Club Sale | It’s done!

[Bluelion7]

So it is useful for promotion. Is that supposed to be some sort of disguised intention or something? That’s no secret. My question is around the idea that the motivation is to somehow mask who they really are, hence use sport to wash away their ‘true’ nature. This isn’t the case, they use the club for promo because it’s good business for their country. That much is common sense, and also something perfectly normal that they would want to do.

It’s the idea that people from there are nothing but sub-human savages that seems to form the foundation of this ‘sportwashing’ argument. There’s an implication that they are going to try to audaciously humanise themselves, which is the REAL cunning plan all along, and nobody wants their great club ‘used’ to make these sub-humans appear human. They don’t support LGBT, which is common knowledge and not something they make any attempt to hide. However, despite this, they would still like to develop their economies and grow their profile. Because of course they would. They are countries.

The USA is bidding for an upcoming World Cup. There has been no suggestion that they are doing so with the intention of distracting people from their questionable abortion laws, their questionable foreign policy, or even their own LGBT discriminations in areas of the South. We can all understand the logical reason why they would want to hold a World Cup, and those are the same reasons why Qatar wanted to hold one, and would be interested in other similar sport related activity that would have a similar impact. Like buying a huge football club.

This is a good point. Just about ANY country has things they would rather you didn’t ask about.

devil’s advocate: in the case of the U.S. … the people in government answerable for those issues not being addressed wouldn’t be directly buying the team… it would be citizens from the country … who might oppose those issues just as much as anyone else.

Now, the risk there, with the owner being the actual ruler, is you could run into an issue like Chelsea. Forgetting things like their crimes for a second, the Saud family has been treading in very dangerous territory in recent years. They have been orchestrating the meetings with Putin to ensure OPEC+ didn’t increase needed output to aid European partners. They recently signed that “cultural and defense alignment agreement” with China….

The odds of NATO aligned countries going to war directly with China is almost nil. The odds of sanctions, disputes, even conflict with a proxy like Saudi Arabia if things escalate is actually pretty good.

The odds of having the same issues with the UAE or Dubai, etc are much, much lower.

Now, you may be thinking “so what? Then we’ll just get sold again like Chelsea did. Maybe we’ll get a massive money influx and even newer owners we approve of more later”

But Roman didn’t have to sell Chelsea. They made it look like that in the press, but the truth is if he fought it, he could have held it as essentially a frozen asset dying in sanction oblivion. The thing that saved us is that he had the foresight to hand the club over to Raine and stewards and start the sale process before sanctions started.

Would the Saudi Royals do that? Or, would they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge they had to give the club up, and hold on to it out of spite, regardless of what happened to you?

 

[NWRed]

This is why someone will think that United is way undervalued for its stature.

LA Lakers has the largest fan base in the NBA, home attendance of like 17,000 and its total revenue's only like US$340m. They have like 21million followers on Facebook whilst United has 73 million. This is not even counting the global fan base of hundreds of millions. NBA has like 650millon fans whilst football/soccer has like 3 billion.

United's fan base is close to the entire NBA's fan base.

LA Lakers are projected to be worth $ 5.9 billion. And United isn't worth more?

With United there is plenty of risk associated with ownership, as has been demonstrated over the last 10 years with stagnating revenues due to sporting mismanagement and being overtaken in sporting terms and caught in financial terms by our rivals.

It is not inconceivable that over the next decade we could become a PL also ran, competing for Europa League spots while (due to unlimited resources and/or better sporting management) City, Newcastle, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs compete for titles and Champions League spots. This potential future would have a huge impact on Uniteds income and influence in the game.

That potential risk doesn't really exist with the Lakers, they operate within a closed league with no danger of relegation or missing out on TV revenue due to sporting underperformance. A few years of underperformce would have minimal impact on finances and be balanced by better draft picks.

The lower risk results in the higher value. It was one of the main motivations (for the Premier Leagues US owners anyway) for the Super League. They wanted to replicate the US closed league, no risk, guaranteed income model. This would send the value of the clubs soaring and they could either take the dividends or sell up.

 

[desirere]

I don’t really get what’s up with all this outcry regarding which worms “own” the club. Fact is this is as fluid as managers and players, this changes, so it’s not the classical version of ownership where it serves as an extension of the owner. What I’m trying to say here, I didn’t even know about the concept of owners when I started following United. This club is represented in its vast collection of memories created through history by a variety of players and individuals, sawn together through a common goal and entity. Whoever ends up “owning” the club is there only on paper, they will be judged just as a manager for their performance and scrutinized if they fail short.

Even though we don’t partake in decision making , we are the true owners, because we observe the club as an extension of ourselves. The value of a football club is exponential to the number of its fans. And one more small detail, no matter how rich the next owners are and what ever they manage to pull off, it will be just a footnote in our history.

I just take the stance that we were robbed, in every sense of the word, of our past, present and future, for almost 20 years. What ever happens now, no matter what some oil country invests in us, it won’t even ever make us break even. Some don’t quite grasp what it actually means in terms of potential gains loss due to sucking the club dry and even worse, horrible, atrocious, unfathomable financial decisions accompanied by heavy underinvestment (literally no investment). The sad story being that had they invested just 30% of what they ended up spending after Sir Alex retired on players, in our training facilities and overall outlook of the club, we would have been 10 times better off and so would the dumb Glazers.

 

[Plant0x84]

I don’t really get what’s up with all this outcry regarding which worms “own” the club. Fact is this is as fluid as managers and players, this changes, so it’s not the classical version of ownership where it serves as an extension of the owner. What I’m trying to say here, I didn’t even know about the concept of owners when I started following United. This club is represented in its vast collection of memories created through history by a variety of players and individuals, sawn together through a common goal and entity. Whoever ends up “owning” the club is there only on paper, they will be judged just as a manager for their performance and scrutinized if they fail short.

Even though we don’t partake in decision making , we are the true owners, because we observe the club as an extension of ourselves. The value of a football club is exponential to the number of its fans. And one more small detail, no matter how rich the next owners are and what ever they manage to pull off, it will be just a footnote in our history.

I just take the stance that we were robbed, in every sense of the word, of our past, present and future, for almost 20 years. What ever happens now, no matter what some oil country invests in us, it won’t even ever make us break even. Some don’t quite grasp what it actually means in terms of potential gains loss due to sucking the club dry and even worse, horrible, atrocious, unfathomable financial decisions accompanied by heavy underinvestment (literally no investment). The sad story being that had they invested just 30% of what they ended up spending after Sir Alex retired on players, in our training facilities and overall outlook of the club, we would have been 10 times better off and so would the dumb Glazers.

You lost me at ‘we are the true owners’….

 

[red thru&thru]

Anyone familiar with 'The 1958'?

They are saying that they're going to enter some sort of plan which gives the Glazers no choice but to see through the sale.

Big talk? Or is something on the horizon?

Where have you seen this? I can't see anything.

 

[phelans shorts]

So you wouldn’t invite a Greewood to your wedding, but have no problem using him to deliver you mail, transport you from A2B, or host you while you wait?

As long as he’s in a prison cell I couldn’t care less what he does.

 

[Steve Bruce]

They've done more for the 'Glazers out campaign in 12 months than M.U.S.T have in 17 years

Why do we have to pit United fans against United fans?

We all want them out, there's not need to split the fan base.

Instead we'd be stronger if we all unified and put together a single strategy to move forward on together.

This is something that should have been done from the start but instead we split off into different groups and started to slander each other

Our lack of unity has kept the glazers in power as much as anything else

 

[NoLogo]

Interesting Artikle by Swiss Ramble on how much United is really worth.

How Much Is Manchester United Worth?

Bottom line, the $ 6-7 bn evaluation by the Glazers seems very optimistic.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Where have you seen this? I can't see anything.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

From here, and they've mentioned this 'next phase' a few times since and say they're starting it soon. Whatever it is. I can't see what they can do to force the sale except going to Florida and protsting outside their homes / making their lives miserable.

 

[VP89]

Interesting Artikle by Swiss Ramble on how much United is really worth.

How Much Is Manchester United Worth?

Bottom line, the $ 6-7 bn evaluation by the Glazers seems very optimistic.

This doesn't look like its' doing any forward looking model on future revenue opportunities? For example from extra TV revenue if/when Amazon/Apple etc. get into bidding for more games, revenue from stadium expansion, PL Pre-seasons abroad in the US (that's recently been announced to be in development), the growth of the Womens Team, etc etc.

Not least the power of the brand, whether its for a state or a corporation such as say, Amazon, who would be actively trying to break into the Asian market. It also doesn't consider behavioural analysis and underestimates how super rich might add an extra couple billion from being attached to the idea of buying the club.

It's a very rich equivalent of buying a house. It's an investment that will yield in the longer term, the worth of it is subjective and the market may value it at £x amount. If 10 buyers scoped out the property (club), you may have 5 valuing below asking price, 3 at asking price and 2 above asking price due to their own circumstances and the benefit that particular investment brings to them.

 

[Bluelion7]

This is why someone will think that United is way undervalued for its stature.

LA Lakers has the largest fan base in the NBA, home attendance of like 17,000 and its total revenue's only like US$340m. They have like 21million followers on Facebook whilst United has 73 million. This is not even counting the global fan base of hundreds of millions. NBA has like 650millon fans whilst football/soccer has like 3 billion.

United's fan base is close to the entire NBA's fan base.

LA Lakers are projected to be worth $ 5.9 billion. And United isn't worth more?

Fanbases can change. I don’t say that to impinge upon United’s fanbase or its stature, which is immense, but to point out that from a value standpoint that is a very subjective element.

The Lakers will always be the Lakers unless the NBA folds. Clearlake is also an owner in that team, potential full owner if they can flip two more votes in the extended Buss family (they have Glazer-like issues right now).They had net revenue of 115 million last year. Interestingly, as a testament to how popularity can change, Golden State recently appraised at nearly 8 billion, surpassing the Lakers perceived brand value; unthinkable even a decade ago. So … subjective.

An NFL franchise has its value stamped on it ironclad. They are money making machines.

Premiere league clubs are not even guaranteed to be in their competitions (CL). They aren’t technically even guaranteed to be in the Premiere league. This lack of guarantee on their value is a factor that has to be considered.

European football has frankly, as pointed out by Boehly and others over the years, never done an outstanding job of efficiently turning its massive following into revenue. NFL teams have nowhere near the global following, but make MUCH more money from what following they have.

So a comparison from sport to sport is difficult. I wouldn’t sweat the purchase price that much. You don’t get a trophy for being sold for the most money.

 

[devilish]

Why do we have to pit United fans against United fans?

We all want them out, there's not need to split the fan base.

Instead we'd be stronger if we all unified and put together a single strategy to move forward on together.

This is something that should have been done from the start but instead we split off into different groups and started to slander each other

Our lack of unity has kept the glazers in power as much as anything else

I fully agree. Also note that no one was able to push the Glazers out. What happened is that they ran out of juice and there's no way that they can keep leeching the club further without new external investment. The European Super League was their last shot.

I dare to say that Ole with his silly tactics and his bonker signings on crazy fees had contributed more to the Glazer's demise then all of MUST and 1958 put together. Maybe in time we fans will appreciate him as some sort of reverse Sir Alex, a man who took every facade of the job SAF's excelled in and made a parody out of it.

 

[Infra-red]

I fully agree. Also note that no one was able to push the Glazers out. What happened is that they ran out of juice and there's no way that they can keep leeching the club further without new external investment. The European Super League was their last shot.

I dare to say that Ole with his silly tactics and his bonkers signings on crazy fees had contributed more to the Glazer's demise then all of MUST and 1958 put together. Maybe in time we fans will appreciate him as some sort of reverse Sir Alex, a man who took every façade of the job SAF's excelled in and made a parody out of it.

brutal

 

[NoLogo]

This doesn't look like its' doing any forward looking model on future revenue opportunities? For example from extra TV revenue if/when Amazon/Apple etc. get into bidding for more games, revenue from stadium expansion, PL Pre-seasons abroad in the US (that's recently been announced to be in development), the growth of the Womens Team, etc etc.

Not least the power of the brand, whether its for a state or a corporation such as say, Amazon, who would be actively trying to break into the Asian market. It also doesn't consider behavioural analysis and underestimates how super rich might add an extra couple billion from being attached to the idea of buying the club.

It's a very rich equivalent of buying a house. It's an investment that will yield in the longer term, the worth of it is subjective and the market may value it at £x amount. If 10 buyers scoped out the property (club), you may have 5 valuing below asking price, 3 at asking price and 2 above asking price due to their own circumstances and the benefit that particular investment brings to them.

At the end he pretty much writes exactly that, if there is competition for buying, which there most likely is, the price is very likely to go up, above what our actual market value is.

 

[Adisa]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Rozay]

That’s what sportwashing is though, it’s to somehow clean the image, perceived or otherwise.

Some of these states have questionable human rights records, and receive a lot of negative press the world around for things like, you know, murdering journalists. If they can suddenly become most well known above anything else as just being the owners of MUFC then it’s served its purpose.

More like that WOULD be the point of sportswashing if it were actually a real thing.

Quite simply, it is obvious why any nation, questionable human rights records or otherwise, would want to enjoy the benefits of increased profile and tourism that may come from sporting activity. The two have nothing to do with each other. It is not only countries with poor human rights records that bid to host World Cups, for instance. So what do the other countries want to do with the exposure?

Again, the point is to start seeing them as real people and also as real countries. They do not exist solely to be qualified on their human rights standards. It is you (not you, but us) who are so fixated with their LGBT rights, they are simply getting on with trying to develop their country, as all countries are. They are simply getting on with their business as would be their duty as rulers to advance their nations, it’s the rest who keep going on about sportswashing.

Are you saying that there would be no benefit for such nation in owning United or hosting a World Cup if nobody thought they had murdered a journalist? As I said, Qatar held a World Cup literally last week and spent half if the time telling everyone else to respect their culture, whether they agreed with it or not. They were not washing anything, they were just trying to run their country and put on a show the same as France, England or any other country would be doing if they were hosts.

Ultimately, my perception is that people are struggling to humanise people from the Middle East. They are savages who should effectively live in the desert, ride camels and chop heads off. It will be easy to dismiss them and box them as such if that was all that happened there. Because apparently, that’s who they REALLY are. As a result, all these fancy hotels, airports and other modernised facilities are being looked at as if they are trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes, but such progression is what any nation should be doing and they have the money to do it and are doing so. This idea that it is to ‘clean’ the image - who said their image should be limited to what you/we keep saying it is in the first place? Clearly, they are more than that, which is why they are doing more than that. Absolutely no different to how USA or UK can invade Iraq, ban gay marriage, ban abortion yet STILL open a new Starbucks and have Silicone Valley. They are all of these things, which means they are allowed to be loved/liked as well as being hated. People don’t see that same right for ME states and would prefer they made it easy for them to be categorised as wild savages.

 

[VP89]

At the end he pretty much writes exactly that, if there is competition for buying, which there most likely is, the price is very likely to go up, above what our actual market value is.

OK so your bottom line was very misleading: "Bottom line, the $ 6-7 bn evaluation by the Glazers seems very optimistic."

It probably isnt optimistic given the bidding competition will drive the price up to these sorts of figures.

 

[Rozay]

This is a good point. Just about ANY country has things they would rather you didn’t ask about.

devil’s advocate: in the case of the U.S. … the people in government answerable for those issues not being addressed wouldn’t be directly buying the team… it would be citizens from the country … who might oppose those issues just as much as anyone else.

Now, the risk there, with the owner being the actual ruler, is you could run into an issue like Chelsea. Forgetting things like their crimes for a second, the Saud family has been treading in very dangerous territory in recent years. They have been orchestrating the meetings with Putin to ensure OPEC+ didn’t increase needed output to aid European partners. They recently signed that “cultural and defense alignment agreement” with China….

The odds of NATO aligned countries going to war directly with China is almost nil. The odds of sanctions, disputes, even conflict with a proxy like Saudi Arabia if things escalate is actually pretty good.

The odds of having the same issues with the UAE or Dubai, etc are much, much lower.

Now, you may be thinking “so what? Then we’ll just get sold again like Chelsea did. Maybe we’ll get a massive money influx and even newer owners we approve of more later”

But Roman didn’t have to sell Chelsea. They made it look like that in the press, but the truth is if he fought it, he could have held it as essentially a frozen asset dying in sanction oblivion. The thing that saved us is that he had the foresight to hand the club over to Raine and stewards and start the sale process before sanctions started.

Would the Saudi Royals do that? Or, would they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge they had to give the club up, and hold on to it out of spite, regardless of what happened to you?

These are valid points, and of course things to be considered - certainly from the perspective of how any ownership may potentially interfere with our own government policy.

My point about the USA was more hypothetical of course, I know they wouldn’t buy a club. Although they could, and have, bid for a World Cup of course. The point there is the concept of them boosting their profile is normal and in spite of any questions held about policy.

But yes, I agree with regards to Saudi. Of course, they have in theory circumvented that with Newcastle by claiming to not own the club directly, however, who knows whether that will hold up to genuine scrutiny if ever tested.

 

[Messier1994]

So it is useful for promotion. Is that supposed to be some sort of disguised intention or something? That’s no secret. My question is around the idea that the motivation is to somehow mask who they really are, hence use sport to wash away their ‘true’ nature. This isn’t the case, they use the club for promo because it’s good business for their country. That much is common sense, and also something perfectly normal that they would want to do.

It’s the idea that people from there are nothing but sub-human savages that seems to form the foundation of this ‘sportwashing’ argument. There’s an implication that they are going to try to audaciously humanise themselves, which is the REAL cunning plan all along, and nobody wants their great club ‘used’ to make these sub-humans appear human. They don’t support LGBT, which is common knowledge and not something they make any attempt to hide. However, despite this, they would still like to develop their economies and grow their profile. Because of course they would. They are countries.

The USA is bidding for an upcoming World Cup. There has been no suggestion that they are doing so with the intention of distracting people from their questionable abortion laws, their questionable foreign policy, or even their own LGBT discriminations in areas of the South. We can all understand the logical reason why they would want to hold a World Cup, and those are the same reasons why Qatar wanted to hold one, and would be interested in other similar sport related activity that would have a similar impact. Like buying a huge football club.

1. For someone to understand what sport washing is, I think you need to understand how business works. Why? Because sports washing can 100% be an effective way to gain access to business that otherwise would be unattainable. It is also quite common.

In business, when you are talking about investments, sale of companies and what not, even bidding for different type of contracts -- you simply have a group of people that are known and you have a group of people that are unknown. It is very common that someone looking for an investment like all of a sudden gets a call from someone in China or the Middle East or something. Since you don't know the person from before, you don't know if it is a con, a serious proposal or a seriously intended proposal that the other person never could deliver on. How do you find out which category the guy on the other side of the line is? Google? Meaningless, who do you know that whomever you talk with are who they claim to be. Homepages barely exists or as is the case in China, you can't read them/get any info from them. Get them to sign an agreement? Yeah, good look going to a court in Doha and claiming that their Sheik signed an agreement and hence should be ordered to do something. You won't be certain that it is legit before the money is in the bank. And many times you cannot conduct business on the conditions on "up front payment".

But if the same guy from China, the Middle East or whatever -- all of a sudden stands there in a suit before a game in a top sport league shaking hand with sponsors and other interested parties -- as the new owner of the sport team, then they are "washed". It works. Its effective. It can definitely be exploited and it has been many times over the years.

2. If we are bought by an oil state -- you know that there will be a big media storm kind of targeting sport fans claiming that they/we are getting "sport washed" and how naive we are and so forth.

That is just a big joke. Like the Qatari investment fund have been let in completely in all corners of our economy. Given the EUs recent deal for LNG with Qatar, they can basically 'turn of our lights' this winter whenever they wants to. To get to that point, they are obviously as "clean" as someone can get in the eyes of the people in charge.

3. So is the world completely out and out rotten? Like to some extent it probably is -- but there is still a bit of a scale here. Someone like the top guy of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS, or Mister Bone Saw), could personally never partake in any of these type of activities.

 

[Tarrou]

1. For someone to understand what sport washing is, I think you need to understand how business works. Why? Because sports washing can 100% be an effective way to gain access to business that otherwise would be unattainable. It is also quite common.

In business, when you are talking about investments, sale of companies and what not, even bidding for different type of contracts -- you simply have a group of people that are known and you have a group of people that are unknown. It is very common that someone looking for an investment like all of a sudden gets a call from someone in China or the Middle East or something. Since you don't know the person from before, you don't know if it is a con, a serious proposal or a seriously intended proposal that the other person never could deliver on. How do you find out which category the guy on the other side of the line is? Google? Meaningless, who do you know that whomever you talk with are who they claim to be. Homepages barely exists or as is the case in China, you can't read them/get any info from them. Get them to sign an agreement? Yeah, good look going to a court in Doha and claiming that their Sheik signed an agreement and hence should be ordered to do something. You won't be certain that it is legit before the money is in the bank. And many times you cannot conduct business on the conditions on "up front payment".

But if the same guy from China, the Middle East or whatever -- all of a sudden stands there in a suit before a game in a top sport league shaking hand with sponsors and other interested parties -- as the new owner of the sport team, then they are "washed". It works. Its effective. It can definitely be exploited and it has been many times over the years.

2. If we are bought by an oil state -- you know that there will be a big media storm kind of targeting sport fans claiming that they/we are getting "sport washed" and how naive we are and so forth.

That is just a big joke. Like the Qatari investment fund have been let in completely in all corners of our economy. Given the EUs recent deal for LNG with Qatar, they can basically 'turn of our lights' this winter whenever they wants to. To get to that point, they are obviously as "clean" as someone can get in the eyes of the people in charge.

3. So is the world completely out and out rotten? Like to some extent it probably is -- but there is still a bit of a scale here. Someone like the top guy of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS, or Mister Bone Saw), could personally never partake in any of these type of activities.

this isn't sportswashing

sportswashing is about repairing or camouflaging a tarnished reputation

for example Berlin hosting the 36 Olympics

 

[NoLogo]

OK so your bottom line was very misleading: "Bottom line, the $ 6-7 bn evaluation by the Glazers seems very optimistic."

It probably isnt optimistic given the bidding competition will drive the price up to these sorts of figures.

Granted I actually neglected his conclusion when I wrote my bottom line but it's most likely a fact that will influence the price heavily. On the other hand money ain't cheap anymore which might lower the pool of potential buyers. We'll have to wait and see, I just hope the deal is completed before the next season starts so we can get the necessary structures set up and ready to go for the next season.

 

[Messier1994]

'

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

That is a thorough job, and an area I looked into recently in a post -- but like I noted in that post, there is one factor that cannot be overlooked.

This topic was also covered in an interesting article from Seeking Alpha, that -- as I understand it -- is quoting an report by specialist investors United First Partners (no connection to our United).
https://seekingalpha.com/news/39195...e-complicated-by-dual-class-structure-analyst

To break it down:
1. What is the topic?
When valued, the value of Manchester United plc does not meet Glazer's 6+ bn ask. Or does it?

2. How is Manchester United plc valued?
There are different ways to value an asset. Many looking for click baits will use the "proper methods" based on Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), profit/revenue multiples etc. When doing so, they fail to communicate that the market haven't valued assets with those methods the last 5-10 years. Tesla, FANG and the likes wouldn't even remotely be valued properly with current Discounted Cash Flow or methods like that. Right or wrong.

But -- there is one thing that 100% sticks out -- and that is the current Market Capitalisation of Manchester United plc. The series A shares of Manchester United plc are listed on the stock market. The market currently values the club at 3.0 bn. And 'the market is never wrong'. If the market is wrong and the market will correct itself -- it is free money for anyone with that knowledge. If Manchester United plc traded at 3b while it was very likely that it would be sold for 6bn -- investors would 100% make that bet, and when ' they make the bet' they slowly but surely drives up the price of the Manchester United plc stock.

So normally, in most takeovers, if the plans are announced and an owner wants to exit at 6bn while the market trades the shares at a 3b valuation, it would mean that the market thinks its much less than 50% that a 6bn sale will take place. This is a big issue.

3. What is missing? What is interesting in the Seeking Alpha article?
The Glazers owns 67% of Manchester United plc. Their holdings are in the form of Series B shares, which carry 10 vote per share. The remaining 33% of the shares, traded on the NYSE, are series A shares, with 1 vote per share. Normally, when you like buy a company in the EU/UK -- any buyer that would buy the Glazer shares would also have to pay the same amount of money for the A shares traded on NYSE.

So what does the information that United First Partners have disclosed and which is quoted by Seeking Alpha have to do with this? This is the relevant part:
Due to the fact that Man Utd is incorporated in the Cayman Islands, Class A holders may have limited recourse if interests between Class A and Class B holders don't align, according to UFP. The Glazer family has a total voting power of 95.6% in Man Utd, with Class B holders having a 67% economic interest and Class A holders owning 33%. "This could potentially result in a bifurcation of transaction terms, with the Class B shares receiving a higher takeout premium relative to the Class A shares," UFP wrote.

When I covered this topic in a post a few weeks ago, I mentioned that I was unsure about if a buyer would have to pay the same merger consideration for all shares -- but I also noted the same affect as -- as I understand it -- someone that buys the control of the Club and all Glazers shares does not even have to offer to buy the series A shares at all.

-> So what you have is the market valuing the Class A shares of Manchester United plc at a rate that would entail that the entire club is worth 3bn -- but a holder (a) cannot be sure that if a buyer wants to buy their shares besides Glazers' shares, they will get paid the same amount per share as the Glazers will and (b) they also cannot be sure that someone that buys the Glazers shares, also will offer to buy their shares.

So since the news broke, the market have traded up Manchester United plc's shares 70 percent. It is true that it currently only entails a value of 3bn -- but for a holder of a Series A share, it is very uncertain if you will get paid the same amount as the Glazers or that you even will be offered to sell your shares to a buyer of the club. This uncertainty must be assumed to be as high that the market in reality is valuing Glazer's holdings of the club at a much higher price than 3bn. I do not think that it is fair to say that the Glazer's ask for the club vastly exceeds its value which would indicate that the possibility of a sale of the club is low. I think it is the opposite to be honest.

Here is the link to the post I wrote on the topic a while back:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/gla...or-6-7bn-sale-in-q1-2023.474085/post-29836625

 

[Adisa]

There are different ways to value an asset. Many looking for click baits will use the "proper methods" based on Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), profit/revenue multiples etc. When doing so, they fail to communicate that the market haven't valued assets with those methods the last 5-10 years. Tesla, FANG and the likes wouldn't even remotely be valued properly with current Discounted Cash Flow or methods like that. Right or wrong.

To be honest, I have not gotten down to reading the Swiss Ramble article. And I am surprised the Seeking Alpha article didn't pop up in my app notifications.
I am more interested in the quoted part, where they say DCF and revenue multiples are outdated. Throws guys like me in the mud. What are the more mordern methods of valuation, are they talking about comps? I had done a DCF of the club in my spare time, last year and my result was pretty close to the market cap.

 

[bosskeano]

ffs...they are getting old so why continue the hassle of running a club when you can sell it, make money and take that stress off your back?

 

[UnitedSofa]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

From here, and they've mentioned this 'next phase' a few times since and say they're starting it soon. Whatever it is. I can't see what they can do to force the sale except going to Florida and protsting outside their homes / making their lives miserable.

We are finally getting what we want and because it's not happening as fast as an Amazon Prime Checkout order we're getting upset about it....ugh. (In reference to the tweet not your post)

 

[Tarrou]

ffs...they are getting old so why continue the hassle of running a club when you can sell it, make money and take that stress off your back?

but they aren't continuing?

 

[Anustart89]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Tarrou]

those 1958 lads seem a bit dim, bless them

 

[Pickle85]

Project Queen's Gambit is a proper shite name for a top secret, classified project too ffs.

My vote would have been for Project Call the Midwife

 

[Nou_Camp99]

As much as I admire the protests....they haven't done anything. The Glazers have been despised since day 1 and there's been protests for 17 years and they haven't budged once.

They are looking at an exit strategy now because the super league has collapsed and their US businesses aren't doing that well either. That's all it is really.

 

[Infra-red]

As much as I admire the protests....they haven't done anything. The Glazers have been despised since day 1 and there's been protests for 17 years and they haven't budged once.

They are looking at an exit strategy now because the super league has collapsed and their US businesses aren't doing that well either. That's all it is really.

Ticket prices frozen for 11 seasons in a row is probably largely a result of fan protest.

 

[Tarrou]

As much as I admire the protests....they haven't done anything. The Glazers have been despised since day 1 and there's been protests for 17 years and they haven't budged once.

They are looking at an exit strategy now because the super league has collapsed and their US businesses aren't doing that well either. That's all it is really.

impossible to say if its had any impact on their decision or not though

it might have

 

[Rightnr]

We are finally getting what we want and because it's not happening as fast as an Amazon Prime Checkout order we're getting upset about it....ugh. (In reference to the tweet not your post)

While it is true that the process will take time, what the hell is this patronising post?

How do you know we're getting what we want? Do you know the buyer? Do you know what assurances will be provided things will be run better/differently and people like Murtough will rightfully get the boot?

For that matter, how do you know what fans actually prefer if all of this is being done behind closed doors? It's not like being given a number of options and a choice between them.

This post sounds like one of those 'no need to be afraid of being spied on if they have nothing in the closet'.

 

[phelans shorts]

Project Queen's Gambit is a proper shite name for a top secret, classified project too ffs.

My vote would have been for Project Call the Midwife

Project Can’t Pay We’ll Take it Away may be more apt

 

[phelans shorts]

While it is true that the process will take time, what the hell is this patronising post?

How do you know we're getting what we want? Do you know the buyer? Do you know what assurances will be provided things will be run better/differently and people like Murtough will rightfully get the boot?

For that matter, how do you know what fans actually prefer if all of this is being done behind closed doors? It's not like being given a number of options and a choice between them.

This post sounds like one of those 'no need to be afraid of being spied on if they have nothing in the closet'.

Have you got anything to base this on yet or what

 

[Pickle85]

Project Can’t Pay We’ll Take it Away may be more apt

 

[Tiber]

It's been hard to pressure the Glazers, a consortium of foreign hedge funds is going to be even worse

 

[RacingClub]

It's been hard to pressure the Glazers, a consortium of foreign hedge funds is going to be even worse

Yup , I think that's something that being largely ignored here.

You can always hit the Glazers where it hurts (their pockets) if you could get people to row in the same direction for once.

Where the hell do you hit an owner who doesn't need your money?

 

[Lecland07]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Summary: they can get a lot of money.

 

[Nou_Camp99]

impossible to say if its had any impact on their decision or not though

it might have

The protests were huge when they first took control. Didn't stop them. They don't care about that stuff.

All they care about is the bottom line and it's now becoming rather expensive to keep this club competitive.