All change of ownership and Red Knights related posts here please

With so many owners, how will decisions be made in the best interests of the club? By committee?

Those investing will expect a return on their investment, just like the banks which hold United's current loans. What is the difference? What reason is there to expect that any more money will be invested in buying players?

Too many cooks spoil the broth IMO.

IF, the Glazer's financial plan is bound to fail, and David Gill is wrong when he says the debts are manageable while buying new players, THEN why buy the club at the high end of the market? Surely in a year or two the Glazers will be forced to sell at a lower price. Instead, the Red Knights are going to buy a team coming off three successive Premiership titles and a Champions League triumph not too long ago - one or two players away from being back at the summit. Failure to reach those goals this year will surely make the club less profitable and cheaper to buy a year or two from now.

By buying now you guarantee the Glazer's a good return on their investment, thereby justifying every penny of the loans they dumped on the club. By waiting to buy when their investment inevitably fails, you buy an investment which they are looking to offload before it costs them more money.

Surely using public pressure to buy the club now is a way of saying that the valuation placed by the Glazer's on the club is a correct one, and they are right to expect the club can generate financial returns to cover such an investment.
 
Ferguson said:
With so many owners, how will decisions be made in the best interests of the club? By committee?

Those investing will expect a return on their investment, just like the banks which hold United's current loans. What is the difference? What reason is there to expect that any more money will be invested in buying players?

Too many cooks spoil the broth IMO.

IF, the Glazer's financial plan is bound to fail, and David Gill is wrong when he says the debts are manageable while buying new players, THEN why buy the club at the high end of the market? Surely in a year or two the Glazers will be forced to sell at a lower price. Instead, the Red Knights are going to buy a team coming off three successive Premiership titles and a Champions League triumph not too long ago - one or two players away from being back at the summit. Failure to reach those goals this year will surely make the club less profitable and cheaper to buy a year or two from now.

By buying now you guarantee the Glazer's a good return on their investment, thereby justifying every penny of the loans they dumped on the club. By waiting to buy when their investment inevitably fails, you buy an investment which they are looking to offload before it costs them more money.

Surely using public pressure to buy the club now is a way of saying that the valuation placed by the Glazer's on the club is a correct one, and they are right to expect the club can generate financial returns to cover such an investment.
Click to expand...

how did the plc do it? how does barca do it?
 
Ferguson said:
With so many owners, how will decisions be made in the best interests of the club? By committee?

Those investing will expect a return on their investment, just like the banks which hold United's current loans. What is the difference? What reason is there to expect that any more money will be invested in buying players?

Too many cooks spoil the broth IMO.

IF, the Glazer's financial plan is bound to fail, and David Gill is wrong when he says the debts are manageable while buying new players, THEN why buy the club at the high end of the market? Surely in a year or two the Glazers will be forced to sell at a lower price. Instead, the Red Knights are going to buy a team coming off three successive Premiership titles and a Champions League triumph not too long ago - one or two players away from being back at the summit. Failure to reach those goals this year will surely make the club less profitable and cheaper to buy a year or two from now.

By buying now you guarantee the Glazer's a good return on their investment, thereby justifying every penny of the loans they dumped on the club. By waiting to buy when their investment inevitably fails, you buy an investment which they are looking to offload before it costs them more money.

Surely using public pressure to buy the club now is a way of saying that the valuation placed by the Glazer's on the club is a correct one, and they are right to expect the club can generate financial returns to cover such an investment.
Click to expand...

Its a hell of a lot better keeping shareholders happy than throwing money down the drain in the form of interest repayments to the tune of 70m quid a year, its how it was before Glazers took over.... nobody was dissatisfied then
 
Dresilved said:
Looking at some of the names in this group inspires me, these guys are not the type to be wasting their time, if they felt there was absolutely no chance they would not be doing what they're doing, they will have already incurred substantial legal costs, these type of businessmen do not like throwing money away.

The whole Glazers stance of "club not for sale" is completely normal, they hold all the cards at this point, taking a hardline is the only effective strategy for them, inviting offers is not the way to do business. I am beginning to believe there is something in this.
Click to expand...

Exactly, what do people expect them to do? If they admitted they're open to offers then that would immediately trim a couple of hundred million off the offer.
 
Ferguson said:
With so many owners, how will decisions be made in the best interests of the club? By committee?
Click to expand...

How many times does this dumb question need answering?

How many people owned United during the PLC days? Were we crippled by indecision then?

I really hope not to read this load of rubbish on here again, but I fear that is a very optimistic hope!
 
peterstorey said:
That's the kind of big upping that Keef likes to put about. What did he actually DO in any of those transactions?
Click to expand...

How on earth should I know? What I do know is that its unlikely that he became chairman of an investment bank by sitting around pretending to do work like the esteemed denizens of this forum.
 
A1Dan said:
How on earth should I know? What I do know is that its unlikely that he became chairman of an investment bank by sitting around pretending to do work like the esteemed denizens of this forum.
Click to expand...
Well let's get back to what we do know about him part from his own puff - he fecked up the Football League and got sacked. By the way if it's escaped your notice top investment bankers have made a few fairly major feck ups in the last couple of years.
 
peterstorey said:
Well let's get back to what we do know about him part from his own puff - he fecked up the Football League and got sacked. By the way if it's escaped your notice top investment bankers have made a few fairly major feck ups in the last couple of years.
Click to expand...

True, I'm no position to judge the performance of individuals in the city, so I'll bow to your superior and highly informed knowledge.

Let's hope he's just the king maker and somebody competent gets to run the show!
 
A1Dan said:
True, I'm no position to judge the performance of individuals in the city, so I'll bow to your superior and highly informed knowledge.

Let's hope he's just the king maker and somebody competent gets to run the show!
Click to expand...

You sure Pete would go with that sentiment? ;P

Back to topic, I'm extremely excited :D though I am bracing myself for years and years of the Glazers proving they don't give a toss about the people who love the club...or them selling us piece for piece when it turns out fans won't foot it anymore... who the feck knows.

But at least something is being tried :)
 
Its is beginning to look like the Redknights of who I have had my doubts are going about this in a professional and organised manner and it strikes me as the people in charge know what they are doing and what they have to do yet. I wonder IMHO have they been in contact with the Glazers already? it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, these boys seem to be ahead of the game, here is hoping anyway
 
I think the red knights may need the help of the fans to force Glazier's hand. If everyone, for example, refused to renew their season ticket or buy a shirt until the new owner's were in place. A tactic like that may even force them to sell at a lower price.
 
I`d rather have the Glazers than having 40 owners. To many chefs is not good for anyone. I even take a rich arab.
 
grahamo said:
I think the red knights may need the help of the fans to force Glazier's hand. If everyone, for example, refused to renew their season ticket or buy a shirt until the new owner's were in place. A tactic like that may even force them to sell at a lower price.
Click to expand...

Oh. My. God.

Why didn't anybody think of this earlier?:eek:
 
A1Dan said:
So you prefer life under the Glazers to the PLC, I take it?
Click to expand...
A PLC is slightly different: A PLC generally doesn't have 40-50 investors on roughly equal yet substantial footing. A PLC is still largely dictated by its majority shareholders.

Here we potentially have 40-50 investors who unusually enough have a lot of power compared with the majority of investors in a PLC (usually those with much less than 1% of shares) and this potentially opens up various cans of worms.

Most minor shareholders are happy to let major shareholders dictate what happens - but in our case, if a minor shareholder gets annoyed, they may well just sell up and that is a substantial holding.
 
MiamiSpartan said:
Got it. So being in massive debt with high ticket prices, while teetering on the brink of collapse is preferable to a profitable, self-sustaining club?
Click to expand...
There's no guarantee the Red Knights will turn the club into a profitable one that is self-sustainable.

"Debt being reduced" or "less money being taken out of the club" should not be the only things to judge the Red Knights on. Issues like liquidity, supporter-influence, how the club will be run with so many owners, can these "shares" be sold on later, long-term commitments...

While in general I think it will be better under the Red Knights we need to see the big picture and with that we need more information - that's all it is.

The club isn't miraculously going to become profitable - we are screwed financially as it is, and there's no magic wand unfortunately.
 
x42bn6 said:
There's no guarantee the Red Knights will turn the club into a profitable one that is self-sustainable.

"Debt being reduced" or "less money being taken out of the club" should not be the only things to judge the Red Knights on. Issues like liquidity, supporter-influence, how the club will be run with so many owners, can these "shares" be sold on later, long-term commitments...

While in general I think it will be better under the Red Knights we need to see the big picture and with that we need more information - that's all it is.

The club isn't miraculously going to become profitable - we are screwed financially as it is, and there's no magic wand unfortunately.
Click to expand...
There's no guarantee that any of us will wake up tomorrow, but let's just go with the assumption that we will. :p

I know what you're saying. But all indications are that the RK model will be self sustaining. If the debt gets wiped out completely, or even partially, then we're in a hell of a lot better shape financially. We won't be making the massive payments, so profitability becomes easier. Even if they have to take on, let's say, 300 million in debt. The interest payments and ability to pay that off compared to a 700 million debt (and growing) is immensely easier.

Yes, there are other factors. And a lot of people will care about that. But it would take those other factors to be pretty incredibly bad to make it worse than Glazer ownership, and to overtake the likely reduction in debt in terms of importance.
 
RedCanuck said:
Manchester United is very profitable.
Click to expand...

Not at the moment.

What hasn't been ascertained yet is what size of cut the Red Knights will want for their investment - will kudos and admiration by the masses cut it for all of them? Will simply buying an asset that will appreciate with no regular income but a high long term sale value appeal enough?
 
x42bn6 said:
A PLC is slightly different: A PLC generally doesn't have 40-50 investors on roughly equal yet substantial footing. A PLC is still largely dictated by its majority shareholders.

Here we potentially have 40-50 investors who unusually enough have a lot of power compared with the majority of investors in a PLC (usually those with much less than 1% of shares) and this potentially opens up various cans of worms.

Most minor shareholders are happy to let major shareholders dictate what happens - but in our case, if a minor shareholder gets annoyed, they may well just sell up and that is a substantial holding.
Click to expand...

All of that just comes down to one thing though - that a structure needs to be put in place to enable the club to be run properly under this model. And I'm pretty sure that those behind the bid will have considered this.

Successful organisations have been run under all sorts of structures, from PLCs to cooperatives, from trustee-managed charities to entrepreneurial single-owner ventures.

There is absolutely nothing in this "too many cooks" argument, it's just a catchy sound-bite put about by people opposed to the take-over which people believe has substance largely because they are familiar with the proverb.

It's the sort of meaningless drivel you'd see on an election poster... "we need to fix broken Britain" or something.
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
What hasn't been ascertained yet is what size of cut the Red Knights will want for their investment - will kudos and admiration by the masses cut it for all of themh?
Click to expand...
I find it quite depressing how people can't see past personal gain here. If you were on a position to help the club, would you not do it unless you were guaranteed financial profit or admiration and kudos?
Fortunately not everybody thinks like that - hence why many very rich people give a lot of money to charities and the like.

In this case nobody is even asking them to give their cash away, just to not expect to make much profit. And what is more the money isn't for some random charity, but the club they love - seeing the club doing well will be reward enough.
Thousands of people including plenty in here already have amounts that are sizeable to them in the Phoenix fund for much the same reason,not expecting profit or kudos.
 
A1Dan said:
I find it quite depressing how people can't see past personal gain here. If you were on a position to help the club, would you not do it unless you were guaranteed financial profit or admiration and kudos?
Fortunately not everybody thinks like that - hence why many very rich people give a lot of money to charities and the like.

In this case nobody is even asking them to give their cash away, just to not expect to make much profit. And what is more the money isn't for some random charity, but the club they love - seeing the club doing well will be reward enough.
Thousands of people including plenty in here already have amounts that are sizeable to them in the Phoenix fund for much the same reason,not expecting profit or kudos.
Click to expand...

This is an opportunity for the club to be owned by the fans. Essentially some very rich fans will put up the money but there will also be an opportunity for fans like you and me - maybe up to 25% - to participate. What sort of return the RK's expect is anyone's guess at this stage but I think their main motive is to wrest control from the Glazers and the debt ridden sitution they have created and to put the club back on a sound financial footing.
 
peterstorey said:
Harris seems to be the one doing the talking and all we really know about him is that he nearly bankrupted most of the clubs in the country when he screwed up as Chairman of the Football League, showing stupendous naivety.
Click to expand...

Yes I know Harris has had a somewhat chequered career but he's not the only one here. Jim O'Neill who, as you know, is chief economist at Goldman Sacks, is a United nut with memorabilia all over his office apparently. He is highly regarded as are the others as far as I know.
 
Julian Denny said:
This is an opportunity for the club to be owned by the fans. Essentially some very rich fans will put up the money but there will also be an opportunity for fans like you and me - maybe up to 25% - to participate. What sort of return the RK's expect is anyone's guess at this stage but I think their main motive is to wrest control from the Glazers and the debt ridden sitution they have created and to put the club back on a sound financial footing.
Click to expand...

Which still takes us back to "where were they 5 years ago"?
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
Which still takes us back to "where were they 5 years ago"?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Then we were a listed company with shares held by all sorts, including pension funds and opportunists like racehorse owners Macmanus and Magnier who weren't the slightest bit interested in the welfare of United or what happened to it, so long as they were able to make a quick profit - which they did. This would be an entirely different situation
 
Julian Denny said:
Not at all. Then we were a listed company with shares held by all sorts, including pension funds and opportunists like racehorse owners Macmanus and Magnier who weren't the slightest bit interested in the welfare of United or what happened to it, so long as they were able to make a quick profit - which they did. This would be an entirely different situation
Click to expand...

Think you've missed my point. I was talking about the threat of the Glazers - why didn't they take over then?
 
UnitedRoadRed said:
Think you've missed my point. I was talking about the threat of the Glazers - why didn't they take over then?
Click to expand...

Fair point. I think under the Plc we didn't realise fully the implications of a possible takeover until it was too late. Things happened very quickly once the Glazers started their hostile bid. The RK's as they were then were a lot less wealthy than they are now and couldn't counter bid for Macmanus and Magnier's shares. That was the deal that did it. Maybe a lot of people thought that Glazer would not be so bad for the club and were in fact pleased to see the end of the Plc structure.
 
Julian Denny said:
Yes I know Harris has had a somewhat chequered career but he's not the only one here. .
Click to expand...
This doesn't look to clever either...

"Seymour Pierce, the investment bank, are threatening to take control of Birmingham City unless they are paid £2.2 million in fees before May 27.

The bank, which is run by Keith Harris, won a High Court judgement against Carson Yeung’s Grandtop investment company last month. City announced their intention to appeal after Yeung claimed he had not used Seymour Pierce for his takeover of the club last year.

However, Seymour Pierce claimed Yeung had agreed to pay them a £2.2 million “success fee” when the Hong Kong businessman took advice on buying Birmingham in 2007. Last month the company sued to recover the fee it said it was owed.

“Seymour Pierce can take a charge over the shares of Birmingham City and do what they need to do with them to recover the money it is owed, so that means they could potentially sell them to another owner,” Neil Bennett, a spokesman for Seymour Pierce, said".
 
peterstorey said:
This doesn't look to clever either...

"Seymour Pierce, the investment bank, are threatening to take control of Birmingham City unless they are paid £2.2 million in fees before May 27.

The bank, which is run by Keith Harris, won a High Court judgement against Carson Yeung’s Grandtop investment company last month. City announced their intention to appeal after Yeung claimed he had not used Seymour Pierce for his takeover of the club last year.

However, Seymour Pierce claimed Yeung had agreed to pay them a £2.2 million “success fee” when the Hong Kong businessman took advice on buying Birmingham in 2007. Last month the company sued to recover the fee it said it was owed.

“Seymour Pierce can take a charge over the shares of Birmingham City and do what they need to do with them to recover the money it is owed, so that means they could potentially sell them to another owner,” Neil Bennett, a spokesman for Seymour Pierce, said".
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that - a club owed a bank money so the bank went to get it :confused:
 
MiamiSpartan said:
Got it. So being in massive debt with high ticket prices, while teetering on the brink of collapse is preferable to a profitable, self-sustaining club?
Click to expand...

No, I would actually want to have what your saying, but its not good to have 40-50 owner. This would, as someone already have replyed with, open a can of worms. We need to have a leader og a close group of leaders who got the same goals. Look at the scouser, they got two men running the business and even if they are only two men, it seems to me they disagree a lot. I dont read much news about the dippers, so maybe they are great business men. Doubt it though :)
 
Acquire Me said:
No, I would actually want to have what your saying, but its not good to have 40-50 owner. This would, as someone already have replyed with, open a can of worms. We need to have a leader og a close group of leaders who got the same goals. Look at the scouser, they got two men running the business and even if they are only two men, it seems to me they disagree a lot. I dont read much news about the dippers, so maybe they are great business men. Doubt it though :)
Click to expand...

How many times will you need to be told that there would be an elected board? It's getting ridiculous now.
 
M13_RED said:
How many times will you need to be told that there would be an elected board? It's getting ridiculous now.
Click to expand...

For feck sakes, its still 40 to 50 owners in the club. This is not fantasy football. Its bloody business and 40 to 50 owners will not run a club in a good way, even with a elected board.
 
Acquire Me said:
No, I would actually want to have what your saying, but its not good to have 40-50 owner. This would, as someone already have replyed with, open a can of worms. We need to have a leader og a close group of leaders who got the same goals. Look at the scouser, they got two men running the business and even if they are only two men, it seems to me they disagree a lot. I dont read much news about the dippers, so maybe they are great business men. Doubt it though :)
Click to expand...

Yeah but Hicks and Gillette randomly decided to take over the club and for are only concerned about making money (similar to our own situation). Whereas with fan ownership, presumably the board is elected by the fans and they have the clubs best interests at heart rather than wanting to make a quick buck out of it.
 
Acquire Me said:
No, I would actually want to have what your saying, but its not good to have 40-50 owner. This would, as someone already have replyed with, open a can of worms. We need to have a leader og a close group of leaders who got the same goals. Look at the scouser, they got two men running the business and even if they are only two men, it seems to me they disagree a lot. I dont read much news about the dippers, so maybe they are great business men. Doubt it though :)
Click to expand...

Next poster beat me to it by pointing out the concept of shareholders voting for a board, with a chairman etc - pretty novel I know, but surely not that hard to udnerstand?!

Gillette & Hicks are a terrible example - as I understand it the big cock-up there was that they each own 50%, which is always a terrible idea. Even I've known that since I was a kid... even if a man and wife start talking to experts about setting up a business, they will always be told not to make it 50-50, but to go 49-51, or the business is always at risk of grinding to a hault if they fall out. None of this has anything to do with teh Red Knights' bid.
 
swooosh said:
Yeah but Hicks and Gillette randomly decided to take over the club and for are only concerned about making money (similar to our own situation). Whereas with fan ownership, presumably the board is elected by the fans and they have the clubs best interests at heart rather than wanting to make a quick buck out of it.
Click to expand...

In my heart I would like this solution, but United is a big club because the business side. So the business is obviously important, and imo its not enough to have heart, the business part is damn important. If we get the takeover, I really hope it will be good for us, I really do.
 
Acquire Me said:
40 to 50 owners will not run a club.
Click to expand...

The only sensible thing you've said (even though I've had to chop up your post to make it so).

The club won't be run by 40 or 50 people (or even the thousands of fans who will also potentially have a stake) any more than a PLC is run by all its shareholders.

The club will be run by an elected board, as any sane person would presume. There will be a "constitution" of some sort very clearly defining the structure - again, as there is with any business.

What part of this do you not understand?

Acquire Me said:
If we get the takeover, I really hope it will be good for us, I really do.
Click to expand...

The second sensible thing you've said.:smirk:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.