When will Glazers sell Man Utd?| Glazers sell some shares to Fund Manager

[Paxi]

Thinking about this just now, how do you think Glazers are reacting to development in current state of football?

The prices for average players are now £50 million. They're bound to be thinking: is it worth investing that much money into the club every summer whilst taking probably less dividends every year?

If we can't compete with likes of Madrid, PSG and Man City it's fair to think that we will be left behind somewhat in terms of our stature within the game. I'm mean, it's more difficult than ever to compete now, so there are hardly any guarantees that we will still be most valuable club in the few years.

Wouldn't the Glazers be thinking of cashing in while we're still at the top than risk falling behind?

Anyway, I could be horribly wrong, and they are planning to keep the club for the next thirty years. After all we're still getting a sponsorship deals etc. But if we stop competing, surely our pulling power will diminish?

What are you thoughts?

Ps - this isn't a Glazer bashing thread. Fwiw, I think we could have had much worse owners.

 

[Jaybomb]

I'd be worried if they sell up.

 

[RedPed]

They won't sell up...but they might just get a bit more frugal. Then again, I can't see this level of spending being maintained over a period of time by the top clubs. I hear the Chinese clubs are in the doodoo.

 

[Random Task]

The glazers are hardly going to sell the most profitable football club on the planet.

 

[RedPed]

The glazers are hardly going to sell the most profitable football club on the planet.

If they're being pressured into entering the £100m club, they may just not fancy it. All depends on whether we're competing at the top level consistently.

 

[C3Pique]

It wouldn't make sense to sell until the debts are paid (using club revenue).

Then the return they would make would be maximised as they would gain the entire sale value (of shares owned, not sure of the ownership %s)

 

[Paxi]

If they're being pressured into entering the £100m club, they may just not fancy it. All depends on whether we're competing at the top level consistently.

That's what I think. How long before they think it's just better to get 2.6bn and feck off?

 

[Paxi]

It wouldn't make sense to sell until the debts are paid (using club revenue).

Then the return they would make would be maximised as they would gain the entire sale value (of shares owned, not sure of the ownership %s)

Isn't the debt held against the club. So them selling it wouldn't matter? I'm not clued up on these things, so forgive me in advance.

 

[AshRK]

I don't get this sudden overreaction of us not spending. So let me get this straight, last season we were accused of overspending to now being called as nonspenders.

Btwn no way a fan of glazers.

 

[Maradona10]

United are unlike smaller clubs that were bought and invested into so as to make them big. Basically you cannot play football manager with us with the goal of winning the champions league as we are already that succesful. From football perspective it will give more satisfaction to buy a club at cheap level and then pump money into it so as to make it the best club and then make your name with it. Like Roman,abu dabhi group etc, there isnt the same thrill with united.

Unless an investor is either a united fan or believes he can milk the money from this asset(which would be worse) no one in their right minds would want to buy us as an investment.
People/families who can buy united (2.80 billion Pounds) and invest in us(1 billion in 5 years) needs to be fecking loaded. Buying city/everton /chelsea for peanuts and investing 500m-1 billion is one thing, buying an asset for 2.80 billion and then investing is another.

I can only see following that i know of having any money close to it-

• House of saud (1.4 trillion dollars)
• Top 15 richest men on earth.
• Carlos slim (he owns a club in mexico and might have an interest)

Apart from these i do not think any one would part from their wealth just to own a football club.

Saudi's because well abu dhabhi have one and qatari;s have one so why not the richest family on earth should have one
Top richest men only cause they can afford a 3 billion dollar plaything.

 

[AndyJ1985]

Don't know, but I do know I don't want to see us become an oil countries play toy.

 

[reddevil702]

I don't get this sudden overreaction of us not spending. So let me get this straight, last season we were accused of overspending to now being called as nonspenders.

Btwn no way a fan of glazers.

In a summer where we have already spent over 100 mil! I really wonder how many teams are even close to that.

 

[JustAFan]

Isn't the debt held against the club. So them selling it wouldn't matter? I'm not clued up on these things, so forgive me in advance.

It's a complicated structure with a holding company involved. But I would think it is unlikely the Glazers would sell in a way that would leave them holding all the debt, not even sure they could sell that way since the debt is most likely secured against the value of the club.

 

[Rusholme Ruffian]

Lot of people seemingly incapable of reading/understanding the OP!

 

[Paxi]

Lot of people seemingly incapable of reading/understanding the OP!

To be fair, I'm not the most articulated poster around.

 

[Paxi]

It's a complicated structure with a holding company involved. But I would think it is unlikely the Glazers would sell in a way that would leave them holding all the debt, not even sure they could sell that way since the debt is most likely secured against the value of the club.

So the debt will just carry over to the next owners along with the club?

 

[Rado_N]

I fecking hope they don't.

 

[Rusholme Ruffian]

To be fair, I'm not the most articulated poster around.

can't work out whether that's a deliberate typo or not...if so then fair play!

 

[Pexbo]

I can only see following that i know of having any money close to it-

• House of saud (1.4 trillion dollars)
• Top 15 richest men on earth.
• Carlos slim (he owns a club in mexico and might have an interest)

Apart from these i do not think any one would part from their wealth just to own a football club.

Great insight, thanks a lot. I wasn't sure who could afford it until this.

 

[Maradona10]

Great insight, thanks a lot. I wasn't sure who could afford it until this.

I dont take your answer seriously, you have never watched star wars.

 

[Paxi]

can't work out whether that's a deliberate typo or not...if so then fair play!

Erm yes

 

[spwd]

The way things are going I'm sure they will be seriously thinking about the next 5 years.

They're having to fork out more and more each year and it doesn't look like stopping anytime soon so I think they may consider cashing in soon before it gets worse.

We're on the way back up and hopefully we carry on that way so the club is a better positioned for a sales pitch, as opposed to something like, "yes we're making loads of money, but if you buy the club you will need to be spending 500m a year plus the 3b to buy it in the first place.

They had it relatively easy with Fergie but since then its spend spend spend, and I'm positive no businessmen likes that reality.

Hope you get what I'm trying to say lol.

 

[Paxi]

I don't get this sudden overreaction of us not spending. So let me get this straight, last season we were accused of overspending to now being called as nonspenders.

Btwn no way a fan of glazers.

No, I'm not overreacting at all. I'm just asking the question: when will it get too much for Glazers as the Market is going to be totally out of control after Neymar and Mbappe moves.

 

[Rado_N]

United are unlike smaller clubs that were bought and invested into so as to make them big. Basically you cannot play football manager with us with the goal of winning the champions league as we are already that succesful. From football perspective it will give more satisfaction to buy a club at cheap level and then pump money into it so as to make it the best club and then make your name with it. Like Roman,abu dabhi group etc, there isnt the same thrill with united.

Unless an investor is either a united fan or believes he can milk the money from this asset(which would be worse) no one in their right minds would want to buy us as an investment.
People/families who can buy united (2.80 billion Pounds) and invest in us(1 billion in 5 years) needs to be fecking loaded. Buying city/everton /chelsea for peanuts and investing 500m-1 billion is one thing, buying an asset for 2.80 billion and then investing is another.

I can only see following that i know of having any money close to it-

• House of saud (1.4 trillion dollars)
• Top 15 richest men on earth.
• Carlos slim (he owns a club in mexico and might have an interest)

Apart from these i do not think any one would part from their wealth just to own a football club.

Saudi's because well abu dhabhi have one and qatari;s have one so why not the richest family on earth should have one
Top richest men only cause they can afford a 3 billion dollar plaything.

Well Apple have cash reserves of £200bn so they could buy United without it meaning anything to them financially.

 

[Paxi]

The way things are going I'm sure they will be seriously thinking about the next 5 years.

They're having to fork out more and more each year and it doesn't look like stopping anytime soon so I think they may consider cashing in soon before it gets worse.

We're on the way back up and hopefully we carry on that way so the club is a better positioned for a sales pitch, as opposed to something like, "yes we're making loads of money, but if you buy the club you will need to be spending 500m a year plus the 3b to buy it in the first place.

They had it relatively easy with Fergie but since then its spend spend spend, and I'm positive no businessmen likes that reality.

Hope you get what I'm trying to say lol.

Yeah that's what I was trying to say in the OP essentially. It's hard to run a business when your competitors have unlimited funds.

 

[Rusholme Ruffian]

The way things are going I'm sure they will be seriously thinking about the next 5 years.

They're having to fork out more and more each year and it doesn't look like stopping anytime soon so I think they may consider cashing in soon before it gets worse.

We're on the way back up and hopefully we carry on that way so the club is a better positioned for a sales pitch, as opposed to something like, "yes we're making loads of money, but if you buy the club you will need to be spending 500m a year plus the 3b to buy it in the first place.

They had it relatively easy with Fergie but since then its spend spend spend, and I'm positive no businessmen likes that reality.

Hope you get what I'm trying to say lol.

That is the worry. If they do the sums and realise that the cost of transfers is going up faster than the value of the club then they could (in theory) decide that actually we don't need to be competing to win the CL, as long as we are qualifying for it more often than not and maintaining the brand, then they don't actually need to be spunking £200 million every summer. But the way things are going £200 million per summer will be the norm for the likes of City...

 

[Maradona10]

Well Apple have cash reserves of £200bn so they could buy United without it meaning anything to them financially.

Why would they?

 

[Paxi]

Well Apple have cash reserves of £200bn so they could buy United without it meaning anything to them financially.

Hmm... having an apple logo on our kit for the next 100 years. I'm sure Android fanboys won't like that.

 

[Rado_N]

Why would they?

Why would anyone?

Marketing?

 

[Rado_N]

Hmm... having an apple logo on our kit for the next 100 years. I'm sure Android fanboys won't like that.

They'd probably claim to have invented football kits and shirts would suddenly cost £250.

 

[Paxi]

That is the worry. If they do the sums and realise that the cost of transfers is going up faster than the value of the club then they could (in theory) decide that actually we don't need to be competing to win the CL, as long as we are qualifying for it more often than not and maintaining the brand, then they don't actually need to be spunking £200 million every summer. But the way things are going £200 million per summer will be the norm for the likes of City...

And if we're not at the top of our game then I'm assuming we won't be as profitable any more. Captain obvious. Lol

 

[Paxi]

They'd probably claim to have invented football kits and shirts would suddenly cost £250.

At least we'd have millions of people buying into the shit.

 

[Rusholme Ruffian]

It will be interesting to see where things stand after this summer. If we've added Bale and a DM (for instance) then I think we can safely say we're still competing, but if we end the summer having only got one of (say) Matic and Perisic onboard then it would be easy to argue otherwise.

Certainly Ed Woodward told shareholders a couple of years ago that we were in a period of 'heavy churn' (or something) of players and that after this transitional period we would return to more 'normal' levels of player investment. The problem is that since he said that we've shed another manager and our rivals have stepped up their spending...so is the plan still the same, or will they have amended it due to Mourinho coming in and the 'transitional' phase effectively having been extended?

Interesting times...

 

[Paxi]

Adidas paid what? 750 million for 10 years of sponsorship.

Why would a company such as Apple, Microsoft, Gasprom, BP or some other company not buy us and essentially use us as an advertising board until the end of time?

 

[ivaldo]

They'd probably claim to have invented football kits and shirts would suddenly cost £250.

And then bring out the apple washing machine, the only washing machine compatible with the shirt material.

 

[Rado_N]

And then bring out the apple washing machine, the only washing machine compatible with the shirt material.

Then after a few years the washing machine won't accept your old shirt so you need to buy the new one.

 

[frank lee madeer..]

Sell to whom ? We don't seem very good value atm. We're still good value for the glazers , but for a new owner, it would be a 2.5 billion outlay for a team that no longer comes with a guarantee of success. The glazers got lucky & bought at the right time and the right price , they've had to speculate very little and still seen the club's value quadruple.
The next owners won't be so lucky. To get a return, you need success, a 2.5 billion outlay requires a fecktonne of success.

Maybe the only way we become a feasible proposition is if we go through a prolonged period with little success on the pitch , maybe that would force the asking price down... To be honest though , that scenario doesn't bear thinking about .

There's also no guarantees that any new owners would be any better, catch 22 .

It is what it is. Not much point moaning about it.

 

[Snow]

Adidas paid what? 750 million for 10 years of sponsorship.

Why would a company such as Apple, Microsoft, Gasprom, BP or some other company not buy us and essentially use us as an advertising board until the end of time?

For one thing going into a business you know nothing about is stupid. It's more likely to lose you money than anything.

Apple spent $1.8 billion on marketing in 2015. Why buy a club for a lot more money than the biggest recorded advertising budget that we know of just to advertise when you could do that a lot cheaper anyway.

 

[MrPooni]

Great insight, thanks a lot. I wasn't sure who could afford it until this.

 

[MrPooni]

Not sure what's more irritating, the bone-deep nausea that engulfs this place when we inevitably break a transfer record every other transfer window or the collective panic that ensues when we don't.