Money. It's all they exist for.
Glazers / Woodward out! (One down)
- Thread starter Icemav
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran discuss United's thrilling but ultimately disappointing 3-3 draw with Galatsaray. They talk Onana, our fading hopes of getting out of the group, and whether we want Europa League football or not.
They also discuss a comfortable (?) win at Everton and probably don't spend long enough talking about THAT goal and Kobbie Mainoo.
Finishing with a look ahead to a punishing December schedule which will make or break the season.
Why won't they sell to Sir Jim? Being twats out of spite and screw the club's future over
The Glazers dont want to sell in full nor sell a controlling stake. I understand there is no clear agreement between the siblings. Jim not interested in a minority stake. For all the talk of OT needing a revamp, remember if the Glazers sell their shares the money goes to them. Only if new shares issued does some money go into the club. Possible it may be a mix of both but not seen any suggestion of that so far.
Although I want to believe this I don’t think it’s true, pretty sure we would of heard something concrete but apart from Ratcliffe piping up every couple of weeks with what amounts to feck all really, there doesn’t seem to be any noises.
FSG selling feels a bit disheartening to be honest, not that I give a shit about Liverpool but it would seem they’re owners are smart, selling now for a tidy profit because they know that to compete with City, Newcastle, PSG etc is a tough ask and they’re not selling a stressed asset.
Ratcliffe want to see Glazers, club is not for sale, so he is not interested in a minority stake. End of discussion. He has confirmed this himself.
Yes that’s kind of what I’m saying. I don’t believe these quotes that the Glazers are looking for a sale at all, with Ratcliffe or anyone.
I think they do want to sell a stake, but keep control. Question as I said is then whether any money goes into club or just the parasite's bank accounts...
I can’t see anyone throwing a few hundred million at them just so they can have a pay day, surely if someone was going to invest they’d want to see it invested in the club that will help return some sort of profit/succes, but I don’t know enough about this sort of thing really, just guessing.
God I wish this wasn't from such a trash source
A couple of thoughts:
(a) Why do the Glazers' own Manchester United?
I want to touch upon this, because there is a common misconception that the Glazers' own Manchester United to take dividend from the team.
This is not true. The dividend paid to the Manchester United shareholders is just 1.39 percent of a market cap of like 2.1 bn USD. I.e., if the true value of the team is 4 bn USD, you get 0.7% dividend and if its 8 bn USD the dividend is just 0.35%. I.e. the dividend yield is crap.
As a fact, if the Glazer's just wanted to milk an investment, receive dividend -- they could easily by tomorrow increase their returns with several hundred percents -- if they sold their stake in Manchester United and invested in say a handful of global dividend stocks.
However, the Glazer's investment in Manchester United -- has been OK, certainly not good, extremely far from great, but also not terrible. There is this notion that Malcom Glazer bought the club for free through a leveraged buy-out, put the club in debt, and have milked it since. That is nonsense. Malcom Glazer could obtain financing to buy this team because he was credit worthy. The club had cash flow to pay debt, but he could just as well have used that money to pay much higher dividend and pay of the loan himself, the leveraged buy-out thing is construed for tax reasons.
An investment in Manchester United in 2005 is not on the same planet as an investment in new tech would have been at that point. Its not even as good as some kind of diversified investment strategy in 2005 would have been. But it is of course better than some alternatives.
Ultimately, the Glazer's bought and owns Manchester United because they have seen growth potential. The 1 bn USD the Glazer's paid for Manchester United, is nothing. The 8 bn Manchester United is worth today, its nothing. The Company Chipotle Mexican Grill is worth 38 bn USD. Some car company that might have sold 1000 cars ever is worth 24 bn USD (Rivian). Pintrest, 16 bn. Compared to other US companies, there are 630 companies worth more than Manchester United if assigned a 8 bn USD price tag.
(b) Will the Glazers' sell?
Why are the Glazer's out there trying to create a Super League? They sit there with a company with a brand that is like one of the strongest in the world depending a bit on how you look at it -- that isn't worth that much. That doesn't really generate a ton of money. They are looking to change that, but it is not going to happen. We all know it. Revenue will grow with a steady rate. But like lets say you want to 10x the revenues produced by this club -- it cannot be done. Its a fantasy. Today. 10 years from now? 20 years from now? Who knows, the world is ever changing and as long as you own a tremendously strong brand -- there will be opportunities. But right now its not a money machine that warrants any special valuation.
We can of course only speculate, but it is the logical thing to do for the Glazers, to sell this club. Manchester United is today one of the biggest football clubs in the world. The reason for this is the fact that the Club for a really long time was among the best if not the best clubs in the world.
I am 41 y/o, not living in the UK. Of my generation, many are Man Utd fans. My eldest son is 14 and played football. Of his friends, he is the only one who is a fan of Man Utd. You got mostly City fans, Liverpool fans and so forth. People are fair weather characters. Those teams are the fun teams to play with in Fifa.
At the current pace -- or like "realistically" -- we are not winning anything in the coming 10 years. City will be dominant for at least another few years. Newcastle is up and coming, if they make the CL it unlocks a ton of FFP money for them to spend instantly. Chelsea has bigger resources than us. Arsenal could have a strong 5-10 years. I am not in the side that think its 'impossible for us to win with the Glazers', we are not like West Ham, but it requires that ETH and the club does a much better job than our competitors and even so, that will take time.
So -- what is the result of this? Manchester United's position in the football world is diminishing. It is not a super fast process, but 10 to 20 years is anything but irrelevant. Hence, the Glazer's investment in Manchester United as from today will not develop as well as the average investment in a football club, since it will be a club on decline. Meanwhile, for others, the Club could have additional benefits simply resulting in that we ought to be in a situation were the Club is worth more to others than to the Glazers.
(c) Might we just not end up with a new owner that is just as bad -- or even worse -- than the Glazers?
No, I see no risk for this. We can basically divide the potential buyers' in this situation into four type of categories:
(a) Someone looking to buy an entity to slaughter it and sell of the parts.
(b) Someone looking to buy an entity and become a passive owner that just collect dividend.
(c) Someone looking to buy an entity to restructure it to make it more profitable.
(d) Someone looking to buy an entity to (mainly) gain advantages in another field.
The first cathegory, (a), is not really an option. Could someone buy us, sell the players, sell our future earnings for 25 years, sell the Premier League spot to Milton Keyes or whatever, take out all money of the company, and then sell the wreck, and make a profit from it? Doubt the math adds up, huge political risk. For the second category, (b), Manchester United is a crap option. The direct return isn't good enough. The third category, (c), is probably really hard to accomplish.
Nah, it would be a buyer in the category (d) -- or perfectly possible -- a middle step to someone fitting into category (d) (i.e. someone that thinks they can buy the club, hold it for a shorter time, then sell it to someone that fits (d) for profit, exactly what Elliot Advisors are doing). So the buyer could be a hedge fund looking to hold the club for 5-10 years, make it more attractive, find a strategical buyer. Or a buyer like the new Newcastle owner, looking for an investment that gives you "power". A media entity.
For all such buyer's, it makes zero sense to not stop the decline. I mean, its not even much money. You buy something for 10bn and invest 3-4 bn in it, its modest.
Then there is of course a 5th alternative, like Sir Radcliff. Its the buyer that doesn't make sense from a business point of view.
(a) Why do the Glazers' own Manchester United?
I want to touch upon this, because there is a common misconception that the Glazers' own Manchester United to take dividend from the team.
This is not true. The dividend paid to the Manchester United shareholders is just 1.39 percent of a market cap of like 2.1 bn USD. I.e., if the true value of the team is 4 bn USD, you get 0.7% dividend and if its 8 bn USD the dividend is just 0.35%. I.e. the dividend yield is crap.
As a fact, if the Glazer's just wanted to milk an investment, receive dividend -- they could easily by tomorrow increase their returns with several hundred percents -- if they sold their stake in Manchester United and invested in say a handful of global dividend stocks.
However, the Glazer's investment in Manchester United -- has been OK, certainly not good, extremely far from great, but also not terrible. There is this notion that Malcom Glazer bought the club for free through a leveraged buy-out, put the club in debt, and have milked it since. That is nonsense. Malcom Glazer could obtain financing to buy this team because he was credit worthy. The club had cash flow to pay debt, but he could just as well have used that money to pay much higher dividend and pay of the loan himself, the leveraged buy-out thing is construed for tax reasons.
An investment in Manchester United in 2005 is not on the same planet as an investment in new tech would have been at that point. Its not even as good as some kind of diversified investment strategy in 2005 would have been. But it is of course better than some alternatives.
Ultimately, the Glazer's bought and owns Manchester United because they have seen growth potential. The 1 bn USD the Glazer's paid for Manchester United, is nothing. The 8 bn Manchester United is worth today, its nothing. The Company Chipotle Mexican Grill is worth 38 bn USD. Some car company that might have sold 1000 cars ever is worth 24 bn USD (Rivian). Pintrest, 16 bn. Compared to other US companies, there are 630 companies worth more than Manchester United if assigned a 8 bn USD price tag.
(b) Will the Glazers' sell?
Why are the Glazer's out there trying to create a Super League? They sit there with a company with a brand that is like one of the strongest in the world depending a bit on how you look at it -- that isn't worth that much. That doesn't really generate a ton of money. They are looking to change that, but it is not going to happen. We all know it. Revenue will grow with a steady rate. But like lets say you want to 10x the revenues produced by this club -- it cannot be done. Its a fantasy. Today. 10 years from now? 20 years from now? Who knows, the world is ever changing and as long as you own a tremendously strong brand -- there will be opportunities. But right now its not a money machine that warrants any special valuation.
We can of course only speculate, but it is the logical thing to do for the Glazers, to sell this club. Manchester United is today one of the biggest football clubs in the world. The reason for this is the fact that the Club for a really long time was among the best if not the best clubs in the world.
I am 41 y/o, not living in the UK. Of my generation, many are Man Utd fans. My eldest son is 14 and played football. Of his friends, he is the only one who is a fan of Man Utd. You got mostly City fans, Liverpool fans and so forth. People are fair weather characters. Those teams are the fun teams to play with in Fifa.
At the current pace -- or like "realistically" -- we are not winning anything in the coming 10 years. City will be dominant for at least another few years. Newcastle is up and coming, if they make the CL it unlocks a ton of FFP money for them to spend instantly. Chelsea has bigger resources than us. Arsenal could have a strong 5-10 years. I am not in the side that think its 'impossible for us to win with the Glazers', we are not like West Ham, but it requires that ETH and the club does a much better job than our competitors and even so, that will take time.
So -- what is the result of this? Manchester United's position in the football world is diminishing. It is not a super fast process, but 10 to 20 years is anything but irrelevant. Hence, the Glazer's investment in Manchester United as from today will not develop as well as the average investment in a football club, since it will be a club on decline. Meanwhile, for others, the Club could have additional benefits simply resulting in that we ought to be in a situation were the Club is worth more to others than to the Glazers.
(c) Might we just not end up with a new owner that is just as bad -- or even worse -- than the Glazers?
No, I see no risk for this. We can basically divide the potential buyers' in this situation into four type of categories:
(a) Someone looking to buy an entity to slaughter it and sell of the parts.
(b) Someone looking to buy an entity and become a passive owner that just collect dividend.
(c) Someone looking to buy an entity to restructure it to make it more profitable.
(d) Someone looking to buy an entity to (mainly) gain advantages in another field.
The first cathegory, (a), is not really an option. Could someone buy us, sell the players, sell our future earnings for 25 years, sell the Premier League spot to Milton Keyes or whatever, take out all money of the company, and then sell the wreck, and make a profit from it? Doubt the math adds up, huge political risk. For the second category, (b), Manchester United is a crap option. The direct return isn't good enough. The third category, (c), is probably really hard to accomplish.
Nah, it would be a buyer in the category (d) -- or perfectly possible -- a middle step to someone fitting into category (d) (i.e. someone that thinks they can buy the club, hold it for a shorter time, then sell it to someone that fits (d) for profit, exactly what Elliot Advisors are doing). So the buyer could be a hedge fund looking to hold the club for 5-10 years, make it more attractive, find a strategical buyer. Or a buyer like the new Newcastle owner, looking for an investment that gives you "power". A media entity.
For all such buyer's, it makes zero sense to not stop the decline. I mean, its not even much money. You buy something for 10bn and invest 3-4 bn in it, its modest.
Then there is of course a 5th alternative, like Sir Radcliff. Its the buyer that doesn't make sense from a business point of view.
Was listening to United Stand today and Mark brought up the risk of being bought by some fund, wanting return on their investment in the same way the Glazers have milked us.
I really think that there are zero risk for that. Look, entities get bought by the highest bidder. The highest bidder is the buyer that it makes the most sense for to pay the highest price. Always. That type of investment funds win bids for things like infrastructure. A power grid. Super predictable cash funds. Real estate. If there is no potential additional benefit/upside in an investment, you only get like 3% yearly return and a very predictable capex, the investment fund is a player in an auction process.
A competitive bidder for Manchester United will surely be a hedge fund that see potentially one of the world strongest brands being available, that they can strengthen tremendously for say 12bn (buy the team for 8bn and invest 4bn in the team and stadium) — what could they get if they auctioned the team to the highest bidding dictator, country, Elon Musk’s of the world in 10 years? It wouldn’t be 10bn. It wouldn’t be 12 bn. Honestly, given how linear TV is going down the drain, having something that draws an audience without any doubt at a specific time will probably become more valuable. A competitive bidder will surely be some dictator somewhere wanting whatever they want, someone to listen to them. A place at the table. Boost their egos. Whatever.
Remember that FFP is a real thing in the game today, and Manchester United’s most valuable asset is that with our legit income, we can spend money an owner of Newcastle only can dream of, right? Sure City tears it to sheds, but it’s apples and oranges comparing them now to someone like buying Preston North End trying to create the invincibles 2.0.
So:
-There is no way an investment fund looking for a steady ROI will come out on top from an auction process for Manchester United in 2022.
-It makes zero sense for any other buyer to — not — come in and immediately stop the decline and ensure that we remain one if not the biggest clubs in the world. You pay for that. It’s in that the value lies with this investment. 100%.
Ultimately, no matter how sick it might sound, 10-15bn, it’s peanuts for many in the world we live in right now.
I really think that there are zero risk for that. Look, entities get bought by the highest bidder. The highest bidder is the buyer that it makes the most sense for to pay the highest price. Always. That type of investment funds win bids for things like infrastructure. A power grid. Super predictable cash funds. Real estate. If there is no potential additional benefit/upside in an investment, you only get like 3% yearly return and a very predictable capex, the investment fund is a player in an auction process.
A competitive bidder for Manchester United will surely be a hedge fund that see potentially one of the world strongest brands being available, that they can strengthen tremendously for say 12bn (buy the team for 8bn and invest 4bn in the team and stadium) — what could they get if they auctioned the team to the highest bidding dictator, country, Elon Musk’s of the world in 10 years? It wouldn’t be 10bn. It wouldn’t be 12 bn. Honestly, given how linear TV is going down the drain, having something that draws an audience without any doubt at a specific time will probably become more valuable. A competitive bidder will surely be some dictator somewhere wanting whatever they want, someone to listen to them. A place at the table. Boost their egos. Whatever.
Remember that FFP is a real thing in the game today, and Manchester United’s most valuable asset is that with our legit income, we can spend money an owner of Newcastle only can dream of, right? Sure City tears it to sheds, but it’s apples and oranges comparing them now to someone like buying Preston North End trying to create the invincibles 2.0.
So:
-There is no way an investment fund looking for a steady ROI will come out on top from an auction process for Manchester United in 2022.
-It makes zero sense for any other buyer to — not — come in and immediately stop the decline and ensure that we remain one if not the biggest clubs in the world. You pay for that. It’s in that the value lies with this investment. 100%.
Ultimately, no matter how sick it might sound, 10-15bn, it’s peanuts for many in the world we live in right now.
Yet another episode of their clown ownership. Their personal circus. I just want us to be a normal football club and not a 24/7 reality show.
They're so lucky. Even when the most famous footballer in the world calls out the club for ancient infrastructure, they'll receive none of the blowback.
Ronaldo is a prick for how he has brought all this to light but it's annoying that the only valid points he makes will be buried.
Ronaldo is a prick for how he has brought all this to light but it's annoying that the only valid points he makes will be buried.
He had the opportunity to fully call the Glazers out. Even if he wanted to call out the likes of EtH and Ralf, he should have said the, "owners have made some poor managerial decisions", or something of that ilk.
He would have gone down in United folklore forvever and a fsy. No questions asked. But what he's done here is just stupiid.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I said it elsewhere but yeah, the full interview will be better to determine how much he actually goes into them and calls them out by name.
This aspect will be completely ignored by most as he called out ETH and Rooney. We all know what a shitshow the running of this club has been for years.
Our standards have been on the floor and the main reason that we aren't competing. I'm not sure some are ready to hear from the horses mouth how bad things are behind closed doors. Mourinho tried to say the same and was chastised by most for it.
I don't think ETH has done anything wrong though, he has a system and Ronaldo just doesn't fit in that system, he is the GOAT and scores a lot of goals but in the last few matches even Ronaldo has struggled to score. Now people have started to understand how badly the owners are running this club and that's why our standards have been on the floor, the owners don't care as long as they can pay their debts using the team's money.
Let's wait for the full interview. The mention of the club doubting the validity of his reason for missing pre-season is pretty shocking if true. Don't know if that was ETH at all but I agree that ETH has pretty much defended CR, at least publicly. Ronaldo would never accept being a bit part player for any team so wonder if promises were made in the summer that haven't come to fruition.
It's clearly the end of the road for Ronaldo but let's hope some of the interview can be channelled into doing whatever can be done to force the owners out.
Yep! Usual puppet journalists are fueling outrage towards the Ten Hag & Rooney comments to take the spotlight off the Glazers. But feck that shit as far as I'm concerned, focus should be fully on twisting the knife on our cnut owners as much as possible.
I agree, this should be the focus and main takeaway. We are going to hear more about why we have fallen so far behind and I'm here for that.
Surely no way back for CR7, for me it's thanks for the memories and let's keep the pressure on the Glazers. You can rest assured they will be gathered around meeting room tables trying to handle this fire. Expect numerous PR leaks to discredit Ronaldo and keep the spotlight off them all week.
We are not going to learn anything new. The shitness of the Glazers has been widely dissected for ages.
Without a doubt. And unfortunately, they'll succeed too. From scanning through Twitter this morning, the amount of people already getting precious and saying they're going to be giving no creedence to anything else he's said, purely because he called Rooney a fat shit (or whatever he implied about him) is ridiculous
I mean yes, that wasn't very nice of him but it's also not THAT big of a deal.The club has been ran like a shitshow for way too long. The infrastructure, the mentality, the lowering of the standards, everything we've been criticising for years. The only thing that truly matters is getting the parasites out of our fecking club, and this interview needs to be used as further fuel to put the heat on the snakes. Everything else is secondary.
Completely agree.
Finally, someone gets it. "Oh, but everybody knows the club is ran badly, Ronaldo isn't saying anything new". Right. Everybody knows. And what exactly has this knowledge led to? Absolutely nothing. Useless protests, which can be completely ignored, and review bomb campaigns on Google. I bet the Glazers are shaking.Without a doubt. And unfortunately, they'll succeed too. From scanning through Twitter this morning, the amount of people already getting precious and saying they're going to be giving no creedence to anything else he's said, purely because he called Rooney a fat shit (or whatever he implied about him) is ridiculous
The club has been ran like a shitshow for way too long. The infrastructure, the mentality, the lowering of the standards, everything we've been criticising for years. The only thing that truly matters is getting the parasites out of our fecking club, and this interview needs to be used as further fuel to put the heat on the snakes. Everything else is secondary.
When someone like Ronaldo says it it will send shockwaves... if it doesn't get buried by the rest of the nonsense in that interview. More fuel to the fire? I'll take it. Anything to be rid of the disgusting parasites.
He knew the state of Utd under Glazers so what`s he moaning about, just trying to get fans on his side.
Cristianos' interview with Piers actually helped kill 2 birds with one stone. Ronaldo won't play for United again and the Glazers's get negative exposure from the most popular football player on the planet. Good.
The Glazers are being called out and "suddenly" we seeing we're signing Kane, Mbappe and Osimhen in January. bloody cnuts.
The motivation for the Glazers to buy United is unimportant.
What matters is the result of their ownership.
They have near destroyed our club.
The Ronaldo saga is but one example.
The protests at the City match need to be focused and direct.
What matters is the result of their ownership.
They have near destroyed our club.
The Ronaldo saga is but one example.
The protests at the City match need to be focused and direct.
Do you honestly believe that? Come on, man. Ronaldo is using this to get the fans on his side, wake up.
And the Glazers are quite obviously linking us with high profile names to to appease fans wake up.
What Ronaldo is doing is quite obvious, but so is what the Glazers are doing too
Or it's the usual paper/ITK nonsense spouted before every transfer window.
Hopefully, this will force Glazers to spend in Jan in order to replace Ronaldo. Realistically we can't afford Kane, Mbappe and etc. I will be happy with Gakpo and any realistic target (striker) that ETH wants.
Yeah with none of them remotely realistic
Yeah needs to be on that scouse game level,however we cannot afford to have any games postponed
If after the WC there are no signings, just wait for some explosive protests.
With the money they will save with Ronaldo leaving we should be able to get a decent signing in.
Did you just become a United fan this week? They do this every time there is negative news around the club, one of their lackeys in the media puts out a big transfer rumor. I called this happening the moment the Ronaldo interview started coming out. I'm sure many others did as well. I watched the United Stand yesterday morning, he said the same thing, watch United now get linked with a bunch of strikers, maybe even Mbappe. His next show was titled, United linked with Mbappe, because that story came out about 5 mins after his first show. Very predictable, been doing the same thing for years.
This parasite fecker need to spend money on a striker especially Ronaldo is leaving. We are extremely short in the department. We can't rely on Martial alone if we have any ambition for top 4 and go deep in cup tournament