Realistic buyers...

tjb

Full Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
1,961
The potential problem with that is you run the risk of competing interests causing havoc in the club's operational and strategic direction.

The problem with United is that our market valuation is not justified by the revenues we make, our revenue is approximately 20% of our market capitalization so what is the motive for a businessman to buy us at such an astronomical fee, pay off or live with the debt and then have to contend with making a profit of circa £100m whilst having to constantly spend hundreds of millions per year on transfer fees and wages just to keep up?

The only way United get sold is to the type of owner the fans would abhor, a middle Eastern, Russian or Chinese billionaire just in it for the prestige. The fans are too fragmented to ever organize themselves into a force that can takeover and run the club.
The value of it is having a bit of ownership of United. At the end of the day, we have a lot of fans. Look at the NBA owners, they don't gain anything from ownership. Most owners of sports teams don't seek to make profit off the team, either their there as fans/collectors or they want to sell the club at a higher valuation. Most owners of franchises or sports don't get and don't even want to get immediate returns. The Glazers have muddied the idea of ownership for our fan base. In United's case, we are very expensive, not everyone can afford to buy the full pot. However, we are a PLC and those shares are able to be made available to the public. Having a board vote on things would limit the ability if one entity to potentially hurt the club. I see this like Madrid or Barca's presidency, where the CEO is judged on performance on and off the field. We won't have another Woodward if our board had more power.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,010
Yes but the difference is, investors are unlikely to scrutinise every item of spending the way the Glazers do.

Its possible, of course, that a new board would employ a CEO and tell them that their remit is to squeeze every ounce of profit out of the club. Scrap the women's team, cut back on the academy or bin it etc. Things the Glazers have done.

However, most investors don't tend to behave like this. Usually they bring in a CEO they think is competent and will deliver returns for the shareholders. Those shareholders generally don't get antsy unless the annual report is extremely disappointing. Most investors will not intervene if a CEO has plans to invest in our stadium unless they think that will significantly hit our bottom line -- which it wont unless the CEO is proposing a Tottenham Hotspur style stadium rebuild, rather than to fix the roof, attend to the structure and put some decent internet in the ground etc.

We could bin the Glazers' management fees, loans and reduce the size of the United dividend and still make a lot of investors quite happy with their returns. Again, most investors who would put money into Man Utd will have huge portfolios. United will just be one of many eggs, so they won't necessarily want to take out of the club what the Glazers do every year. Pretty much all the Glazers' eggs are in the United basket, so they need to keep extracting wealth from the club at a high (IMO excessive) rate.

A good Board, with a proper CEO who runs the company sensibly and in a way that builds the brand, would be much better than what we've got. As well as significantly better than the other options.
We’re talking about 4bn worth of investment here. How many people are queuing up to invest that money to make a few million every year? Investors will look at the trouble that occurs when fans aren’t happy and decide their money is safer and more profitable elsewhere.
 

tjb

Full Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
1,961
Yes but the difference is, investors are unlikely to scrutinise every item of spending the way the Glazers do.

Its possible, of course, that a new board would employ a CEO and tell them that their remit is to squeeze every ounce of profit out of the club. Scrap the women's team, cut back on the academy or bin it etc. Things the Glazers have done.

However, most investors don't tend to behave like this. Usually they bring in a CEO they think is competent and will deliver returns for the shareholders. Those shareholders generally don't get antsy unless the annual report is extremely disappointing. Most investors will not intervene if a CEO has plans to invest in our stadium unless they think that will significantly hit our bottom line -- which it wont unless the CEO is proposing a Tottenham Hotspur style stadium rebuild, rather than to fix the roof, attend to the structure and put some decent internet in the ground etc.

We could bin the Glazers' management fees, loans and reduce the size of the United dividend and still make a lot of investors quite happy with their returns. Again, most investors who would put money into Man Utd will have huge portfolios. United will just be one of many eggs, so they won't necessarily want to take out of the club what the Glazers do every year. Pretty much all the Glazers' eggs are in the United basket, so they need to keep extracting wealth from the club at a high (IMO excessive) rate.

A good Board, with a proper CEO who runs the company sensibly and in a way that builds the brand, would be much better than what we've got. As well as significantly better than the other options.
Plus It also gives us an opportunity to put rules in place that prevent a Glazer style ownership model. For example, the medium in which shares are bought to prevent being saddled with debt. We could even put in place an ownership model that limits how much shares can be controlled. Look at Bayern, there are multiple brands like Addidas than own significant shares at Bayern, they trust the leadership structure ( who are not major shareholders) to ensure the club is well run on and off the field. People forget how attractive United are and how many fans we genuinely have. Owning us would not be for business to a lot of people, for the extremely rich it would be having the ability to have a say in how the club is run, for others it would be a collection piece. 4 plus billion to one person is a lot to sell, but in tint pieces to different entities, that's more achievable.
 

#07

makes new threads with tweets in the OP
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
19,100
We’re talking about 4bn worth of investment here. How many people are queuing up to invest that money to make a few million every year? Investors will look at the trouble that occurs when fans aren’t happy and decide their money is safer and more profitable elsewhere.
Putting aside that I dispute that value, it'd only be £4 billion for one person or entity.

The shareholders won't be putting in £4 billion each (if that's the price). They will be buying up shares in a company that's supposedly worth £4 billion.

Depending on how the float goes you might end up with one or two people owning 10%, some may even own 20%. Magnier and McManus owned a combined 28.89% of Man Utd when they agreed to sell their shares to the Glazers.

Its unlikely that any one shareholder would come out of the float owning £1 billion worth of Man Utd shares, unless they really, REALLY wanted to make a play at getting a controlling stake and were willing to go in at a price I'd consider unwise.

Instead you would get lots of different shareholders probably grabbing a couple of per cent each to add a successful sports franchise to their portfolios. Yes, at a cost that would seem expensive to most normal people but certainly nowhere near £4 billion.

Plus It also gives us an opportunity to put rules in place that prevent a Glazer style ownership model. For example, the medium in which shares are bought to prevent being saddled with debt. We could even put in place an ownership model that limits how much shares can be controlled. Look at Bayern, there are multiple brands like Addidas than own significant shares at Bayern, they trust the leadership structure ( who are not major shareholders) to ensure the club is well run on and off the field. People forget how attractive United are and how many fans we genuinely have. Owning us would not be for business to a lot of people, for the extremely rich it would be having the ability to have a say in how the club is run, for others it would be a collection piece. 4 plus billion to one person is a lot to sell, but in tint pieces to different entities, that's more achievable.
Exactly.
 

Hernandez - BFA

The Way to Fly
Joined
Jan 5, 2011
Messages
15,628
I’m not fully clued up on potential buyers - but I know we’d struggle to tease in a buyer if our valuation is around the £4billion mark. That also needs to factor in the type of buyers that we’d even want in the first place - but I highly doubt the Glazers would care if it meant they get their 4billion.

I really can’t see them leaving for another couple of years at least.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,010
Putting aside that I dispute that value, it'd only be £4 billion for one person or entity.

The shareholders won't be putting in £4 billion each (if that's the price). They will be buying up shares in a company that's supposedly worth £4 billion.

Depending on how the float goes you might end up with one or two people owning 10%, some may even own 20%. Magnier and McManus owned a combined 28.89% of Man Utd when they agreed to sell their shares to the Glazers.

Its unlikely that any one shareholder would come out of the float owning £1 billion worth of Man Utd shares, unless they really, REALLY wanted to make a play at getting a controlling stake and were willing to go in at a price I'd consider unwise.

Instead you would get lots of different shareholders probably grabbing a couple of per cent each to add a successful sports franchise to their portfolios. Yes, at a cost that would seem expensive to most normal people but certainly nowhere near £4 billion.



Exactly.
Yes, but a smaller percentage of shares owned is just a smaller percentage of that few million profit. There are numerous more profitable, less hassle investments for people to make. Football is a volatile market that has reached the tip of an iceberg. At their current valuation it’s surely not a good investment.
 

Matthew84!

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
403
I think more than 1 person needs to buy Utd otherwise it could be exactly the same.
If 1 person buys 50 % that's 2 billion,
Could put 10% for fans to try buy,
Then get other investors for the other 40%
That's just a rough way, would be nice if fans could buy more but unrealistic unless a few millionaires about
 

George the Cat

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
117
So they ‘only’ get De Gea’s salary a mere pittance apparently, so they won’t have any qualms about selling then will they?
 

thepolice123

Full Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
11,620
To even consider that is what's 'bizarre'. No one was saying that and you just took it and ran.

In the HYPOTHETICAL situation where droves of credible finance people came out and stated their opinion that around twenty-four months of a full boycott would force the Glazers to lower their asking price by around 25% and thirty-six months would cause them to lower it by 40%, I think the protesters would have an easier time convincing fence-sitters to join in.

The purpose of this 'exercise' and the others was stated earlier; to give protesters at least a rough idea of how much financial impact they could conceivably have. A useful thing to know in concert with any other efforts to put pressure on the Glazers. Would any such movement 'fizzle out'? Maybe. Could it also take firm root? Sure.
Look, all I'm saying is we are not a business that loses 130m a year because boycotting of matchday isn't permanent and therefore would be hard to use as a reason for a reduced valuation. That's all I'm saying, jesus christ.

I can understand the thinking that the protests will cause enough annoyance on the Glazers' side that they will go "feck it, 2.5bn is good enough. I'd take it can leave."

But look at it this way: They have a club that has consistently underperformed on the pitch for nearly a decade but still did tremendously well on the commercial side. Now the club is finally performing on the pitch with a bunch of players yet to reach their peak. The club could easily be worth more than 4bn in the future. Would you give up that chance?
 

hungrywing

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
9,069
Location
Your Left Ventricle
Look, all I'm saying is we are not a business that loses 130m a year because boycotting of matchday isn't permanent and therefore would be hard to use as a reason for a reduced valuation. That's all I'm saying, jesus christ.

I can understand the thinking that the protests will cause enough annoyance on the Glazers' side that they will go "feck it, 2.5bn is good enough. I'd take it can leave."

But look at it this way: They have a club that has consistently underperformed on the pitch for nearly a decade but still did tremendously well on the commercial side. Now the club is finally performing on the pitch with a bunch of players yet to reach their peak. The club could easily be worth more than 4bn in the future. Would you give up that chance?
If that's all you're saying, then fine. Obviously no boycott of matchday attendance is 'permanent' and it's kind of weird you're still mentioning it.

Again, for anyone else, projected financial impact of the protests will be useful information for the organizing groups/entities to have, if they don't have it already.
 

#07

makes new threads with tweets in the OP
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
19,100
Look, all I'm saying is we are not a business that loses 130m a year because boycotting of matchday isn't permanent and therefore would be hard to use as a reason for a reduced valuation. That's all I'm saying, jesus christ.

I can understand the thinking that the protests will cause enough annoyance on the Glazers' side that they will go "feck it, 2.5bn is good enough. I'd take it can leave."

But look at it this way: They have a club that has consistently underperformed on the pitch for nearly a decade but still did tremendously well on the commercial side. Now the club is finally performing on the pitch with a bunch of players yet to reach their peak. The club could easily be worth more than 4bn in the future. Would you give up that chance?
As our latest financial statement subtly implied, this valuation is contingent on securing greater broadcast rights. That's what's really behind project Big Picture and the Super League. The Glazers believe that, at some stage, they will be able to control more of United's broadcast rights and squeeze more out of the global customer base.

First they tried to undermine the Premier League's collective rights structure through project Big Picture. That failed. So they then pushed for the Super League project. That has failed too. Potentially with dire consequences for their long term plan, especially if the Government ends up legislating around what is considered as sanctioned match e.g. has to be authorised by English footballing authorities. That would kill the super league permanently and also the possibility of United selling its own rights on direct to stream or some other platform, as the other Premier League clubs would likely never agree to this.

So that begs the question: where is the additional value the Glazers hope to extract going to come from?

Man Utd is a fine investment if you're long term goal is to take home a guaranteed £1 million a year. However, look at what we're paying the Glazers in management fees, loans, dividends. That's not what they're after.

With the Government's fan led review there's an increasing regulatory risk that their route to direct to customer content may be cut off, potentially permanently. Furthermore, the next Premier League rights deal is likely going to be smaller than the current one. Where is the road to this supposed £4 billion valuation?

If I was advising the Glazers I'd tell them to sell their shares ASAP before potential investors get spooked by the possibility of Government intervention and political risk. There is no way that Man Utd can become a £4 billion business if that route lies through trying to break up the Premier League's collective bargaining over rights for sanctioned games. By going for the super league United and the other big six clubs have unleashed a regulatory can of worms that makes that possibility remote, at best.
 

Brophs

The one and only
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
44,445
OK not a fan of a state backed team. then you must be against PSG & MCFC? correct? They're a big problem. can you plan ahead and tell me the strategic approach you'd be adobting to take them over?
No, not really. I don’t think states, particularly ones with motives that are, in my opinion, questionable, should be buying football clubs. But my answer was in the context of whether I’d like us to be subject to a Saudi takeover, with all of the connotations that would go with that.

I don’t have a plan, nor did I suggest I did. Other than to accept that even if we do everything well it’s entirely likely that we won’t be able to compete with state-backed ownership models that aren’t especially concerned with making money.

Personally, I’d love to see the Glazers leave the club but I also know that that road is fraught with danger, too. I’m not so naive as to think that many people smart enough to become multi-billionaires would want to spend billions of pounds buying businesses that make, at best, relatively modest profits. Moreover, as was mentioned on some podcast or other this week, for all the noise, how many takeovers at that sort of level have happened? Ever? Football’s dirty little secret is that it makes almost no sense for anyone other than state-backed schemes to do that in the current climate, with no guarantee of anything other that getting involved in an oligarch/oil money mini league at the top of the PL.

Clubs that are much cheaper but with lots of potential upside make more sense in if you can stomach a 10-15 year project. Look at Everton. They’ve spent a shedload, are building a new ground and have an ostensibly world class manager and are still in a battle for a EL spot. That’s what it can cost you to be 8th in this league.
 

Eugenius

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
3,620
Location
Behind You
I'm curious about the perception of debt being an issue still.

The way the Glazers bought the club is exactly the same as buying a buy to let property for example with a mortgage.
 

tenpoless

Full Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
6,607
Location
*Teleports behind you*
Jeff Bezos
Zuckerberg
Jack Ma
Elon Musk

Actually no, they have the money but dont give a shit about football.

So all the protests and only the Saudi can buy the club.... awkward
 

KungPaoChicken

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
43
What a lot of people does not seem to grasp or does not want to grasp is that buying manchester united makes little to no economical sense from a strictly business point of view. The numbers mentioned in the media is around 5.5 billion USD. For that amount you can buy two MLB teams, two NHL teams and 1 NBA team. These are franchises that have massive tv deals, salary caps and lots of merch sales. If i have 5.5 billion USD just lying around i know what i would purchase.

Rich people tend to become rich by spending their money wisely not by throwing them away at bad investments.
 

Hester_manc

Full Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
597
Location
Denmark
I see two realistic buyers, if Glazers should sell the club (but that will not happen):

1) Jim Ratcliffe
2) Mohamed Bin Salman.
 

Banana Republic

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
284
Forget the estimated net wealth figures for the super-rich multi-billionaires.
They almost all to a man, or woman, don't have that in available cash.
Their net worth is the total value of their investments and the assets in the companies they own, not the amount of money they've got in the piggy-bank.
It's all theoretical money; what they're worth, not what they've got.
The average multi-billionaire is said to only have around 1% of that value in liquidity (actual cash available).

Even at the top of the tree, Jeff Bezos is known to only draw around $84k per year in salary. Not exactly a fortune.
He's estimated to have a total net worth of between $195 & $200 billion, but in all likelihood will only have access to a couple of $ billion that he can spend.
He wouldn't squirt his entire available personal dosh on buying anything that costly.

Image what other multi-billionaires, with smaller, but still mind-blowing fortunes, have available?
They simply couldn't afford to be spending $3 or $4 billion on a football club, unless they sell off assets, or borrow the money to do so.
Even if they wanted to buy Utd, they would almost certainly raise the funds through finance (loans) even if they had the readies in their hand.

To buy the club, you're looking at a wealthy individual, or more likely a consortium, who would have to borrow the money needed (even more debt).
Either that, or a ME state backed entity.
That's if the Glazers want to sell in the first place.

Then there has to be a business plan.
How do you service the finance costs, as well as running the business and how do you intend to grow the business to maintain its success?
If the TV revenues and sponsorships are only growing incrementally at a modest rate, that doesn't give you much room to manoeuvre.
With the ESL gone (for now, thank goodness), where is that prospect of growth coming from?
What chance of getting a decent return for your investment if the profits have to be spent elsewhere, just to keep rolling forward?
Any takers?
 
Last edited:

trevor newnham

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 1, 2015
Messages
399
Location
Kent
Supports
Vigo RFC, Charlton
The Premier League is to bring in a new owners' charter to stop future attempts to join a breakaway Super League.

It follows Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester City and Tottenham agreeing to join the failed European Super League last month.
All owners will have to sign up to the new rule "committing them to the core principles" of the league with breaches punished by "significant" sanctions.
 

reddevilchennai

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2019
Messages
447
Billionaires such as Ambani's also have blood on their hands. Him and his like are working with the Modi to pass farming bills to take away the farmers lands for pittance. Farmers are committing suicides and police are killing protestors. They too have blood on their hands.
I would prefer MBS to the Ambani. At least MBS takes care of his people and he indulges in other countries affairs (Yemen war) whereas the greedy Ambani hurts the people of his own country to make himself richer.
 

Coops73

Full Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
2,328
The Premier League is to bring in a new owners' charter to stop future attempts to join a breakaway Super League.

It follows Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester City and Tottenham agreeing to join the failed European Super League last month.
All owners will have to sign up to the new rule "committing them to the core principles" of the league with breaches punished by "significant" sanctions.
Hopefully this the start and hopefully the Glazers start to think feck it, this ain’t worth it. But who knows.
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
5,685
Any new potential owners of Manchester United have the best footing. The fact the club can run & pay for itself (with the right people in charge), is such an attractive proposition.
 

Red_toad

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
8,876
Location
DownUnder
Any new potential owners of Manchester United have the best footing. The fact the club can run & pay for itself (with the right people in charge), is such an attractive proposition.
I wonder what the repayments are on a 4 billion loan? I’d doubt the club would be easily paying that and all other running costs.
 

Nytram Shakes

Full Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
4,254
Location
Normally dark rooms
Any new potential owners of Manchester United have the best footing. The fact the club can run & pay for itself (with the right people in charge), is such an attractive proposition.
I don’t agree with this.

Potential owners would have to fork out around 4 billion (the largest some ever paid for a sports franchise) in order to buy somthing that will “pay for it self”.

fans also won’t accept the owner make huge profits from, in fact most fans generally demand owners put money into the club rather than take it out.

I don’t think that is an attractive proposition for investors
 

Bird Nerd

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
82
The reason these guys buy clubs is either to line their pockets or ego. There are no cares about the fans generally other than how can they get us to spend money on trinkets from the club. They don't usually look to take a much out of the club BUT the valuation will need to go up on their investment. That is what they would want and if they spend $4bn I don't see a lot of upwards valuation in the near future. When these trolls bought the club back then I thought 'I sure hope they don't run it like they do the Buccaneers'. Unfortunately, they do and that is why they wanted the Super League; so they had zero risk of getting relegated and could just take money from the club and not invest in much back in. I wish I lived in FL I would protest at their home.
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
5,685
I wonder what the repayments are on a 4 billion loan? I’d doubt the club would be easily paying that and all other running costs.
This is why the club won't be purchased by an owner who wants to earn profits from the club.

Sovereign state (or of similar ilk) or fan ownership, with no returns are the only viable options.

Without proper solutions, suppose there's very little point of asking the Glazers to leave.

Do the likes of Gary Neville know there are potential owners who want to buy the club and hence the constant chat of them selling? I don't know.
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
5,685
I don’t agree with this.

Potential owners would have to fork out around 4 billion (the largest some ever paid for a sports franchise) in order to buy somthing that will “pay for it self”.

fans also won’t accept the owner make huge profits from, in fact most fans generally demand owners put money into the club rather than take it out.

I don’t think that is an attractive proposition for investors
This is why "investors" are viable options.
 

RoyH1

Full Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
3,332
Location
DKNY
Then a question should be asked for reforms against states owning clubs. Al Thani & Al Nhyian will not be tilted unless you have Saudi's. Real Madrid was Franco's domination show in the dark ages of Europe. Barca were squished in that period and a certain di Stefano was stolen from them. it took them 70 years to rectify that and they weren't in the mess that we have ourselves now.

You can't play catch up with these boys under the glazers.

It's now or never.
Ridiculous post.
 

Bekkalokk

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
10
Location
Norway, Bergen
Thinking about Manchester United Football Club having paid 1.5billion dollars in interests on Glazers "investment", without having made any substantial downpayments on the loan/debt itself. The way they have been able to loan their way from rich to richer is completely absurd.

That being said, someone would either have to be a United-fan, Saudi-Arabia or really naive to forge out 4 billion on a club without demaning considerable revenue in the short-term and that is a prospect which in itself is scary.
 

Foxbatt

Full Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
9,740
I would prefer MBS to the Ambani. At least MBS takes care of his people and he indulges in other countries affairs (Yemen war) whereas the greedy Ambani hurts the people of his own country to make himself richer.
The Saudis simply have bad PR. MBS was new to the scene and made many mistakes. UAE was much wiser and had much better PR. It was on their encouragement that the Saudis got involved in Yemen. Their reasons are very different and Al Nahuyan took MBS under his wing.
The country is a lot more complicated than people who just read the news only could understand.
They can't ease religious extremism without the Iranians agitating about it. It's a catch 22 situation there. That doesn't make it any better about freedom in Saudi. Do they have the capacity to buy United? Absolutely. Would they run it well if they buy it? Yes. Would they buy it? I don't think so.
 

KungPaoChicken

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
43
This is why the club won't be purchased by an owner who wants to earn profits from the club.

Sovereign state (or of similar ilk) or fan ownership, with no returns are the only viable options.

Without proper solutions, suppose there's very little point of asking the Glazers to leave.

Do the likes of Gary Neville know there are potential owners who want to buy the club and hence the constant chat of them selling? I don't know.
And that why the bezos, Zuckerbergs, musks, gates, Ma's and other super wealthy people are not interested. There are so many different avenues that with almost 100% certainty will generate more profits for them than united will. So the risk vs reward is not worth it.

I dont really see United going fan owned. Sure there are plenty of fan owned clubs out there, but the clubs were either formed as fan owned clubs or the restructuring were done when the club was peanuts compared to Uniteds current valuation. Do we have any any examples of bigger clubs(any sport will do) going from privately owned to fan owned?
 

sglowrider

Against Oral Equality
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
14,132
Location
Hell on Earth
Forget the estimated net wealth figures for the super-rich must-billionaires.
They almost all to a man, or woman, don't have that in available cash.
Their net worth is the total value of their investments and the assets in the companies they own, not the amount of money they've got in the piggy-bank.
It's all theoretical money; what they're worth, not what they've got.
The average multi-billionaire is said to only have around 1% of that value in liquidity (actual cash available).

Even at the top of the tree, Jeff Bezos is known to only draw around $84k per year in salary. Not exactly a fortune.
He's estimated to have a total net worth of between $195 & $200 billion, but in all likelihood will only have access to a couple of $ billion that he can spend.
He wouldn't squirt his entire available personal dosh on buying anything that costly.

Image what other multi-billionaires, with smaller, but still mind-blowing fortunes, have available?
They simply couldn't afford to be spending $3 or $4 billion on a football club, unless they sell off assets, or borrow the money to do so.
Even if they wanted to buy Utd, they would almost certainly raise the funds through finance (loans) even if they had the readies in their hand.

To buy the club, you're looking at a wealthy individual, or more likely a consortium, who would have to borrow the money needed (even more debt).
Either that, or a ME state backed entity.
That's if the Glazers want to sell in the first place.

Then there has to be a business plan.
How do you service the finance costs, as well as running the business and how do you intend to grow the business to maintain its success?
If the TV revenues and sponsorships are only growing incrementally at a modest rate, that doesn't give you much room to manoeuvre.
With the ESL gone (for now, thank goodness), where is that prospect of growth coming from?
What chance of getting a decent return for your investment if the profits have to be spent elsewhere, just to keep rolling forward?
Any takers?
Bill & Melinda Gates just announced their divorce. Surely one of them needs a mid-life crisis, post-divorce toy to play with?
 

sglowrider

Against Oral Equality
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
14,132
Location
Hell on Earth
This is why the club won't be purchased by an owner who wants to earn profits from the club.

Sovereign state (or of similar ilk) or fan ownership, with no returns are the only viable options.

Without proper solutions, suppose there's very little point of asking the Glazers to leave.

Do the likes of Gary Neville know there are potential owners who want to buy the club and hence the constant chat of them selling? I don't know.
This.

Other than venting their frustrations at the Glazers, there isn't any real solutions out there -- financially, politically or otherwise. The protests will go nowhere with the Glazers and are just going to build up more frustrations and feelings of impotency amongst the fans.

Gary's being a populist. The fact that he's working for the very company that started this slippery slope of commercialisation going is just pure hypocrisy. People at BT have a lot to lose too with new players like Amazon, Netflix, Google and their technologies to stream directly to the consumers will be the next phase.
ESL is no different but just an evolutionary stage of what happened back in 1992 -- just at a bigger scale. It also takes into account emerging technologies and business models. The next phase of bypassing the middleman ie broadcasters is the most natural step of this evolution. No different to Deliveroo, Uber etc

I think the Glazers will stay simply because the gold mine will be United selling their television rights individually. With 500million fans globally, that's a lot of untapped revenues. The ESL was just a transitory phase in that untapped potential.

The Glazers are here to stay unless someone can offer them something that they cant refuse. Or their current businesses are in dire straits and they need the cash -- this I see is probably their biggest weakness. The changing e-commerce scene, with Covid accelerating that change, will make their mall properties even deeper shit.
Covid maybe their biggest enemy.
 
Last edited:

city-puma

Full Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
882
Location
NYC
By market close price today, Man Utd has the market cap at 2.847B. It needs the share price rise to $25 to have 4B market cap.
I am thinking the possibility to transfer the ownership to fans through some institutions. We can set the limit of the max number of shares every fan can own. The voting power is same for each share holder. The share can be transferred. There could be dividends every year in case we have too much cashes left.
lets say 4B is the initial offering target. The max purchase amount is $40000 and the min is $400 per fan. Thus, we need 100k - 10m fans to commit the purchase with at least $400 put down. After the initial offering, the shares can be traded and transferred through the institution based on ask/bid. The max limit of the total number of shares per fan still holds.
how does it sound?
 
Last edited:

Adnan

Talent Spotter
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
21,908
Location
United Kingdom, England
Do we know where these shares went/were bought by?
I haven't seen any report giving indication as to who could've bought them. Maybe the Malaysian prince bought the shares after him making a public declaration of his interest in purchasing them. It reminds me a little of the speculation in 2003, when Malcolm Glazer along with Dutch media tycoon, John de Mol were upping their stake in the club and John de Mol's name only came into public view after he passed a certain threshold, which meant the PLC had to make his identity known.
 

sglowrider

Against Oral Equality
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
14,132
Location
Hell on Earth
I haven't seen any report giving indication as to who could've bought them. Maybe the Malaysian prince bought the shares after him making a public declaration of his interest in purchasing them. It reminds me a little of the speculation in 2003, when Malcolm Glazer along with Dutch media tycoon, John de Mol were upping their stake in the club and John de Mol's name only came into public view after he passed a certain threshold, which meant the PLC had to make his identity known.
He can always sell this plot of land in Singapore as a down payment for United.

The Real Crazy Rich Asian Palace Is Worth a Cool $3.5 Billion


Gangsta life in the hood.
 

Adnan

Talent Spotter
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
21,908
Location
United Kingdom, England