Who you REALLY want for new owner?

BarstoolProphet

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
6,468
I'd like a consortium of people including Becks, Fergie, magic Johnson but it'll be hard to compete with the oil state teams. Maybe Ambani from India.
Magic Johnson as the sporting director? Isn't he already involved in football in LA now?
 

redcucumber

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2022
Messages
3,165
@Telsim re Ratcliffe after your thread got expunged.

He supports the club, he/his company is worth tens of billions, he's British, he's publicly said in the past that he was interested in buying the club (when we were at our lowest ebb), he isn't an oil state, he isn't an American hypercapitalist (who obviously have a bad reputation). There's quite a lot of reasons why people might want him, to be honest.
 

BarstoolProphet

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
6,468
Yeah he was part of the consortium that bought the Rams iirc.
Not sure how great he has been for the Lakers but atleast he has been very vocal about their woes since the bubble. But having perhaps the most entertaining basketball player ever who knows about about running sporting organizations does sound interesting.
 

Desert Eagle

Punjabi Dude
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
16,778
Not sure how great he has been for the Lakers but atleast he has been very vocal about their woes since the bubble. But having perhaps the most entertaining basketball player ever who knows about about running sporting organizations does sound interesting.
He had a stint as a gm but it wasn't great tbh. I'm thinking more for the money and the prestige , I'd say LeBron but he fancies the dippers.
 

Andy_Cole

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
7,855
Location
Manchester
Imagine genuinely wanting Elon Musk after getting a real time feed of how he runs things. Even if he wasn’t that shit, you can tell he would interfere constantly. Not what you want in an owner.
Yeh probably bottom of the list. He’d be worse than Glazers arguably.
 

Rampant Red Rodriguez

Scared of women, so hates them.
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
972
A hands off approach to the football and putting smart money into the club. Or. A stupidly rich person who wants a play toy and won't saddle us with debt and let us out spend everyone :devil:
 

BuzzKillington

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2021
Messages
1,497
Location
Greater Manchester
I’d personally love to see us floated on the stock market again and, see us stay there if I’m getting to pick my dream owner. The club can fund itself and I’d rather we did that and were ran within our means rather than be some billionaires plaything or despots sportwashing project.
 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
16,172
Nah we'd become the little brothers to City in that scenario.
They’re not ideal owners by any means. But I’m not sure how the above referenced power imbalance between the two emirates would actually impact the running of the club, at least for as long as the UAE and the Persian Gulf region remain relatively stable politically. That however would be my primary long-term concern. It’s a volatile region with the potential to be impacted in uncertain ways by geopolitical shifts. In that context Dubai’s status relative to Abu Dhabi’s would likely become more relevant, with who knows what implications for United.
 

RedCoffee

Rants that backfired
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
1,737
Ideally you want Jim Ratcliffe buying 75% and the fans buying 25%.
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,551
Anyone who will let every penny the club earn be spent as the club sees fit. A football club that exists to be a football club. Not increase shareholder value.

That's really it. It shouldn't be so difficult.
 

Orion.

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
150
Probably C) or A). Not all Americans are the Glazers.

Oil money not needed. City have just lucked out they got Guardiola who’s a once in a generation manager on top of the unlimited money cheat code. I remember their Mancini and Pellegrini days and they weren’t that invincible.

Musk is just a playful troll who at best knew something was happening. He has no interest in sports clubs. He just wants to be the global emperor of lobbyists.
Wrong - Mancini inherited a basket case club full of mercenaries, improved players like Hart, Kompany and Zabaleta and won a league(well finished level) against the Ferguson dynasty. Pellegrini came in and did well initially - playing better football than anything P£p’s churned out - but then FFP meant he could only sign modest players.

Guardiola decline the circumstances those two had because it would have resembled an actual challenging job for the first time in his career, and only accepted once assured by his amigos in the City board that they’d successful cheated FFP, and he’d therefore have infinite blood money to stockpile expensive players and the inevitable domestic trophies that go with it.

The reason Guardiola won’t leave is because he knows the next guy could very easily come in an bring European success as well as the default domestic wins, shattering the illusion of his genius. He’s literally stuck, the mercenary clown.
 

UpWithRivers

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
3,620
Anyone who will let every penny the club earn be spent as the club sees fit. A football club that exists to be a football club. Not increase shareholder value.

That's really it. It shouldn't be so difficult.
Someone who has a spare 5/6/7 billion plus money for infrastructure and doesnt want any return and just does it for the love of Man Utd and football? Sure easy
 

Bocca9978

Full Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
2,106
All of you that wouldn't mind blood money coming in and United becoming one of those sportswashing projects like PSG, Newcastle and Man. City...you are all pathetic as shit.
This.
I’ve stopped watching City and Newcastle for this reason. I’ve got no interest in it.
I probably would with United. But hope that doesn’t happen.
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
10,317
All of you that wouldn't mind blood money coming in and United becoming one of those sportswashing projects like PSG, Newcastle and Man. City...you are all pathetic as shit.
I would expect big protests if that was going to happen.
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,551
Someone who has a spare 5/6/7 billion plus money for infrastructure and doesnt want any return and just does it for the love of Man Utd and football? Sure easy
More someone who wants returns based purely on increasing asset value - which should correlate with performance. Rather than cash flows out.

I've always maintained football clubs are a terrible investment, relative to alternatives. No one should buy a club (today) to make money. The Glazers did it at the right time.

So if you're buying a club, it's for other reasons.
 

Demon Barber

Full Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2022
Messages
494
Ratcliffe will still have to get the money from somewhere. He won’t have that sort of money in the bank.
His wealth is in the asset value of all his holdings, not cash.

Musk is NOT far-right. He’s a libertarian and trolls the stupidity and hypocrisy of the far left.
He’d be too disruptive though and Would want to change too much.

Be so is no different from the others, in that he won’t just be throwing money away, just to own a football club.


.
If you say so. Thanks x
 

2mufc0

Everything is fair game in capitalism!
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
16,992
Supports
Dragon of Dojima
They’re not ideal owners by any means. But I’m not sure how the above referenced power imbalance between the two emirates would actually impact the running of the club, at least for as long as the UAE and the Persian Gulf region remain relatively stable politically. That however would be my primary long-term concern. It’s a volatile region with the potential to be impacted in uncertain ways by geopolitical shifts. In that context Dubai’s status relative to Abu Dhabi’s would likely become more relevant, with who knows what implications for United.
They don't have the spending power though, it pales in comparison to Abu Dhabi and Qatar, Saudi etc.
 

SirReginald

New Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
2,295
Supports
Chelsea
I would love to hear honest answers. Without any explanation. Only votes.
Mods can we have a poll;
A) Americans (some random american billionaire like Kroenke, Boehly, Glazers...)
B) Oil money
C) Jim Ratcliffe and co
D) Elon Musk
If say a Qatari or Arab prince came to buy your club. How many would protest against the sale and how many would protest for the sale (a La Newcastle fans)? I’m curious
 

UpWithRivers

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
3,620
More someone who wants returns based purely on increasing asset value - which should correlate with performance. Rather than cash flows out.

I've always maintained football clubs are a terrible investment, relative to alternatives. No one should buy a club (today) to make money. The Glazers did it at the right time.

So if you're buying a club, it's for other reasons.
Its confusing because you wrote not increase shareholder value then say get returns on increasing value asset. Which is it? And if they are buying for other reasons and not to make money but make money from increasing asset value. Thats still making money.

Anyway I get you. I think. But that just means someone buying it for nefarious means. Sports washing or whatever evil they need to hide behind Man Utd brand. Is that wat you are trying to say you want?
 

Pronewbie

Peep
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
6,636
Location
In front of My Computer
A wealthy local who genuinely loves the club and funds it with his own money and the fans worldwide. I’m not against us being listed on the stock exchange for fans and investors to own shares in, the problem is the Glazers’ mismanagement of the club, leeching behaviour, and the high-interest debt they saddled us with.
 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
16,172
They don't have the spending power though, it pales in comparison to Abu Dhabi and Qatar, Saudi etc.
Sure, but I still think we’d be more than able to compete financially. The plus side with them is I think they’d be competent on the football side of things, they’d invest in infrastructure, and they wouldn’t take money out of the club. I also think they’d be highly driven to succeed given Gulf rivalries.

Like I said, far from ideal, but an American consortium or whatever just screams instability and short-termism to me, and there doesn’t appear to be anything else on the horizon.
 

2mufc0

Everything is fair game in capitalism!
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
16,992
Supports
Dragon of Dojima
Sure, but I still think we’d be more than able to compete financially. The plus side with them is I think they’d be competent on the football side of things, they’d invest in infrastructure, and they wouldn’t take money out of the club. I also think they’d be highly driven to succeed given Gulf rivalries.

Like I said, far from ideal, but an American consortium or whatever just screams instability and short-termism to me, and there doesn’t appear to be anything else on the horizon.
It's a shame we have had owners for almost 2 decades that haven't done these basic things you have listed. And I totally agree about another American capitalist takeover, it will be much of the same of what we've had.