I know, I was quoting the other guy!What a way to describe someone.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
That's a good point, but it's also true that it's only in recent years we've had gangs of predatory yanks buying premier league clubs, so times change, new things happen.
Again, I'm not saying the likes of Amazon will buy United, I'm just refuting that it is impossible. Sky very nearly did of course.
I agree with what someone said earlier on. They're in the content business. We're content. If they suspect a diversification to the current collective bargaining agreement when it comes to TV rights is viable at any point in next 15 years we're extremely valuable content.
Amazon started off selling books. If they took the attitude of avoiding doing anything unless they had proven competence in the field they'd not have even launched the kindle.
Book seller that's now a multibillion-pound media company isn't one that's going to shy away from future diversification
Again, not saying it will be Amazon but the money that the Glazers are proving can be made in football ownership is going to get noticed.
Talk of Amazon - but wouldn’t them buying a club preclude them from Premier League coverage?
Your point is well-argued, but the counter-argument is that the valuation gains have been absolutely maxed out.
The Glazers took an asset which was considerably under-priced and, to be fair to them, have wrung out every drop of commercial value over the last 17 years.
United is currently at the very top of its valuation cycle and we're about to enter another recession, so it's hard to see how any investor would see value in us.
Billionaires with 6b-7b spare change are a rare breed and most won't spend it in football let alone at a club that needs heavy investment and can have half the world hate you if things go wrong. These days most billionaires are shareholders of their own companies. Shareholders would pounce if the owner start making very expensive buys on the company credit card. Even the likes of Ratcliffe can't do what he wants even though he still own 2/3 of Ineos. The reason being that a reckless buy on the tune of 7B will spook potential shareholders/investors on which any business tend to rely upon to function and grow. Bottom line of the story a big chunk of these potential buyers would only buy if United make financial sense for them. It might be tied on forecasts (ex improving the brand name etc) but rest assured that they will not be driven by ego.
Which leads us to the ME buyers. They tend to have more cash in hand and far less overheads. I can't see the Saudis rebel if their royal family ended up buying United for an extra 1b. Having said that, I happened to have met their ilk and I assure you that they are obsessed not to end up looking silly like for example being robbed alive by a pack of losers who nearly ran their business to the ground and are now desperate to cash in. Thus they tend to surround themselves with very specialised people who makes sure to guide them correctly. The only way I can think off that the Glazers can get their money in full is for 2-3 rival ME families to end in some auction for United. In such circumstances then I can see it degenerate into a dick measuring contest between them. If you ask me, that's what the Glazers was planning to ignite when they went to Qatar to 'watch the WC'
Possibly yes. I think the issue in past was BSkyB was sole owners of the rights and would be sole owners of us. If the offer came from the parent company News Corp, instead of the subsidiary as it did, and structured that way I don't the DTI would have stepped in as they did.
Presumably if it was Amazon they'd set up an arms length holding company to allay the same fears
We really might need unethical investors to survive this next era of the PL 
It’s sad but true. People thinking Newcastle aren’t going to go on and totally eclipse us and our American consortium buyers might finally wake up now, but at least we’ll have a shopping centre next to OT and a fun new ‘match day experience’ for all the family to look forward to…We really might need unethical investors to survive this next era of the PL
Can’t wait to those revenue numbers!
It’s sad but true. People thinking Newcastle aren’t going to go on and totally eclipse us and our American consortium buyers might finally wake up now, but at least we’ll have a shopping centre next to OT and a fun new ‘match day experience’ for all the family to look forward to…
Can’t wait to those revenue numbers!
I want ME investors and the ‘match day experience’ for all the family to look forward to… What's your point?
We do the cost of the club and the investment required will require ME investors. Obviously not everyone is happy with it but I can separate the football and politics but I get both sides. Ideally I would prefer a sugar daddy to take on this huge project but I wouldn’t stop supporting Utd because of ME ownership.We really might need unethical investors to survive this next era of the PL
My point is American consortiums will look at how they can increase brand value while trying to sidestep the footballing aspect of the club where possible because it’s a void where money gets set fire to. It will be all about revenue and footballing ambition will be dead.
Im sure it’s been covered within this thread, but with the need to bring a striker in and c23m cash in the bank (I think I read that somewhere?) how do we fund transfers? I know most transfers include deferred payments so is it a case of deferrals plus bank borrowings to fund?
Both deferred payments and bank debt would be deducted from value so not very appealing if you’re the Glazers?
Both deferred payments and bank debt would be deducted from value so not very appealing if you’re the Glazers?
Hope it gets done ASAP don't even care who the new owner is.
What could possibly go wrong?!!
Well yeah I probably misunderstood something which I didn't mean to. That's fair though. Don't want debates to get heated etc.
This article by The Athletic is a pretty good one to read up on why American consortiums believe Premier League clubs offer very viable business opportunities. The key points within it are:
-They are cheap to buy relative to US sports franchises (e.g. Chelsea sold for 5x their annual revenue, compared to between 7-10x for recent US franchise sales)
-Smart investments in infrastructure/academy will lead to increased commercial revenue and a larger share of broadcast/streaming agreements
-Innovative technologies such as NFTs and virtual reality offer new opportunities to monetise the fanbase
-“My guess is that Chelsea and all of the top Premier League clubs will probably be worth in excess of $10 billion (£7.9 billion) in five years" - Joe Ravtich, Raine Group co founder
Whether or not American consortiums are correct in this assertion can be debated, but what can't be debated is that they do indeed believe it. Therefore, whether we like it or not, they will be heavily interested in buying Manchester United.
I agree with much of what you are saying. However, my guess is that 250m on a series that leads to 25m new net subscribers for one year is 2.5b… that’s 10x. I don’t think they achieved that, but it’s the entire value proposition that retains the new net subscribers. They have absolutely reams of data on the All or Nothing series, they know that number of new net subscribers those brought in. Now, those are are pretty damn cheap to film and produce, but I doubt it moved the needle much.
I see what you are doing here if you cobble a portfolio of teams and provide content on these teams, but again, why pay 6b for one team that will basically provide a subpar dividend (if any) but a decent exit multiple, maybe 3x in 15 years, plus whatever you can make in new subscriber fees versus just buying the PL broadcasting rights for 12b over 3 years and own the whole thing. Advertising during matches plus grow your net subscriber base immensely. And additional content on multiple teams in an all or nothing type style…
I think the chances of Amazon, Netflix or Apple buying the team are very low. There is a better chance that they will buy the PL broadcasting rights, but still pretty low because there will be stiff competition from the major networks.
Does Liverpool getting Gakpo mean that they are further down the club sale track than United?
Please hurry up with this sale. We’re starting to miss out on signings now.
I think it just means that they have an owner who has any kind of capacity to act as opposed to a group of siblings who obviously are fairly retarded and have no resources whatsoever.
...which would make any sale very difficult. Trying to sell to one single decision maker versus a bunch of them.
Putting aside all the silliness about oil money, I'm absolutely certain it's going to be a US based consortium. Could even be that Joel and Avram, who don't want to sell, will be a part of it, while the other party buys the shares of their siblings. Joel and Avram will obviously have less authority, but they will bet on what you've said - an increase in valuation and monetization.
I doubt it will be a US based consortium. United require a lot of investment and our debt is not small and will be more difficult to service. Looks like it will be a sugar daddy.
Echos from France are that Ineos (Ratcliff) is about to poach Jean-Claude BLANC from PSG (according to some, he's pretty much the brain of our all operation) in order to structure their United takeover plans.
Unless Joel and Avram choose to turn their shares into Class A shares they will remain in control because their Class B shares carry ten times the voting power of the former and every Class B share automatically becomes a Class A share on selling. So those proposed members of that consortium would have to be incredibly stupid to bet a couple of billion pounds on Joel and Avram after the shitshow they have exhibited over the last ten years.
They went down this route with the Saudis and Apollo and you would imagine this is the deal they are pursuing even now but the chances of anyone coming to that particular party are slim.
I read this on him. Doesn't mention United. Have you any links that do?
https://www.getfootballnewsfrance.com/2022/psg-executive-jean-claude-blanc-to-leave-for-ineos/
I have to agree. Amazon have just laid off 10,000 employees, their projected earnings from retail in 2023 will be significantly less than what they anticipated, even their successful profit center in AWS is not going to grow as expected next year. Share price has plummeted by half, no way they invent 6 billion into a football club!
Still waiting for someone to come up with a vuable business case for a US consortium. No saying it can't happen, but people who say it will be "them", still haven't given a actual reason how that would stack up?!
People's imaginary certainty on this issue is very strange and somewhat hostile as very quickly descends into 'how dare you challenge my complete guess work'
We all have opinions but none of us have any real fecking clue. We might have preferences and hunches and that's fine but all this 'x definitely isn't happening' and 'anyone who thinks it'll be Y is an idiot' I don't get.
We all have opinions but none of us have any real fecking clue. We might have preferences and hunches and that's fine but all this 'x definitely isn't happening' and 'anyone who thinks it'll be Y is an idiot' I don't get.
What kind of absolute loser would come up with that?
The question you pose is nonsensical. A buyers nationality is irrelevant. You may as well be asking someone to make a case for a consortium of those shorter than 5'11 buying the club
Pretending not to see the case why anyone would buy the most valuable businesses/asset in sport just because you've randomly decided the only possible outcome is a ME state-backed owner isn't on anyone else
Haha, not sure. I just read a lot of people say it. Would be good to see how and why they believe this?!
I keep reading "US consortium." So THAT is why I pose that question.
"Pretending not to see the case"? Explain how you've come to that conclusion? I'm YET to see a viable case. Not what you say. You say fictional things with there being no logic to back it up. A big difference.
If you're suggesting it's unlikely someone has £6bn laying around in an untouched savings account then you're right.
But IF this is a business to business/corporate takeover deal then ALL transactions like this only a small proportion will be paid for. It's possible none of it will. Most/all would be share trades. Nobody is going up have to pay £6bn to the Glazer family necessarily, simply give up the equivalent ownership in stock.
Are there companies that can afford to do that themselves? Sure the huge conglomerates. There are also individual investors also who might be willing to relinquish stock worth a fraction of the value to combine together to collectively form a consortium. I think the latter is unlikely though, but not impossible.
The value of owning a business like United is two fold:
1) Untapped commercial growth, which was the Glazers motivation 15 years ago. Particularly in respect of global TV rights income over next 10 years
2) Value of asset in X years time. If the value of the sale is £6bn that would represent something like a 700% increase on the investment. Its more than that as we know the Glazers didn't pay £700m themselves, but for the sake of argument.
Of course there's no guarantees value will contine on similar trajectory but the fact it has been on the path it has been since turn of century will be a massive appeal to long term investors/potential buyers. Also this is asking price for a club arguably at it's lowest ebb in 30 years in terms of achieving in the core business area. In what other field of commerce is that likely to be the case?
1) our commercial revenue grew exceptionally then plateaued and could arguably be falling to match our new also-ran status. Broadcasting income is growing but so do wages and transfer fees and they will grow more when Newcastle start flexing their muscles in the market.
2) you keep disregarding the factors that enabled the club to grow - we were successful in a popular but not fiercely competitive league under a legendary manager who delivered on a yearly basis. Since his retirement we have sacked how many managers, paid how much in sackings and all this whilst burning threw a billion without mordenizing our infrastructure?
Then consider the fact that we are now too big or costly for the same model that the Glazers applied to work again in a riskier, more competitive environment. Yes the club did grow for the Glazers but it was on the back of success achieved before they came and by an internal structure they failed to replicate once a legendary manager left.
A new owner would need billions to buy the club, billions to invest in infrastructure and the playing staff whilst chances are high that during this period the record sponsorship deals will expire and if the situation on the pitch hasnt changed wont easy to replace. Its a long, hard road back to the top and its almost impossible to do whilst running the club as a sustainable business potentially servicing legacy debts and new debt on stadium development amongst other things.
For a business case to be justifiable it has to beat the opportunity cost of diverting funds from other investments to it. Malcom Glazer exercised great timing and business nous to buy United when he did, chances that another owner can come in and do the same are slim mainly because capital is no longer cheap and the business requires significant investments to return to competitiveness at the highest level where the money is.
You'd say the opposite was more likely to be true, surely.
Look, the Lowry Centre is a good 5 minute walk away, with Media City in there for measure. It’s surely in direct opposition to the Geneva Convention to expect anybody to travel that far.It’s sad but true. People thinking Newcastle aren’t going to go on and totally eclipse us and our American consortium buyers might finally wake up now, but at least we’ll have a shopping centre next to OT and a fun new ‘match day experience’ for all the family to look forward to…
Can’t wait to those revenue numbers!
I think the case for the US consortium is Americans see football as under-developed in terms of how much money you can make from the fan-base. Basically, because they make more in the States from fans they think it can be done here as well - that’s a fairly logical conclusion really.
I’m with you though in that I think the business case becomes quite weak when you consider the infrastructure needs investment, the team needs massive investment, the team isn’t guaranteed to make the UCL every year, and the super league got shut down emphatically by the fans rejecting it. All the reasons the Glazers are selling, are the same reasons serious investors are going to think twice.
I think ‘for profit’ investors will look at those risk factors and the numbers involved and not see a great opportunity there. But we don’t know what other opportunities they see either, so you can’t say for certain either way.
- Status