Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shakesy

WW Head of Recruiting
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
9,913
Location
Directly under the sun... NOW!
How is a club's value determined? Is it just a case of supply and demand? How is it possible that a club like Liverpool is being sold for £3bn and United, with all its developmental requirements, for more than double that?
 

Lord Zlatan

Full Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2016
Messages
712
Location
Ireland
How is a club's value determined? Is it just a case of supply and demand? How is it possible that a club like Liverpool is being sold for £3bn and United, with all its developmental requirements, for more than double that?
not entirely sure about clubs, but most companies are sold based on a multiple of their EIBITDA. Normally this can be 5-10 times but in exceptional cases more.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,535
Location
Sydney
How is a club's value determined? Is it just a case of supply and demand? How is it possible that a club like Liverpool is being sold for £3bn and United, with all its developmental requirements, for more than double that?
one reason is United has more fans
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,413
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
How is a club's value determined? Is it just a case of supply and demand? How is it possible that a club like Liverpool is being sold for £3bn and United, with all its developmental requirements, for more than double that?
Why do Primark sell dresses at £15 and Versace sell dresses at £15,000?
 

Vault Dweller

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
6,552
Location
Vault 88, The Commonwealth
Imagine the wives of these billionaires asking their husbands to pick up some milk down the shop, only for them to buy a football club, completely forgetting the milk.
In fairness, that sounds like something I'd do...without the billionaire part. I'm not even a thousandth-aire.
 

TrebleChamp99

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2021
Messages
993
Isn’t that shit for them?
Depends how you look at it.
Qatar probably morally terrible owners on one hand.

Liverpool always were looking for investment not a whole sale but a minority takeover will probably lead to a full takeover.

In this instance I would say we can rule out Qatar unless they have another consortium available to buy us.
 

Blood Mage

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
5,822
We are not worth 7billion and the Glazers are delusional if they think they can flog us for that much. It's putting off potential buyers.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
Depends how you look at it.
Qatar probably morally terrible owners on one hand.

Liverpool always were looking for investment not a whole sale but a minority takeover will probably lead to a full takeover.

In this instance I would say we can rule out Qatar unless they have another consortium available to buy us.
Yeah but they can’t take over Liverpool while owning PSG so it’ll only ever be a minority stake. They still keep FSG who won’t put any money in while there has to be a natural limit to how much Qatar puts in themselves.
If Liverpool fans do get excited about a taste of ME money then Qatar being a minority stake keeps the potential full takeover of that nature from happening.
Seems like a halfway house. I’d be raging if this happened with the Glazers
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,518
Yeah but they can’t take over Liverpool while owning PSG so it’ll only ever be a minority stake. They still keep FSG who won’t put any money in while there has to be a natural limit to how much Qatar puts in themselves.
If Liverpool fans do get excited about a taste of ME money then Qatar being a minority stake keeps the potential full takeover of that nature from happening.
Seems like a halfway house. I’d be raging if this happened with the Glazers
FSG aren't the Glazers though. They know how to run a club and they are genuinely invested in it
 

LawCharltonBest

Enjoys watching fox porn
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
14,884
Location
Salford
Yeah but they can’t take over Liverpool while owning PSG so it’ll only ever be a minority stake. They still keep FSG who won’t put any money in while there has to be a natural limit to how much Qatar puts in themselves.
If Liverpool fans do get excited about a taste of ME money then Qatar being a minority stake keeps the potential full takeover of that nature from happening.
Seems like a halfway house. I’d be raging if this happened with the Glazers
I think the Qataris will end up chucking PSG in the bin. Even signing the best players in the World they have obviously realised that the interest isn't there and it's difficult to build a CL winning squad in France where there are no competitive matches to keep the players sharp. A sportswashing project with United or Liverpool is on a different planet, you can go anywhere in the World and people know these clubs.

I hope it's not true, ideally we'd have no state takeovers in football. But with Newcastle, City and Liverpool all potentially swimming in unlimited funds over the next decade and more, the top 3 will basically become a closed shop.
 

TrebleChamp99

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2021
Messages
993
Yeah but they can’t take over Liverpool while owning PSG so it’ll only ever be a minority stake. They still keep FSG who won’t put any money in while there has to be a natural limit to how much Qatar puts in themselves.
If Liverpool fans do get excited about a taste of ME money then Qatar being a minority stake keeps the potential full takeover of that nature from happening.
Seems like a halfway house. I’d be raging if this happened with the Glazers
It’s not Qatar state , it’s said to be a Qatar backed consortium. Big difference with no ownership ties to PSG
 

Zed 101

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
1,391
Funny that a large part of the Chelsea purchase cost was the huge debt owing to Abramovich, which massively overinflated the final figure, without the debts Chelsea would have probably been valued at half, I am sure that the financial stratosphere of billionaires is better versed in these things but our value and Liverpools seems to be being inflated by the media based on the total Chelsea sale cost which was perverse
 

romufc

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
12,555
I recognise his name and I have him blocked. Which means I realised he was a BS account somewhere along the way

Although I do think Dubai will be one of the bidders
Yep, an ITK account. I remember someone posted him saying FDJ is a United player. So clearly wants likes and retweets because we have seen alot of ITK accounts saying takeover is complete.

I find it funny that ITK's think that anyone would tell them if its done, considering this is not a transfer or something, its a £5-8bn takeover where only people who need to know will have any idea what is going on.
 

McTerminator

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
910
Something to keep in mind: a “good deal” is a very subjective matter. What someone at United now thinks is a good deal could be paltry, not properly image oriented, or simply a poor relationship to the new buyers.

You want to have them as few entanglements as possible.

One of the things that made Chelsea so easy to sell was that aside from complete debt forgiveness they were wiped clean to the point they barely had toilet paper in the building.

Clearlake probably would have liked to select the shirt sponsor as well if given the choice.

Raine is VERY good at matching up people and n terms of their adequacy to the task of ownership. If the Glazers and the different United groups would just say “get us a ton of money and the best possible owners” …. They would do a good job.

They he only caveat in this is that they work under the criteria given to them. So… if they are told “biggest check wins” … that’s what they’ll do (simplified example).

If the Glazers do the right thing and tell them to heavily consider multiple criteria like dedication to future investment in the club, commitment to the club on competitive levels, erasing current debt and structuring all future debt in a way the doesn’t hamper club business… that would be ideal.

If I were a United fan that would be the campaign I would be waging right now; not that the owners come from certain countries, or that they made their money in soy beans instead of oil.

Demand, for all they’ve taken from you, and all they WILL make from this sale, that the least they owe you is finding super rich buyers dedicated to making United the premiere team on the planet and will settle for nothing less.
Top man, agree completely.
 

711

Verified Bird Expert
Scout
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
24,207
Location
Don't sign old players and cast offs
Something to keep in mind: a “good deal” is a very subjective matter. What someone at United now thinks is a good deal could be paltry, not properly image oriented, or simply a poor relationship to the new buyers.

You want to have them as few entanglements as possible.

One of the things that made Chelsea so easy to sell was that aside from complete debt forgiveness they were wiped clean to the point they barely had toilet paper in the building.

Clearlake probably would have liked to select the shirt sponsor as well if given the choice.

Raine is VERY good at matching up people and n terms of their adequacy to the task of ownership. If the Glazers and the different United groups would just say “get us a ton of money and the best possible owners” …. They would do a good job.

They he only caveat in this is that they work under the criteria given to them. So… if they are told “biggest check wins” … that’s what they’ll do (simplified example).

If the Glazers do the right thing and tell them to heavily consider multiple criteria like dedication to future investment in the club, commitment to the club on competitive levels, erasing current debt and structuring all future debt in a way the doesn’t hamper club business… that would be ideal.

If I were a United fan that would be the campaign I would be waging right now; not that the owners come from certain countries, or that they made their money in soy beans instead of oil.

Demand, for all they’ve taken from you, and all they WILL make from this sale, that the least they owe you is finding super rich buyers dedicated to making United the premiere team on the planet and will settle for nothing less.
Nobody but the Glazers has any say, and it will be 'biggest cheque wins', the rest is irrelevant in terms of who might own us. Sad, but that's the reality.
 

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
12,776
We are ending with a US consortium aren't we?
Almost sure of it. And probably not good ones either. After the initial optimism (And I am still glad we will hopefully get rid of the Glazers), I can't help but feel like we will end up with owners who are not much better than them.
 

Zed 101

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
1,391
Almost sure of it. And probably not good ones either. After the initial optimism (And I am still glad we will hopefully get rid of the Glazers), I can't help but feel like we will end up with owners who are not much better than them.
I am in no doubt that the Glazer's number one priority will be to make as much money as they can, will not matter who or where from.

As a bonus to that I am sure that given several similar options they would take the deal which is worst for the club out of spite.
 

NK86

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
10,383
I am in no doubt that the Glazer's number one priority will be to make as much money as they can, will not matter who or where from.

As a bonus to that I am sure that given several similar options they would take the deal which is worst for the club out of spite.
I agree with the first part. As for the second part, they are businessmen and frankly they won't go so far as to feck over the club which will probably make them billions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.