profits and it failed.

I think the fans protesting will ease that decision for them.
 

Marwood

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
4,251
Okay, I’ll try again.

I don’t agree with classifying a ‘Head of State’ as a bloke. If anything, he should be classified as a country. And if we are classifying as a country, then the debate becomes political, and ethics become subjective based on what side of a particular story you are on. What we do know is that death and war happens, and all countries engage in it. That doesn’t mean we cannot have political views, but a political view and ‘MBS is a madman a psychopath and a murdering scumbag’ are different. America killed Osama Bin Laden without a trial. Barrack Obama isn’t a murderer as a result.

In short, is summarising the character of an individual by the actions carried out in the capacity of a head of state is a false equivalence. Beyond that, not agreeing with one countries war is the same on every side, and as old as time. We don’t agree with their war in Yemen, they don’t agree with ours in Iraq. I’m born and raised in Britain and still cannot compute that Britain sent troops to Argentina to fight Argentines for land in Argentina on the basis that it was apparently theirs, and not the Argentines. But I don’t charactarise Margaret Thatcher based on it. It’s a different topic, and one which can be disagreed with, but one I would personally separate from any individuals. Classifying Obama or MBS as ‘murderers’ would be simplistic, to me.
You're making this a way more complicated moral issue that it needs to be.

Obama, Maragaret Thatcher, the American government, they aren't in contention to buy United. They're completely irrelevant to this. There's no need to draw a comparison in this context.

Simplify it. Do you want a an individual or organisation that's carried out the crimes MBS/Saudi has to own the club?

It looks like you'd be ok with it as you seem to believe such behaviour is just part of the job. You've also ringfenced their behaviour to just the war activities of a country, when of course they're crimes are much broader than that.

But to say others are arrogant for not wanting Saudi regime involvement is so strange to me.
 
Last edited: