- Sep 6, 2013
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.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.