Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jippy said:
So we shouldn't bother highlighting egregious government practices then? No-one was expecting an overnight change, but that doesn't mean these things shouldn't be challenged.

Of course the global financial system is incredibly intertwined. It's a bit different ME states owning some trophy offices in London and chunks of assorted listed companies like Barclays versus getting hold of United though.
And yep we know the Glazers are all about the cash and we don't any control over who they sell it to. Chances are it will be a new owner with some skeletons in their closet, rather than and the mythical benign billionaire many want.
Don't see why it's disingenuous to not be happy about this though?
Click to expand...
People can criticize, they can be unhappy and they should certainly speak out but the levels we are seeing here are nothing short of hypocritical if we are being honest. I think its right continuously speak out and where possible actually act becauase it will help in some way and one day maybe everyone will attain that level of awareness and care.

But to threaten disassociation with the club, to hope for actual political interference to thwart any possible deal whilst at the same time buying the oil that gives them the power to oppress and enslave significant portions of their population, whilst working in companies that have survived or grown as a result of the same dirty money or renting in really estate owned by them is going a bit too far.
 
I wonder how many people that say they would stop following the club (if undesirable owners come along) are regular match goers rather than fans who follow via TV. To give up that part of your life would be a massive sacrifice I would have thought - certainly would be for me if I had to make that decision. It is a far easier choice to simply not turn on a TV or find a stream. Match goers would be missing out on probably what is a significant part of their social life. In my opinion would be a massive shame if a club like United ended up as a sportwashing project for an oil state but I also think the vast majority of the global fanbase would just enjoy the billions that would be thrown at the club and that's what the whole idea is I guess.
 
AneRu said:
People can criticize, they can be unhappy and they should certainly speak out but the levels we are seeing here are nothing short of hypocritical if we are being honest. I think its right continuously speak out and where possible actually act becauase it will help in some way and one day maybe everyone will attain that level of awareness and care.

But to threaten disassociation with the club, to hope for actual political interference to thwart any possible deal whilst at the same time buying the oil that gives them the power to oppress and enslave significant portions of their population, whilst working in companies that have survived or grown as a result of the same dirty money or renting in really estate owned by them is going a bit too far.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense, a person in the street can't control things like where their country's energy supplies come from, they can control things like what football team they support. Do you think that people should move to a hut in the woods and live off moss and bark before they can have a valid opinion on the topic?
 
Gavinb33 said:
In this case you'd be more than willing to roll out the red carpet if Russia for instance wanted to buy United and Putin install himself as defacto owner, Russia did a lot of what you put there and are also bombing people like the UAE and Saudi are currently doing in Yemen.
Click to expand...

I mentioned nothing about ‘rolling out red carpet’ for anyone. I’m questioning this absurd notion of ‘Sportswashing’. These countries are not ‘washing’ anything. If you look around they don’t actually give a shit what you or I think about their views on alcohol or LGBT, and are certainly not spending hundreds of billions trying to convince us that it isn’t happening. That is arrogant in the extreme. When it comes to football, they are simply trying to do good business as is their right, same as any other nation.

If Putin/Russia wanted to buy Manchester United, it would not be to somehow trick people into believing that their political views are not what they are. They don’t actually care whether you like them, they are in their country and not yours.

There’s also no point mentioning Russia in a thread like this, because I’d then follow up with another country (one that we’ve decided was not on the naughty list or that their atrocities were seemingly understandable) and then I’d have a number of posts attacking ‘whataboutism’ - which is of course the default setting to pedal hypocrisy.
 
Looks like the compromise solution is an American oil company. All bow to our new overlords, ExxonMobil or Chevron, with a return to the 09/10 shirt if it's the latter.
 
Rozay said:
I mentioned nothing about ‘rolling out red carpet’ for anyone. I’m questioning this absurd notion of ‘Sportswashing’. These countries are not ‘washing’ anything. If you look around they don’t actually give a shit what you or I think about their views on alcohol or LGBT, and are certainly not spending hundreds of billions trying to convince us that it isn’t happening. That is arrogant in the extreme. When it comes to football, they are simply trying to do good business as is their right, same as any other nation.
Click to expand...

Taking on board Manchester United is the biggest prize, but also, the biggest risk.

There would be more scrutiny on the new buyers than ever before. If it is a ME owner, and something happens in the country, it would be magnified a lot more than any other club.

I could only hope that purchasing Manchester United, would make any decision that the investor makes in their respective country, is thought about twice. The unprecedented exposure they would get, would not be worth it.
 
No-one in their right mind is going to pay 6-7billion for utd. 4-4.5 billion tops. The stadium needs work and expanding. The training ground needs investment. The first team needs investment. Thats a billion gone just getting our infrastructure up to the levels of city, spurs and arsenal.
 
red thru&thru said:
Taking on board Manchester United is the biggest prize, but also, the biggest risk.

There would be more scrutiny on the new buyers than ever before. If it is a ME owner, and something happens in the country, it would be magnified a lot more than any other club.

I could only hope that purchasing Manchester United, would make any decision that the investor makes in their respective country, is thought about twice. The unprecedented exposure they would get, would not be worth it.
Click to expand...

I don’t doubt that it would bring scrutiny, but ultimately, I am questioning how much they care. This whole concept of ‘sportswashing’ implies that these states are in constant search of western approval for their policies, when there is little to no indication of that being the case. Qatar just held a damn World Cup! That would constitute ‘unprecedented exposure’. They are not trying to ‘hide’ who they are. They are likely trying to show the world who they are, and I imagine if you asked them who that was, it would probably be a bit more than ‘head choppers’ or whatever many would prefer to reduce/summarise them as.

Russia has been mentioned for example. They are who they are, and they also make great Vodka. I don’t think they try to promote their Vodka with the primary purpose of distracting everyone from their politics.
 
stubie said:
We would become woke!
A transgender midget would be our first signing!
Click to expand...

:lol:
And if they didn't score a goal the club would issue press releases condemning toxic fans.
 
Rozay said:
I mentioned nothing about ‘rolling out red carpet’ for anyone. I’m questioning this absurd notion of ‘Sportswashing’. These countries are not ‘washing’ anything. If you look around they don’t actually give a shit what you or I think about their views on alcohol or LGBT, and are certainly not spending hundreds of billions trying to convince us that it isn’t happening. That is arrogant in the extreme. When it comes to football, they are simply trying to do good business as is their right, same as any other nation.

If Putin/Russia wanted to buy Manchester United, it would not be to somehow trick people into believing that their political views are not what they are. They don’t actually care whether you like them, they are in their country and not yours.

There’s also no point mentioning Russia in a thread like this, because I’d then follow up with another country (one that we’ve decided was not on the naughty list or that their atrocities were seemingly understandable) and then I’d have a number of posts attacking ‘whataboutism’ - which is of course the default setting to pedal hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Great points again i too wish people would stop this nonsense of Sport washing" a lot of countries don`t give a damn what people think look at China. Oil states like Dubai and Saudi who were American puppets now brave enough to do trade deals with China and and not fear backlash from Washington (this is not to say the Americans will not hit back at these oil states for disobeying their masters).Qatar didn`t change their stance re LBGT and they won`t because they have definitive boundaries when it comes to sexuality and gender issues unlike here. You can wake up tomorrow and find your son has become your daughter, your father dresses like your mother and Paul want`s to be known as Jane. For these countries they don`t want these ideas to be normalised in their country and i know plenty folks here who feel the same. We talk about migrant workers dying in Qatar go and check how many workers die in India in the work place yet we have been playing our cricket over there for years. I heard from a friend who works at Waitrose in London that staff don`t get a single break if their contracted to work 5 hours, imagine a high end supermarket owned by John Lewis treating their staff this way, imagine standing in a kiosk serving customers 5 hours and you don`t get a break. Obviously they`re not dying but you think they would at least treat them better here in the UK.
 
As the Qatar WC showed, football always wins. So everyone who is appalled at the thought of state ownership will get behind United when we start to winning trophies again.
 
dinostar77 said:
No-one in their right mind is going to pay 6-7billion for utd. 4-4.5 billion tops. The stadium needs work and expanding. The training ground needs investment. The first team needs investment. Thats a billion gone just getting our infrastructure up to the levels of city, spurs and arsenal.
Click to expand...
Yes they will.

 
Rozay said:
I don’t doubt that it would bring scrutiny, but ultimately, I am questioning how much they care. This whole concept of ‘sportswashing’ implies that these states are in constant search of western approval for their policies, when there is little to no indication of that being the case. Qatar just held a damn World Cup! That would constitute ‘unprecedented exposure’. They are not trying to ‘hide’ who they are. They are likely trying to show the world who they are, and I imagine if you asked them who that was, it would probably be a bit more than ‘head choppers’ or whatever many would prefer to reduce/summarise them as.

Russia has been mentioned for example. They are who they are, and they also make great Vodka. I don’t think they try to promote their Vodka with the primary purpose of distracting everyone from their politics.
Click to expand...

I agree.

The only silver lining that could be, from the people who oppose this type of takeover, that ME owner live by their sword, or die by their sword...in very loose terms.
 
Not sure why people pour scorn on this valuation in terms of Middle Eastern investment. They ain't looking at it like a traditional investment. It might not go for 6 or 7 but it could well go for 4 or 5 billion quite easily and if you look at it in traditional terms even that looks mad with investment still to come. It's obvious the Glazers just have a starting position, but make no mistake the sale will blow Chelsea out of the water and if you're just looking at a balance sheet will make no sense.

But I think that's the point, it's not a lightbulb manufacturer, it's Man Utd. It's vanity, prestige, an interest, a tool of gigantic reach and influence. It is many, many things at once and that's how the sale will make no sense in purely financial terms. Who knows which of these are most important to Dubai and such, but one thing is for sure it's not really just the numbers on paper, but they possibly do think TV rights and such have potential at some point and are probably fairly sure they're not going to lose out that much in pursuing whatever purposes they have.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Can't believe nobody has suggested Disney yet.
Click to expand...
Old Trafford stadium turns into oversized Millennium Falcon. Mickey mouse is new club mascot.
Equal pay - Men and Women football teams will now split their salaries.
Imagine the possibilities. Ed Woodward's wet dream :drool:
 
Berbaclass said:
Yes they will.
Click to expand...

The reality is that buying even a second rate team in the third most popular American sport makes more financial sense than owning a major football club. FSG is trying to sell Liverpool - one of the biggest sporting brands on the planet - and buy a completely new NBA franchise for roughly the same money.

American sports teams are franchises. They individually or collectively negotiate and control all their broadcast and marketing deals, they can ensure fair competition and place limits on spending via a salary cap. As an owner, you control both the revenue and the cost sides of the operation and therefore you can basically ensure that you print money. It may not be the very best use of your capital but you're not going to lose money.

Football clubs are not franchises. They put up all the money and take all the risk to create the entertainment product, but bureaucrats at the national and continental levels call the shots in terms of both broadcast negotiation and regulations to curb costs and create competitive balance (or absolute lack thereof). You don't control your own revenues and you don't really control your own costs, at least if you want to compete with state-owned clubs. It's a shit business model for owners who care about money. The only way its not a shit model is if you think that you can drive enough growth in the value of the asset that none of this really matters. But that already happened over the last 15 years at most big clubs, which is why the Glazers, Kroenkes, FSG, etc still made out like bandits. Now the assets are actually expensive so you can't project big-time growth and so the bandits want to sell.
 
tenpoless said:
Anyone who thinks the new owners will spend less than 200m is having a laugh. Its not realistic.

They need to spend 500m each year for 3 years to get back us on top. And 300m per year to maintain the lead in the following years.
Click to expand...

Is this satire or do you think we should spend billions building another team of galacticos?
 
Abraxas said:
Not sure why people pour scorn on this valuation in terms of Middle Eastern investment. They ain't looking at it like a traditional investment. It might not go for 6 or 7 but it could well go for 4 or 5 billion quite easily and if you look at it in traditional terms even that looks mad with investment still to come. It's obvious the Glazers just have a starting position, but make no mistake the sale will blow Chelsea out of the water and if you're just looking at a balance sheet will make no sense.

But I think that's the point, it's not a lightbulb manufacturer, it's Man Utd. It's vanity, prestige, an interest, a tool of gigantic reach and influence. It is many, many things at once and that's how the sale will make no sense in purely financial terms. Who knows which of these are most important to Dubai and such, but one thing is for sure it's not really just the numbers on paper, but they possibly do think TV rights and such have potential at some point and are probably fairly sure they're not going to lose out that much in pursuing whatever purposes they have.
Click to expand...
Because cheap debt (loans) no longer exist even to institutional buyers. Rampant global inflation has put an end to that as interest rates have increased. None of these owners put their hands in their own pockets, they raise the captial for the purchase.

A number of countries are going into recession which will affect how much companies can spend on marketing/advertising/sponsorship.

The PL have put in legal safe guards to stop the ESL from happening.

Chelsea happen to sit on some of the most valuable real estate in the world, so they were always going to cost a pretty penny.

We havent won the league or CL in a decade. Stadium, training ground and first team need investment.

The glazers want 6-7billion out of pure greed. Short of state ownership coming in, they arent going to get it. The world economy isnt there at present.
 
Powderfinger said:
The reality is that buying even a second rate team in the third most popular American sport makes more financial sense than owning a major football club. FSG is trying to sell Liverpool - one of the biggest sporting brands on the planet - and buy a completely new NBA franchise for roughly the same money.

American sports teams are franchises. They collectively negotiate all their broadcast deals, they can ensure fair competition and place limits on spending via a salary cap. You control both the revenue and the cost side of the operation and therefore you can basically ensure that you print money. It may not be the very best use of your capital but you're not going to lose money.

Football clubs are not franchises. They put up all the money and take all the risk to create the entertainment product, but bureaucrats at the national and continental levels call the shots in terms of both broadcast negotiation and regulations to curb costs and create competitive balance (or absolute lack thereof). You don't control your own revenues and you don't really control your own costs, at least if you want to compete with state-owned clubs. It's a shit business model for owners who care about money. The only way its not a shit model is if you think that you can drive enough growth in the value of the asset that none of this really matters. But that already happened over the last 15 years at most big clubs, which is why the Glazers, Kroenkes, FSG, etc still made out like bandits. Now the assets are actually expensive so you can't project big-time growth and so the bandits want to sell.
Click to expand...
Good post well explained.
 
dinostar77 said:
Because cheap debt (loans) no longer exist even to institutional buyers. Rampant global inflation has put an end to that as interest rates have increased. None of these owners put their hands in their own pockets, they raise the captial for the purchase.

A number of countries are going into recession which will affect how much companies can spend on marketing/advertising/sponsorship.

The PL have put in legal safe guards to stop the ESL from happening.

Chelsea happen to sit on some of the most valuable real estate in the world, so they were always going to cost a pretty penny.

We havent won the league or CL in a decade. Stadium, training ground and first team need investment.

The glazers want 6-7billion out of pure greed. Short of state ownership coming in, they arent going to get it. The world economy isnt there at present.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced Chelsea's real estate means all that much. It's a football club, it is pretty difficult to realise any value from it unless a new stadium is built which comes with its own immense costs, which they decided against.

They already registered interest in buying a parcel of land for 50 million to enable expansion. That's relatively small change in the context of a purchase of the football club. So I don't see this as a huge factor, the value is in the Chelsea mark as an established, top 4 side that is London based not the real estate.

And yet the figure they received for the club was monumental, and contrary to what many would have thought. There is an appetite out there among very wealthy individuals that are not as worried about a recession as you or I. And well..state ownership may be coming so if that potential exists whether the Glazers valuation is greedy is neither here nor there if there is potential to get it.
 
Abraxas said:
I'm not convinced Chelsea's real estate means all that much. It's a football club, it is pretty difficult to realise any value from it unless a new stadium is built which comes with its own immense costs, which they decided against.

They already registered interest in buying a parcel of land for 50 million to enable expansion. That's relatively small change in the context of a purchase of the football club. So I don't see this as a huge factor, the value is in the Chelsea mark as an established, top 4 side that is London based not the real estate.

And yet the figure they received for the club was monumental, and contrary to what many would have thought. There is an appetite out there among very wealthy individuals that are not as worried about a recession as you or I. And well..state ownership may be coming so if that potential exists whether the Glazers valuation is greedy is neither here nor there if there is potential to get it.
Click to expand...
The real estate still counts as its an asset and a very expensive one at that. Just in that postcode alone you have two streets whos houses cost upwards of £25mil a piece. Where a apartment can cost upwards of £10mil. So the land is definately an asset. Anyone who lent the money for the chelsea owner to buy the club would have done their due diligence on the clubs assets incase of non repayments of finances. Knowing the value of the land it sits on would have gone into the calculations.

Also as much as it pains me to say, we are a less successful club than chelsea over the past decade. They have won the PL, CL, Europa lafue, Supercup, Club world cup etc. Your buying a club where its built for success as the recent past indicates.

Whereas Utd, your buying with the hope of trying to get them back to where they were. Which lets face it, is impossible. Not now we have the endless funds and dodgy dealings of state ownership. Its going to cost alot more to make Utd successful again than Chelsea.

All of that will factor into the price whem it comes to negoitations. The glazers leveraged themsleves onto a fat plump golden goose and have milked it to the point its an anorexic, taut goose on lifesupport.

The reality is simple. As a utd fan you want success? You want trophies? Want to compete to sign the biggest names? You need state ownership and all the sportswashing that comes with it.
 
The bottom line...for me at least...is that I buy (and love) many things that are likely owned by terrible people/organizations.

And there are many things in this world I don't use or like owned by wonderfully moral people.

If we were to make moral decisions on what everyone could/should do/own, that would not be a world I would personally like to live in. I fully understand and support those that want to make that decision individually, but hope that they are consistent with it if they want to make take such a strong moral stance.

...and secondly, isn't the stance of limiting a potential owner based on a singular view of morality exactly the type of problematic authoritarian thinking that is being thrown at these potential ME ownership groups?

I have traveled to the ME for work and pleasure. While there are many policies there I don't agree with personally, I typically feel that regions of the globe should have the ability to operate how they see fit...as long as that policy does not directly effect another region.

So as that pertains to our Club...I feel like we need a well financed owner that is committed to keeping our long valued culture. As long as any potential buyer is also committed to those goals, I really don't care much about where they coming from or what their background is (as long as the acquisition is legal of course). I've seen many examples of ME ownership not upset a Club's culture...and also many examples of how those well financed Clubs rise based on solid financial backing. So I personally am not going to worry about a ME buyer until theres a specific reason to...
 
People keep using Chelsea as the bench mark but Newcastle for 300m is another bench mark that can't be ignored. Are we really worth 20 times that?
 
Rozay said:
I don’t doubt that it would bring scrutiny, but ultimately, I am questioning how much they care. This whole concept of ‘sportswashing’ implies that these states are in constant search of western approval for their policies, when there is little to no indication of that being the case. Qatar just held a damn World Cup! That would constitute ‘unprecedented exposure’. They are not trying to ‘hide’ who they are. They are likely trying to show the world who they are, and I imagine if you asked them who that was, it would probably be a bit more than ‘head choppers’ or whatever many would prefer to reduce/summarise them as.

Russia has been mentioned for example. They are who they are, and they also make great Vodka. I don’t think they try to promote their Vodka with the primary purpose of distracting everyone from their politics.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to understand the intention of sportswashing.
 
Conor said:
You don't seem to understand the intention of sportswashing.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't you be elaborating? Traditionaly sportswashing was termed as using sports to improve any tarnished reputations or wrongdoings. And that is pretty much what the poster you quoted is talking about. Look at the Saudis. They have been accused of slavery, human right violations. outright public murder, exporting terrorism and what not. Yet, every nation out there is eager to do business with them. Them buying Newcastle hasn't changed anything. Most of the developed world already considered them as partners because of the money they have.
 
Elcabron said:
People keep using Chelsea as the bench mark but Newcastle for 300m is another bench mark that can't be ignored. Are we really worth 20 times that?
Click to expand...
You cant be serious, global reach is the value of the club. How is Newcastle even comparable to Chelsea or united?
Just look at City, 15 years has passed with constant winning of the premier league yet they have not reached anywhere near United's popularity.
 
Rozay said:
I don’t doubt that it would bring scrutiny, but ultimately, I am questioning how much they care. This whole concept of ‘sportswashing’ implies that these states are in constant search of western approval for their policies, when there is little to no indication of that being the case. Qatar just held a damn World Cup! That would constitute ‘unprecedented exposure’. They are not trying to ‘hide’ who they are. They are likely trying to show the world who they are, and I imagine if you asked them who that was, it would probably be a bit more than ‘head choppers’ or whatever many would prefer to reduce/summarise them as.

Russia has been mentioned for example. They are who they are, and they also make great Vodka. I don’t think they try to promote their Vodka with the primary purpose of distracting everyone from their politics.
Click to expand...

I’m just going to repost this earlier post of mine on the subject of sportswashing:

Rado_N said:
I remember talking to a guy from Deloitte’s football unit years ago (the guys who create the football finance reports and money league etc) and he was telling me that City accounts for something like 1% of the Abu Dhabi group’s holdings but accounts for around 99% of web traffic about them.

It works.
Click to expand...
 
RedDevil@84 said:
Shouldn't you be elaborating? Traditionaly sportswashing was termed as using sports to improve any tarnished reputations or wrongdoings. And that is pretty much what the poster you quoted is talking about. Look at the Saudis. They have been accused of slavery, human right violations. outright public murder, exporting terrorism and what not. Yet, every nation out there is eager to do business with them. Them buying Newcastle hasn't changed anything. Most of the developed world already considered them as partners because of the money they have.
Click to expand...
He was suggesting that their business actions are wrongly being labelled as sportswashing, because they don't care about 'western approval of their policies', but that isn't the intention.
 
Elcabron said:
People keep using Chelsea as the bench mark but Newcastle for 300m is another bench mark that can't be ignored. Are we really worth 20 times that?
Click to expand...
Of course we are. You're buying Disney Land if you buy Man United. PSG and Man City bought leagues, they didnt buy global fame. It takes decades to form into the cultural zeitgeist, and Manchester United has that already. No other sports franchise in the world could go as long as we have without winning titles and competing for top prizes and remain this popular around the world.

If you paid top whack for that, you are getting more than a title winner every other year. You're getting a sporting dynamo with 120 years of history and loyal supporters all over the world. If we got a multi-billionaire owners, the idea of "Man United Japan FC, Man United Mexico FC, Man United Brazil FC" and Man United resturants and hotels and theme parks franchised out all over the world would be a more likely than anyone else, because the audience is already there. The potential to whore us out in every which way possible is what they wanted to do in 2002 under Kenyon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.