The obvious thing you're missing is that the intrinsic value of that team is likely far below 4bn.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I'd never stop supporting the club, but it would be a hard pill to swallow. The Saudi regime for example is involved in some horrific shit, if they buy us the least we could do is call them up on it, we can't embrace them like the Newcastle fans are doing. It can't be "sorry kids in Yemen, but we've signed Mbappe".
This is a totally false equivalency. Oil is as it stands a necessary part of modern life, cutting off oil completely will in the majority of cases mean that you, well, die. On the other hand football is entertainment.
Forbes valued Phoenix at $2.7 Billion about 6 weeks ago
Right so it went for almost double the intrinsic worth. If one of the biggest brands in world football is up for sale at 6-7bn, I am sure there is multiple interest.
I'm not altogether convinced Chelsea are in any better of a position than we are. You sound a bit overly negative, down in the doldrums to me. They have a much smaller stadium that also needs redevelopment for a start. They have a squad that's performing worse than ours.
We are in the position we are in thanks to the Glazers. Any billionaire with the ego that comes with that will back themselves to arrest our slide, and we're already seeing shoots of recovery with this manager.
Particularly the likes of Dubai. It's not that difficult, these people have generally been good at hiring and delegating. The club has access to a large turnover, in addition to whatever the ownership brings. The squad is not THAT bad. It's pretty hard to not get this club heading in the right direction to be honest.
It's a medieval murderous monarchy backed up by an especially backwards and violent version of Islam. That's not hyperbole - it's a literal description. If not for the oil we'd be condeming them daily.
Last edited:
Im pessemistic, your optimisitic. Lets meet in the middle
In all seriousness lets hope there are serious bidders and lets see what the price is.
I take it all these people who would stop supporting the club if an oil state was to purchase us have also converted to electric vehicles? Obviously you wouldn’t buy petrol and line the pocket of these people.
Most of us have very little choice about that. We do have a choice about what football team we support.
Yeah you do have a choice though, you’re choosing the most convenient option and have been for years, so do I and will continue to do so.
(Musk (top, center) was photographed with Mansoor bin Ebrahim Al-Mahmoud, CEO of the Qatar Investment Authority (right) and Kushner (left))
(Beckham right, PSG owner left)
Beckham is pals with Nasser Al-Khelaifi, responsible for Qatar’s PSG investment.
The Qataris sponsors Inter Miami with 190m £:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/10972417/david-beckham-qatar-sponsorship-inter-miami/
“Becks and his agent David Gardner have been incredibly hands-on, determined to get the best terms possible. Qatar is keen to drive investments overseas to improve and soften its image.”
As I understand it, QSI was prepared to invest in an owner stake in Intwr Miami back in 2016, but the MSL teams nixed it.
Honestly, it doesn’t even have to be that costly for Qatar to gain control of Manchester United plc. They have already partnered up with David Beckham multiple times. Their is a friendly connection there. Would actually be surprised if Beckham wasn’t part of a Qatari bid. Qatar have founded parts of Elon Musk’s Twitter purchase. Elon Musk if anyone could probably need some sports washing. I am sure they could get Musk to buy a 10% minority stake in a United takeover. Musk is good for 163bn and a huge United fan. It hasn’t been hard for City to find takers of minority shares in that club.
The Glazers own 67% of Manchester United plc. 6 bn valuation. 680m in debts. That is (6-0.680)x67%=3.5bn to buy the Glazer’s shares. Have minority owners like Musk and Beckham take just under 17% of the shares, that is 900m. The Qataris own 50.1%, other consortium members own 17% and retail investors on the stock market owns the other 33%. The Qataris make a 3bn investment in the club over 10 years, that gives them an additional 22% ownership, which makes them land at just north of 2/3s of the votes which always is important. Total investment: 5.6bn
That would give you a really powerful football group. Messi is probably going to Inter Miami against becoming a part owner. Let’s say the group wants to launch some kind of sportswear (I think QSI already has invested in this segment, but it’s hard to Google with all World Cup related content out there). You get promotion from Beckham, Messi, Manchester United and PSG for “free”.
How do these ridiculous and irrelevant straw man arguments help the discussion?
Just FYI from the ONS;
The rest of our oil imports are mostly from the US including Puerto Rico, Libya and Nigeria.
The UK is a significant producer of both crude oil and petroleum products too, so your point isn’t even factually correct.
Last edited:
No I'm not saying we are worth only 300m obviously but for a middle eastern buyer they will look at that and think it only took 6 months to break top four with minimal spend on players and 300m to purchase a large club with 60k stadium.. Guaranteed new buyer will at least point to Newcastle in negotiations to but us.
Maybe but can we be whored our more than we already have? E.g. current shirt sponsor pulling out, advertising budgets being slashed globally. I suppose the less we are sold for the better as new owners will have more left over to invest in club(hopefully).
I don't think fossil fuels are merely 'convenient'. They power our entire society. Unless I want to live off grid as a freezing hermit I don't have much choice.
Nice to hear the fans still singing Glazers out. Needs to be kept up till the day they leave
Not really Qatar Dubai Saudi are very modernised, why are British people living there if it was so violent. Backwards? So much high tech and modern housing. They don’t have to pay loads of tax and there oppressed women can be seen in their fancy mall’s buying all the latest brands. We have our own problems to be dealing with with the cost of living crisis, single mum’s struggling, our old going hungry and cold not to mention the housing crisis. There laws are strict but there is a trade off and that’s safety and security. I have been to these countries and seen shops left unattended whilst people go for their prayers if we only look at things we don’t agree we miss the other things that are positive.
I know you're hypothessising but it does sound quite plausible.
(Musk (top, center) was photographed with Mansoor bin Ebrahim Al-Mahmoud, CEO of the Qatar Investment Authority (right) and Kushner (left))
(Beckham right, PSG owner left)
Beckham is pals with Nasser Al-Khelaifi, responsible for Qatar’s PSG investment.
The Qataris sponsors Inter Miami with 190m £:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/10972417/david-beckham-qatar-sponsorship-inter-miami/
“Becks and his agent David Gardner have been incredibly hands-on, determined to get the best terms possible. Qatar is keen to drive investments overseas to improve and soften its image.”
As I understand it, QSI was prepared to invest in an owner stake in Intwr Miami back in 2016, but the MSL teams nixed it.
Honestly, it doesn’t even have to be that costly for Qatar to gain control of Manchester United plc. They have already partnered up with David Beckham multiple times. Their is a friendly connection there. Would actually be surprised if Beckham wasn’t part of a Qatari bid. Qatar have founded parts of Elon Musk’s Twitter purchase. Elon Musk if anyone could probably need some sports washing. I am sure they could get Musk to buy a 10% minority stake in a United takeover. Musk is good for 163bn and a huge United fan. It hasn’t been hard for City to find takers of minority shares in that club.
The Glazers own 67% of Manchester United plc. 6 bn valuation. 680m in debts. That is (6-0.680)x67%=3.5bn to buy the Glazer’s shares. Have minority owners like Musk and Beckham take just under 17% of the shares, that is 900m. The Qataris own 50.1%, other consortium members own 17% and retail investors on the stock market owns the other 33%. The Qataris make a 3bn investment in the club over 10 years, that gives them an additional 22% ownership, which makes them land at just north of 2/3s of the votes which always is important. Total investment: 5.6bn
That would give you a really powerful football group. Messi is probably going to Inter Miami against becoming a part owner. Let’s say the group wants to launch some kind of sportswear (I think QSI already has invested in this segment, but it’s hard to Google with all World Cup related content out there). You get promotion from Beckham, Messi, Manchester United and PSG for “free”.
Chelsea had the unique advantage of having NO money going to the seller. Roman absolved the club of all debt and then gave very specific guidelines of finding the best owners possible for the club; the owners who would both do the best job and invest. Raine had free hand after that in choosing the buyer. Clearlake were NOT the highest bidders. They won due to their plan, and their structured plans for investment over 7, 15, 20 years.
The Glazers can tell Raine “biggest check wins.”
Love him or loathe him, Abramovich loved the club. The Glazers have gas stations they care more about than United. If it wasn’t necessary for the valuation of the club in other areas of business, Roman probably would have sold the club for 1 pound and 4.5 billion in contracted future investment.
Yes, we do need a total stadium overhaul. But we have 1.7billion guaranteed in the sale to do just that, and our other facilities, which we will still improve upon, are much farther ahead than yours.
There is also the issue of multi club structure. In the very near future, especially with Brexit, you will either be a club that has that supporting structure … or a club that doesn’t. And the difference could get huge.
We got extremely lucky in my opinion getting Clearlake. Roman would have either moved on or died eventually and he really didn’t have means or the avenues to build the infrastructure and organization of a true mega club.
Dubai and Qatar would be preferable to Bin Salman and the Saudis. They key will be finding the right group. Raw monetary power isn’t everything, and not all “oil state buyers” are the same. Mansoor has built an excellent structure at City, much better than the freer spending group for PSG.
I would sum it up this way: if a future owner is concerned about making money from the club itself … they aren’t wealthy enough to own United.
Slight tangent, but what (if anything) is known about the repercussions to the new Chelsea owners if that £1.7bn proves not to be forthcoming?
(Musk (top, center) was photographed with Mansoor bin Ebrahim Al-Mahmoud, CEO of the Qatar Investment Authority (right) and Kushner (left))
(Beckham right, PSG owner left)
Beckham is pals with Nasser Al-Khelaifi, responsible for Qatar’s PSG investment.
The Qataris sponsors Inter Miami with 190m £:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/10972417/david-beckham-qatar-sponsorship-inter-miami/
“Becks and his agent David Gardner have been incredibly hands-on, determined to get the best terms possible. Qatar is keen to drive investments overseas to improve and soften its image.”
As I understand it, QSI was prepared to invest in an owner stake in Intwr Miami back in 2016, but the MSL teams nixed it.
Honestly, it doesn’t even have to be that costly for Qatar to gain control of Manchester United plc. They have already partnered up with David Beckham multiple times. Their is a friendly connection there. Would actually be surprised if Beckham wasn’t part of a Qatari bid. Qatar have founded parts of Elon Musk’s Twitter purchase. Elon Musk if anyone could probably need some sports washing. I am sure they could get Musk to buy a 10% minority stake in a United takeover. Musk is good for 163bn and a huge United fan. It hasn’t been hard for City to find takers of minority shares in that club.
The Glazers own 67% of Manchester United plc. 6 bn valuation. 680m in debts. That is (6-0.680)x67%=3.5bn to buy the Glazer’s shares. Have minority owners like Musk and Beckham take just under 17% of the shares, that is 900m. The Qataris own 50.1%, other consortium members own 17% and retail investors on the stock market owns the other 33%. The Qataris make a 3bn investment in the club over 10 years, that gives them an additional 22% ownership, which makes them land at just north of 2/3s of the votes which always is important. Total investment: 5.6bn
That would give you a really powerful football group. Messi is probably going to Inter Miami against becoming a part owner. Let’s say the group wants to launch some kind of sportswear (I think QSI already has invested in this segment, but it’s hard to Google with all World Cup related content out there). You get promotion from Beckham, Messi, Manchester United and PSG for “free”.
Whoever buys us, will make sense to have a club legend on board. And Elon Musk won't get a better chance to purchase a part of the club.
What's your point in all this? Manchester United is a more valuable asset than Chelsea, that is the bottom line. That is all my argument has been. That is why we are starting off at 6-7 billion, and no they probably will not realise that valuation, but it will certainly go for more than Chelsea because it is a more desirable venture than Chelsea irrespective of whether you have a better fields or swimming pools. The type of owners that are even in the ballpark will not baulk at that.
I am not trying to dickwave about how good our potential owners are going to be or deriding Chelsea's owners. I have no idea who Clearlake are or how good they purport to be. It's just common sense that the club is not in this unenviable position compared to Chelsea that was being presented, and this sale will absolutely reflect that when all is said and done - that's why I don't understand the pessismistic outlook presented by the other poster. For every failing this club has as a result of the Glazers, there are people with the pockets to see that as an opportunity. i.e. look at how bad and underfunded they were, yet look at that opportunities that still present themselves for the club in terms of revenue and worldwide appeal.
(Musk (top, center) was photographed with Mansoor bin Ebrahim Al-Mahmoud, CEO of the Qatar Investment Authority (right) and Kushner (left))
(Beckham right, PSG owner left)
Beckham is pals with Nasser Al-Khelaifi, responsible for Qatar’s PSG investment.
The Qataris sponsors Inter Miami with 190m £:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/10972417/david-beckham-qatar-sponsorship-inter-miami/
“Becks and his agent David Gardner have been incredibly hands-on, determined to get the best terms possible. Qatar is keen to drive investments overseas to improve and soften its image.”
As I understand it, QSI was prepared to invest in an owner stake in Intwr Miami back in 2016, but the MSL teams nixed it.
Honestly, it doesn’t even have to be that costly for Qatar to gain control of Manchester United plc. They have already partnered up with David Beckham multiple times. Their is a friendly connection there. Would actually be surprised if Beckham wasn’t part of a Qatari bid. Qatar have founded parts of Elon Musk’s Twitter purchase. Elon Musk if anyone could probably need some sports washing. I am sure they could get Musk to buy a 10% minority stake in a United takeover. Musk is good for 163bn and a huge United fan. It hasn’t been hard for City to find takers of minority shares in that club.
The Glazers own 67% of Manchester United plc. 6 bn valuation. 680m in debts. That is (6-0.680)x67%=3.5bn to buy the Glazer’s shares. Have minority owners like Musk and Beckham take just under 17% of the shares, that is 900m. The Qataris own 50.1%, other consortium members own 17% and retail investors on the stock market owns the other 33%. The Qataris make a 3bn investment in the club over 10 years, that gives them an additional 22% ownership, which makes them land at just north of 2/3s of the votes which always is important. Total investment: 5.6bn
That would give you a really powerful football group. Messi is probably going to Inter Miami against becoming a part owner. Let’s say the group wants to launch some kind of sportswear (I think QSI already has invested in this segment, but it’s hard to Google with all World Cup related content out there). You get promotion from Beckham, Messi, Manchester United and PSG for “free”.
Where have you heard Musk is a massive united fan? Only time I've heard him mention united was in that joke tweet about buying us.
Also, Quataris put up less than 1% of the Twitter purchase. Saudis put in 5x more so I'm not sure that's all that significant.
I don't think it's likely he'll be buying any share of the club any time soon. Especially given that Teslas stock is crashing and burning and the board are threatening to oust him. Dont think he can afford another distraction.
And let's hope it stays that way. Last thing we need is our transfer business being conducted via Twitter poll.
I don’t know specifically what the penalties are, but the agreements are why you see them setting up loan accounts to themselves to be paid in a series of two installments. The first one for 800 million was done in August I think? So the money is specifically set aside instead of coming out of pocket bits and pieces at a time. If they defaulted I would assume the penalties would be financial and go to the charity trust bank account the purchase price did.
It isn’t really a concern. This is what they do. The Dodgers have lost vast amounts of money each of the first 7 years they’ve owned them; an average of like 400m a year or something. Their payroll alone is 1.2 billion a year. BUT, in return they have created a vast system that is a near monopoly of talent coming from South and Central America. It’s a farm system that dwarfs anything done in MLB previously.
When Boehly and the group show potential hires, agents, etc their “vision board” the evaluation point for the first phase isn’t until 2030.
They are long term planners. The fact that they have actually done, step for step, the things they told Raine they would do with Chelsea already was a big factor in their being chosen.
My point was that you need a buyer that doesn’t necessarily care about making money directly from the team, and that having the right structure to compete is more important than worrying about whether the money was made from oil or selling something else.
Also, my post was a response.The implication was Chelsea was in the same position from the start because we also need a stadium revamp … but that that’s not the case.
whoever buys United will have to pay 6 to 7 Billion THEN they will have to outlay the money for a stadium and facilities AND pay off or service the clubs debt.
In that case being sold for more is not an advantage, only emphasizing that United require a very specific type of buyer if they want to compete at the level they should.
You could be right on Musk not needing another distraction. But he actually isn’t that involved in Tesla anymore and now he is leaving Twitter. He did however — after the joke tweet — say that if he bought a sports team it would be Manchester United and that he is a fan.
I think my point was, the Qataris can buy control of United without spending 9bn after the necessary investments. Why is Trump’s nephew, Kushner on the left, hanging out with the Sheik? They have so much money, drive so many investments and projects. Musk was in Qatar for the second time in like a year, they have had dealings before the Twitter takeover.
To put it like this, if an US investment fund was buying United, I don’t really get why anyone would want to pick up 10-20% of the tab. Sure you become a minority owner of Man Utd. But is that worth a billion USD? It’s the control stake that has value. But if the Qataris want to do business with you and you do it, yeah that could be really valuable. I don’t think it would be hard for the Qataris to find takers for say 17% of the shares of Man Utd if they wanted co-investors.
And I think — given how much Qatar already have invested in this field — I think it makes the most sense for them to buy United. They get the biggest synergies. Could it make more sense for anyone else to pay a higher price for Man Utd than the Qataris?
With that said — I don’t think it’s likely (as in more than 50%) that Qatar will buy us. Why? They are in a position where they don’t have to run after every ball. It’s personal driven. What do the leaders want to invest their time in. So few are throwing money around right now — they will have so many opportunities.
I actually think Beckham is the key here. It sounds odd, but if he tells them, look I think you should do this. It makes sense. It could be enough, simply because they like him. Like to hang out and be associated with him.
It’s still perhaps a bit big investment for them given how high profile it would be without the biggest upside. Could result in a lot of controversy. But if they can tag up with some other “fun” people, it doesn’t have to be Musk, but someone like that, bring the overall cost down some, I could see it happening.
Twitter isn’t a necessary part of modern life. Neither is travelling with British Airways or through Heathrow Airport.
I actually support Manchester United. As in, I feel an emotional connection to them. The club means a lot to me.
Nothing like using Twitter.
Would you lot accept Greenwood back as well ffs?
So you wouldn’t invite a Greewood to your wedding, but have no problem using him to deliver you mail, transport you from A2B, or host you while you wait?
Last edited:
So it is useful for promotion. Is that supposed to be some sort of disguised intention or something? That’s no secret. My question is around the idea that the motivation is to somehow mask who they really are, hence use sport to wash away their ‘true’ nature. This isn’t the case, they use the club for promo because it’s good business for their country. That much is common sense, and also something perfectly normal that they would want to do.
It’s the idea that people from there are nothing but sub-human savages that seems to form the foundation of this ‘sportwashing’ argument. There’s an implication that they are going to try to audaciously humanise themselves, which is the REAL cunning plan all along, and nobody wants their great club ‘used’ to make these sub-humans appear human. They don’t support LGBT, which is common knowledge and not something they make any attempt to hide. However, despite this, they would still like to develop their economies and grow their profile. Because of course they would. They are countries.
The USA is bidding for an upcoming World Cup. There has been no suggestion that they are doing so with the intention of distracting people from their questionable abortion laws, their questionable foreign policy, or even their own LGBT discriminations in areas of the South. We can all understand the logical reason why they would want to hold a World Cup, and those are the same reasons why Qatar wanted to hold one, and would be interested in other similar sport related activity that would have a similar impact. Like buying a huge football club.
Great post.
This is why someone will think that United is way undervalued for its stature.
LA Lakers has the largest fan base in the NBA, home attendance of like 17,000 and its total revenue's only like US$340m. They have like 21million followers on Facebook whilst United has 73 million. This is not even counting the global fan base of hundreds of millions. NBA has like 650millon fans whilst football/soccer has like 3 billion.
United's fan base is close to the entire NBA's fan base.
LA Lakers are projected to be worth $ 5.9 billion. And United isn't worth more?
He is more appropriate as Goofy
The interesting difference was that the commentators actually referenced it instead of just ignoring it.
True. It's almost like they where afraid of the Glazers before....
They've probably stopped paying them off.
Agreed. It's especially strange to see people repeat it when the motivation isn't hidden and has never been hidden. It's about money and diversify Qatar's economy, in their Qatar 2030 project they put an important emphasis on tourism including sport tourism, they don't particularly want you to approve their culture, they want your money, if you also accept their culture than it's great too. But if they have your money, they will be fine.
Anyone familiar with 'The 1958'?
They are saying that they're going to enter some sort of plan which gives the Glazers no choice but to see through the sale.
Big talk? Or is something on the horizon?
They are saying that they're going to enter some sort of plan which gives the Glazers no choice but to see through the sale.
Big talk? Or is something on the horizon?
They've done more for the 'Glazers out campaign in 12 months than M.U.S.T have in 17 years
That’s what sportwashing is though, it’s to somehow clean the image, perceived or otherwise.
Some of these states have questionable human rights records, and receive a lot of negative press the world around for things like, you know, murdering journalists. If they can suddenly become most well known above anything else as just being the owners of MUFC then it’s served its purpose.
- Status