Wasn't there a rule introduced in the PL about not being allowed to leverage up and buy clubs now? This was to stop any Glazer situations
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I think if there was sadly it would be very easy to circumnavigate through shifting burden onto holding companies and the like. Just like FFP is easy to disregard particularly for state owned clubs.
I looked this up a few weeks back as I believed it to be true, appears to be a myth though. Can anyone confirm?
Who's purchasing the house? Investor, or someone who will be living there?
Another unknown innit?
Ok that is a fair assessment. But someone that's worth 20 billion will want a return on their investment. Therefore buying Manchester United for 6 billion is risky for them. It's literally 30% of their wealth which is a decent chunk.
I'd like to be a penny behind it.
It’s now illegal to do what the Glazers did, and what they did was by the club with money they did not have, then take loans out against the clubs value and use that money to buy the remaining shares. In essence, they borrowed money they didn’t have to buy United. You’re no longer allowed to do that.
But if you have £2b in cash and another £10b in equity or property, you’re allowed to leverage against that, or you can borrow money from an credit fund, and tie the debt to the club. Which is 100% what will happen if we get Yanks in and what’s currently happening at Chelsea.
Not at all.
When purchasing a house for investment purposes, you look at the finances totally different to when you're purchasing for living.
Property is my thing. So I have a fairly good outlook on this.
You boring bastards
When are we going to get an actual tweet with an actual update
When are we going to get an actual tweet with an actual update
Only to leverage the buying of shares. You can’t buy more shares with debt just because you own some shares.
The super wealthy rarely turn their asset wealth into cash wealth because that’s the point where they get heavily taxed. So instead they leverage the things they buy against their assets, which are usually equity or property, and the debt usually goes on the new asset they’re buying, all totally legit. This is the current situation at Chelsea.
I've known this for years now and it still rankles whenever I see it written down or hear it said.
The Glazers have mismanaged the club so badly and not spent anything on improving the infrastructure. That's why the club needs super wealthy owners. Liverpool on the other hand are in a much better position as they have spent money on improving the stadium and infrastructure. Liverpool makes more sense for non super wealthy middle eastern investors.
So how much money/wealth do those who insist it makes no sense for it to be anyone but a ME owner, think is the minimum required to purchase a £4-6bn asset?
How do you know who will be buying the house?
Are you in property and clairvoyant?
Oh let's say investment. There's also £200k of work the house needs pouring into it by new owners. All told let's say there's about £500k outlay to get it where it needs to be.
Being consistent with what you've said so far in this thread, explain why you do not believe anyone with less than £50m in the bank could possibly consider such an investment
Tbh this has gone massively OT but only because "it needs a state owned oil fund worth £700bn to possibly afford an asset worth £6bn" is a patently ridiculous and false premise some have insisted on doubling down on.
Make a ridiculous assertion and then insist the rest of the thread is you demanding people disprove that assertion.
Personally I think selling points will be long term asset valuation and changes to exploit future rights based revenues. Whether that be a US consortium, an Arab billionaire or a collection of Queen fans from Timbuktu I've no real clue. But £4-6bn even factoring in an additional infrastructure investments of £2bn isn't as out of reach to investors and buyers as some will derail the thread to repeatedly insist is the case
Make a ridiculous assertion and then insist the rest of the thread is you demanding people disprove that assertion.
Personally I think selling points will be long term asset valuation and changes to exploit future rights based revenues. Whether that be a US consortium, an Arab billionaire or a collection of Queen fans from Timbuktu I've no real clue. But £4-6bn even factoring in an additional infrastructure investments of £2bn isn't as out of reach to investors and buyers as some will derail the thread to repeatedly insist is the case
What the feck am I reading @Slysi17? Aside from the new main stand*, Anfield is an absolute shithole and in much much worse condition than OT.
Even the new Main Stand has 400-500 restricted view seats due to the Kop roof.
The Anfield Road end has a load of "severely restricted view" seats that are amongst the worst in Europe.
Their new training facilities, at a bargain basement 50m, still don't surpass Carrington (unlike for example Leicester).
Anfield is simply not fit for purpose, it's capacity is about 20,000 short and three stands need completely knocking down. It's much more likely however that a new owner will send in the bulldozers to the entire site. The main stand was a 114 million quid band aid, and a bit of a shite one at that.
Last edited:
The worst part is that every bank turned them down, except for a certain Edward Woodward at JP Morgan who said he could get the deal done for them...
Absolute cnuts the lot of them.
Just because you could doesn't mean you should.
Wealthy investors want returns on their invested capital.
You asked stw "Who's purchasing the house? Investor, or someone who will be living there?"
I replied it was "another unknown", to which you replied "no it's isn't, Property is my thing".
So if it's not unknown, who is buying the house next door to stw Mr. Clairvoyant?
The most likely scenario is an American consortium for a lot less than prices being quoted. Sport is big business there and viewed as a way to make money. In the Middle East teams have been bought primarily for sports washing and doesn’t make sense to buy Utd for that purpose or for so much money.
So, how do you keep the club afloat between purchasing and realising the increased price on the club?
Especially as most, if not all, the moeny will be borrowed?
No, he said the house is being purchased for £370k. I asked for what reason? Will it be an investment purchase? Or will it be purchased to be lived in?
Where's the difficulty in answering that?
If it's not known, where was he going with the analogy?
Last edited:
feck what he said, I said it's an unknown. It is. stw clearly doesn't know else he wouldn't be asking.
Maybe it'll be a buy to rent, or maybe it will be a Summer retreat for a rich London couple, or maybe it'll be someone who wants to knock it down. It's unknown.
You seem to have great difficulty admitting certain things are unknown.
Hahaha, forget what he said? So why jump on the back of it?
Let him answer to his post that I replied to! 
Hahaha, forget what he said? So why jump on the back of it?
I was only having a laugh, then you jumped in and told me "I know, property's my thing"
It was something proposed but not yet introduced.
Seems that if it is a premier league initiative however, that asking clubs to vote for this would be like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. I don’t see them voting to limit their potential pool of buyers, or limit the valuations of their assets.
I'm confused. Why are we talking about houses and investments and unknowns?
There's a difference of opinions on who could bid for United.
Some (like me), think there will be a smörgåsbord of possible ownership models, others think only ME investors would be interested. Then it snowballed.
Everyone does however agree that the Glazers will sell to the highest bidder, and that is likely to be from the Middle East.
Because by somehow arguing that there isn't much scope to operate United as a self sustaining business after buying it for 6b and investing a further 2b in stadium, training facilities and playing squad means you wish for a ME investor and re shutting down the thought of a Us consortium.
I was only having a laugh, then you jumped in and told me "I know, property's my thing"
And? Property is my thing. I do very well from it. It's my main income. So I can comment on it better than most things.
I'm still trying to figure this out.
However, if you generalise and state that purchasing United for around £6bn makes little sense for ROI, then you get all these weird statements thrown against you.
All I'm yet to figure out is, how does the purchase of United for £6bn or so, make a good case for a US consortium, which is the other viable option to ME investors.
Again, still waiting for an answer.
Why are these hypothetical people being American so important to you?
AGAIN, generally there is 2 types of "people" who are being linked with the purchase of United.
In no particular orders, 1st) US consortium. 2nd) Middle Eastern investor.
AGAIN, when I read people say, "it's going to be a US consortium who purchases United", I ask the question why that would be the case? Taking into account that US consortiums think about ROI above all else.
Why are you not perpetually confused Arab states don't own every business?
What?
You can't comment on knowing who is fecking buying something you aren't involved in man.
Let's stop this here, I was having a laugh, saying "it's unknown" who's buying the house, because well, it is. Being in property doesn't help you know this. There was never any need for this conversation to move past the fact that we don't know who's buying it, unless you do know of course, in which case I'm all ears.
- Status