Saudi sports minister gives update on buying club from Glazers

[Adnan]

They've got their little shell companies set up with Staveley and co already, I would bet everything is already pretty much agreed for the purchase of Newcastle but the Saudis only want it to be announced after the season concludes.

Is it possible that Staveley is using her links with the Saudis to garner fan support for a takeover? It's also reported that she has the backing of two billionaires who the press refer to as the 'Ruben brothers'

The Saudis don't need Staveley to buy Newcastle for £340m. Something doesn't add up.

 

[Red00012]

As much as I hate the Glazers I’d rather be under their stewardship than the Saudi government.

Clubs like United, Ajax, Liverpool, Bayern etc are special because they have earned respect over the years without financial doping and underhand business dealings.

It almost feels as if we are throwing the towel by wanting a state to back us. United earn more than enough to challenge for titles even with the Glazers in charge.

It’s an absolute embarrassment we haven’t the amount of money we’ve thrown away in recent years.

Football clubs are always going to face hard times but staining our reputation forever for shallow success is not the way to go about it. I’ve seen the WWE events in Saudi and they feel hollow even in a fake sport. It’s an embarrassment.

No matter how many titles City win they can never be us or Liverpool. Newcastle fans I could imagine getting excited by any new owners but we’ve hardly been starved of success last 20 years let’s face it.

We WILL win titles again someday and it will be extra sweet when it happens.

Let the Glaziers keep pumping money from the club but it’s ok because we’ve got respect from rivals.

 

[Pexbo]

Sadly I really think that Saudi ownership is inevitable at this point.

I think they’re playing it cool with their timing though.

Right now I think the Glazers have probably quoted them something like £4bn and realistically if they do take over then they’re going to need to spend another £500m getting the squad up to scratch and probably another few hundred million on top of that on infrastructure like fixing up and modernising and expanding Old Trafford and investing in Carrington and the coaching, medical and scouting setup.


So right now they’re happy to wait a little and see whether the Glazers spends on the squad to get the club back into the Champions League and back up to a level it should be, or whether they let it rot some more and inevitably have to lower their valuation.

I think they view us as the biggest jewel that can be purchased in world football but right now it’s a terrible time to buy us with a premium price tag on a not so premium product.

Would still like to stress that I have no desire for them to own us, it does feel inevitable though.

 

[ScarleyUtd]

Let the Glaziers keep pumping money from the club but it’s ok because we’ve got respect from rivals.

Tbh I don't like either. And clubs are moving further away from their fans. Think back to a time when a club's success was really the direct result of team/management and the supporters. Now you have situations like City propped up by dirty money, and before that Chelsea with Abramovich's shady dosh and tbf even before that when United went PLC – and god knows who was the main investor.

The more the connection between football clubs and fans is diminished the less it seems to mean.

 

[ScarleyUtd]

Sadly I really think that Saudi ownership is inevitable at this point.

I think they’re playing it cool with their timing though.

Right now I think the Glazers have probably quoted them something like £4bn and realistically if they do take over then they’re going to need to spend another £500m getting the squad up to scratch and probably another few hundred million on top of that on infrastructure like fixing up and modernising and expanding Old Trafford and investing in Carrington and the coaching, medical and scouting setup.


So right now they’re happy to wait a little and see whether the Glazers spends on the squad to get the club back into the Champions League and back up to a level it should be, or whether they let it rot some more and inevitably have to lower their valuation.

I think they view us as the biggest jewel that can be purchased in world football but right now it’s a terrible time to buy us with a premium price tag on a not so premium product.

Would still like to stress that I have no desire for them to own us, it does feel inevitable though.

A sensible assessment I reckon. It would certainly explain a lot.

 

[ScarleyUtd]

Theyre after Newcastle. 300 million vs 4 billion off us. Save the cash to circumvent FFP rules and build a Man City. Smart.

Except that has already been done by Abu Dhabi, and so they will want to do better than that. Egos are important here and money isn't hard to come by.

Imagine if instead they buy a failing United, arguably the biggest club in the world and the jewel in the crown, and make it world dominant again – multiple Champions Leagues, with an even bigger global presence. That dwarfs the City project. And they will make a return on it too.

The Saudis are also diversifying from oil, big time. What better way to?

 

[Roboc7]

Sadly I really think that Saudi ownership is inevitable at this point.

I think they’re playing it cool with their timing though.

Right now I think the Glazers have probably quoted them something like £4bn and realistically if they do take over then they’re going to need to spend another £500m getting the squad up to scratch and probably another few hundred million on top of that on infrastructure like fixing up and modernising and expanding Old Trafford and investing in Carrington and the coaching, medical and scouting setup.


So right now they’re happy to wait a little and see whether the Glazers spends on the squad to get the club back into the Champions League and back up to a level it should be, or whether they let it rot some more and inevitably have to lower their valuation.

I think they view us as the biggest jewel that can be purchased in world football but right now it’s a terrible time to buy us with a premium price tag on a not so premium product.

Would still like to stress that I have no desire for them to own us, it does feel inevitable though.

Utd is a stupid investment for them, there would be outrage at a takeover, would make global news and only draw attention to everything they want people to ignore. It would also cost the at least a billion more than the club is worth, they’d need to spend massively on infrastructure, possibly even a new stadium and invest massively in the squad.

If they bought Newcastle it would be for an eighth of the price, it wouldn’t fly under the radar but there would be nothing like as much fuss and before you know it no one would care. They’d have saved billions and the novelty of Newcastle being at top of the league would help people focus on football, just like it has at City.

The Saudi takeover is nothing more than rumours based on us having commercial links there, we’ll probably here nothing about it until someone from the club goes there for a conference and then the click bait will start up again.

 

[Pexbo]

Utd is a stupid investment for them, there would be outrage at a takeover,

Yes there would be some outrage when they took over but nothing they don't already face every day anyway.

Would make global news and only draw attention to everything they want people to ignore.

Making global news is exactly what they want and you're very naive if you think the media as the attention span to talk about their human rights abuses while discussing them as Manchester United owners for more than the first day.

They want to be legitimised globally and owning the world's most famous football club goes some way towards doing that, after the initial discussion of whether they are fit and proper owners, all the talk will be on how much they are spending at United to bring them back to the top.

It would also cost the at least a billion more than the club is worth, they’d need to spend massively on infrastructure, possibly even a new stadium and invest massively in the squad.

I've already covered all of this in the post you quoted. Timing is the issue more than money.

If they bought Newcastle it would be for an eighth of the price, it wouldn’t fly under the radar but there would be nothing like as much fuss and before you know it no one would care. They’d have saved billions and the novelty of Newcastle being at top of the league would help people focus on football, just like it has at City.

They would have Newcastle for an eighth of the price, but again you're incredibly naive if you think they want people to focus on the football. They want to have the Saudi brand associated with the most prestigious brand in world football. Man City 10 years on with all their success still have a tonne of empty seats in their 55k seat stadium. United, despite being absolute shite and boring to watch sell out 76k week in week out and when we go on preseason tour around the world we sell out every stadium in any country. That sort of following takes decades of success to build up.

The Saudi takeover is nothing more than rumours based on us having commercial links there, we’ll probably here nothing about it until someone from the club goes there for a conference and then the click bait will start up again.

Until something concrete happens, I agree it's speculation though but it's always daft to dismiss that much smoke and when you look at how MBS is investing around the world, it's not difficult to believe that he wants to own United at some point.

 

[Bestietom]

Still wants us ahead of Newcastle. .

 

[Adnan]

The Saudi students I've met in Manchester believe that if the PIF buy a club it will be a club at the top. They believe MBS wants to go straight in and compete with the very best and money will be no object. The Newcastle link they say it is someone playing games.

 

[finneh]

Theyre after Newcastle. 300 million vs 4 billion off us. Save the cash to circumvent FFP rules and build a Man City. Smart.

I always find posts about how buying smaller clubs would be cheaper very strange.

For the last 12 years City's owners have in a transparent manner put around £1.5b into the club. However they've pumped another £2b into City via inflated sponsorship deals which are still required today and in the medium term going forward at £100m+ a year.

By the time City can sustain a turnover for the squad they want to maintain, their owners will have spent more for an asset worth far less.

Compare this to United where they'd pay the same £4b over 15 years but could rely on the club's cash flow to fund operations.

Bear in mind 15 years after owning United they'd have an asset that would and have appreciated in value. If City's owners wanted to sell any owner would see that the business is not viable (and therefore not valuable) as they need a nine figure investment every year to stay afloat.

Paying £4b and having a £5b asset 15 years later is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying £4b and having a less than £1b asset.

 

[oz insomniac]

As someone that has little love for the Glazers and their puppet CEO, it's worth remembering what the Citeh owners said after they bought them. They were amazed that almost every conversation from visitors into their HQ, commercial incuded, started with remarks on how the Citeh project was going and how impressive it was. No doubt the Saudis are more than aware and would look to more than rival their neighbors project with whom they share no love.

 

[Adnan]

As someone that has little love for the Glazers and their puppet CEO, it's worth remembering what the Citeh owners said after they bought them. They were amazed that almost every conversation from visitors into their HQ, commercial incuded, started with remarks on how the Citeh project was going and how impressive it was. No doubt the Saudis are more than aware and would look to more than rival their neighbors project with whom they share no love.

The Saudis get on quite well with the City owners from what i've read online. It's the Qatari's at PSG who they dislike.

 

[Adnan]

Yes there would be some outrage when they took over but nothing they don't already face every day anyway.


Making global news is exactly what they want and you're very naive if you think the media as the attention span to talk about their human rights abuses while discussing them as Manchester United owners for more than the first day.

They want to be legitimised globally and owning the world's most famous football club goes some way towards doing that, after the initial discussion of whether they are fit and proper owners, all the talk will be on how much they are spending at United to bring them back to the top.



I've already covered all of this in the post you quoted. Timing is the issue more than money.




They would have Newcastle for an eighth of the price, but again you're incredibly naive if you think they want people to focus on the football. They want to have the Saudi brand associated with the most prestigious brand in world football. Man City 10 years on with all their success still have a tonne of empty seats in their 55k seat stadium. United, despite being absolute shite and boring to watch sell out 76k week in week out and when we go on preseason tour around the world we sell out every stadium in any country. That sort of following takes decades of success to build up.



Until something concrete happens, I agree it's speculation though but it's always daft to dismiss that much smoke and when you look at how MBS is investing around the world, it's not difficult to believe that he wants to own United at some point.

Completely agree.

 

[Adnan]

I always find posts about how buying smaller clubs would be cheaper very strange.

For the last 12 years City's owners have in a transparent manner put around £1.5b into the club. However they've pumped another £2b into City via inflated sponsorship deals which are still required today and in the medium term going forward at £100m+ a year.

By the time City can sustain a turnover for the squad they want to maintain, their owners will have spent more for an asset worth far less.

Compare this to United where they'd pay the same £4b over 15 years but could rely on the club's cash flow to fund operations.

Bear in mind 15 years after owning United they'd have an asset that would and have appreciated in value. If City's owners wanted to sell any owner would see that the business is not viable (and therefore not valuable) as they need a nine figure investment every year to stay afloat.

Paying £4b and having a £5b asset 15 years later is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying £4b and having a less than £1b asset.

Good post.

 

[dove]

I think Newcastle is the best team they could buy in the PL if they don't see us as a good investment. They have a good following in England, decent stadium and most importantly a fanbase who would take anyone instead of Ashley. so they would be welcome with open arms. If they don't mind spending 10 years or so building the brand, I think it makes sense. Our case is very different IMO. You can pay 10x more and get an already one of the most recognisable brands in world of football. But I think they would get a serious backlash from everyone in the media as we know how our ex player pundits can influence the opinion on people. Our fanbase will immediately split like we currently are with Ole. Personally I don't care who the owner is, I support the club, not owner but I can see a lot of people who would care.

 

[vanderpants]

If the Saudis wanted Utd they would have bought us by now, that's why they have turned their attention to Newcastle. The Glazers are obviously asking way too much for us.

 

[ScarleyUtd]

The Saudis get on quite well with the City owners from what i've read online. It's the Qatari's at PSG who they dislike.

Interesting, thanks. However still a regional rivalry going on there, even if it's a 'friendly' one

I think Newcastle is the best team they could buy in the PL if they don't see us as a good investment. They have a good following in England, decent stadium and most importantly a fanbase who would take anyone instead of Ashley. so they would be welcome with open arms. If they don't mind spending 10 years or so building the brand, I think it makes sense. Our case is very different IMO. You can pay 10x more and get an already one of the most recognisable brands in world of football. But I think they would get a serious backlash from everyone in the media as we know how our ex player pundits can influence the opinion on people. Our fanbase will immediately split like we currently are with Ole. Personally I don't care who the owner is, I support the club, not owner but I can see a lot of people who would care.

We're already split on dodgy ownership issues – as every club are. That won't bother them, they will still make a lot of money and gain soft power for Saudi Arabia.

Bad publicity has been there with PSG, City, before that Chelsea. It doesn't stop it. Especially if the club starts to win.

 

[ScarleyUtd]

If the Saudis wanted Utd they would have bought us by now, that's why they have turned their attention to Newcastle. The Glazers are obviously asking way too much for us.

With success spiralling down the price will be affected – and they will look like saviours. Newcastle is saying they have other skin in the game to pressure the Glazer's sure, and Newcastle may happen, but it's likely what they really want is United.

 

[Bestietom]

If the Saudis wanted Utd they would have bought us by now, that's why they have turned their attention to Newcastle. The Glazers are obviously asking way too much for us.

They do want us but the Glazers want 1 billion more than what they offered and what the club is worth now.

 

[Cassidy]

I always find posts about how buying smaller clubs would be cheaper very strange.

For the last 12 years City's owners have in a transparent manner put around £1.5b into the club. However they've pumped another £2b into City via inflated sponsorship deals which are still required today and in the medium term going forward at £100m+ a year.

By the time City can sustain a turnover for the squad they want to maintain, their owners will have spent more for an asset worth far less.

Compare this to United where they'd pay the same £4b over 15 years but could rely on the club's cash flow to fund operations.

Bear in mind 15 years after owning United they'd have an asset that would and have appreciated in value. If City's owners wanted to sell any owner would see that the business is not viable (and therefore not valuable) as they need a nine figure investment every year to stay afloat.

Paying £4b and having a £5b asset 15 years later is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying £4b and having a less than £1b asset.

Whilst this is true. City have managed to secure outside investment and it would still benefit the owners to continue with the sponsorship deals also even if the club was sold. Its not that black and white to suggest the valuation couldnt be held up

 

[Adnan]

Interesting, thanks. However still a regional rivalry going on there, even if it's a 'friendly' one


We're already split on dodgy ownership issues – as every club are. That won't bother them, they will still make a lot of money and gain soft power for Saudi Arabia.

Bad publicity has been there with PSG, City, before that Chelsea. It doesn't stop it. Especially if the club starts to win.

Make no mistake that their intentions will be to send City and the Abu Dhabi lot packing as quickly and swiftly as can be. The Saudis have a huge ego and will not tolerate being second best to City.

 

[dove]

We're already split on dodgy ownership issues – as every club are. That won't bother them, they will still make a lot of money and gain soft power for Saudi Arabia.

The same has happened with PSG, City, before that Chelsea.

I know but I think our situation is very different. City had like 2 fans before Sheikhs so nobody gave a shit, Chelsea had a few more but Abramovich saved the club from a serious financial crisis so the fans saw him as a saviour. In our case we already have a massive fanbase and I assume most of them have a strong negative stereotypes about Saudis. I mean, I remember we had people saying "I will stop supporting United if Haier becomes our sponsor" just because they are Chinese FFS, nothing compared to Saudis If they bought us I am sure they would get a serious wave of negativity, at least for a few years. If they bought Newcastle, nobody would care much.

 

[ScarleyUtd]

Make no mistake that there intentions will be to send City and the Abu Dhabi lot packing as quickly and swiftly as can be. The Saudis have a huge ego and will not tolerate being second best to City.

Yes I completely agree, made the same point further up.

 

[Bestie07]

They'll never buy Newcastle simply because of the location. Even we've had a few issues with attracting/keeping some players when we were at the top of the football pyramid due to our location, can you imagine how much worse it would be with Newcastle!

 

[Bestietom]

Make no mistake that their intentions will be to send City and the Abu Dhabi lot packing as quickly and swiftly as can be. The Saudis have a huge ego and will not tolerate being second best to City.

Then I hope they buy us.

 

[finneh]

Whilst this is true. City have managed to secure outside investment and it would still benefit the owners to continue with the sponsorship deals also even if the club was sold. Its not that black and white to suggest the valuation couldnt be held up

City's owners may we'll continue with their sponsorships, but at a market rate instead of an inflated one (reducing City's turnover by over £100m and meaning they couldn't invest in the team without external investment).

There would be no reason for a previous owner to pay significantly above market rate to sponsor a team they don't own.

 

[vanderpants]

They do want us but the Glazers want 1 billion more than what they offered and what the club is worth now.

Exactly, so it looks like a stalemate and the Saudis looking elsewhere

 

[Judas]

They'll buy us eventually, the Newcastle stuff is most likely just bluffing to get the Glazers to the table.

 

[fps]

Man City’s owners should have been rejected by the premier league. This should be rejected as well if it comes to pass.

If it does, I’m done with United 100%.

 

[Pexbo]

They do want us but the Glazers want 1 billion more than what they offered and what the club is worth now.

How do you come to that valuation? When you factor in all concretely quantifiable factors like our assets and revenue/expenditure and then on top of that factor in the more abstract factors like "reputation" which the accountants will have formulas for anyway then you'll probably be able to come to some sort of figure quite easily. Lets set that completely arbitrarily at £2.5bn.

Beyond £2.5bn and you might as well be trying to put a valuation on the Mona Lisa. Yes, you can only get so many through the door of The Louvre and yes you can only charge people so much per head but to be the one that own the Mona Lisa? Someone might be willing to spend £400m for the honour and see no real return on their investment while someone else might be willing to spend £2bn just to be the person that owns the Mona Lisa.

If you were the Glazers and you owned the Mona Lisa and you knew there was someone who really wanted it and could spend £2bn on it, you'd be holding out for the £2bn too. Especially if it's making you plenty of money while you hold on to it.

 

[Escobar]

I guess the Saudis will have time. The Glazers could ask for way too much money but United’s value will decrease if we are not competitive.

 

[adexkola]

Never really bought this image laundering nonsense

"Rumors of another beheading at the Paris located Saudi emb... Goal by Mbappe to win Saudi owned United the CL!!"

 

[Bestietom]

How do you come to that valuation? When you factor in all concretely quantifiable factors like our assets and revenue/expenditure and then on top of that factor in the more abstract factors like "reputation" which the accountants will have formulas for anyway then you'll probably be able to come to some sort of figure quite easily. Lets set that completely arbitrarily at £2.5bn.

Beyond £2.5bn and you might as well be trying to put a valuation on the Mona Lisa. Yes, you can only get so many through the door of The Louvre and yes you can only charge people so much per head but to be the one that own the Mona Lisa? Someone might be willing to spend £400m for the honour and see no real return on their investment while someone else might be willing to spend £2bn just to be the person that owns the Mona Lisa.

If you were the Glazers and you owned the Mona Lisa and you knew there was someone who really wanted it and could spend £2bn on it, you'd be holding out for the £2bn too. Especially if it's making you plenty of money while you hold on to it.

Couldn't be put better. But can the Mona Lisa play CF.

 

[dwd]

Man City’s owners should have been rejected by the premier league. This should be rejected as well if it comes to pass.

If it does, I’m done with United 100%.

Our current owners should have been rejected too, but for different reasons of course.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

I'm saying what I've been told and I stand to be corrected. Go back over my posts since about December. I even put a video of Joel doing his Bucs press conference from November. I posted it in May. Also, after the Sheffield United game, I've been questioning where Ed is and how we've not been hearing or seeing much of him. and now stories are coming out about the discontent between him and Joel.

Just relaying what I've pieced together. Stand to be corrected. As we all can be wrong and no doubt, I will be on something's.

Read this a few days back.

Assume you haven’t provided a source yet and that it’s all invented?

 

[Drifter]

No thanks to the Saudi's.Let them spend their dirty money elsewhere.

 

[soralapio]

Utd is a stupid investment for them, there would be outrage at a takeover,

For a while. From some people. But that outrage would largely die down once they invested a bunch of money in the team and United started winning again. I would say that most of United's fans (insert as many quotation marks around fans as you feel necessary ) are outside Europe these days, and people from the Middle-East, Africa, Asia etc won't give a flying feck about the Saudis' human rights abuses especially if there's huge names playing for United. Hell, many people in Europe won't give a feck either, sadly.

 

[Roboc7]

For a while. From some people. But that outrage would largely die down once they invested a bunch of money in the team and United started winning again. I would say that most of United's fans (insert as many quotation marks around fans as you feel necessary ) are outside Europe these days, and people from the Middle-East, Africa, Asia etc won't give a flying feck about the Saudis' human rights abuses especially if there's huge names playing for United. Hell, many people in Europe won't give a feck either, sadly.

I’m not talking about Utd fans, football fans can be easily convinced. The issue will be the media, politicians and anyone else who will suddenly have an opinion about any proposed takeover. All of a sudden the fit and proper test will be under more scrutiny than ever before.

United’s dividends are tiny in comparison to the price of the club, commercially it makes no sense. From a PR perspective it will only lead to more bad press, buying Utd really isn’t a good move for the Saudi’s.

I have no idea if the Newcastle takeover is genuine but that would make a lot more sense than buying us.

 

[fps]

Our current owners should have been rejected too, but for different reasons of course.

Yes agreed, staggering what they got away with.