Club Sale | It’s done!

[Slysi17]

We're the most valuable sports asset on the planet about to provide its current owners with the biggest profit ever seen made by anyone in the industry.

If your starting point based on that is to claim you don't see a viable business reason for anyone to be interested in buying us then I'm not going to be able to help

Football has changed. Going to be alot harder to grow the club like you think with Manchester City, Chelsea and now Newcastle United. Not to mention Liverpool if they get rich owners. And now Arsenal are back and Tottenham will be up there. That's 7 clubs fighting for 4/5 champions league spots. If you think the new owners could grow Manchester United like the Glazers have you are deluded. Back when the Glazers were in charge there were only Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea to worry about. You keep spouting about how the new owners will make decent money without considering the football landscape in the premier league has changed. And also you don't back up what you say with facts either. Won't be the most valuable sports asset for much longer with owners who just want a return on investment due to the insane competition now.

 

[stw2022]

Of the non oil potential buyers who do you think has 5 billion in cash, which will negate the need for borrowing at rising interest rates and a further 2 billion to sort the infrastructure and the squad, again without borrowing because the interest rates for those funds alone easily dwarf the profits we are currently making?

The Glazers benefited from excellent timing because then we were actually undervalued, we were perennial winners, with little to no competition and had a phenomenal manager in place. Those factors helped them grow the value of the club and exploit our name but through their incompetence the trophies are gone, the record sponsorship deals have dried up and we now struggle to qualify for the CL let alone be involved in the business end of that tournament.

Still the Glazers want their pound of flesh and their valuation doesn't make business sense for anyone looking to make money. If have 7 billion lying around its more lucrative to buy bonds than to invest it in United with all the uncertainties around us - our revenue is heavily dependent on us achieving a minimum sporting threshold, which needs a lot of money to maintain.

By do you think FSG want out? They have been more successful than the Glazers and have a top manager in place. Its because they can see where this is going and pretty soon they know that wage inflation will also catch up with them and wipe away all the profits.

Why is your starting point that it has to be paid for up front in cash?

Musk bought Twitter largely using Tesla shares and financed $13bn of it through borrowing secured through JP Morgan.

There's nothing written anywhere this needs to, or is likely to be, a cash purchase

 

[Slysi17]

Why is your starting point that it has to be paid for up front in cash?

Musk bought Twitter largely using Tesla shares and financed $13bn of out through borrowing secured through JP Morgan.

There's nothing written anywhere this needs to, or is likely to be, a cash purchase

Why do you think Manchester United will continue to be the most valuable sports asset without owners who want the club to be successful. That's insanity thinking that.

 

[red thru&thru]

We're the most valuable sports asset on the planet about to provide its current owners with the biggest profit ever seen made by anyone in the industry by some considerable distance.

If your starting point based on that is to claim you don't see a viable business reason for anyone to be interested in buying us then I'm not going to be able to help

Because basically, you haven't a clue. You always talk a lot and never back it up. So, if you are going to comment on my posts to argue against my point, back it up.

 

[stw2022]

Why do you think Manchester United will continue to be the most valuable sports asset without owners who want the club to be successful. That's insanity thinking that.

You can't just invent something someone said and ask them question based on that.

 

[Slysi17]

Because basically, you haven't a clue. You always talk a lot and never back it up. So, if you are going to comment on my posts to argue against my point, back it up.

It's insane that poster thinks Manchester United will grow in value like they did under the Glazers when the competition is so fierce now with Manchester City, Newcastle United and Chelsea. It's laughable.

 

[AneRu]

Why is your starting point that it has to be paid for up front in cash?

Musk bought Twitter largely using Tesla shares and financed $13bn of it through borrowing secured through JP Morgan.

There's nothing written anywhere this needs to, or is likely to be, a cash purchase

Still Musk had to borrow 13 billion and he had the unique advantage of having valuable Tesla shares. But suppose its Radcliffe, will the Glazers accept shares in his company or they will want something more liquid? Does every potential buyer have what Musk had when buying Twitter?

Lets not lose sight of what the club needs, what it is generating right now and whether those two align to build a solid business case. Whether you are paying through cash, shares or gold you are still paying north of 5 billion for a club that barely makes 100m per year and needs spending of an average of 150m per year and it still needs a new stadium and training ground.

 

[stw2022]

Because basically, you haven't a clue. You always talk a lot and never back it up. So, if you are going to comment on my posts to argue against my point, back it up.

You don't have a point except to claim the most valuable sports business on the planet set to make its current owners the most profit that anyone in the history of sports ownership has ever made anyone anywhere on the planet is not a "viable business" for anyone to consider buying it

 

[LawCharltonBest]

If United do spend big next month, it might mean that the Glazers will wait until the summer to sell United as a more profitable Champions League club.

I was hoping this would be done before the Summer transfer market so that the new owners can buy Mbappe

 

[Abraxas]

We're the most valuable sports asset on the planet about to provide its current owners with the biggest profit ever seen made by anyone in the industry by some considerable distance.

If your starting point based on that is to claim you don't see a viable business reason for anyone to be interested in buying us then I'm not going to be able to help

Isn't what you're pointing out exactly the reason why the traditional business case is extremely thin? We're about to provide the biggest profit in the industry for the Glazers. All that means is somebody has to dig mighty deep in comparison to our dwindling (non existent of late) profits. It's not exactly of consolation to a buyer that the Glazers are receiving a huge ROI so that makes little sense as an argument.

The business case has to be that you see a landscape for growing the value or profitability of the club and that's what you're not providing. The only thing I can currently see is that there may be something looming with TV rights. But I think if that was so easy the Glazers would potentially be sticking around. If there's one thing they have been good at, it is sticking around. This leads me to think that it's not quite such an easy path to growth as they initially hoped.

 

[stw2022]

Still Musk had to borrow 13 billion and he had the unique advantage of having valuable Tesla shares. But suppose it Radcliffe, will the Glazers accept shares in his company or they will want something more liquid? Does every potential buyer have what Musk had when buying Twitter?

Lets not lose sight of what the club needs, what it is generating right now and whether those two align to build a solid business case. Whether you are paying through cash, shares or gold you are still paying north of 5 billion for a club that barely makes 100m per year and needs spending of an average of 150m per year and it still needs a new stadium and training ground.

Bigger assets worth far more than ye, requiring much larger investments in infrastructure and staffing than we do are purchased by individuals whose net worth does not exceed Musks all the time.

We may as well go through every FTSE and NASDAQ listed company and agree there's no possible business reason for anyone to own any of them

 

[red thru&thru]

It's insane that poster thinks Manchester United will grow in value like they did under the Glazers when the competition is so fierce now with Manchester City, Newcastle United and Chelsea. It's laughable.

Exactly. And that's competition off the pitch, too.

And with the financial world being as it is, consortium's loan needs, etc, is going to be well high.

 

[Slysi17]

You can't just invent something someone said and ask them question based on that.

What is with that comment. I am just refuting your point that the new owners are guaranteed to make money like the Glazers have and actually backed it up with evidence. Well hasn't the landscape in the premier league changed. You have more clubs like Manchester City and Newcastle United competing at the top making it harder for Manchester United to win things so they can grow in value. Is that not true? Manchester United will grow in value by winning premier leagues and champions leagues. You think Manchester United will gain fans by just making the champions league every season. The answer is they won't. Overseas fans may even jump ship.

 

[red thru&thru]

You don't have a point except to claim the most valuable sports business on the planet set to make its current owners the most profit that anyone in the history of sports ownership has ever made anyone anywhere on the planet is not a "viable business" for anyone to consider buying it

How is Manchester United going to make their new owners the most profits anywhere ever seen? Why is it not doing that now?

Please, walk me through your logic?

 

[stw2022]

What is with that comment. I am just refuting your point that the new owners are guaranteed to make money like the Glazers have and actually backed it up with evidence. Well hasn't the landscape in the premier league changed. You have more clubs like Manchester City and Newcastle United competing at the top making it harder for Manchester United to win things so they can grow in value. Is that not true? Manchester United will grow in value by winning premier leagues and champions leagues. You think Manchester United will gain fans by just making the champions league every season. The answer is they won't. Overseas fans may even jump ship.

Okay quote the post where I've said any of that.

You're pretending I've said that because you wanted to make that point

 

[Slysi17]

Exactly. And that's competition off the pitch, too.

And with the financial world being as it is, consortium's loan needs, etc, is going to be well high.

Yep. Manchester City and Chelsea have grown off the pitch with their new owners. And Newcastle United have too. Those clubs are not going anywhere. As soon as Newcastle United make top four they will stay there. That will be one less spot in the champions league places in the premier league up for grabs.

 

[red thru&thru]

What is with that comment. I am just refuting your point that the new owners are guaranteed to make money like the Glazers have and actually backed it up with evidence. Well hasn't the landscape in the premier league changed. You have more clubs like Manchester City and Newcastle United competing at the top making it harder for Manchester United to win things so they can grow in value. Is that not true? Manchester United will grow in value by winning premier leagues and champions leagues. You think Manchester United will gain fans by just making the champions league every season. The answer is they won't. Overseas fans may even jump ship.

Exactly. And to make us successfull, both on and off the pitch, a lot of money will need to be invested...on top of the purchase costs.

The poster cannot grasp the concept of money needed to be spent compared to the ROI...especially with the costs of the borrowing needed.

 

[stw2022]

How is Manchester United going to make their new owners the most profits anywhere ever seen? Why is it not doing that now?

Please, walk me through your logic?

I said they would make their current owners the biggest profits ever seen.


Because £4bn is a bigger number than £700m and no one individual sports business owner has ever made £3bn from sports ownership.

 

[AneRu]

If United do spend big next month, it might mean that the Glazers will wait until the summer to sell United as a more profitable Champions League club.

I was hoping this would be done before the Summer transfer market so that the new owners can buy Mbappe

I think January will be a key indicator - if we spend big then it means that the sale process is far more advanced than they are letting on so they are reasonably confident that the consequences for that spending wont be their problem in the medium to long term. It would also hint that maybe in discussions with the new owner a CL qualification would be very important for their project so they wouldn't have issues taking on the cost for that.

I'm particularly looking at the Enzo Fernandez and Felix transfer stories especially the former, if we do it at the terms Benfica are demanding then the Glazers would be doing it without the long term financial health of the club in mind, they have always been very cautious in this regard.

 

[red thru&thru]

I said they would make their current owners the biggest profits ever seen.


Because £4bn is a bigger number than £700m and no one individual sports business owner has ever made £3bn from sports ownership.

So, how does this help the new owners, who I've been talking about?

Go back to my original point, the purchase of Manchester United, by US consortium, is very thin. Still to see a viable business case to suggest otherwise.

 

[Slysi17]

Okay quote the post where I've said any of that.

You're pretending I've said that because you wanted to make that point

Well you said in one post the new owners will make the most profits anyone has seen. Like that won't happen. Competition is fierce now. This is not 2005 when the Glazers bought the club. You seem to think US investors or any prospective owners are guaranteed to make alot of money. How about elaborating on that and say to me why you think that.

 

[stw2022]

Well you said in one post the new owners will make the most profits anyone has seen

Where did I do that then?

 

[Sunny Jim]

Give me a business case for a consortium, then. You talk a lot but don't back it up. Tell me how United is a viable use case for a consortium?

I agree. With this price there is No way one can see purchasing United as a viable business case. To beat risk free rate United would need to deliver 120 mil in dividends. Not going to happen

 

[Slysi17]

Exactly. And to make us successfull, both on and off the pitch, a lot of money will need to be invested...on top of the purchase costs.

The poster cannot grasp the concept of money needed to be spent compared to the ROI...especially with the costs of the borrowing needed.

Exactly. It will take alot of money spent to grow the asset. Will it be worth it for a US investor considering the Glazers asking price. Not so sure

 

[Slysi17]

Where did I do that then?

Look I am not attacking you at all. I just want to know more on your viewpoint. You haven't elaborated on your point. I agree with the other posters saying you haven't backed it up.

 

[stw2022]

I agree. With this price there is No way one can see purchasing United as a viable business case. To beat risk free rate United would need to deliver 120 mil in dividends. Not going to happen

Investors often invest in the gamble of the asset down the line not short term return.

The value of the club has increased 500% based on asking price in 17 years.

That isn't unattractive just because annual profit yield isn't particularly high against value of the asset

 

[stw2022]

Look I am not attacking you at all. I just want to know more on your viewpoint. You haven't elaborated on your point. I agree with the other posters saying you haven't backed it up.

You've lied and pretend I've said what I haven't. At no point did I say that the new owners will make biggest profits ever seen.

 

[Slysi17]

You've lied and pretend I've said what I haven't.

Come on man. I don't want to argue with you. Want to be respectful here. Just elaborate on your viewpoint. Don't make accusations against me which are false.

 

[AneRu]

Bigger assets worth far more than ye, requiring much larger investments in infrastructure and staffing than we do are purchased by individuals whose net worth does not exceed Musks all the time.

We may as well go through every FTSE and NASDAQ listed company and agree there's no possible business reason for anyone to own any of them

Well look at the industry we are operating in and its major revenue drivers. For example, what we will potentially earn over the next five years has a ceiling whether we win or not because it is cast in stone contractually. Unless we go full on Porto or Dortmund and open up a flea market for young talent our earning potential is almost fixed. We dont have the room to earn twice or more than we do right now.

So Musk's net worth or the mode of payment is irrelevant to the business case. If the Glazers say they want 6 billion then the potential owner has to look at our earnings and their potential growth in the context of investments that are required and decide whether we will out perform the bond market which is the most basic investment vehicle.

 

[stw2022]

But that's just ridiculous confirmation bias. Our current owners could be set to make a £4bn+ profit on their 2005 acquisition.

Looking at that profit margin and claiming nobody will see the club as a 'viable business case' is absurd.

Too many people are starting from a preference of oil state ownership and working backwards to retrofit the facts to make that seem like the only possibility. Even to the point of watching a venture that's set to give current owners billions and billions of clear profit and pretending that such a business couldn't possibly be viable or attractive to anyone else

We're the most valuable sports asset on the planet about to provide its current owners with the biggest profit ever seen made by anyone in the indus

Come on man. I don't want to argue with you. Want to be respectful here. Just elaborate on your viewpoint. Don't make accusations against me which are false.

try by some considerable distance.

If your starting point based on that is to claim you don't see a viable business reason for anyone to be interested in buying us then I'm not going to be able to help

Come on man. I don't want to argue with you. Want to be respectful here. Just elaborate on your viewpoint. Don't make accusations against me which are false.

You accused me if saying the new owners will make biggest profits than anyone. I've never said that. I've said the money the current owners will make from us are inconvenient to the argument that future owners won't see as as viable investment.

You've literally invented what I said then repeatedly asked me to back the up despite the fact this is the third time I've told you I never said it

 

[AneRu]

Investors often invest in the gamble of the asset down the line not short term return.

The value of the club has increased 500% based on asking price in 17 years.

That isn't unattractive just because annual profit yield isn't particularly high against value of the asset

Again you are discounting the change in terrain and internal changes that have affected the said growth. For twenty plus years under Fergie we never finished below third, we used to take Newcastle's best striker for fun, grab Spurs' most promising midfielder and were the pick of any top talent coming to the PL. If Harry Kane had come up in 2007, he'd be a United legend right now.

We no longer have those advantages and someone else now have the deepest pockets so the prospects of us growing by 500% in 17 years are now slim especially if we are bought for a fee above 5 billion.

 

[devilish]

I believe that there's a lot of posturing going around with the Glazers insisting on crazy money that makes it unrealistic for potential investors to resell on mid term period. Their aim is to maybe attract a ME buyer who is rich enough and crazy enough to pay the asking price. In my opinion more reasonable buyers are stirring away from all of this or are offering a more realistic fee (around the 3b mark). Time is on their side as United are haemorrhaging money + recession is at the door which will increase interest rate thus hitting the Glazers further. Its a game of cat and mouse really. These buyers are waiting for the Glazers to tank thus lower their ridiculous demands however if the Qatari/Saudi etc joins the scene with real intention to buy then I believe that the likes of Jimmy Brexit and the US consortiums won't stand a chance

 

[Slysi17]

You accused me if saying the new owners will make biggest profits than anyone. I've never said that. I've said the money the current owners will make from us are inconvenient to the argument that future owners won't see as as viable investment.

You've literally invented what I said then repeatedly asked me to back the up despite the fact this is the third time I've told you I never said it

Ok this is getting ridiculous. Stop whining. Your basically saying the new owners are going to make alot of money. Your justifying it by saying the Glazers made a feck ton of money by owning Manchester United and selling it for a 4 billion profit. Half of that time were guaranteed to make champions league and compete for the top trophies. I am just wondering why you think any new owner will make a good profit like the Glazers when the landscape in the premier league has changed and has become more competitive with Manchester City, Newcastle United and Chelsea. I just want a civilized debate.

 

[AneRu]

I agree. With this price there is No way one can see purchasing United as a viable business case. To beat risk free rate United would need to deliver 120 mil in dividends. Not going to happen

And we spent years in revolt against the Glazers for taking 30m, well lets say 70m if we include interest payments, try 120m in dividends! Not possible at all.

 

[Marwood]

Come on man. I don't want to argue with you. Want to be respectful here. Just elaborate on your viewpoint. Don't make accusations against me which are false.

You've misrepresented what the poster said. He said the existing owners not the new owners.

I'm sure its accidental but you have to clarify that if you want to carry on the dialogue.

The forum becomes very hard word work if we're not accurate about who said what.

 

[Tarrou]

Ok this is getting ridiculous. Stop whining. Your basically saying the new owners are going to make alot of money. Your justifying it by saying the Glazers made a feck ton of money by owning Manchester United and selling it for a 4 billion profit. Half of that time were guaranteed to make champions league and compete for the top trophies. I am just wondering why you think any new owner will make a good profit like the Glazers when the landscape in the premier league has changed and has become more competitive with Manchester City, Newcastle United and Chelsea. I just want a civilized debate.

you're wasting your time

he's said the old owners made a lot of money so we're a good investment, and that's it

there is nothing beyond that the same debate has been had a few times already

 

[red thru&thru]

Investors often invest in the gamble of the asset down the line not short term return.

The value of the club has increased 500% based on asking price in 17 years.

That isn't unattractive just because annual profit yield isn't particularly high against value of the asset

What about the operating costs needed to get to the next milestone of asset increase? How do you propose the new owners get there?

Your outlook of the asset increase is very basic. It's a typical viewpoint someone takes when they have learnt all free theory from a "property guru."

What you fail to grasp is, the real life of ownership, and the costs involved.

 

[wolvored]

Football has changed. Going to be alot harder to grow the club like you think with Manchester City, Chelsea and now Newcastle United. Not to mention Liverpool if they get rich owners. And now Arsenal are back and Tottenham will be up there. That's 7 clubs fighting for 4/5 champions league spots. If you think the new owners could grow Manchester United like the Glazers have you are deluded. Back when the Glazers were in charge there were only Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea to worry about. You keep spouting about how the new owners will make decent money without considering the football landscape in the premier league has changed. And also you don't back up what you say with facts either. Won't be the most valuable sports asset for much longer with owners who just want a return on investment due to the insane competition now.

Wasnt even that really. We only had to compete against one team over the years until City came to the fore and thats when it changed. Blackburn, Newcastle, Arsenal and Chelsea. Arsenals spending stopped when they moved to Emirates. Abromovich changed the landscape and transfers started to rocket, then went astronomical when PSG got bought.
If we get bought by an entity who wants a return on their money in 10-20 years, then they havent got the financial clout that is needed anyway.

 

[AneRu]

I believe that there's a lot of posturing going around with the Glazers insisting on crazy money that makes it unrealistic for potential investors to resell on mid term period. Their aim is to maybe attract a ME buyer who is rich enough and crazy enough to pay the asking price. In my opinion more reasonable buyers are stirring away from all of this or are offering a more realistic fee (around the 3b mark). Time is on their side as United are haemorrhaging money + recession is at the door which will increase interest rate thus hitting the Glazers further. Its a game of cat and mouse really. These buyers are waiting for the Glazers to tank thus lower their ridiculous demands however if the Qatari/Saudi etc joins the scene with real intention to buy then I believe that the likes of Jimmy Brexit and the US consortiums won't stand a chance

I agree that the price being touted is nothing more than posturing but if they go as low as 3b they will attract more bidders which will then turn into an auction. A lot depends on how much longer they can hold on and how long the loss making position will be.

But I think they also have a lot of push factors like their individual debts, I read somewhere that Darcie is swimming in debt and its all secured against her shares in United. So any potential buyer will be getting advice to wait and let the Glazers bleed but if one capable institution bites then the other potential buyers lose out on a unique opportunity.

We cant really write off their collective greed chasing buyers away but the prospect of owning United and bringing it back to the top represents a once in a life time opportunity for ego driven billionaires. I think the reason we haven't seen much traction on this is because all the Glazers aren't in the 'sell now' boat, Avram and Joel could still be resistant, they may have agreed to put the option on the table but aren't keen yet.

 

[Teja]

Amazon have literally dozens of subsidiaries that have nothing to do with the core business. That's what large corporations do.

I have to disagree. The core business is technology and technology services and everything they own is closely aligned with these. The only thing that I can think of that doesn't line up with tech / retail was their flopped health insurance plan and even that was started because healthcare was such a huge expense for them given the # of employees.

They have no competence in an industry like football.