Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elliott coming in with the Glazers staying may actually be better in the short to medium term.

They wouldn't buy a stake unless they had some sort of say in the running of the club, and they were pretty ruthless at Milan (and successful). Our transfer spend in the next couple of years will be the same whoever owns us because of FFP.

Elliott have a track record in successfully revamping an underperforming club. The same can't really be said of Ratcliffe. The Qatari guy has no experience in football (if you believe the people involved in PSG won't be calling the shots). Elliott probably best place to hit the ground running - there's a lot of unknowns with the other bidders (particularly the Qataris)
 
HarryP said:
Elliott coming in with the Glazers staying may actually be better in the short to medium term.

They wouldn't buy a stake unless they had some sort of say in the running of the club, and they were pretty ruthless at Milan (and successful). Our transfer spend in the next couple of years will be the same whoever owns us because of FFP.

Elliott have a track record in successfully revamping an underperforming club. The same can't really be said of Ratcliffe. The Qatari guy has no experience in football (if you believe the people involved in PSG won't be calling the shots). Elliott probably best place to hit the ground running - there's a lot of unknowns with the other bidders (particularly the Qataris)
Click to expand...

so if Elliot buys a stake from the Glazers who is injecting liquidity into the club in your eyes, the Glazers or Elliot?
 
Ned UNITED said:
Are you serious ? I don't get people like you If Elliot manage to get their hands on Man United with the Glazers it is a game over for us, cannot believe that there are fans like you which can suggest such a thing. Either you are not Man United fan either you have some problems bro !
Click to expand...
Do you even know what Elliot does
 
devilish said:
United has always signed marquee signings. Veron, Stam, Rio and RVN were among the best players in their role at the time. We also had a knack of investing silly money on kids as well (Rooney, Ronaldo but also the likes of Bebe as well). Marquee signings cost alot of money and therefore the owner is always consulted about it. For example Edwards blocked us from signing Batistuta while the PLC indecision costed us Marcelo Salas. My issue would be if we start buying marquee players not because the team needs them but simply because they would be popular with the fans. Don't take me wrong that happened before as well (ex Veron, Berbatov and Pogba) but it always ended up badly for us.
Click to expand...

Robson, Keane, McQueen etc were British transfer records.
 
BuzzKillington said:
I was concerned about what Elliot’s plans were so went looking for some info on what they did at Milan. It actually makes for some interesting reading.

Elliot at Milan

Assuming the article is truly representative of what they did and not some paid shill puff piece , they’re not quite the vulture capitalists I’d imagined they are, there are quite a few articles by Milan fans saying the same thing as the one above. They made their money there by smartly improving the club rather than just asset stripping.

I’d still 100% rather we got rid of the Glazers, but if we’re stuck with them, having Elliot involved with a significant shareholding to hold them to account will probably be an improvement as they seem to actually have a clue in what they’re doing.
Click to expand...

The issue with Elliott is how they got themselves in control at Milan, a loan with huge interest rates which when the owner defaulted on meant they assumed control.

They are a vulture fund so have to assume that if they want to get involved it’s in the hope Glazers would struggle. They would effectively be banking on the club failing, if that did happen they may well then sort out whatever mess they inherit but it’s very unlikely they’d be looking to improve us.
 


Not necessarily praising them, but i've been relatively suprised with Elliott's willingness to accept the level of losses we've seen the last few years. I know they're waiting on a solid buyer willing to spend closer to 1 billion euro for the club but kind of crazy that we've seen losses around 200 million euro over the last two years and we're still looking to invest in the squad.
Click to expand...
No surprise.

They want to build the stadium and a lot of activities around it. When they will sell it, they would probably keep part of the activities which means constant revenues over time.
Click to expand...
Personally, after hearing their plans were and seeing what they’ve done, no. Not really surprised.

However, I feel like there is a fairly sizable amount of people who don’t understand what they’re doing/trying to do and don’t even think what Elliott have done so far is “good enough” and they’re worried that, for some reason, we will just start selling our best players without investing in the team. It’s really odd to me that people think this way.
Click to expand...
 
Tarrou said:
so if Elliot buys a stake from the Glazers who is injecting liquidity into the club in your eyes, the Glazers or Elliot?
Click to expand...

Well, presumably, Elliott - they will be handing over hundreds of millions, if not more, to acquire their stake.
 
sglowrider said:
Robson, Keane, McQueen etc were British transfer records.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Its not as if every player we had came from either the academy or the Norwegian third division league. Sure in our prime we developed some great talent (we still do) and we unearthed some raw diamonds (which we barely do anymore). However we spent our way as well, wisely but surely. My dream owner would

a- bring back the idea that United is the gold standard of football. That means the best people in the job. Everyone from the random U16 player, the reserve goalkeeper in the women team right to Bruno Fernandes should go on the pitch knowing that wearing the red shirt is a privilege and that 1 bad game might be enough for them to lose it all. This apply to everyone of course. Targets are set and they must be achieved. Anything less is unacceptable

b- Since we thrive to be the best then we have to have the best stadium, the best training ground, the best coaches etc. Nothing is left to chance or is neglected.

c- A hierarchy system is built were players know exactly were they are, the perks they'll receive at that stage and what to do to get better. That means no more reserve players with the captain's band or with a 350k salary a week etc

Once that happens then I promise you that United will go back were it belongs to.
 
Roboc7 said:
The issue with Elliott is how they got themselves in control at Milan, a loan with huge interest rates which when the owner defaulted on meant they assumed control.

They are a vulture fund so have to assume that if they want to get involved it’s in the hope Glazers would struggle. They would effectively be banking on the club failing, if that did happen they may well then sort out whatever mess they inherit but it’s very unlikely they’d be looking to improve us.
Click to expand...

The owner was allegedly a Chinese bankrupt chancing his arm on buying a club with borrowed money, Elliot provided some finance to him and had to step in and buy up the rest after it went tits up for him. Milan went from 15 years in the doldrums to financially stable champions and being a promising team again with a focus on youth in the 4 years they owned the club. Elliot made their money on increasing the value of the club and providing finance to the new owners.

I’ve done an about face on them, I was staunchly against them at first, as I was under the impression they had asset stripped Milan. But a brief look at where Milan started against where they finished after Elliot’s involvement makes a mockery of that.

I’d prefer a straight sale to Ineos myself as this Elliot thing just adds an extra phase to an inevitable sale, but all Im saying is the worst case scenario at the moment (Elliot) is still a big improvement on where we are currently with the Glazers having full ownership. They’ll make funds available, and have lots of contacts, they’ll also look to be brutal in shifting our expensive deadwood and low value players which improves our future under FFP. Their business plan is to increase the value of the club which is good for us as fans.
 
Roboc7 said:
The issue with Elliott is how they got themselves in control at Milan, a loan with huge interest rates which when the owner defaulted on meant they assumed control.

They are a vulture fund so have to assume that if they want to get involved it’s in the hope Glazers would struggle. They would effectively be banking on the club failing, if that did happen they may well then sort out whatever mess they inherit but it’s very unlikely they’d be looking to improve us.
Click to expand...

Elliot outsourced the management of Milan to a small team which included Maldini as technical director. There were one or two other football people on the management side also involved. I feel like this situation could go either way with Elliot. Either they outsource the management to the Glazers and the current team in place, or the place stringent conditions on their financial involvement including being to have more direct influence on management, recruiting, etc... They are vultures, but they don't strike me as stupid (having followed the Milan situation a bit), so I'd bet we'd be in the second scenario if they end up with the winning bid.
 
devilish said:
Exactly. Its not as if every player we had came from either the academy or the Norwegian third division league. Sure in our prime we developed some great talent (we still do) and we unearthed some raw diamonds (which we barely do anymore). However we spent our way as well, wisely but surely. My dream owner would

a- bring back the idea that United is the gold standard of football. That means the best people in the job. Everyone from the random U16 player, the reserve goalkeeper in the women team right to Bruno Fernandes should go on the pitch knowing that wearing the red shirt is a privilege and that 1 bad game might be enough for them to lose it all. This apply to everyone of course. Targets are set and they must be achieved. Anything less is unacceptable

b- Since we thrive to be the best then we have to have the best stadium, the best training ground, the best coaches etc. Nothing is left to chance or is neglected.

c- A hierarchy system is built were players know exactly were they are, the perks they'll receive at that stage and what to do to get better. That means no more reserve players with the captain's band or with a 350k salary a week etc

Once that happens then I promise you that United will go back were it belongs to.
Click to expand...

You should email Jassim and offer to write his manifesto!
 
BuzzKillington said:
The owner was allegedly a Chinese bankrupt chancing his arm on buying a club with borrowed money, Elliot provided some finance to him and had to step in and buy up the rest after it went tits up for him. Milan went from 15 years in the doldrums to financially stable champions and being a promising team again with a focus on youth in the 4 years they owned the club. Elliot made their money on increasing the value of the club and providing finance to the new owners.

I’ve done an about face on them, I was staunchly against them at first, as I was under the impression they had asset stripped Milan. But a brief look at where Milan started against where they finished after Elliot’s involvement makes a mockery of that.

I’d prefer a straight sale to Ineos myself as this Elliot thing just adds an extra phase to an inevitable sale, but all Im saying is the worst case scenario at the moment (Elliot) is still a big improvement on where we are currently with the Glazers having full ownership. They’ll make funds available, and have lots of contacts, they’ll also look to be brutal in shifting our expensive deadwood and low value players which improves our future under FFP. Their business plan is to increase the value of the club which is good for us as fans.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the Glazers are going to turn down a sale to hand control over to someone else. They are looking at minority investors not partners or people to come in and make decisions. They also aren’t going to pump money in if the Glazers still own the majority of the shares because the Glazers have nothing to put.

If the wheels come off I’m sure they could step in and do a better job but that involves things getting worse not better.
 
talking robot said:
Elliot outsourced the management of Milan to a small team which included Maldini as technical director. There were one or two other football people on the management side also involved. I feel like this situation could go either way with Elliot. Either they outsource the management to the Glazers and the current team in place, or the place stringent conditions on their financial involvement including being to have more direct influence on management, recruiting, etc... They are vultures, but they don't strike me as stupid (having followed the Milan situation a bit), so I'd bet we'd be in the second scenario if they end up with the winning bid.
Click to expand...

When you look at how the Glazers operate I find it hard to imagine they will take on a partial investor and allow that investor to dictate anything to them. The whole reason they want a partial investment is just to get someone’s cash not lose any control.
 
Tarrou said:
but that money goes to the Glazers, not the club
Click to expand...

Only if the Glazers sell their own shares exclusively. If they are just looking for an injection of capital, they'd probably issue new shares, the proceeds of the sale of which, would go to the club and could be used for infrastructure improvements. The Glazers' shareholding would be diluted, but this would be offset by the increase in value of the club, following the various infra investments.
 
Roboc7 said:
When you look at how the Glazers operate I find it hard to imagine they will take on a partial investor and allow that investor to dictate anything to them. The whole reason they want a partial investment is just to get someone’s cash not lose any control.
Click to expand...

They don't like to cede control, but if they want to stick around AND refurbish Carrington/Old Trafford, then they must know that some control and equity will need to be sacrificed for long-term gain (the increased value of their remaining shareholding).
 
Infra-red said:
They don't like to cede control, but if they want to stick around AND refurbish Carrington/Old Trafford, then they must know that some control and equity will need to be sacrificed for long-term gain (the increased value of their remaining shareholding).
Click to expand...

But they won’t be looking to refurbish Carrington or Old Trafford, never have done and never will.

If they have to sell shares to invest back in the club it’s going to be the absolute bare minimum. Partial investment for the Glazers means just getting some funds in to ease their financial issue and stick around longer.
 
devilish said:
I believe that every owner deserves a say on whether a major investment is done or not. Ultimately he's the one paying for the investment. Don't take me wrong I wouldn't want to see is an owner who sees this as an opportunity to play real life Football manager. However we know very well what it means having owners who have zero knowledge about football as well. An owner should keep himself at an arm's length from decision making without losing sight of what is going on at the club. That's a very difficult balance to reach
Click to expand...

Well yes they should have a say on whether or not the club should be spending x amount on a single player. But they shouldn't be getting involved in the decision process on which player is signed. That's the manager and the DOF's choice.

When you have an owner/chairman interfering you get Bosnich over VDS or trying to sign John Hartson instead of Dwight Yorke. And that's before we even get into the possibly numerous examples of Woodward interfering.
 
Infra-red said:
They don't like to cede control, but if they want to stick around AND refurbish Carrington/Old Trafford, then they must know that some control and equity will need to be sacrificed for long-term gain (the increased value of their remaining shareholding).
Click to expand...

Them sticking around is sickening
 
Infra-red said:
Only if the Glazers sell their own shares exclusively. If they are just looking for an injection of capital, they'd probably issue new shares, the proceeds of the sale of which, would go to the club and could be used for infrastructure improvements. The Glazers' shareholding would be diluted, but this would be offset by the increase in value of the club, following the various infra investments.
Click to expand...

It's possible but I don't think this is happening, if you believe the reports anyway

Elliot are supposedly involved because some Glazers want out and others don't
 
Tarrou said:
It's possible but I don't think this is happening, if you believe the reports anyway

Elliot are supposedly involved because some Glazers want out and others don't
Click to expand...

Yeah that's the problem,fecking Joel & Avram wanting to hold on and leech some more
 
Infra-red said:
Only if the Glazers sell their own shares exclusively. If they are just looking for an injection of capital, they'd probably issue new shares, the proceeds of the sale of which, would go to the club and could be used for infrastructure improvements. The Glazers' shareholding would be diluted, but this would be offset by the increase in value of the club, following the various infra investments.
Click to expand...
This only works if they issue class B shares and then that becomes an issue for them as Elliot would want a sizeable chunk for the amount of investment needed at this stage. Also, this means that all the Glazers are happy to stay onboard, if not this won't really work.
 
Roboc7 said:
But they won’t be looking to refurbish Carrington or Old Trafford, never have done and never will.

If they have to sell shares to invest back in the club it’s going to be the absolute bare minimum. Partial investment for the Glazers means just getting some funds in to ease their financial issue and stick around longer.
Click to expand...

They will only refurbish if they think they can make money off the refurbishment, otherwise, I agree, they won't see the point of it. Old Trafford (and the land surrounding it) does have potential development opportunities that can be monetised, though, and that is probably what they would go after, IF they are bringing an investor on board. Not much upside for the Glazers (or the investor) otherwise.
 
Loon said:
Remember when people thought it was like Argos and we'd be bought over a weekend?
Click to expand...
"It's already all wrapped-up with Qatar/Dubai, all of this process is just for show!"

(Yes, Dubai was mentioned by accounts that claimed to be itk on supposed deals already closed)
 
NK86 said:
This only works if they issue class B shares and then that becomes an issue for them as Elliot would want a sizeable chunk for the amount of investment needed at this stage. Also, this means that all the Glazers are happy to stay onboard, if not this won't really work.
Click to expand...

I agree that there are quite a lot of "ifs" in this scenario (although Elliott could potentially clear out one or two of the Glazers on the way in, depending on how much they are willing to invest - their shares are worth about £550m a piece - obviously if four+ Glazers want to cash in their chips right now, things become trickier).
 
stevoc said:
Well yes they should have a say on whether or not the club should be spending x amount on a single player. But they shouldn't be getting involved in the decision process on which player is signed. That's the manager and the DOF's choice.

When you have an owner/chairman interfering you get Bosnich over VDS or trying to sign John Hartson instead of Dwight Yorke. And that's before we even get into the possibly numerous examples of Woodward interfering.
Click to expand...

You are right of course but in reality it rarely happens. Owners are the ones forking the money and they usually want to know why we're spending 70m on a player. Hell if I was a club owner then I would ask those questions too. Don't take me wrong, owners should be reasonable. They should be able to trust the people they hire and they should be mature enough to give football people the space and the respect to put their arguments through with a certain level of confidence that they won't be ignored or derided. These days its easier to do that then in the 80s as managers can bring to the table loads of stats + social media makes it possible for owners etc to have an idea of the player's character traits that goes beyond the rumour mill shared by managers. However I don't want United to be owned by owners/chairmen who are completely detached from the club. We had that with the Glazers and the result was years of Woodward's regime.
 
Infra-red said:
They will only refurbish if they think they can make money off the refurbishment, otherwise, I agree, they won't see the point of it. Old Trafford (and the land surrounding it) does have potential development opportunities that can be monetised, though, and that is probably what they would go after, IF they are bringing an investor on board. Not much upside for the Glazers (or the investor) otherwise.
Click to expand...

But refurbishing the ground alone is a huge investment that will take years to complete, let alone the surrounding area and training ground etc.

That’s not what the Glazers or Eliott do and where is the billions required coming from even if they wanted to do it. They might patch some bits up on the cheap that’s about it.

The Glazers are not going to suddenly change to an ambitious and riskier business plan. Investment is about maintains the status quo and clinging on until a point where they think they’ll make more money.
 
If the Glazers go the partial investment route it will be to get themselves back into a position of taking dividends, they simply don't care about the club from a sporting perspective, everything is geared ultimately to their own personal interests sadly.
 
Roboc7 said:
But refurbishing the ground alone is a huge investment that will take years to complete, let alone the surrounding area and training ground etc.

That’s not what the Glazers or Eliott do and where is the billions required coming from even if they wanted to do it. They might patch some bits up on the cheap that’s about it.

The Glazers are not going to suddenly change to an ambitious and riskier business plan. Investment is about maintains the status quo and clinging on until a point where they think they’ll make more money.
Click to expand...

Well they always have the option to continue as they have been - pocket the investment for themselves and keep infra investment close to zero. Difficult to see an incoming investor agreeing to that, though - they'd want some kind of plan for growth (eg an expanded OT) so they can exit in 5 (ish) years at a profit.
 
Infra-red said:
Well they always have the option to continue as they have been - pocket the investment for themselves and keep infra investment close to zero. Difficult to see an incoming investor agreeing to that, though - they'd want some kind of plan for growth (eg an expanded OT) so they can exit in 5 (ish) years at a profit.
Click to expand...

There’s no money for a stadium, I don’t think anyone will be expecting the Glazers to build one. It’s billions and will take best part of a decade to complete.

Any partial refund investment will be relatively small and will value club at less than SJR/Qatar are offering. The profit will come from sitting on the shares and assuming club can still be sold for 5bn or more in a few years time.
 
devilish said:
However I don't want United to be owned by owners/chairmen who are completely detached from the club. We had that with the Glazers and the result was years of Woodward's regime.
Click to expand...
Wasn't one of our problems with transfers that everything had to go to the Glazers for approval and the process was painfully slow?
 
Roboc7 said:
There’s no money for a stadium, I don’t think anyone will be expecting the Glazers to build one. It’s billions and will take best part of a decade to complete.

Any partial refund investment will be relatively small and will value club at less than SJR/Qatar are offering. The profit will come from sitting on the shares and assuming club can still be sold for 5bn or more in a few years time.
Click to expand...

A new stadium will take a decade, yes. I think they'll look to expand OT - mooted costs for a redeveloped south stand are £200m. As you say, they might prefer to maintain the status quo - perhaps they (and Elliott) foresee the ESL and a streaming rights bonanza taking the club's value to another level, even with minimal capex.
 
For @HarryP @Andycoleno9 @croadyman and the other doom merchants:

United were never getting sold quickly.

1. It’s a 5-6 billion quid transaction.

2. It’s the Glazers. They drag everything out.

3. Just because clueless chancers like Kaveh, Jamie Jackson and the Muppetiers were reporting on the potential sale doesn’t mean that it’s still on or over., or whatever. No one knows what’s going down.

4. Have some fecking patience, we’ve had to endure the Glazers since 2008, another few weeks won’t hurt.

5. Profit?
 
Infra-red said:
A new stadium will take a decade, yes. I think they'll look to expand OT - mooted costs for a redeveloped south stand are £200m. As you say, they might prefer to maintain the status quo - perhaps they (and Elliott) foresee the ESL and a streaming rights bonanza taking the club's value to another level, even with minimal capex.
Click to expand...

I think streaming rights, an end to 3pm blackout and a version of the ESL will be what the Glazers will be selling the partial investors.

I think the plans for what can be done at Old Trafford and the surrounding area etc is something that was done to help sell the club to those seeking a full sale.
 
Mr. Robot said:
For @HarryP @Andycoleno9 @croadyman and the other doom merchants:

United were never getting sold quickly.

1. It’s a 5-6 billion quid transaction.

2. It’s the Glazers. They drag everything out.

3. Just because clueless chancers like Kaveh, Jamie Jackson and the Muppetiers were reporting on the potential sale doesn’t mean that it’s still on or over., or whatever. No one knows what’s going down.

4. Have some fecking patience, we’ve had to endure the Glazers since 2008, another few weeks won’t hurt.

5. Profit?
Click to expand...

#4 *2005 - it has been a long 18 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.