People need to read up on Ratcliffe and how he is running Nice before they drop his name all the time
Realistic buyers...
- Thread starter Rozay
- Start date
Anyone. Truly you can't get worse owners than the Glazers.
I don’t see why people are saying whoever buys the club, would be like the glazers, true they might take money out of the club like the glazers do, but they could also run the club a lot better than the glazers. In my opinion, the glazers family have done terribly. They could’ve done a lot better, even with them taking money out of the club.
There's been plenty worse and there can be again.
Worse morally sure. Worse at actually running a club. Nope they are right up there. Read the Swiss ramble.
They are as bad as Hicks and Gilette only difference was because we where the biggest club we where too big to fail.
Liverpool couldnt deal with 300mil of debt as the situation they where in.
If the roles where resversed and Hicks and Gilette bought us and the Glazers them if would have ended up the same way..
We'd be stuck with Hicks and Gilette and the Glazers would have been forced out by the courts as that debt was unsustainable with their revenue streams.
They got very lucky the courts intervened. We got very unlucky that we where simply too big.
Bunch of checkers players. We are anger (and feeling impotent) so we protest. That will show them.
Sold off in chunks or listed on the stock exchange again, no one will pay what Glazers will want. Saudi’s aren’t interested and wouldn’t be allowed to buy club anyway.
With our valuation, I just don't see any "fan of the club" buying us.
Its a $4B investment we're talking about. The returns are minimal and the only time the owner gets money is if he sells the club. Now are we really expecting the club's valuation to go up to say 10B in another 10 years or something? Because only then would such an investment makes sense to the buyer.
Because of this, I feel, if we do somehow sell the club, it'd be to either a middle east king who cares about sportswashing or another Glazer family
Its a $4B investment we're talking about. The returns are minimal and the only time the owner gets money is if he sells the club. Now are we really expecting the club's valuation to go up to say 10B in another 10 years or something? Because only then would such an investment makes sense to the buyer.
Because of this, I feel, if we do somehow sell the club, it'd be to either a middle east king who cares about sportswashing or another Glazer family
How much is Usain Bolt is worth ?
I did not say, I wish that Ratcliffe will buy us, but that it would be realistic. Don`t you see it as a realistic buyer?
Nope, read @MU655's posts. Portsmouth/Leeds/Blackburn and more have all had far worse owners than we currently have.
"Why do you want to get rid of the Glazers when anyone who can afford to buy us will be just as bad?"
Same people 5 minutes later in a different thread:
"Why do you want to do anything that might lessen the value of the club?"
It's blindingly obvious that to a portion of our fans, being a valuable football club is more important than being a football club.
Same people 5 minutes later in a different thread:
"Why do you want to do anything that might lessen the value of the club?"
It's blindingly obvious that to a portion of our fans, being a valuable football club is more important than being a football club.
No, it;s "blindingly obvious" that posters who are Glazers out at any cost haven't thought this through at any point. Nice try at putting anyone reasonable down, though.
Is he a realistic option??
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Literal scum these lot. At least has the stones to lie through your teeth and pretend you care.
John Henry for instance would.
Anyone who defends the Glazers are a massive problem. They are fecking disgraceful.
That's twice in a week? Avram sure looks easy to get to. I would have thought billionaires would be quite difficult to run up on, clearly not...
There time is up mate. Rather the unknown that stomach another second of them.
The family isn't short of a bob or two.
We need to starve them of enough money to fall short of repayments of the club debts and their other personal and business debts. Reduce their profits and make them hurt financially.
Keep the media pressure on them and they will be forced to sell. Maybe through government legislation and financial scrutiny in Parliament will be enough pain.
They also need targeting in ways that i am not allowed to say on a public forum. We need a tripartite attack on these ugly tramps.
Keep the media pressure on them and they will be forced to sell. Maybe through government legislation and financial scrutiny in Parliament will be enough pain.
They also need targeting in ways that i am not allowed to say on a public forum. We need a tripartite attack on these ugly tramps.
They will cut costs and sell players (like a Bruno, Rashford or Greenwood) before any of what you have suggested would happen.
Every system has their own evil. In the hands of good owners (begrudgingly i consider roman as one) clubs can thrive. Or crumble and soulless like Madrid, becoming a plaything every election.
It's about finding the good leader.
We are well hampered as plc. Spending being scrutinized, dividends exists back then as well, owners are more timid about seizing the opportunities.
Now obviously everyone points to bayern and make them a fine example. But is it due to the system? Or that they're blessed with good board?
Does our system of one man show ferguson works because of the system? Or was it because it's ferguson?
No as he has bought a club already and is on record saying that theres no value in buying United.
What if United's shares were just fully floated on the stock market? So I guess the Glazers just sell their shares in chunks. So you don't need one person/entity buying, but you have a whole lot of investors. Like a regular company. Would that be better than what is happening today?
This unfortunately wouldn't work. No way are they selling up their shares for what it is now, especially as they could earn an extra billion if bought by an individual/consortium/state.
However, if they were floated and bought by fans (as in the open market they could be bought by an investor) you would still need a competent CEO to lead the club.
As a poster above mentioned, the correct leadership is the single biggest key in an effective organisation. The Glazer model could have worked, they just chose it not to work effectively as it could have. The fans could own the club, employ the wrong people to run the club and you're back to square one.
And even if the fans did get their wish and buy the club, when will they clear the debt? Do they want a return on their investment? Where will the money come from for reinvesting into the stadium and training facilities without impacting the transfer budget? Will the ladies team still get the correct funds to run effectively?
That's always a positive. Haha.
Exactly the naivety is scary. If we can’t afford the repayments long term the lenders will repossess the “asset” and flog off as much as they can to recoup their costs.
The fact some people are actively wanting to go down this road is astonishing.
I think people like the idea of saying anything anti Glazer just to join in and aren’t troubled by the actual thinking about it part
Just being knee-jerking emotional rather than thinking.
Which of the current owners of Tottenham, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, City would you pick over Glazers? I'm not saying glazers are perfect, far from it. But lets be honest they for sure are not the worst either.
Sure some new owners could be better than glazers, but hey there is a huge chance they could be worse.
Sure some new owners could be better than glazers, but hey there is a huge chance they could be worse.
I assume you are fully aware of all the details of this discussion and can make a good argument against all their 'perceived' deficiencies.
Maybe you could start with how it's not really such a bad thing that they allowed us to go £500m in debt for them, have paid £800m in fees and repayments, and that the current £500m debt is actually beneficial to us all.
Hard to say.
If they were normal investors *, they'd be primarily concerned with making money from their investment (just like the present owners).
But the idea - as such - is certainly much more palatable to me than the Saudis.
* Not sure how attractive United actually is to investors. Football clubs aren't super profitable - they come with huge expenses every year.
Chelsea and City for sure.
Yet you still skipped answering my question..... I would still take the debt we currently have over being owned by Joe Lewis & Levy, Fenway Sport Group, abramovich or the kroenkes.
Any business minded person would expect to see at least a 5-6% profit per year on the initial investment. If not you might as well just keep your money in the bank just collecting interest. There are a lot of less risky business ventures that carries less financial risk that can get you past 5-6% profits per year.
Lets say a hedge fund purchases manchester United for 4 billion, they want a 5% return every year. Guess how much that would equate to over a period of 15 years that could otherwise be spent on transfers.
Easily City and Chelsea's. And as bad as Kroenke and Fenway sports are, they didn't buy their respective clubs using a leveraged buyout, crippling it with huge amounts of debt and forcing the club to siphon its revenue towards paying the interest payments they've forced on the club. The Premier League's elite are currently cursed with appalling ownership, but I genuinely think we have it the worst - especially when you consider the potential and global standing this club has, being held back immeasurably by these parasites.
For a football club your expectation of total return going into it, needs to be at least 12%, possibly more in the 15% range.
You are absolutely right
Apparently the average profit margins of the companies on S&P500 is just about 14%. Just for context Cabot Oil and Gas which is the company with the lowest market cap on S&P500 at about 6.7 billion USD. If you can afford 4 Billion you are most likely in the position where you can afford 6.7 billion as well. They have had a yearly net profit margin of around 14% on average.One belongs to something of a dictatorial entity and the other's more or less a gangster.
Good lord.
Well if you can look past the part where the owners of Manchester City are not the most ethical owners in the world yes sure. They seem to let the people running the club do what they seem most fit pretty much uninterrupted. The same cannot be said for Abramovich, according to reports he seems to have a very hands on approach and often not for the better. Also Abramovich have seriously tightened his purse for quite a few years now, people seem to only remember the honeymoon days where they were spending money left and right.
How much have Liverpool and Arsenal spent on transfers in the last 10 years? Their net spend on transfers have been one third for liverpool at 340 million £ and about half for arsenal at 470 million £. Their revenues are not half and one third of Manchester Uniteds.
Ideal scenario is a 50+1 model and hiring someone with experience like Karl Heinz-Rumminge as CEO. He’s leaving Bayern Munich and ran that club incredibly well.
Compared to the past owners of clubs like Portsmouth, Leeds, Sunderland, Blackburn QPR.... the Glazers are next to saintly. At least they have kept us financially solvent and not let the club spend beyond its means, which those owners did and a few premier league clubs are still doing, and about a dozen championship clubs are doing. This doesn't mean we should like how the Glazers have used the club's funds, but they are far from the worse owners in football.