@Messier1994 you seem to know your stuff. Whom do you think will buy us? Also whom do you think would be the most suitable buyer for the club?
Normally on these topics I am the type who convinces myself that it "must" be a specific suitor. Like in January, we just "must" get this or that player, makes too much sense not to. Etc etc etc. But on this one I am struggling to come up with any meaningful guess.
Normally the one walking out on top of an auction process is the one that can produce a calculation/business plan supporting the highest purchase price.
The Glazers want to "exit" their investment in Man Utd. Normally you have three "exit" options,
(a) an IPO (you sell the shares to the share market),
(b) Private Equity buyer (a buyer with money that isn't coming from the stock market), or
(c) industrial buyers (Comcast buying Sky is a classic industrial buyer, you do it because it makes sense to combine two businesses, can further be divided into vertical/horizontal buyers, i.e. if you buy a competitor its horizontal and vertical if you there is some kind of supplier relationship).
These things really go in trends. Sometimes the stock market wins most "auctions", during other market climates the PE buyers dominates. Honestly, if this sale was made like early 2021, a SPAC raising 8bn and buying us could have been possible.
Would we be a good investment? Depends on what we mean with good. The Glazers would have made a heck of a lot more money had they bought shares in Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google 17 years ago than this football club. But if you buy this club for 6bn and invest 3bn in it, say 1.5bn in infrastructure and 1.5bn in the squad (150m per for 10 years) -- we would (should) establish ourselves again as a top 3 club in the football world. The other two, Real and Barca (as well as Bayern) can't be bought. Can you make money by just expecting a higher sales price in 10 to 15 years? Could we get 15bn in 2032? If so, it is a 5 percent return on the investment.
Is that enough? Nah. There need to be additional benefits.
Who would get those benefits? The thing is, with our brand, I think there are material additional benefits for any buyer. Compare owning Manchester United vs the Power Grid in Florida. If you are say the
Apollo Investment Group, if the return is the same, if they buy us they improve their own brand, open doors, get in connection with people they otherwise might not get in connection with otherwise and so forth. If they don't want attention, you buy the power grid or finance a railway against a slice of tickets sales for 50 years or whatever.
Who is buying us? With this line of thinking -- the buyer would be the ones that get the biggest additional benefits of a purchase. Be it synergies, reputional types or whatever.
If we look at the industrial buyers,
Comcast should be mentioned, the streaming services (
Apple,
Amazon,
Netflix, Facebook and co.).
Dolan/
MSG?. The Chinese giants,
Tencent,
Alibaba and co. For some it could of course be a mix of a strategic investment and industrial upsides.
Does it make sense for
Apple to buy us? They
(a) got the cash at hand,
(b) if they sell us in 10 years it very likely is with a profit, and
(c) surely there would be some synergies with MUTV on Apple+, inside access to the players and coach, etc, and what not?
Nope, as things stands right now,
it does not make sense. Apple has a
profit margin of 25.31%. On a 9bn investment, they need like increased profits of 1.5bn per year to get that margin on the investment. That would mean that we like have to bring 30 million subscribers to them -- which wouldn't happen. The same applies to more or less every other industrial buyer.
SKY, now a part of Comcast, tried to buy us in the past, but got mixed signals from the UK regulators and cancelled their plans. Haven't things changed a lot since though? Is "The Big Picture" complexly dead? Probably.
I would
not rule out the industrial buyer, because in short its an ever changing landscape and just because something doesn't add up today, it doesn't mean that it won't add up tomorrow.
But -- it will take them seeing something we aren't seeing.
If we look at the PE investors, we have
(a) the wealthy individuals,
(b) the directly and indirectly state connected funds (
Abu Dhabi,
Dubai, Saudi, Bahrein, Norway, Kuwait, Qatar and co) and
(c) mainly US investors (like the mentioned
Apollo Investment Group,
Harris Blitzer Sports & Entertainment, consortium's around sports investors/pro team owners like
Steve Ballmer, Stephen Pagliuca and the likes
).
For which of these type of buyer does it make most sense, who gets the most additional benefits etc? Who has a lot of money right now? Strong currencty?
Looking at the large sample of recent transactions transactions that we have to look at -- 100% it makes the most sense for the state oil fund money.
The oil state funds won the auctions for City, Newcastle and PSG and in general invested the most money into the sport. The oil state funds did not win the auction for Chelsea --
but Saudi's were in it and were disqualified on a technicality. The UK more or less sold that club, and they obviously didn't want to take a club from an oligarch and sell to like MBS. (1) These funds have a longer investment frame than the PE investors. (2) They get the sports washing benefits. (3) Sport clubs will always be "valuable", or at least for foreseeable future. Making typewriters were a huge business once. The newspapers business is dying. The biggest cell phone companies died over like a handful of years (Nokia and Ericsson were 1 and 2). The best "brands" tend to do really well over time.
The biggest objection against a state controlled oil fund buying us -- is of course that they are kind of scarce. Abu Dabi, Saudis and Qatar already owns a team. But at the same time,
Red Bull can own two Champions League teams. They only made a few minor adjustment in their governance, and UEFA approved one owner holding two CL team.
From my POV, it makes the most sense for
Qatar to buy us. Simply because they (a) they already invested billions into PSG, they see a logic in that type of investment, the same logic x2 is there if they buy us, (b) they get the biggest synergies.
Hence, Qatar is someone I think has some likelyhood of buying us. But would I bet money on it? Nope, not unless I got 20/1 in odds...
Qatar's interest in buying us has been played down by the Telegraph, but that was 'sources close" to them published just the day after. People tend to talk out of their arse. They are building a new Parc the Princes, of course beneficial to build two mega arenas in close connection to each other. Of course perfectly possible that they don't want two football teams.
The Saudi Media Group bid for Liverpool. They have an enormous amount of money.
Hence, the Saudi Media Group is is someone I wouldn't rule out.
Abu Dabi --- through
Sheikh Khalifa -- is interested in Liverpool. There is no rule against two half brothers or whatever each owning a PL team. I mean, in some way there is a symmetry behind it all. Two half brothers owning each of the Manchester teams.
Dubai.
Bahrein is mentioned in relation to Liverpool.
Kuwait. But like, these guys have had every chance to buy a football club. Why haven't they? What have changed? Is it because we are unique? Did they know Chelsea wouldn't be sold to a "state"? If not, why didn't they buy Chelsea?
Nah. my best bet is Qatar, Abu Dabi or the Saudi's. But who the heck knows. All of a sudden they look at how much heat Qatar has taken from the World Cup and loose interest in these type of investments. These things can easily change from year to year.