Realistic buyers...

[Rozay]

Its not the Saudis as a nation, but more specifically Mohammad Bin Salman who's been linked with us, and the main source of concern. The man is a psychopathic, murdering scumbag who not only hacks dissenting journalists to death, but has started a war in Yemen that has led to hundreds of thousands dying and millions put at risk of starvation.

Would you be happy being owned by Kim Jong-Un?

I mean, I’m not defending him per se. I’m just saying that it’s a bit tricky when talking about a national state, and acts taken by a head of state. At least in terms of speaking at it like the act of a regular civilian. Trust, I’m not saying I agree with any of them, as I’m a Western-leftie to a large degree. But I am aware that countries do what they feel is best for them, and don’t see the West as any more noble than they are. Perhaps they look at Tony Blair as not fit to run whatever business because he’s a ‘murdering scumbag’ who likely bombed many nameless and faceless innocents in their country.

All I’m saying is it is one thing if a Head of State orders a war or even a death and if Bill Gates did it. Such an act would have a different implication on BG as ‘fit and proper’ than it necessarily will for a Head of State, and I don’t think they should be spoken of as if they are one and the same. I don’t understand much about the Saudis, but I do think an individual and a head of state are different. Barack Obama strikes me as a non-violent type of guy, but in his capacity as President of the United State, I wouldn’t put it past him to order a war or death. So while you are speaking about MBS, you are speaking about his actions as a head of state, which I am saying can’t be looked at in the same way as a civilian.

And if it needs to be said, I agree that what happened to Kasoggi was abhorrent. But I do feel it enters into the world of ‘politics’, which doesn’t mean it cannot be opposed, but still requires a little differentiation to MBS being a man who stabbed someone he got into an argument with in a bar. Again, not an endorsement of him to take over, just feel that characterising a head of state by his actions in office is not necessarily an exact science, I feel.

 

[Rozay]

Arrogant to say we don't want to be owned by a murderous, violent, highly dangerous regime?

Can you actually explain why that's arrogant?

Whether you agree or disagree, don’t act like I didn’t explain what I meant. I didn’t just write ‘stop being arrogant’ and end my post.

 

[Skills]

There doesn’t need to be a single buyer. Glazers can slowly sell off their shares and we can have many shareholders - just like how a lot of companies operate.

Surely that's worse for the club? Fully publicly traded companies have to be accountable to only their shareholders - and shareholders only care about their return on investment. Who would the fans be protesting against then?

 

[A-man]

But what is that based on?

I don’t know but it says this (Greek to me):

“Team values are enterprise values (equity plus net debt) and include the economics of the team's stadium but exclude the value of the real estate. Operating income is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, player trading and disposal of player registrations. Debt is interest-bearing borrowings (including stadium debt).”

I made a mistake, United is valued to 4.2bn in US dollars.

Edit: the list https://www.forbes.com/soccer-valuations/list/

 

[OleGunnar20]

How much damage, especially long-term, would that do to the club, though?

Piss off the sponsors and who will then want to sponsor us in future?

Sure, that's a fair point. Whether it'd likely be worth it or not is a judgement call I suppose.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Isn't Jim Radcliffe a Manchester United fan?

 

[RUCK4444]

Someone like Bezos or Musk could afford us. But they'd be looking at the club as paid for advertising for their brands.

Does that count as taking money out of the club - if they slap the Amazon/Tesla brands everywhere for a discounted price?

Why on Earth would they pay £4bn to promote products that are already the premium, household name, brands in their respective sector?

Neither have shown remote interest so I don’t know why they are name dropped, other than the fact they are the 2 people on Earth that could afford us?

 

[berbasloth4]

this is romantic idea or dream. Why can a bunch of ex united players who are major multimillionaires all chip in and buy it. take a small percent of the profit each season. they are never going to find themselves on the breadline and they will actually care.

 

[Skills]

this is romantic idea or dream. Why can a bunch of ex united players who are major multimillionaires all chip in and buy it. take a small percent of the profit each season. they are never going to find themselves on the breadline and they will actually care.

Because they're nowhere near rich enough?

 

[RUCK4444]

Guys unless there are posters who have a working knowledge of the worlds wealthiest individuals and organisations isn't it kind of impossible to debate this?

Who here can really say they have enough knowledge on the matter to say there's nobody out there?

The point is there definitely are people who could afford us, however, to be the outstanding businessman they would need to be, they would almost certainly want a return on the £4bn outlay. Which puts us squarely in a worse off position than we are now.

 

[Gavinb33]

There isn't anyone it would have to be a PLC thing, however this would open up opportunity for takeovers again.

 

[Marwood]

Whether you agree or disagree, don’t act like I didn’t explain what I meant. I didn’t just write ‘stop being arrogant’ and end my post.

I'm not sure you did.

Something about it being arrogant to not want to be owned by a murder and dangerous regime because the UK goverment, who aren't buying us, aren't perfect.

Would it therefore be humble to be open to a murderous and dangerous regime buying us?

Genuinely I'm interested. Not wanting to be owned by very unpleasant people seems pretty virtuous to me. Yet you feel it's arrogant.

The point is there definitely are people who could afford us, however, to be the outstanding businessman they would need to be, they would almost certainly want a return on the £4bn outlay. Which puts us squarely in a worse off position than we are now.

Why do any of these rich guys buy foootball clubs because as I understand it very few make money from them on a year to year basis?

Our lot are one of the few totake dividends but so far it's averaged £6 million a year split between seven of them. I doubt that's a big deal to them or the reason they bought the club.

So if very few owners take an income year to year why are you sure the next owners would?

 

[032Devil]

To be fair I think they wiped out the opium fields...

The Americans were never interested in the opium fields.

 

[032Devil]

Arrogant to say we don't want to be owned by a murderous, violent, highly dangerous regime?

Can you actually explain why that's arrogant?

You mean the Americans?

 

[Marwood]

You mean the Americans?

Is the American government in the running to buy us? No, so why bring them up?

If this was a debate between which state is worse go for it.

But it's about who is buying Manchester United.

 

[RUCK4444]

Why do any of these rich guys buy foootball clubs because as I understand it very few make money from them on a year to year basis?

Our lot are one of the few totake dividends but so far it's averaged £6 million a year split between seven of them. I doubt that's a big deal to them or the reason they bought the club.

So if very few owners take an income year to year why are you sure the next owners would?

Becuase your no doubt referring to the owners of Chelsea, City, PSG, R Madrid and Barca?

Problem being only one of those is owned by a playboy billionaire (Chelsea) the rest are state backed who don’t seek a financial return.

Roman bought Chelsea for peanuts and just drops his pocket money on players every summer, very different to buying United for £4 BILLION and then spending on top of that.

Rich playboys who buy us will either cripple themselves or the club financially, the numbers are too big for the type of ownership your referring to.

 

[mu4c_20le]

You mean the Americans?

Since we're in subject of hypotheticals, how would you and @RUCK4444 feel about the Chinese government buying us? It certainly wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility, as there is already major chinese money in the league, and they are another regime who could benefit from sportswashing.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Masayoshi Son (net worth:45billion), one of Japan's richest men.
He is the founder and chief executive officer (CEO) of the Japanese holding company SoftBank and is part of the investment group financing David Beckham’s Major League Soccer (MLS) team, Inter Miami CF

 

[RUCK4444]

Since we're in subject of hypotheticals, how would you and @RUCK4444 feel about the Chinese government buying us? It certainly wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility, as there is already major chinese money in the league, and they are another regime who could benefit from sportswashing.

If it didn’t directly worsen the atrocities they commit then I’d accept.

It’s state backed or nothing.

Ironically your question highlights the fact that every country (regime as you put it) has huge ethical question marks not just Saudi.

I would feel worse if the American government bought us if that’s what you want to hear.

 

[Marwood]

Becuase your no doubt referring to the owners of Chelsea, City, PSG, R Madrid and Barca?

Problem being only one of those is owned by a playboy billionaire (Chelsea) the rest are state backed who don’t seek a financial return.

Roman bought Chelsea for peanuts and just drops his pocket money on players every summer, very different to buying United for £4 BILLION and then spending on top of that.

Rich playboys who buy us will either cripple themselves or the club financially, the numbers are too big for the type of ownership your referring to.

No I'm talking about in general very few owners take income out of their clubs. I think it was us and one other last season.

Football club owners aren't making money on a year to year basis. It's one of the myths about football finance.

You think the Glazers bought United for the dividends they take?

 

[Rozay]

I'm not sure you did.

Something about it being arrogant to not want to be owned by a murder and dangerous regime because the UK goverment, who aren't buying us, aren't perfect.

Would it therefore be humble to be open to a murderous and dangerous regime buying us?

Genuinely I'm interested. Not wanting to be owned by very unpleasant people seems pretty virtuous to me. Yet you feel it's arrogant.



Why do any of these rich guys buy foootball clubs because as I understand it very few make money from them on a year to year basis?

Our lot are one of the few totake dividends but so far it's averaged £10 million a year split between seven of them. I doubt that's a big deal to them or the reason they bought the club.

So if very few owners take an income year to year why are you sure the next owners would?

Okay, I’ll try again.

I don’t agree with classifying a ‘Head of State’ as a bloke. If anything, he should be classified as a country. And if we are classifying as a country, then the debate becomes political, and ethics become subjective based on what side of a particular story you are on. What we do know is that death and war happens, and all countries engage in it. That doesn’t mean we cannot have political views, but a political view and ‘MBS is a madman a psychopath and a murdering scumbag’ are different. America killed Osama Bin Laden without a trial. Barrack Obama isn’t a murderer as a result.

In short, is summarising the character of an individual by the actions carried out in the capacity of a head of state is a false equivalence. Beyond that, not agreeing with one countries war is the same on every side, and as old as time. We don’t agree with their war in Yemen, they don’t agree with ours in Iraq. I’m born and raised in Britain and still cannot compute that Britain sent troops to Argentina to fight Argentines for land in Argentina on the basis that it was apparently theirs, and not the Argentines. But I don’t charactarise Margaret Thatcher based on it. It’s a different topic, and one which can be disagreed with, but one I would personally separate from any individuals. Classifying Obama or MBS as ‘murderers’ would be simplistic, to me.

 

[RUCK4444]

No I'm talking about in general very few owners take income out of their clubs. I think it was us and one other last season.

Football club owners aren't making money on a year to year basis. It's one of the myths about football finance.

You think the Glazers bought United for the dividends they take?

The purchase price renders this argument invalid.

Who in their right mind buys something for £4bn and seeks no return on it?

Your thinking about smaller clubs that change hands more often than not when they are in dire straights and a local businessman who loves the club takes over for a minute fraction of the cost in comparison to this discussion. That’s not going to happen with one of the biggest sporting brands on planet Earth.

 

[mu4c_20le]

If it didn’t directly worsen the atrocities they commit then I’d accept.

It’s state backed or nothing.

Ironically your question highlights the fact that every country (regime as you put it) has huge ethical question marks not just Saudi.

I would feel worse if the American government bought us if that’s what you want to hear.

Agreed - I think the general consensus here is that being owned by a state is a bad idea, at least one large enough to actually afford us, as none of their hands are truly clean, plus the potential complications of politics. I was just curious where your boundaries are.

 

[owlo]

Football clubs at the top end are grossly overvalued. They were before the pandemic too. I'd expect a correction (if not a crash) sooner rather than later.

The purchase price renders this argument invalid.

Who in their right mind buys something for £4bn and seeks no return on it?

Your thinking about smaller clubs that change hands more often than not when they are in dire straights and a local businessman who loves the club takes over for a minute fraction of the cost in comparison to this discussion. That’s not going to happen with one of the biggest sporting brands on planet Earth.

Nobody. Which is why the price then drops. The value of our stock is not representative of the value of the club. You cant just say 10% is worth $400m, therefore 100% is worth $4bn.

 

[ManchesterYoda]

Manchester United owned by Elon Musk would be really cool actually and mutually beneficial too. The incentive for Musk would be global marketing through Manchester United and we would get technological and engineering benefits, not just financial.

 

[RUCK4444]

Nobody. Which is why the price then drops. The value of our stock is not representative of the value of the club. You cant just say 10% is worth $400m, therefore 100% is worth $4bn.

It’s a rule of thumb. The same way we can’t say we are worth £1billion because a few posters online said so.

 

[RUCK4444]

Agreed - I think the general consensus here is that being owned by a state is a bad idea, at least one large enough to actually afford us, as none of their hands are truly clean, plus the potential complications of politics. I was just curious where your boundaries are.

It’s done Chelsea, PSG, City, R Madrid, Barca the world of good.

Four of them are the final teams left in the current champions league and most will win their respective leagues.

Created champions out of horsesh*t sides like City and Chelsea and funded the Spanish into the most successful European sides in recent memory.

It’s ok for them but a big no no when United are in the mix it seems.

 

[owlo]

It’s a rule of thumb. The same way we can’t say we are worth £1billion because a few posters online said so.

It's not representative of football clubs which are majority privately owned though. The very small amount (around 12% not including smaller institutional investors) of available stock is oft purchased for emotional and whatever reasons because many people have a bond with the club. Baron and George Soros between them own almost 16% iirc. I'd imagine they are positioned nicely if there was any sort of implosion, but the price wouldn't be $4bn and it would be somewhat hostile as neither are great Glazer fans.

 

[RUCK4444]

It's not representative of football clubs which are majority privately owned though. The very small amount (around 12% not including smaller institutional investors) of available stock is oft purchased for emotional and whatever reasons because many people have a bond with the club. Baron and George Soros between them own almost 16% iirc. I'd imagine they are positioned nicely if there was any sort of implosion, but the price wouldn't be $4bn and it would be somewhat hostile as neither are great Glazer fans.

Agreed but we have to use a figure in the discussion, particularly when the discussion centres around posters who seem to think somebody like Bezos might swoop in and purchase the club outright.

 

[Marwood]

The purchase price renders this argument invalid.

Who in their right mind buys something for £4bn and seeks no return on it?

Your thinking about smaller clubs that change hands more often than not when they are in dire straights and a local businessman who loves the club takes over for a minute fraction of the cost in comparison to this discussion. That’s not going to happen with one of the biggest sporting brands on planet Earth.

When you say "no return" though you seem to be talking about a yearly income. My point is barely anybody who owns a club takes an immediate income.

FSG hasn't taken a penny out of Liverpool. Neither has Everton's owner. So why are you sure our next owners would suddenly want an immediate return on their investment?

They'll surely follow the trend of all other others, looking at it as a long term investment, building the value of the club before eventually selling way down the line for profit.

How are you so sure that isn't a feasible plan for the next owners? You're sure if we were bought tomorrow the club wouldn't be worth a lot more in 15 years time?

Comes back to my original point. I don't think any of us have the knowledge or capacity to talk about certainties on this one.

 

[032Devil]

Since we're in subject of hypotheticals, how would you and @RUCK4444 feel about the Chinese government buying us? It certainly wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility, as there is already major chinese money in the league, and they are another regime who could benefit from sportswashing.

You (probably) believe too much of western propoganda. Chinese are no better or worse than any other in the world except America who is singlurily the most dangerous country in the world bar none! It is not about who is the worst - they are all the "worst"!

All I'm interested in is owners who can afford to buy United, have a degree of passion for it origins, history and welfare.

 

[berbasloth4]

Because they're nowhere near rich enough?

beckham worth about 700m alone rio rooney class of 92 close to £100m each and thats just top of the head. add lock of rich united fans tyson fury mcgregor the Red knights easily possible anything not made any bank in world would cover. Man United can run very on revenue alone

 

[owlo]

When you say "no return" though you seem to be talking about a yearly income. My point is barely anybody who owns a club takes an immediate income.

FSG hasn't taken a penny out of Liverpool. Neither has Everton's owner. So why are you sure our next owners would suddenly want an immediate return on their investment?

They'll surely follow the trend of all other others, looking at it as a long term investment, building the value of the club before eventually selling way down the line for profit.

How are you so sure that isn't a feasible plan for the next owners? You're sure if we were bought tomorrow the club wouldn't be worth a lot more in 15 years time?

Comes back to my original point. I don't think any of us have the knowledge or capacity to talk about certainties on this one.

The glazers only have one of 2 motivations to sell:

a) They feel the value has peaked and it's time to get out (either commercially or due to threat of legislation which might divest them etc)
b) They have serious enough cashflow problems.

Focusing on a) (as b is unlikely for now), my question to you would be this: If the glazers feel value has peaked, why would any other investor have a vastly different analysis and pick it up?

Especially in the current situation if it's a political football etc.

You'd more likely get somebody who invested for non financial reasons, like sportswashing.

Agreed but we have to use a figure in the discussion, particularly when the discussion centres around posters who seem to think somebody like Bezos might swoop in and purchase the club outright.

I personally feel a figure is less important than asking people "why" somebody would want to purchase if the Glazers wanted to sell.

 

[sullydnl]

Really the who is less important than the why. Whoever would buy us, why would they be doing it?

Will it be some blood-soaked state seeking to whitewash their reputation? Will it be Glazer-like parasites looking to take their turn at eating the club from the inside out? Is there a better standard of money-hungry capitalist out there who might be more palatable than the Glazers? Or is there any different profile of buyer less obnoxious than those options?

I really don't know. It seems like anyone with the money to buy us must be in some way horrible. Which says something about hyper-capitalism really.

 

[kirk buttercup]

Wonder if Beckham could

beckham worth about 700m alone rio rooney class of 92 close to £100m each and thats just top of the head. add lock of rich united fans tyson fury mcgregor the Red knights easily possible anything not made any bank in world would cover. Man United can run very on revenue alone

Conor McGregor ? Serioulsly? Im all for Someone like Beckham Leading a consortium of Investors. But while McGregor has made Truck loads of money Especially with his whiskey not sure I would want him as an owner of Manchester United .

 

[Sir Matt]

Its not the Saudis as a nation, but more specifically Mohammad Bin Salman who's been linked with us, and the main source of concern. The man is a psychopathic, murdering scumbag who not only hacks dissenting journalists to death, but has started a war in Yemen that has led to hundreds of thousands dying and millions put at risk of starvation.

Would you be happy being owned by Kim Jong-Un?

It's really wild seeing all of the people stanning for MBS and the Saudis ruling family. Some of them I understand because they are Saudi and want to stay out of prison and torture chambers (including one who tried to tell me that MBS was good and just), but the others I don't.

 

[Pscholes18]

Isn't Jim Radcliffe a Manchester United fan?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ma...ted-jim-ratcliffe-glazers-17305733.amp?espv=1

 

[RUCK4444]

When you say "no return" though you seem to be talking about a yearly income. My point is barely anybody who owns a club takes an immediate income.

FSG hasn't taken a penny out of Liverpool. Neither has Everton's owner. So why are you sure our next owners would suddenly want an immediate return on their investment?

They'll surely follow the trend of all other others, looking at it as a long term investment, building the value of the club before eventually selling way down the line for profit.

How are you so sure that isn't a feasible plan for the next owners? You're sure if we were bought tomorrow the club wouldn't be worth a lot more in 15 years time?

Comes back to my original point. I don't think any of us have the knowledge or capacity to talk about certainties on this one.

We can’t talk in certainties but the crux of my point here is the purchase price renders this a totally different prospect.

I feel fairly certain that no single businessman will pay the mooted purchase price and then sit on that for years to come in the hope it will increase vastly considering football is a massively unstable footing to base such a massive investment on.

The vast growth in value has been seen in the time that the Glazers have been here. It would take many years of sustained success to sizeably increase our value from what we are looking at currently.

Teams like Everton, West Ham fit your ownership model far more imo. Buy low (but affordably) invest in the club and sell high years later.
That ship has sailed at United.

Read the article about why Jim Ratcliffe hasn’t approached Glazers to buy us and why instead he’s gone for an infinitely smaller purchase of Nice back in 2019.

 

[sglowrider]

Because they're nowhere near rich enough?

I am guessing that maths isn't his strongest suit!!

 

[RUCK4444]

I personally feel a figure is less important than asking people "why" somebody would want to purchase if the Glazers wanted to sell.

How can it be less important when it’s surely a massive component of who can buy us and also what their intentions would then be.

If we know value of x then we have a fair idea of who can afford x.