BluesJr
Owns the moral low ground
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 9,236
Would you take it if it meant dominating football? Very interesting times ahead of true.
Ayyy fellow TampanianSome months back, I had heard the $4bn number as well. Hadn't heard about anyone interested, though. A lot of us Tampa Bay Bucs fans wish they'd either sell Man Utd and pay attention to us, or sell the Bucs to someone who cares.
They may well use EBITDA as a driver to asking price but a buyer and especially his bankers (unless a Sheikh) will need to be comfortable with future income streams and CFADS .... income/cash services future debt, not EBITDA.Companies are often sold on a multiple of EBITDA. In recent years we have been letting contracts run down and spending has significantly declined. This would support the typical additional restriction on cost when closing in on a sale.
Now we seem to be going the other way and renewing the star players, including Rashford who still has a couple of years to run. Could this be a sign that any buyer wants certainty on their first few years of investment. This would likely be the case in a sole buyer/ consortium situation with a high level of due diligence.
Similarly a buyer might have insisted on removing Jose so as to see a different side to the team and what trojectory we could go on.
This is highly speculative and could easily just be protecting against spiralling transfer costs/ hoping for the market to deflate.
There was a meeting between the glazers and arabs recently so its possible, although I'd be surprised if the arabs were so precise on due diligence as there is often bigger plays at stake than purely the profitability of the club.
Would you take it if it meant dominating football? Very interesting times ahead of true.
Prince Salman is one of the wealthiest people on Earth... and very proud one, too. He won’t tolerate fighting for top 4
It has nothing to do with this. We have been running down our older contracts because of the size of our wage bill. Which is already too big.Companies are often sold on a multiple of EBITDA. In recent years we have been letting contracts run down and spending has significantly declined. This would support the typical additional restriction on cost when closing in on a sale.
Now we seem to be going the other way and renewing the star players, including Rashford who still has a couple of years to run. Could this be a sign that any buyer wants certainty on their first few years of investment. This would likely be the case in a sole buyer/ consortium situation with a high level of due diligence.
Similarly a buyer might have insisted on removing Jose so as to see a different side to the team and what trojectory we could go on.
This is highly speculative and could easily just be protecting against spiralling transfer costs/ hoping for the market to deflate.
There was a meeting between the glazers and arabs recently so its possible, although I'd be surprised if the arabs were so precise on due diligence as there is often bigger plays at stake than purely the profitability of the club.
feck that. Don't want to he a sellout like those clubs.well, I hope this Glazers family sell United soon and I hope richer person/family will buy United. I dont really care if Saudi prince decides to buy us at least as a fan, I don't need to feel big jealousy towards shitty or psg. Then, we can bid superstars like Mbappe without thinking money too much.
well, I hope this Glazers family sell United soon and I hope richer person/family will buy United. I dont really care if Saudi prince decides to buy us at least as a fan, I don't need to feel big jealousy towards shitty or psg. Then, we can bid superstars like Mbappe without thinking money too much.
Like Jamal Khashoggi?Managers who don’t make the top 4 will be given a personal invitation to the Saudi embassy to have a performance review.
So you are getting the name of a journalist who supported the terrorist insurgence in Iraq, Syria and other countries?I'm getting Khashoggi on my shirt.
Couldn't have said it better myself.I would rather be a propaganda machine for a Saudi regime while dominating football than being a cash cow for a bunch of leeches while being insignificant. A few more years of incompetence from Woodward and dividends being shared out and the club will be years behind all our rivals. Right now we still have a chance. Its a no brainer. All Saudis will do is invest what we make back into the club which is how it should be.
Like Jamal Khashoggi?
Sorry but I just don't get this attitude. Under Saudi leadership, we would end up with a team of mercenaries who only cared about they could get from the club rather than what they can give to the club.
We wouldn't be a Man United anymore, we'd be a propaganda machine for an evil dictatorship. Every ounce of success gained from their investment would be tainted and ultimately worthless. The club would become a hollow shell, a plastic nothingness. Irrelevant.
Honestly, I cannot think of a worse fate for our club than to be taken over by this scum. I just want these rumours to die a horrible death already.
I think so. When it was just Chelsea doing it you could moralise about how we earned our own money etc. But now it seems like all the top clubs are at it, and with us being also rans in the league and Europe we need something to get back up there and competing with these clubs.Would you take it if it meant dominating football? Very interesting times ahead of true.
FFS. I'd stop supporting the club if the new owner is a Saudi Prince. It would totally ruin the club for me.I have to say it's alot easier to contemplate a takeover like this after the Glazer's years we have had to endure, than it would have been before them, the thought of them fleecing us from now to eternity is a horrible thought, much like any Saudi takeover is just as unappealing, but the reality there is very few people with that sort of money, and fewer still who would spend it on us, and the thought of us been takeover in a similar fashion the way the Glazer's took us over just doesn't bear thinking about.
It's bad situation, but something has to change, or we are just going to see City disappearing ever more into the distance, as FIFA clearly have no intention of stopping them.
I wouldn't care....the football world is shit since the Chelsea's, Manchester City's and PSG's......just another terrible owner for us but hopefully then at least more money for transfers.
I don't personally care too much who owns the club which is why my past criticism of City has resolved around the superficial nature of their success rather than the human rights violations of their owners. That said I would find it very hard to stomach United being used as a propaganda tool for this tourism campaign the Saudi leadership are pushing. I understand that it is an enticing proposition and that based on us being a much bigger club than City or PSG we would have potential to dominate world football if we had the same degree of outside backing but there are plenty of multi billionaires out there who don't subjugate millions of people to life without basic human rights.
Where do you draw the line? You don't mind someone that owns slaves, shits on women and allows them to be stoned to death for nothing and is rich because he's in a position to screw over a whole nation. Kim Jong-Un would be fine as well?Who cares! As long as they go big in the market like the big boys doing now, then I'd cheer for it surely.
YesWould you take it if it meant dominating football? Very interesting times ahead of true.