What’s your best case outcome from these protests?

Green_Red

Full Member
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
8,754
The only outcome that works now is enforcing a 50%+1 license clause by the FA. I'm ready to vote with my wallet and boycott Man Utd, the Premier League, and all of the sports broadcasters until it happens.
 

Dante

Bang Average but can post Blindfolded for 15 secs
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,142
Location
My wit's end
My question is this: You want to get owners who don't take money out of the club, but rather owners who put money into the club...so that _______________________ what is filling the blank space here? I'm trying to bore down to the driving motivation underpinning your desire to replace the Glazers with less parasitic owners.
In order of preference for me:

1. The club is completely fan owned and fan run (à la Bayern)
2. The club is owned by shareholders who don't invest or take any dividends, but share 50+1 voting rights amongst season ticket holders
3.The club is owned by parasites who do take dividends, but share 50+1 voting rights amongst season ticket holders
4. The club is owned by dodgy sports washing monarchs/oligarchs, but share 50+1 voting rights amongst season ticket holders
5.The club is owned by shareholders who don't invest or take any dividends and who run the club themselves
6. The club is owned by parasites who do take dividends who run the club themselves (ie. the situation right now)
7. The club is owned by dodgy sports washing monarchs/oligarchs who run the club themselves

We don't want to be City (in outcome 7), where every single one of their titles has an asterisk against it. That's the difference between playing a video game as the developer intended versus playing it on cheat mode. It's kind of satisfying on a certain level. But in private you'd have to admit you'd rather win it based on your club's own good footballing decisions.

The realistic goal should be about forcing the government to institute legislation for 50+1 (any outcome from 2 to 4). As much as I dislike the Glazers' business model, the most important thing is to put the reins back into the hands of the supporters so we can set the philosophical direction of the club (ie. away from the ESL, towards development of the stadium, towards investment in training facilities, towards improving the local area surrounding Old Trafford, etc.).

If there's one message to take away from this, it's that it's not about increasing the net transfer spend. That might happen anyway due to better investment in other areas. But it would only be as a knock on effect to everything else.
 
Last edited:

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,850
Personally I think the most realistic option no one are speaking much about to take over the club is Jack Ma. Manchester United has a working relationship with Alibaba, and China remains a focusmarket. If the Glazers do want to sell, he'll probably be listening in.
Jack Ma has had his wings well and truly clipped by the Chinese government over the last year or so. The same government that are pulling Chinese money out of football all over the world.

Can't see Alibaba being a runner.
 

redmanx

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
602
Valid points. Start off point, I think the vast majority of fans were peaceful. Injury and and damage unacceptable, right. The whole question of short term success versus owners is of course a totally different matter. You seem a bit uncertain on this topic, saying in one sentence that the protests won't get them out, and in another that protests might succeed.

And yes, Ole has done well; yes Cavani, Bruno and Pogba beginning to click, that kind of attack force that we saw against Roma is gold dust, you don't get that kind of understanding every day by assembling expensive players. Yes, we have done well to be headed to second spot in the league and it appears a European final. So, do protests threaten project Ole? Yes. But so do crazy owners, with crazy schemes like ESL. Which would either of us take, if offered now? A: Relegation and Glazers Out (replaced by something better, say 50/50 ownership between Red Knights etc, and fans?). Or (B) a cup and a place in next years CL? Option A for me. Ideally in a context where the game is better regulated, maybe along German lines. Others, of course, might think differently.
No, I suggest that maybe further protests will force the Glazers out, but will the cost of further protests be losing players and not being able to attract others? Personally I dont think the Glazers will be moved by protests as they're rarely here and to be honest I dont have an answer to the problem, but neither does anybody else. Maybe the Glazers will grow tired of further protests and sell because of that, but they'll only go when they've milked every penny they can from the club.
 

SeanyC

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
152
Why do some think the Saudi’s would be the best outcome?? We have something like 600/700 million fans world wide, surely among them some massive billionaire united fans. Some Russians or Asians, even Americans but they have to want it for the right reasons, run it for the right reasons and enjoy it for the right reasons
 

JB7

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
5,418
Location
TRA
My question is this: You want to get owners who don't take money out of the club, but rather owners who put money into the club...so that _______________________ what is filling the blank space here? I'm trying to bore down to the driving motivation underpinning your desire to replace the Glazers with less parasitic owners.
I think you miss the point somewhat. The total cost to the club so far of being owned by the Glazers has been around £1.5bn since 2005, of which around £850m has simply been interest payments & around £500m of that is their debt which they moved onto the club after purchasing it. And then there is the further £450m they made selling share on the New York Stock Exchange which went directly into their pockets rather than towards paying interest or debt.

Those figures show that Manchester United does not need an owner to pump money into the club. That we have been able to generate enough money to remain relatively competitive while paying out such huge sums on debt interest payments proves that the football club can run sustainably with no external investment - and that it has been doing so effectively with both hands tied behind its back!

They also pay themselves dividends & salaries, around £30m a year in total I think which no other club in the Premier League pays. Now this one I wouldn't have a major issue with if not for the previous issues I have mentioned. I completely understand it is a business and it is right that major shareholders get to profit from a well performing business. However to take annual dividends after loading £500m of personal debt onto a business, that debt costing the business over £850m in interest alone & making zero effort to pay that debt down despite receiving over £450m in stock sales is taking the piss entirely.

We don't need owners to pump money into the club, we just want owners who would put us back into a position where we are competing without both hands tied behind our back.
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,027
Location
Not far enough
Yes.

I grant you, that this would be more effective if we didn't have to cater to all the softcocks who will cross the picket line in the name of realism.
I'm sure you're hard af but we're not here to discuss masculinity complex. Read a bit more about economics, business and maybe throw in some books on strategy for good measure, then come back.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
12,850
I'm sure you're hard af but we're not here to discuss masculinity complex. Read a bit more about economics, business and maybe throw in some books on strategy for good measure, then come back.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,027
Location
Not far enough
I think you miss the point somewhat. The total cost to the club so far of being owned by the Glazers has been around £1.5bn since 2005, of which around £850m has simply been interest payments & around £500m of that is their debt which they moved onto the club after purchasing it. And then there is the further £450m they made selling share on the New York Stock Exchange which went directly into their pockets rather than towards paying interest or debt.

Those figures show that Manchester United does not need an owner to pump money into the club. That we have been able to generate enough money to remain relatively competitive while paying out such huge sums on debt interest payments proves that the football club can run sustainably with no external investment - and that it has been doing so effectively with both hands tied behind its back!

They also pay themselves dividends & salaries, around £30m a year in total I think which no other club in the Premier League pays. Now this one I wouldn't have a major issue with if not for the previous issues I have mentioned. I completely understand it is a business and it is right that major shareholders get to profit from a well performing business. However to take annual dividends after loading £500m of personal debt onto a business, that debt costing the business over £850m in interest alone & making zero effort to pay that debt down despite receiving over £450m in stock sales is taking the piss entirely.

We don't need owners to pump money into the club, we just want owners who would put us back into a position where we are competing without both hands tied behind our back.
Do you think a new owner would buy the club with their own money? If they do so, the amount of dividends they would need to take would be very significant to make it worth the investment.

If they don't buy with their own money, then that leaves a loan as the alternative. Which, I'd imagine is not the desired outcome too. If the loan is on the club, it just piles on the existing debt. If it a loan on the owner's assets, then the owner would be VERY incentivized to take any possible profits out of the club to manage the loan.

So, the original question that you were replying to is quite valid, in my opinion: what is the incentive for the potential new owner?
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
10,772
Location
manchester
My question is this: You want to get owners who don't take money out of the club, but rather owners who put money into the club...so that _______________________ what is filling the blank space here? I'm trying to bore down to the driving motivation underpinning your desire to replace the Glazers with less parasitic owners.
We dont need a sugar daddy, the club survives on its own fine. They paralysed the club by design
 

Hughes35

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
918
Come on Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk. You know you want a football club to run.

The new Tesla stadium would be cool as feck.

I'm not a fan of the Glazers, I do worry about an even worse owner coming in though. The number of people with the resources to buy a club like Utd must be minimal, then finding one of these people with a desire to do it is even smaller...... Then we need to hope this person has a moral compass and wants the best for the club. Scary times!

I certainly won't be unreservedly celebrating the day (if) when are bought out.
 

Ferguson’s Hairdryer

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
350
Best case (realistic) outcome. The glazers actually act like owners. They set out a blueprint stating
1) clearing the debt by a set amount of time
2) not taking dividends until debt is cleared
3) Continuing to allow the clubs money to be spent on squad improvements with the objective of winning the premier league and CL in next 1-3 years.
4) outline their commitment to improving the infrastructure at OT and Carrington.

Once the club is debt free and winning, owners taking dividends is not new for any business or the history of Man Utd. As PLC we paid shareholders, before that Martin Edwords took a piece every year.
 

Tincanalley

Turns player names into a crappy conversation
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
7,638
Location
Ireland
I'm sure you're hard af but we're not here to discuss masculinity complex. Read a bit more about economics, business and maybe throw in some books on strategy for good measure, then come back.
What an addition you are to this forum, @georgipep - thank you for bowing down to grace our humble cavern with your presence.
Tremendous.
Riveting.
Overwhelmingly attractive.
Luxurious, and indeed,
Luminous.
 

captain666

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
327
Location
Philippines
Best case (realistic) outcome. The glazers actually act like owners. They set out a blueprint stating
1) clearing the debt by a set amount of time
2) not taking dividends until debt is cleared
3) Continuing to allow the clubs money to be spent on squad improvements with the objective of winning the premier league and CL in next 1-3 years.
4) outline their commitment to improving the infrastructure at OT and Carrington.

Once the club is debt free and winning, owners taking dividends is not new for any business or the history of Man Utd. As PLC we paid shareholders, before that Martin Edwords took a piece every year.
That would be a good start if,of course,you can actually get the parasites to sit down and discuss it.
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,171
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
Weren't we a publicly listed company before the Glazers came in? What's to stop them just selling up by issuing shares? We wouldn't need to roll the dice with another billionaire owner and fans could buy shares to have voting rights. Sure, there probably aren't enough fans to buy the whole club and there would doubtless be some investment vehicles that would come in just for the dividends but hopefully that wouldn't cost more than servicing the debt. At the very least the Glazers should sell enough of their stake to pay off the debt and give the fans some representation.
The question is what's stopping from these fans to sell their shares if someone offer say double their current value?

Glazers bought their shares from somewhere
 

Tom Cato

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
4,132
It could also force the Glazers to start making decisions in the best interest of the club.

I would settle for the following commitments:
  • No more dividends taken out until the debt is cleared.
  • A written promise never to engage in talks about another breakaway league.
  • A 5 year plan for development and renovation of the stadium and facilities.
  • A CEO with a football first background to replace Woodward.
  • A written promise never to sell the club to the Saudis (or another such prehistoric and murderous regime).
Those 5 commitments would be enough for me to give the Glazers more time to rebuild their ownership of the club.
Apart from the "no sell-to" clause, all these bulletpoints are reasonable talkingpoints for a healthy discussion between fans and ownership. That plus fan representation on the board would be a very good and also realistic approach.

The Glazers aren't going to sell the club because people are protesting in the street. They will sit this one out, because as with all things, it will die down. Maybe not after 2 protests, or 3. But we're not keeping this going at the start of the next season, passion for a cause burns down eventually. It's easy to mobilize now due to everything going on, but I don't see that being the case whent he new season comes rolling again.

Engaging in good faith, reasonable demands is the only way forward.
 

GreenFieldsGoldenBarley

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
34
Location
Tangier
Why do some think the Saudi’s would be the best outcome?? We have something like 600/700 million fans world wide, surely among them some massive billionaire united fans. Some Russians or Asians, even Americans but they have to want it for the right reasons, run it for the right reasons and enjoy it for the right reasons
If the Saudi gov bought us we'd be playing super league games in the desert to cover up war crimes and targeted assassinations. I'd genuinely prefer to stick with the Glazers (and I really hate the Glazers)
 

POF

Full Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
3,659
This protest is obviously a big story in the UK. But it was also front page of the New York Times, front page of the Washington Post, front page of the Tampa Bay newspaper (only relevant in this one case), broadcast live on BBC News, Sky News and multiple US news networks and has come up as 'stunning news' in numerous NFL columns I have read this morning. That is how you promote an agenda, a better idea than paying £40 to attend a match while wearing a green scarf.

Is any of this going to force the Glazers out? No. But it damages the brand and keeps the discontent on the agenda in a way in which a decade and a half of scarves and hashtags never did. Everyone knows United fans hate the Glazers, but nobody ever gave a shit until the super league. Even on here (including me) the most the majority ever did about it recently was grumble about Woodward in transfer threads. None of this will get them out, but it will keep pressure on and damage the brand, sponsorship and TV deals which are so important to them.

I absolutely condemn the twats who fought with police (they should be arrested and thrown in jail) but I commend those who took a stand yesterday and I was glad to see the game called off. The Glazers don't care about boycotting matches or even declining UK TV viewership - this has been clear for as long as they owned the club, but they recently openly admitted it with talk of 'legacy fans' of Super League clubs. But you can be sure that the club is currently dealing with outrage from 100 different TV networks and official wine sponsors - you want to hurt the Glazers, that's how you do it.

Yesterday on here numerous posters sneered at fans who 'disrespected the Glazers private property' but I can't find it in my heart to be outraged at someone for marking the paint on a crossbar or nicking the corner flag. And if the cost of getting the Glazers out of the club forever is the short term disruption of fixtures? I hope this continues.

So, it won't get them out but will cost the club money and damage the ability to invest in players or upkeep of the stadium.

Sounds like a good idea to me.
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
12,635
So, it won't get them out but will cost the club money and damage the ability to invest in players or upkeep of the stadium.

Sounds like a good idea to me.
Was a great post you responded to. It lowers the value of the club and limits the revenue streams, so it nears a potential sale or a complete 180 in how they run the club.
 

POF

Full Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
3,659
Was a great post you responded to. It lowers the value of the club and limits the revenue streams, so it nears a potential sale or a complete 180 in how they run the club.
Great. So, who will buy the club and why would they expect to take less dividends or run the club differently to the Glazers?

The club being unsuccessful also reduces the value of the club but the fans don't seem to think the Glazers care about that.
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
12,635
Great. So, who will buy the club and why would they expect to take less dividends or run the club differently to the Glazers?

The club being unsuccessful also reduces the value of the club but the fans don't seem to think the Glazers care about that.
Being in the CL keeps us successful enough for them, I guess. After that it is diminishing returns. If the money train is halted though, then it gets tricky, in the short term.

I don't know who buys the club, surprisingly ha. But I can't imagine anyone trying to buy it with money they don't have. Dividends is one thing, could be more, could be less. But going in with the intention of allowing the club to be self-sustaining whilst running it as an actual football club would be quite something.
 

sglowrider

Against Oral Equality
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
14,132
Location
Hell on Earth
Best outcome: we get back to football.

Enjoy the rest of the month and look forward to some transfer muppetry the months following that.
 

sglowrider

Against Oral Equality
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
14,132
Location
Hell on Earth
In order of preference for me:

1. The club is completely fan owned and fan run (à la Bayern)
2. The club is owned by shareholders who don't invest or take any dividends, but share 50+1 voting rights amongst season ticket holders
3.The club is owned by parasites who do take dividends, but share 50+1 voting rights amongst season ticket holders
4. The club is owned by dodgy sports washing monarchs/oligarchs, but share 50+1 voting rights amongst season ticket holders
5.The club is owned by shareholders who don't invest or take any dividends and who run the club themselves
6. The club is owned by parasites who do take dividends who run the club themselves (ie. the situation right now)
7. The club is owned by dodgy sports washing monarchs/oligarchs who run the club themselves

We don't want to be City (in outcome 7), where every single one of their titles has an asterisk against it. That's the difference between playing a video game as the developer intended versus playing it on cheat mode. It's kind of satisfying on a certain level. But in private you'd have to admit you'd rather win it based on your club's own good footballing decisions.

The realistic goal should be about forcing the government to institute legislation for 50+1 (any outcome from 2 to 4). As much as I dislike the Glazers' business model, the most important thing is to put the reins back into the hands of the supporters so we can set the philosophical direction of the club (ie. away from the ESL, towards development of the stadium, towards investment in training facilities, towards improving the local area surrounding Old Trafford, etc.).

If there's one message to take away from this, it's that it's not about increasing the net transfer spend. That might happen anyway due to better investment in other areas. But it would only be as a knock on effect to everything else.
You need to read up on the previous responses and threads on why what you are asking is just pure fantasy. Everything that you have asked for costs $$$ or £££. Until you come up with that solution, its just footie-porn what you just wrote.
 

Charlie Foley

Full Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
11,442
Its one of those things people say they are against and while they may be once we sign Mbappe etc they will somehow manage to live with it.

Its a bit like finding out your missus ran your dog over
What part is Mbappe in that scenario
 

Dante

Bang Average but can post Blindfolded for 15 secs
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,142
Location
My wit's end
You need to read up on the previous responses and threads on why what you are asking is just pure fantasy. Everything that you have asked for costs $$$ or £££. Until you come up with that solution, its just footie-porn what you just wrote.
You need to actually read the post.
 

POF

Full Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
3,659
Being in the CL keeps us successful enough for them, I guess. After that it is diminishing returns. If the money train is halted though, then it gets tricky, in the short term.

I don't know who buys the club, surprisingly ha. But I can't imagine anyone trying to buy it with money they don't have. Dividends is one thing, could be more, could be less. But going in with the intention of allowing the club to be self-sustaining whilst running it as an actual football club would be quite something.
Whether the borrowings are in or out of the club doesn't really matter. The Glazers own the club, it's their asset. They'll set it up in the most tax effective way but if their loans were outside of the club, they would draw more dividends to repay it.

Nobody is going to invest £4bn to buy the club and expect no return. An investment like that will invariably require significant debt financing which the club profits will need to pay for.
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,027
Location
Not far enough
You need to actually read the post.
You avoid responding but that doesn't change the fact that what you have described is wishful thinking at one end of the spectrum and pure dreaming at the other. It has no connection to plausible, realistic outcomes.
 

Lentwood

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
4,016
Location
West Didsbury, Manchester
I’m curious about what the most optimistic scenarios are from here on?

I didn’t want the Glazers to take over and it sickens me to see how much money they’ve taken out of the club for personal gain. What I’m struggling with is what plan B looks like? And what needs to fall into place for it to happen.

Could everyone who has a clear idea about what they hope will happen next write a few lines describing how this all pans out.
I understand your point. I want the Glazers out as much as the next person but I’m not convinced that many of our fans really know what they want out of this.

I think it’s highly unlikely a 50+1 rule is implemented. I could be wrong, I’m not a legal expert, but these clubs were purchased legally and I’m not sure how this could be enforced or how the current owners would be compensated?

Secondly, if all we’re campaigning for us for the Glazers to sell up and for Jim Ratcliffe or the Saudi’s to takeover then we’re not really getting to the root of the issue. Sure, it would be “nice” for some supporters if we were bought by the Saudi’s and started to dominate football again but it would all feel hollow to me, we would be nearly as bad as City (I say “nearly” because you could argue it would be somewhat of a natural correction in our case after the artificial debt years). Even so, I don’t want to win trophies with oil money, I want to win them with a team full of players we have developed and nurtured and have a connection with.

There must be something else, between 50+1 and a billionaire buy-out that would be worth fighting for...I just don’t really know what that is personally...? Perhaps non-financial based rules to curtail spending, such as transfer fee caps or much stricter home-grown player rules?
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
12,635
Whether the borrowings are in or out of the club doesn't really matter. The Glazers own the club, it's their asset. They'll set it up in the most tax effective way but if their loans were outside of the club, they would draw more dividends to repay it.

Nobody is going to invest £4bn to buy the club and expect no return. An investment like that will invariably require significant debt financing which the club profits will need to pay for.
I don't think they'll get 4bn for the club, but wouldn't you rather have owners who have debt to their name, rather than the club?
 

Sky1981

Fending off the urge
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
26,171
Location
Under the bright neon lights of sincity
I don't think they'll get 4bn for the club, but wouldn't you rather have owners who have debt to their name, rather than the club?
Would it make you feel better if we hqve no debt but they take 50m each year? To pay for their other loans?

The owner and the club are one entity. If shits hits the fan they'll strip united anyway regardless of under who's name the loan are.
 

Dante

Bang Average but can post Blindfolded for 15 secs
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,142
Location
My wit's end
You avoid responding but that doesn't change the fact that what you have described is wishful thinking at one end of the spectrum and pure dreaming at the other. It has no connection to plausible, realistic outcomes.
You think it's wishful thinking that we'd be owned by people who invest no money into the club but take dividends? I think that's a totally realistic situation a football club could find itself in. If you think about it for a bit, you might even be able to come up with an example of one.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
43,937
Location
Munich
Why do some think the Saudi’s would be the best outcome?? We have something like 600/700 million fans world wide, surely among them some massive billionaire united fans. Some Russians or Asians, even Americans but they have to want it for the right reasons, run it for the right reasons and enjoy it for the right reasons
Because being a fan is not the same as investing in something. Especially in a football club in the current climate. There are far better options to spend your money, especially with the fans wanting someone to buy the club, clear the debt, and not take dividends. Why would anyone (except some ME country) even think about doing that?

Many people in Caf own stocks, but not many own United's stocks. I have most (80%) of my net wealth in stocks, but never even thought about buying a United share.
 

Gee Male

Full Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
4,068
Location
Roy Keane is Damien, the devil incarnate off the f
MUST letter to Glazers without snidey comment from newbie who joined this year.
That is an objectively terrible letter from MUST though. At least if I was advising the Glazers, I would be advising to ignore it completely, there is no incentive in there for them to do anything.

Look at the 4 point plan - rebalance ownership in favour of supporters, appoint directors whose interests are not the shareholders, a share scheme accessible to all (i.e. cheap shares) to reduce the Glazers to a minority, and enforce consultation with supporters on significant decisions.

If I'm a Glazer, I'm thinking - why would I do any of that? What's in it for me?

That letter is clearly written as a chest-thumping exercise directed at fans rather than being any serious attempt at engaging the owners, so why would the owners engage?

I'm all for fan representation in running the club, but we would want more competent representation than the likes of MUST before it would be of any use to the club.
 

sglowrider

Against Oral Equality
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
14,132
Location
Hell on Earth
That letter is clearly written as a chest-thumping exercise directed at fans rather than being any serious attempt at engaging the owners, so why would the owners engage?

I'm all for fan representation in running the club, but we would want more competent representation than the likes of MUST before it would be of any use to the club.
Precisely. It was just pure attention-grabbing. But to think that the media then put them on interviews like they were some sort of serious feckers. Made United fans look like a bunch of yobs rather than serious folks with a serious plan.

Embarrassing.
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
9,450
The best case outcome is they feel public pressure to spend a few more of our own earnings on improving the football club. That's the only thing that might change here.

We're too expensive to sell.

I wouldn't be surprised if they do a press announcement saying no special dividends this year, and use it to fix the damn roof at OT, then return to normal service the year after.
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
1,027
Location
Not far enough
You think it's wishful thinking that we'd be owned by people who invest no money into the club but take dividends? I think that's a totally realistic situation a football club could find itself in. If you think about it for a bit, you might even be able to come up with an example of one.
This is the reality right now and you paint it as a potential new option? The only difference is the debt, right? How would the new owner(s) buy the club, you think?
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Messages
1,775
Location
Whalley Range
The best case outcome is they feel public pressure to spend a few more of our own earnings on improving the football club. That's the only thing that might change here.

We're too expensive to sell.

I wouldn't be surprised if they do a press announcement saying no special dividends this year, and use it to fix the damn roof at OT, then return to normal service the year after.
We're not too expensive to sell. That would only be the case if Glazers put an unrealistic price tag.

There are people or groups rich enough buy United.

Or Glazers might start to sell chucks of the club and reduce their overall shareholding but still have a smaller stake
 

Murder on Zidane's Floor

You'd better not kill Giroud
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
8,994
Speaking honestly, Glazers decide to sell after the Saudi’s come back in for us.

I’m not getting into the debate (again) why I’m not against Saudi ownership. This is just the best outcome purely from the perspective of the clubs success.

Any businessman that purchases us for £4Billion will want a shite load more of a return than the Glazers take annually. Therefore it needs to be the Saudi’s otherwise we are probably better off sticking with the Yanky leaches, sad though it is.
Page one, post #3, and already I am screaming into a pillow.