- Mar 9, 2018
Feels like some negative vibes are creeping into this thread over the last few hours. Basically saying Woody won't be needed as those leeches aren't going anywhere.
I mean we can easily mention potential conflicts of interest and rule them out. Going against your country investment fund headed by MBS is a huge potential issue.I appreciate that your question is genuine but if anyone has a hope or expectation that some sort of government criteria is that the new owner can be a businessman, just not a Saudi Arabian one, then it is fantastical to say the least. I appreciate why a poster on the caf may say that there should be a ‘blanket ban on any private business’ - but it is not realistic for a potential buyer to fail a fit and proper test ‘because they are from Saudi’. It’s not even worth mentioning surely.
Imagine an open market with a policy of ‘no Saudis need apply’. There will/may be a ban on murderous regimes perhaps, but nobody will be banned simply because they are Saudi.
You get upset that CEOs are overpaid until you see comments like this. Then you realise that there are a lot of people who just aren't CEO material.People really think a company that makes phones and computers is going to spend billions of dollars to buy a football team
Do you think Liverpool supporters who have Apple phones will stop buying Apple phones? Doubt itApple are a public listed company. How will their shareholders feel about them spending billions of their cash on a football team, something that will absolutely tank their stock? It's their CEO's job to raise stock prices, not destory them. Stock prices go up when Apple enter a new market or invent a new device, when they innovate, show greater iPhone sales data or do something truely brilliant, not when the drop billions on a sports brand that no one who owns Apple gives a flying shit about.
Content is king.Apple is a PLC, they have shareholders. The CEO's job is to increase the value of the stock for said shareholders with smart business decisions.
1. It makes no sense for the biggest company in the world to buy a football team when they have zero experience of acquiring, managing, running sports teams, and even less experience in transfers.
2. They're a tech company, if they acquire anything, they acquire smaller tech companies who have done solid R&D into products they're looking to build upon.
3. They don't need the exposure. Apple don't even advertise through anyone else but themselves, that's how big they are. At a push they would maybe be open to buy stadium naming rights but it's not worth it for them.
4. The iPhone costs around £1k, how many United fans can afford it? How quickly would you drop the iPhone if you were a Liverpool fan or any other fan for that matter? You know what really kills a stock? Poor sales, missed earnings, poor revenue growth, bad direction. All of this happens if more than half the world don't buy an expensive phone that's tethered to the United name and brand.
5. What the feck are Apple geuinely going to do with Manchester United? Like seriously? What's in it for them?6
6. Apple are a company, they have budgets, and well planned budgets at that, they don't just have £10b doing nothing somewhere.
7. R&D is expensive and so is innovation.
8. Shareholders will lose their shit if Apple take on a liability such as Manchester United.
I do wonder if they will find a way around it. Like someone in the private sector buys it and the government secretly backs it. Wouldn't put it past themI wonder what the thoughts of the folks in Saudi Arabia are. They’ve wanted a football club for a while, and just a few months after they’ve bought Newcastle, both Manchester United and Liverpool are up for sale. I wonder if they regret it?
I think there has to be a political/cultural need to -- the Saudis always want to be seen as the top dog in the Gulf and ME in general.I do wonder if they will find a way around it. Like someone in the private sector buys it and the government secretly backs it. Wouldn't put it past them
Wasn't Manchester United the one they wanted. It was just the fact the Glazers didn't want to sell which is why they bought Newcastle United. Saudis must be annoyed nowI think there has to be a political/cultural need to -- the Saudis always want to be seen as the top dog in the Gulf and ME in general.
They can have some relatively poor donkeys like the Abu Dhabians having the most successful club in recent times -- and they only have a lovely but parochial club like Newcastle.
If any potential buyer had any sense, they’d stay well clear of this man. He would wait to the last minute to submit an offer for a client, offer a lot more than is being asked for and to top it all off, he would then agree to pay a lot more in the fine print. The man is a clown.
One of their private companies did bid for Chelsea right?Necessary one. Do you think a country which can cut journalists at its embassy would like to be second best to another team owned by some private individual? If PIF hadn’t invested then it was fine but now we should stay away.
Not the past 7 years, the past 2 years.Done a terrible job with Mercedes F1 the past 7 years eh? He took Nice from obscurity to fighting for CL places. Reckon some dictator or Musk will know more about how to run a sports club, let alone a football club?
Yeah so it doesn't look like the Saudi's are backing two clubs in the Premier League. Probably their way of getting around a conflict of interest issue.I do wonder if they will find a way around it. Like someone in the private sector buys it and the government secretly backs it. Wouldn't put it past them
All of that is when it comes to football..If any potential buyer had any sense, they’d stay well clear of this man. He would wait to the last minute to submit an offer for a client, offer a lot more than is being asked for and to top it all off, he would then agree to pay a lot more in the fine print. The man is a clown.
Exactly we arent a random swiss club or Nice. We are United which means the people running the club need to be of a much higher standard and not people who cant even make a midtable french team better.Mid table team my arse. They are predominantly a second tier side over the past two decades.
As for Nice, they made a cup final in 2022, for the first time in a couple of decades.
And, we’re not some random Swiss club, nor are we Nice. Owning United is not remotely alike.
You waited this long, now stop debating
Cause I'm back, I'm on the rag and ovulating,
I know that you've got a job Mrs Glazer but husband's hair problems are complicating.
So mufc won't let me be
Or let me be me, so let me see
They try to shut me down on mutv,
but feels so empty without me.
If anything, Apple comes with a tonne of baggage when it comes to violating working rights and working conditions. Mass suicides, low pay, long working hours without break, just to satisfy the demand for Apple products. Apple (and other major ICT companies) has been a case study for years when it comes to CSR; initially they refused to acknowledge their responsibility with regards to their suppliers, but ended up with creating an internal audits division after a good amount of external pressure - but jury still out if that has helped at all.Apple is literally the best option out there. They’re richer than any oil state and don’t come with the baggage of having dodgy human rights records. I don’t get why anyone would actively be against them buying us over as unlikely as it would be.
No thanks. Tim Cook will just try to 'optimise' everything and sell half the players.Apple is the best but most unrealistic option. They do need to add content to Apple TV + though and may see a move for a premier league team as a way in to a tv rights conversation.
The irony of people saying would they fund the club - look at it this way, buying us to them would be like going for a Nandos financially. Giving us a billion dollars a season for the upkeep of the team would be a minor marketing expense
Foldtrafford.Samsung could be a good fit
Easy to negate that by coming through a semi government company like STC, Sabic, Riyad Bank etc. Primarily owned by the government but they can differentiate based on Newcastle being directly owned by the PIF.I mean we can easily mention potential conflicts of interest and rule them out. Going against your country investment fund headed by MBS is a huge potential issue.
We need to look out for our own interests and not letting someone else from Saudi to own us looks the most logical step. It may not be politically correct but we don’t need to publicly announce it.
Compared to the costs that's not smart business. Also to stay profitable huge investments are needed. Without them there's no guarantee we will stay as profitable even short term. I'm pretty sure the Apple links are bs. You don't see huge IPOs buying football clubs.Seen this said a few times, why would there be outrage at buying a profitable business that debt free should generate up to 100m a year in profits and that has enormous potential and customer reach? Even when run like shit it projects profits of 100-110 quid million this next year.
Not that I think apple would buy United, just want to understand why they’d be so much outrage? Do shareholders get angry when companies buy smaller, very profitable mega brands? Why?
Ah yes I'm the dumb one here.You get upset that CEOs are overpaid until you see comments like this. Then you realise that there are a lot of people who just aren't CEO material.
That's the truth. Our operating expenses are at an all time high and have been going up for a few years while the revenue is also tanking. If someone buys the club simply for the financial benefits it's not a very feasible outlook at this time as the club needs other infrastructural investments.Compared to the costs that's not smart business. Also to stay profitable huge investments are needed. Without them there's no guarantee we will stay as profitable even short term. I'm pretty sure the Apple links are bs. You don't see huge IPOs buying football clubs.
And even if Apple did. They'd run us exactly like the Glazers did. Purely like a business. Not a fan of that thought.
That would require the FA to have some integrity which I wouldn't bank on. After all they made Newcastle promise that they aren't directly owned by PIF, but every man and his dog knows that they do. KSA could own either directly or indirectly every PL team without FA doing anything about it.They already own Newcastle, so I don’t think the FA would agree.