Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeing the prices going around here of 6-10bn, it's quite amazing what a good investment buying Manchester United turned out to be for the Glazers. It's crazy really, they invested about 400m of borrowed money into the club like 17 years ago and will now most likely leave the club with a 5bn+ profit, on top of the money they already leeched out of the club over the years and didn't have to spend a single cent of their own money to do it. :wenger:
 
maverickjesus said:
I would take Mark Goldbridge as DoF if whoever takes over wants to be hands off, get some real fan direction added to the club.
Click to expand...

Stephen howson on the other hand understands foreign fans well. Especially the location of their pockets
 
Amarsdd said:
Click to expand...


How on Earth anyone gives this fella any air time I’ll never understand, every time someone shares something of his I just see an absolute prat with zero clue about football.
He’s clearly never played the game, never coached the game, had no UEFA badges, and judging by his quality street gag, is about as funny as a fart in an elevator. Do people just enjoy watching utter morons ranting and raving on their own shitty channels?
 
Steve Bruce said:
It is satire but there's some saddos who have an unhealthy agenda and hatred against him
Click to expand...

I'd say it's unhealthy for the club and its fans, that the person with probably the largest SM presence is a toxic bellend.

I guess he entertains the kids :rolleyes:
 
holdsteady said:
It's our club. We deserve a say
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's not "our" club. It's just not how it works.

I get what you mean with the sentiment, as I feel it's my club, too. However, we can only hope the new owners will be better owners than the previous, and take onboard our feelings as supporters.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Satire my arse, barely heard of the fella before everything with Ronaldo but he’s clearly a Ronaldo nut, so there’s feck all “satire” about it.
Click to expand...
The fact you're trying to make it seem like it was not a joke says more about you than about him
 
I have a question

Assume United will cost around £4bn (maybe higher yes, but let's just use this figure) - then the owners will need to commit £1-2bn to the stadium and training ground.. before even thinking about the debt the Glazers have given United..

How does a US Consortium benefit from buying United knowing they'd have to commit around £6bn? Surely they wouldn't make that money back? And loans like the one the Glazers got isn't really feasible any more apparently.. Obviously they'd only be in it to make profits and nothing else. So I don't get why they'd spend so much.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I have a question

Assume United will cost around £4bn (maybe higher yes, but let's just use this figure) - then the owners will need to commit £1-2bn to the stadium and training ground.. before even thinking about the debt the Glazers have given United..

How does a US Consortium benefit from buying United knowing they'd have to commit around £6bn? Surely they wouldn't make that money back? And loans like the one the Glazers got isn't really feasible any more apparently.. Obviously they'd only be in it to make profits and nothing else. So I don't get why they'd spend so much.
Click to expand...
Why not? Glazers literally have take millions dollars from the club every year since they took over and now sell 10 times price.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I have a question

Assume United will cost around £4bn (maybe higher yes, but let's just use this figure) - then the owners will need to commit £1-2bn to the stadium and training ground.. before even thinking about the debt the Glazers have given United..

How does a US Consortium benefit from buying United knowing they'd have to commit around £6bn? Surely they wouldn't make that money back? And loans like the one the Glazers got isn't really feasible any more apparently.. Obviously they'd only be in it to make profits and nothing else. So I don't get why they'd spend so much.
Click to expand...

The Glazers would have to settle the debt before they leave.

It's probably the same reason why investors buy huge amount of property, specifically the retirement funds etc that buy huge amount of stock just for the eventual increase in value, they don't do it for the yearly dividends (rent).

Buy it now for 6-8b total (stadium upgrade included) and allow the club to spend its own money allowing the club to compete with City whilst putting competent people in charge of the running of the club to get those big sponsors back through the door.

Who knows what the future looks like but most assets, especially ones with long standing history like United will always go up, if not now then in 50 years etc.

It's not a short term investment I give you that.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I have a question

Assume United will cost around £4bn (maybe higher yes, but let's just use this figure) - then the owners will need to commit £1-2bn to the stadium and training ground.. before even thinking about the debt the Glazers have given United..

How does a US Consortium benefit from buying United knowing they'd have to commit around £6bn? Surely they wouldn't make that money back? And loans like the one the Glazers got isn't really feasible any more apparently.. Obviously they'd only be in it to make profits and nothing else. So I don't get why they'd spend so much.
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to this:
(a) As one of the world’s biggest brands, there are always opportunities. How we view content, what people are willing to pay for it, across the globe, is ever changing.

Just one example, EA sports get 1.6bn from selling FIFA 2022 and 4bn for selling additional content in the game. Go back what 10 years, the later number was basically zero, right? Another one, TV rights in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland pays each PL team around 17m per year. Go back to year 2000 — and each team in total got 10m per year in TV money. Today the APAC region pays like less than a 3rd than the Nordics, but have a population which is 160x as big.

I don’t think anyone with any kind of certainty can predict how profitable a Premier League will be in 20 years, but there is most certainly a large upside.

(b) It can be very hard for anyone to get their hands on a big sports brand. Right now, a bunch of teams are for sale, but that is not the norm.

Sports washing did not really exist to the extent that it drove up prices of the biggest PL teams what two decades ago. Then came Taksin Shinawatra, Roman Abramovich and co and we all know the results. What will the future hold? Who knows.

If you want to sell Manchester United in say 2035, even if the club’s profitability haven’t increased a ton, there will of course always be some new kind of rich guy or girl looking yo buy it with money at hand.
 
Tarrou said:
the issue wouldn't be the Glazer's taking the money, but moreover who is going to give it to them? they've been terrible owners so giving them 1bn to leave them in charge doesn't seem likely
Click to expand...
red thru&thru said:
If the Saudi's didn't agree to this, I find it very difficult anyone else will.
Click to expand...
devilish said:
United is poorly run. We're not making much profit, the infrastructure was left to rot, sponsors are fleeing and the club's major clients (ie supporters) aren't happy. Why on earth would anyone buy a minority stake in United when he knows that he'll have no say on how the club (thus the investment) is run? The only plausible compromise would be for that investor to be given sound reassurances that the Glazers would sell him the club in the near future.
Click to expand...

I agree that any investor would have to be crazy to act simply as a lender to the club, with no controls in place. That is presumably why the Saudis walked away from the mooted £700m deal for 30% of United in 2019. The Glazers would have to sacrifice some voting rights (or provide a clear path to full control & ownership of the club in future for the investor) - they evidently weren't willing to do this with the Saudis, but perhaps their appetite has been whetted somewhat, now that the scale of the expenditure required to refurbish Old Trafford & Carrington has become clear.

LawCharltonBest said:
I have a question

Assume United will cost around £4bn (maybe higher yes, but let's just use this figure) - then the owners will need to commit £1-2bn to the stadium and training ground.. before even thinking about the debt the Glazers have given United..

How does a US Consortium benefit from buying United knowing they'd have to commit around £6bn? Surely they wouldn't make that money back? And loans like the one the Glazers got isn't really feasible any more apparently.. Obviously they'd only be in it to make profits and nothing else. So I don't get why they'd spend so much.
Click to expand...

Whether it ends up being a full or partial sale, the buyer won't be expecting any short term financial return on their investment. They will be hoping that the value of these clubs hasn't yet peaked and that they can flog their shares in United for a handsome return five or ten years down the road (probably once European Super League mkii has taken off).
 
Infra-red said:
I agree that any investor would have to be crazy to act simply as a lender to the club, with no controls in place. That is presumably why the Saudis walked away from the mooted £700m deal for 30% of United in 2019. The Glazers would have to sacrifice some voting rights (or provide a clear path to full control & ownership of the club in future for the investor) - they evidently weren't willing to do this with the Saudis, but perhaps their appetite has been whetted somewhat, now that the scale of the expenditure required to refurbish Old Trafford & Carrington has become clear.



Whether it ends up being a full or partial sale, the buyer won't be expecting any short term financial return on their investment. They will be hoping that the value of these clubs hasn't yet peaked and that they can flog their shares in United for a handsome return five or ten years down the road (probably once European Super League mkii has taken off).
Click to expand...
THat depends on who the buyer is. A genuine fan like Ratcliffe wouldnt care too much about resale, nor would the oil states. Private equity or US owners likely to be much more focused on ROI and exit routes.
 
Gordon Godot said:
THat depends on who the buyer is. A genuine fan like Ratcliffe wouldnt care too much about resale, nor would the oil states. Private equity or US owners likely to be much more focused on ROI and exit routes.
Click to expand...
He’s a Chelsea fan!
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I have a question

Assume United will cost around £4bn (maybe higher yes, but let's just use this figure) - then the owners will need to commit £1-2bn to the stadium and training ground.. before even thinking about the debt the Glazers have given United..

How does a US Consortium benefit from buying United knowing they'd have to commit around £6bn? Surely they wouldn't make that money back? And loans like the one the Glazers got isn't really feasible any more apparently.. Obviously they'd only be in it to make profits and nothing else. So I don't get why they'd spend so much.
Click to expand...

yeah, it doesn't really add up which is why oil money is more likely

you never know though
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I have a question

Assume United will cost around £4bn (maybe higher yes, but let's just use this figure) - then the owners will need to commit £1-2bn to the stadium and training ground.. before even thinking about the debt the Glazers have given United..

How does a US Consortium benefit from buying United knowing they'd have to commit around £6bn? Surely they wouldn't make that money back? And loans like the one the Glazers got isn't really feasible any more apparently.. Obviously they'd only be in it to make profits and nothing else. So I don't get why they'd spend so much.
Click to expand...
I think the value would be in asset appreciation over the long term, especially if a new state of the art stadium is built. Obviously web3 and digital opportunities exist, and their could be potential in tv broadcast rights and revenues, for a medium term return but I think new owners would be in for the long haul, now just taking dividends like the Glazers have. You would hope that the debt will be cleared by the selling price but that’s not a given.
 
Plant0x84 said:
I think the value would be in asset appreciation over the long term, especially if a new state of the art stadium is built. Obviously web3 and digital opportunities exist, and their could be potential in tv broadcast rights and revenues, for a medium term return but I think new owners would be in for the long haul, now just taking dividends like the Glazers have. You would hope that the debt will be cleared by the selling price but that’s not a given.
Click to expand...
The debt sits on the club, it would need to be paid off separately by a new owner after they buy the club, should they choose to do so.
 
Gordon Godot said:
The debt sits on the club, it would need to be paid off separately by a new owner after they buy the club, should they choose to do so.
Click to expand...

I imagine the debt would be settled in with the price, as opposed to giving the glazers 6-8b before paying off the debt.
 
Gordon Godot said:
The debt sits on the club, it would need to be paid off separately by a new owner after they buy the club, should they choose to do so.
Click to expand...
I get that’s the responsibility which is passed to the buyer, but would it not be negotiated as part of the sale price? Surely nobody will buy the club for 6bn for the pleasure of paying the Glazers 1bn debt while they stroll off laughing at how much free cash they have generated?!
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Would they? Not necessarily, right? The debt is the club's, not the Glazers'?
Click to expand...
Im not sure how it works. They took a loan to buy the club in the first place. The Premier league fit and proper test should retrospectively fix this with a stipulation of the sale in my opinion.
 
VP89 said:
Im not sure how it works. They took a loan to buy the club in the first place. The Premier league fit and proper test should retrospectively fix this with a stipulation of the sale in my opinion.
Click to expand...
They cant 'fix it'. The debt is a legal liabiltiy of the club. Up to the new owners what they do about it.
 
cyberman said:
Gave up going to United for a Chelsea season ticket?
Click to expand...
If you are relying on a Daily Star article you need to read more. Ineos/ Ratcfliffe have tickets/ boxes/ debentures for lots of sports and music events. He is not a Chelsea fan
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Would they? Not necessarily, right? The debt is the club's, not the Glazers'?
Click to expand...

As you say, the debt is the clubs. However, the banks have given the debt on the back of the owners. The banks feel they are "good" for the money they have lent. The banks wouldn't necessarily feel the same about the new owners.

And like others have mentioned, I would HIGHLY doubt any new investor will up take the current debt, especially as there is so much current backlash from the fans about it.

Plus, with the new investments required, stadium, etc, it's not out of the realms of possibility that new debt will be required for all the work needed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.