Club Sale | It’s done!

[Tarrou]

If you care about this so much, then why don't you go to Saudi Arabia and try to fix this?

I'll get around to it once I've finished overthrowing the North Korean regime

 

[Red in STL]

Replacing an owner that makes the Glazers look like decent people. That’s my NFL team so I’m hoping for two nightmares to end this year.

Why does Bezos need to sell a newspaper to buy an NFL club? He's got enough to own both, buy United and still be one of the richest blokes in the world

 

[sglowrider]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

He might have some interest in sport afterall

He cant afford both? Hard times are a fallin'

 

[UDontMessWith24]

Why does Bezos need to sell a newspaper to buy an NFL club? He's got enough to own both, buy United and still be one of the richest blokes in the world

Him and Snyder despise each other, mostly I think because of the things the WP post wrote about Snyder (aka the truth) so this is some sort of megalomaniacal billionaire peace offering.

 

[Red in STL]

Him and Snyder despise each other, mostly I think because of the things the WP post wrote about Snyder (aka the truth) so this is some sort of megalomaniacal billionaire peace offering.

No idea who Synder is TBH, don't read newspapers!

 

[whitbyviking]

No idea who Synder is TBH, don't read newspapers!

Despicable human who owns the Washington Commanders NFL team amongst his other business interests

 

[Jippy]

I thought I’d accidentally clicked on the Andrew Tate thread for a moment there.

It's interesting how the justifications for supporting both are near identical.

 

[Wibble]

Having an opinion on this is fine, but i'm honestly sick of this pandering. Why aren't you guys having an opinion about the FA allowing this in the first place, like I asked in my previous post? I haven't seen one of you guys, not even once, criticize the English government body for ruining the league? They are the ones in power, they are the ones you should be complaining about.

The FA isn't a government body.

And the FA's stance on ownership of various sirts, be it Middle East regimes/Oligarks without direct commercial motives or Glazer style highly leveraged corporate ownership, gave been frequently criticised here and elsewhere for many many years.

Which isn't really relevant as I don't want Middle Eastern ownership on ethical grounds both oil related and human rights related no matter what.

Whether United gets owned by a sheikh club or not, it really doesn't change a goddamn thing.

Yes it does. How can it not?

They'll either own us or move to some other club.

Better than us being that club.

How much will you people stand on your moral high ground while the club falls into irrelevancy?

Anyone who buys us will need us to be succesful. Oil money or irrelevance aren't the 2 binary options.

And what is any of this going to change? You ain't convincing anyone, certainly not the leaders of those countries that don't give a single oil barrel about what you think of them and their laws.

Even if true validating them in this way will at best not help change occur and more likely contribute to slowing it down.

These countries also don't need to fossil fuel wash since fossil fuels isn't going away anytime soon.

Lots of it going on for something that isn't needed.

The insistence on quick transition to green energy is what created this fecking mess in Europe in the first place and gave Russia basically a monopoly on the energy supply in Europe that is strangling us right now.

A faster rransition would have made us less dependent.

I just want to say that a Dubai ownership, for example, would have nothing to do with fossil fuels since Dubai as a whole today doesn't rely on fossils but tourism.

The foundation of Dubai's wealth is oil and propped up by huge oil based funding from Abu Dhabi. Not to mention the human rights thing.

And finally, you say a Saudi ownership would kill your enjoyment of football. Okay. But how many millions of United fans enjoyment of football has the Glazers ruined throughout their years in charge of the club? I'd reckon it's easily in the millions, including mine since I'm this close to breaking with football myself.

The Glazers started it off and this takeover might finish it for me. I hope we get an owner who reverses this trend.

I'll be the first one with you guys to say "hey, let's kick this oil money out of the PL" and get fan ownership or some model that will allow ALL clubs in the league to be competitive, but until that happens and I doubt it will ever happens because a lot of money is involved in this and not just in football but outside of it as well, why should we gimp ourselves? Whose really benefitting from this? Why let the rest of the league profit for this while we just watch?

Because it is the right and moral thing to want imo.

 

[Cassidy]

Actually they aren't on the ropes, their thinking is that they have taken out as much as they can without actually investing any money, to make more money they need to put money in which they don't want to do, in other words they've bled out what they can and now want to cash in

No they are on the ropes because they are no longer able to fulfil their obligations. The stadium redevelopment requires funding, they are obliged to do something since they commissioned the report. The majority of the family want out and have done since Malcom passed.

The current financial climate (no more low interest rates) and the clubs current debt position and transfer deficit, means they are no longer able to refinance the club at banks without taking on higher interest rates.

This puts them in a position where they either have to find 1+bn to pump into the club or take on high interest which will wipe out any dividends they could pay themselves.
Or they get new investment in, however investors know this position and most want 100% ownership instead (on the ropes)

 

[sglowrider]

No they are on the ropes because they are no longer able to fulfil their obligations. The stadium redevelopment requires funding, they are obliged to do something since they commissioned the report. The majority of the family want out and have done since Malcom passed.

The current financial climate (no more low interest rates) and the clubs current debt position and transfer deficit, means they are no longer able to refinance the club at banks without taking on extortionate interest rates.

This puts them in a position where they either have to find 1+bn to pump into the club or take on high interest which will wipe out any dividends they could pay themselves.
Or they get new investment in, however investors know this position and most want 100% ownership instead (on the ropes)

You are both saying the same thing, just differently.

 

[JohnnyKills]

What would be the benefits of a minority ownership for the Glazers?

From what others have said, they wouldn't be able to take any more dividends and the investment would go straight into the club.

 

[Pexbo]

What would be the benefits of a minority ownership for the Glazers?

From what others have said, they wouldn't be able to take any more dividends and the investment would go straight into the club.

They cash in some of their chips and get a nice big payout while inviting much needed investment into the club which increases the value of their remaining chips

 

[Tarrou]

They cash in some of their chips and get a nice big payout while inviting much needed investment into the club which increases the value of their remaining chips

if they sell shares that money goes to the Glazers though, not into the club

 

[Spoony]

What we need is cash to back ETH in the transfer market.

 

[Pexbo]

if they sell shares that money goes to the Glazers though, not into the club

Right, but who they sell them to and the conditions of the sale is down to the Glazers.

Example (obviously all the figures are pulled out my arse, just giving a flavour of how it could work for them):

They could sell 49% of their shares for £2bn on the condition that the buying party imvests £2bn into the club.

The Glazer’s get a payout of £2bn and see their remaining 51% assets increase in value massively. A new stadium, rejuvenated training facilities and transfer funds to push the team back into relevance while still maintaining a controlling interest in the club. It’s a much better position than the financial dire straits the club is in now.

Fast forward 10-15 years and they look to offload the remaining 51% of their shares for £8/10/12bn+

 

[harshad]

hey could sell 49% of their shares for £2bn on the condition that the buying party imvests £2bn into the club.

What would be the 2bn investment into the club be as? Loan or Equity?

 

[Pexbo]

What would be the 2bn investment into the club be as? Loan or Equity?

Equity

 

[Telsim]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[harshad]

Equity

Your example values the Club at close at roughly £8Bn. Dont think its anywhere close to that

 

[VP89]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I feel these outlets just have a quota of articles to write. Either say something or say nothing.

 

[angak]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Most of relevant news related to the sale of club has come financial reporters not football journalist. Except The Times who have relationship with Jim Ratcliffe.

 

[Pexbo]

Your example values the Club at close at roughly £8Bn. Dont think its anywhere close to that

No it doesn’t.

The Glazer’s currently want £6-7bn for it for a complete sale.

Upon spending that, the buying party will still have to fork out around £2bn on infrastructure, increasing their total spend to £8-9bn. That’s not really how it works though because any investor would view that £2bn as an investment that would increase the value of their asset. Same scenario here.

£2bn for 49% = valuing the club at ~£4bn

£2bn invested, increases the value of the asset they own 49% of.

If the Glazers had a growth plan to sell their 51% in 10 years for £8/10/12bn then the minority investor would see similar returns from their £4bn investment.

 

[Pexbo]

Adam Crafton is a gay activist. Stopped being a journalist a long time ago.

Reported. Grow up.

 

[Giggsyking]

How is it virtue signalling? You just throw buzzwords around without understanding them like some Trump wannabe. You know jack shit about me or anybody else you attacks lives but want to act superior because you’re quite content keeping your head in the sand about any issues that don’t directly effect your life.

Maybe you should grow up, or at least grow a backbone.

There is another thread for morality and ownership. Can we please fecking have this thread free of this discussion?

 

[angak]

No it doesn’t.

The Glazer’s currently want £6-7bn for it for a complete sale.

Upon spending that, the buying party will still have to fork out around £2bn on infrastructure, increasing their total spend to £8-9bn. That’s not really how it works though because any investor would view that £2bn as an investment that would increase the value of their asset. Same scenario here.

£2bn for 49% = valuing the club at ~£4bn

£2bn invested, increases the value of the asset they own 49% of.

If the Glazers had a growth plan to sell their 51% in 10 years for £8/10/12bn then the minority investor would see similar returns from their £4bn investment.

If anything the value of united sale should come down because of the requirement of huge investment in stadium/ground etc...

 

[Solius]

Adam Crafton is a gay activist. Stopped being a journalist a long time ago.

So because of the topic he chooses to cover (for the most part) that makes him not a journalist?

 

[Giggsyking]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Adam Crafton know absolutely nothing.

 

[FromTheBench]

No it doesn’t.

The Glazer’s currently want £6-7bn for it for a complete sale.

Upon spending that, the buying party will still have to fork out around £2bn on infrastructure, increasing their total spend to £8-9bn. That’s not really how it works though because any investor would view that £2bn as an investment that would increase the value of their asset. Same scenario here.

£2bn for 49% = valuing the club at ~£4bn

£2bn invested, increases the value of the asset they own 49% of.

If the Glazers had a growth plan to sell their 51% in 10 years for £8/10/12bn then the minority investor would see similar returns from their £4bn investment.

No one will spend 2 billion on 49% equity and then give 2 billion free.

The remaining 2 billion will be a loan then. And I can’t see anyone doing that either.

would make much more sense to buy out at 5.

 

[Mickeza]

Most interesting bit in the Crafton article is how QSI think Saudi Arabia are going to make a play. Also states they have no interest in Liverpool.

 

[Tarrou]

Right, but who they sell them to and the conditions of the sale is down to the Glazers.

Example (obviously all the figures are pulled out my arse, just giving a flavour of how it could work for them):

They could sell 49% of their shares for £2bn on the condition that the buying party imvests £2bn into the club.

The Glazer’s get a payout of £2bn and see their remaining 51% assets increase in value massively. A new stadium, rejuvenated training facilities and transfer funds to push the team back into relevance while still maintaining a controlling interest in the club. It’s a much better position than the financial dire straits the club is in now.

Fast forward 10-15 years and they look to offload the remaining 51% of their shares for £8/10/12bn+

nobody is buying a minority stake and putting substantial money into the club as well.. It just benefits the Glazers and nobody else

 

[Messier1994]

Most interesting bit in the Crafton article is how QSI think Saudi Arabia are going to make a play. Also states they have no interest in Liverpool.

Yeah, the Saudi Media Group was dropped from the Chelsea auction due to a technicality.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ehly-and-broughton-groups-remain-frontrunners

 

[VP89]

Adam Crafton know absolutely nothing.

Yup

 

[harshad]

£2bn for 49% = valuing the club at ~£4bn

£2bn invested, increases the value of the asset they own 49% of.

How much equity will they get for investing 2bn?

 

[AdNani]

Adam Crafton is a gay activist. Stopped being a journalist a long time ago.

feck is wrong with some people man.

 

[UnitedSofa]

Adam Crafton is a gay activist. Stopped being a journalist a long time ago.

Surely this is enough to never become a full member. Disgusting behaviour.

 

[cyberman]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[red thru&thru]

The Athletic are quite good with their sources. I'm pretty sure all their journalists go through a certain criteria to make sure they have credibility to their stories.

So, I'll say the story from Crafton is well sourced.

 

[UnitedSofa]

Most of relevant news related to the sale of club has come financial reporters not football journalist. Except The Times who have relationship with Jim Ratcliffe.

Edit won't save you. We already saw the bile you wrote.

 

[arthurka]

Not a chance that someone will buy stakes in the club and have the Glazers running it. It looks like an all or nothing deal.

 

[angak]

Edit won't save you. We already saw the bile you wrote.

Keep being a virtue signalling warrior.