I think the risk factors, stadium and other infrastructure issues make our case a complicated one. I believe these factors would likely be the drawback factors for us and that is the reason it may not be ideal for pure investors (such as American consortium) to really want to to purchase us unless they see what we don't see. I agree perfectly with your submissions.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
So, the purchase price of the club isn't going to come direct from the purchaser. We can therefore assume majority of it will come from banks/lenders.
So, let's say that the club is sold for £5bn, including all debts. They Borrow £3.75bn to purchase the club. At what rate will this be borrowed against? What would be the monthly costs of the borrowing?
We also then need around another £1.5bn for stadium and training ground improvements. We also need a big outlay for player recruitment. Let's just put that at around £100m per window.
How much is the above per month? How much does the club make per month to cover all the above?
Exactly. It's all about the numbers. These consortium types aren't going to be in for United as a vanity project. They will want to see a return on their investments. United just aren't that.
To get back to where we need to be will be at a huge cost to someone. Someone willing to make some financial sacrifices in the short - medium term.
We all know that the ME's overall target will be to putchase the club to help with their image. Their money will be made by indirectly owning United, with an eventual target of the club to pay itself a few yeara down the line.
It makes 0 sense for US consortiums to come and purchase us. We're very high risk.
I also don't see the value in a consortium from a business perspective. The Glazers as owners already puts a negative spin on any owner who just sees the club as an investment portfolio rather than a business model project and has a bean counter approach in dealings. Fan perception alone would be bad enough, their PR teams would be on overdriver to establish common ground.
The risk element is true aswell, I honestly have no idea how the Glazers business propositions will improve after they have done so badly with United over the span of around 20 years. Their reputation is destroyed, when Chelsea were being sold there was supposedly "anti-glazer" clauses discussed and imposed upon by the government / league so there's no expoits from potentially greedy owners.
I would be very surprised if the club isn't sold to a middle east venture. People can discuss their reservations which in many regards are correct but I think these individuals are more dilligent than the western traditional owner. They are 5 times ahead with infrastructure, staff, facilities and long term planning. It's not just the money.
The infrastructure needs are overstated if you're talking about the stadium. Again based on assumption someone is going to need to find £1.3bn in their Halifax Saver account for a new stadium.
Regardless of who owns us that project is virtually guaranteed to be financed with cost spread over many, many years.
The Glazers problem is their business model allows us to either invest heavily in the team most years or fund stadium financing not both. It's going to add ~£100m additional out going each year which any owner will factor in but nobody is shelling out £1bn for a stadium as an out of pocket expense over a period any less than 10 years.
Selling naming rights to fund large portion of the cost is also likely to be attractive for new owner(s)
If the starting point is 'it doesn't make sense that any businessman or consortium is going to have £6bn in bank to buy club and £1.3bn for new stadium" then you're right but there's a naivety in thinking that's how these things work
Regardless of who owns us that project is virtually guaranteed to be financed with cost spread over many, many years.
The Glazers problem is their business model allows us to either invest heavily in the team most years or fund stadium financing not both. It's going to add ~£100m additional out going each year which any owner will factor in but nobody is shelling out £1bn for a stadium as an out of pocket expense over a period any less than 10 years.
Selling naming rights to fund large portion of the cost is also likely to be attractive for new owner(s)
If the starting point is 'it doesn't make sense that any businessman or consortium is going to have £6bn in bank to buy club and £1.3bn for new stadium" then you're right but there's a naivety in thinking that's how these things work
Last edited:
Another working backwards from desperately wanting oil ownership.
United will turn out to be a great investment for whoever buys it, just as Liverpool was for FSG. Just as Leicester has been.
People love to pretend it’s a bubble, it aint.
The starting point I struggle with is: "I can't possibly see what any investors see in a business that (based on asking price) has increased in value 700% in 15 years"
I struggle to believe that's implied with any genuine sincerity
Avram Glazer has been seen in the middle East several times in the last 5 months, most recently for the world cup. This man is not a huge footy supporter remember.
I'd say it's incredibly likely that this partial investment / full takeover is going to be middle eastern money. I don't think the yanks will see us as a good investment at 6bn and tbh we probably aren't.
I'd say it's incredibly likely that this partial investment / full takeover is going to be middle eastern money. I don't think the yanks will see us as a good investment at 6bn and tbh we probably aren't.
It's utterly bizarre and to me seems only to come from a desperation for Middle Eastern ownership. They want to discount any other possibilities, making supporting ME ownership appear the only logical thing a fan could do.
In just 12 years FSG have overseen a £300m investment turn into a possible £3 billion sale. King Power the same year bought Leicester for £39m, Forbes now has Leicester as being worth over 1bn. But hey, why would anyone be interested in that?
And therefore people who desperately want ME ownership and want to dispel any possibility of another ownership model have to pretend football has been in a bubble, but in that case it's a fecking 120 year bubble
1980: James Gulliver buys 500,000 shares at just 5 pence each
1989: United famously close to 20m pound sale.
2005: United sells for £790 million
2022: United looking at £5 billion sale.
Last edited:
I don't think anyone can realistically expect these growth rates to continue, though. FSG and the Glazers made their money like that, but unless the ESL takes off, the growth rate will be significantly lowerIt's utterly bizarre and to me seems only to come from a desperation for Middle Eastern ownership. They want to discount any other possibilities, making supporting ME ownership appear the only logical thing a fan could do.
In just 12 years FSG have overseen a £300m investment turn into a possible £3 billion sale. King Power the same year bought Leicester for £39m, Forbes now has Leicester as being worth over 1bn. But hey, why would anyone be interested in that?
And therefore people who desperately want ME ownership and want to dispel any possibility of another ownership model have to pretend football has been in a bubble, but in that case it's a fecking 120 year bubble
It's utterly bizarre and to me seems only to come from a desperation for Middle Eastern ownership. They want to discount any other possibilities, making supporting ME ownership appear the only logical thing a fan could do.
In just 12 years FSG have overseen a £300m investment turn into a possible £3 billion sale. King Power the same year bought Leicester for £39m, Forbes now has Leicester as being worth over 1bn. But hey, why would anyone be interested in that?
And therefore people who desperately want ME ownership and want to dispel any possibility of another ownership model have to pretend football has been in a bubble, but in that case it's a fecking 120 year bubble
This is just a silly straw man. I seriously doubt I’ll continue supporting the club the way I have been if SA took over. And I can make a clear logical case for why it’s not a slam dunk investment.
The counter thesis of “ it’s gone up a lot therefore it will keep going up a lot “ is a compelling one for sure though..
Please, work it forward for me. Show me the figures oh how it wirks forward???
So the line about there will be a string of people lining up ,trying to buy United is a lie than.
Chelsea was completely different set of circumstances.
Chelsea was completely different set of circumstances.
Yet they have for a century. Here's just the last 4 decades.
1980: James Gulliver buys 500,000 shares at just 5 pence each
1989: United famously close to 20m pound sale.
2005: United sells for £790 million
2022: United looking at £5 billion sale.
But yeah, it's always the end of the bubble.
FSG bought LFC for around £300m? What a lot of these "backwards" stating posters are missing, are the cold hard figures.
Aye, because 13 years ago that's all it was deemed worth. I wonder what'll happen in another 13.
the financial statements are public information
everyone has all the figures if they care to look
the point isn’t that the value won’t keep going up, which it almost certainly will, it’s that the risk of it not going up as quickly as it has done in the past is evident for all the reasons mentioned
and even more important for investors, is the risk of tying up a lot of capital for a long time at slowish growth compared to other opportunities
And United aren't being sold what they are worth. They are being touted around for a lot more.
United purchase doesn't stack up for financial returns in short - medium term.
Answer me how on Earth Boehly is gonna manage it?
Considering what Chelsea went for, with plenty of interest, I'd argue United are being touted at exactly their worth.
A super league of sorts will be with us within the decade, even if under the UEFA banner, and this will be an absolute game changer financially. The streaming giants dipping their feet into football will be the next big one though, it just won't come early enough for FSG or the Glazers.
£2.75bn Chelsea.
United are being touted for around £6bn. A bit of a difference. Over 2x more.
For a club with about 10 times the fanbase, almost double the size stadium, just a bigger club in every single way. It's clearly worth a shit load more than Chelsea, and always has been. I think United will sell for 4.5 - 5bn.
Also confused why you threw on an extra billion here from the post I replied to that you wanted answered.
How is Todd managing it? He's had to guarantee 4.25bn remember.
So it's not viable because a random person online can't breakdown the yearly interest payments on a hypothetical financing agreement?
Of course.
Of course.
Same guy can't answer how Boehly is managing to do the same thing on his 4.25bn investment.
He's nicely invented a threshold of feasibility though, with no accounting to back it up, Todd's 4.25bn is doable, with a smaller club, that makes a lot less, that has a much lower bar for growth. However, a 6.5bn for the much bigger club..... nope, not possible, cause "interest".
You don't know the difference between purchase price and guaranteed investment.
When do they have to spend the stadium money by?
Well if you do, please, tell me? I asked you the question first!
When do the hypothetical owners of United have to spend theirs? How much will the hypothetical new owners borrow in total for the purchase price? 20%, 50%, 75%, 90%?
I don't get what the counter argument is. Here we're being asked to forecast future interest payments based on a hypothetical purchase structure on an amount completely plucked from the air or we lack credibility to someone whose entire point is "£6bn seems bit high"
I don't get why refusing to rule out non ME investors angers people so much. The transferification of this whole debate is odd and it's like being in transfer forum when people angrily get into arguments because someone disagrees with their random "definitely ain't happening " guesswork when assessing likelihood of a new signing
Afraid to even mention that for large scale corporate takeovers, £6bn isn't really that big.
Don’t know if it’s relevant but keep in mind anybody buying United is (almost certainly) going to have to pay for stadium and training redevelopment - although not a requirement who will pay billions fo United just to let it lose its value over the following years?
Any buyers of United will surely have to be looking to fork out around £8-10bln by the end of the 2020’s
Exactly, and if the price is 5bn as the posted mentioned in his example, plenty of possible owners could clear a huge lump of that without borrowing, so the whole thing is a bit daft, with have no idea of the price, the payment structure, the amount of borrowing etc.
This is the answers I'm looking for and no one has given me the answers. As I asked above, how much will the new owmers have to borrow? What will be the payment fees?
Again, no viable business case for a US consortium to purchase United.
Whooooooooooa!!
4.5 - 5bn purchase... where the feck did the extra 5bn come from? is the stadium gonna be on the moon?
Give me the numbers. I asked the original question and neither you or the other guy are coming up with numbers.
No-one can answer, maybe a consortium buys it for 4.85bn and borrows 50%, maybe they borrow only 25%.
It's an odd question, impossible for anyone to answer.
How the feck can anyone come up with numbers for something you've made up in your head?
Can you tell me how much they need to borrow? Then maybe we'll give it a crack?
So, back to my ORIGINAL statement, NO ONE can come up with a "viable" business case as to why a US consortium would buy us.
Well, this is why the question has been asked. Which part of the question do you not understand?
Firstly I’m looking at the glazers supposed top-end valuation of 7bln. Which they’d probably stick out for with Middle Eastern or Amazon/Netflix money.
And if you think the rest is unrealistic over the next 7 years, you might want to look at what the owners of other top clubs have pumped into their clubs over the last 7 years on capital investment / players etc
How will an unknown number of investors with an unknown collective wealth structure the purchase of something?
Are you actually taking the piss?
- Status