Club Sale | It’s done!

[stw2022]

£6bn isn't any where close to "only a state could afford it" levels. Its not close to 'it would only make sense for a state to buy us' levels Its quite ridiculous to pretend it is.

£6bn even with £2bn infrastructure investment needed is a small/medium sized acquisition that is dwarfed by dozens and dozens of acquisitions and mergers every single year.


The argument only works if we pretend this isn't the case and it's still 1985 and £6bn is some kind of record breaking figure that only the three richest oil barrons could possibly afford

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

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 has Boehly committed to invest 4.25 bn in a much smaller club?

I'm yet to receive a reply to this.

Why did Ballmer spend 2.4 bn on the Clippers in 2014.

My guess, they see it as an opportunity, quite risk free. When have sport or football clubs ever depreciated? They are a pretty sound investment, safe as houses pretty much.

In the 6 years between 2012-2018, United's market cap more than doubled in value to 4.25bn, despite being shite. Our status in World football, our huge fan base, the money in tv, the possibilties of streaming and eventual UEFA Super league, the 100 year steady inflation of the worth of clubs make United a very sound investment.

 

[AneRu]

You can't comment on knowing who is fecking buying something you aren't involved in man.

I'm a carpenter, I don't know what the feck some random dude's neighbour from the internet is gonna build tomorrow.

I am sure you would know a thing or two about the viability between who intends to buy a house to stay in and someone who intends to buy it, renovate it, rent it out and sell it off and what price it could make sense to do it at!

What we are arguing about here is the viability of buying United at 6b, nevermind the source of capital cause the owner will still want a return on it that matches or beats other investment avenues, spending the money that is needed to mordenize facilities and strengthen the squad then still earn a return on it.

Looking at it this way, at why the Glazers and FSG are selling I think its reasonable to conclude that running a club of United's stature commercially at the upper echelons of the game is not sustainable especially at the acquisition costs being touted. The case could change at 3b or 2b but I think its safe to say the Glazers aren't selling at that price.

 

[laughtersassassin]

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

No no such rule exists. Burnley where bought this way only a few seasons ago.

Your mixing it up with the fact Chelsea made an anti glazer clause when selling

 

[Rampant Red Rodriguez]

If we don't get sold before the summer window because of petty gross over valuations then we're shafted for transfers imo

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I am sure you would know a thing or two about the viability between who intends to buy a house to stay in and someone who intends to buy it, renovate it, rent it out and sell it off and what price it could make sense to do it at!

What we are arguing about here is the viability of buying United at 6b, nevermind the source of capital cause the owner will still want a return on it that matches or beats other investment avenues, spending the money that is needed to mordenize facilities and strengthen the squad then still earn a return on it.

Looking at it this way, at why the Glazers and FSG are selling I think its reasonable to conclude that running a club of United's stature commercially at the upper echelons of the game is not sustainable especially at the acquisition costs being touted. The case could change at 3b or 2b but I think its safe to say the Glazers aren't selling at that price.

The Glazers and FSG are selling because once the super league fell through, they will have to borrow, and we're talking serious huge borrowing (especially for the Glazers who leveraged United) to invest in the next 10 years. Neither have that commitment nor are prepared to loan at the levels it will take to bring OT & Anfield back to the top of football whilst fighting out for honours at the same time. I'd imagine the Glazers would get some very very bad terms to loan another couple of billion.

There are lots of US investors that would not have to borrow at the same rates in order to buy the clubs and improve the infrastructure.

Boehly's investment and the interest in Chelsea should absolute shit on that idea.

 

[Messier1994]

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.

It is a good question.

What these investors do — effectively, should be added — is come in, acknowledge what can be improved, and after they improve it, they sell it forward. It’s exactly like those TV shows that buys up like crashed cars, fix them, and sell them with a profit.

Normally they have an investment horizons of 5-10 years.

The money more or less always comes from a fund in which often other funds have invested. Like you set up a specialized fund to invest in Man Utd and potentially other football teams. In that fund, you could have 100 different funds investing. Pension funds etc. And it doesn’t stop there. When you start to map these structures it never ends. A lot of it is always invested pension money.

The fund will have an investment policy. Normally that states that they are looking for a YTY return of x% that will be realized by the sale of the object after whatever number of years.

The problem is of course the time frame. If you at full speed try to build a new arena as of today, how long before it’s done? 10 years? Costs for big building projects are always hard managed. They often take longer than expected. It’s very speculative to predict any kind of purchase price 10-15 years down the line. My best bet is definitely that the club’s value will have multiplied several times in 15 years if we just get competent owners in who are willing to invest a couple of billions. But you can’t put it into a spread sheet and arrive at the number of that.

It would have to be a very specialized form if consortium/fund.

 

[stw2022]

Interested parties: unknown

Wealth of Interested parties: unknown

Business plan of Interested parties: unknown


To claim that's your basis for talking about 'viability' is bollocks. Based on all that "information" you have you're concluding you struggle to see the viability argument?
feck me

 

[VP89]

No no such rule exists. Burnley where bought this way only a few seasons ago.

Your mixing it up with the fact Chelsea made an anti glazer clause when selling

Ah right. It really should be a thing

 

[space]

are we sold yet

 

[Plant0x84]

No no such rule exists. Burnley where bought this way only a few seasons ago.

Your mixing it up with the fact Chelsea made an anti glazer clause when selling

This was about when and how dividends could/couldn’t be taken from the club - it has nothing to do with debt or leveraged buyouts.
LBO’s remain perfectly legal, sadly.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Interested parties: unknown

Wealth of Interested parties: unknown

Business plan of Interested parties: unknown


To claim that's your basis for talking about 'viability' is bollocks. Based on all that "information" you have you're concluding you struggle to see the viability argument?
feck me

It's all a right load of bollocks, as mentioned multiple times, Boehly's committed to a 4.25 bn investment in Chelsea, a much much smaller club, but he found that viable. This is a club with a shit stadium, people joke about OT but it's still by some distance the biggest club ground in the country, the Bridge at a capacity of 41,000 aint fit for purpose. Due to it being in London, they have been quoted at over 2.2bn to revamp it.

If Boehly wants a new or revamped stadium, he'll be looking at a total investment of at least 5.5bn in the next ten years. Probably more if we factor 10 years of signings.

Why on Earth then would a 2bn more in a much bigger club be such a massive no no (including a new or revamped stadium (1bn) and training ground (150k)? It's makes absolutely zero sense.

 

[stw2022]

It's all a right load of bollocks, as mentioned multiple times, Boehly's committed to a 4.25 bn investment in Chelsea, a much much smaller club, but he found that viable. This is a club with a shit stadium, people joke about OT but it's still by some distance the biggest club ground in the country, the Bridge at a capacity of 41,000 aint fit for purpose. Due to it being in London, they have been quoted at over 2.2bn to revamp it.

If Boehly wants a new or revamped stadium, he'll be looking at a total investment of at least 5.5bn in the next ten years. Probably more if we factor 10 years of signings.

Why on Earth then would a 2bn more in a much bigger club be such a massive no no (including a new or revamped stadium (1bn) and training ground (150k)? It's makes absolutely zero sense.

I don't get it


I don't know who's interested, I don't know what their wealth/asset wealth is. I don't know what their intentions are, I haven't a clue what their business plan(s) might be and on what terms but I'm asserting none of it is viable and demanding you show me details numbers to prove that this assertion I've just plucked out of planet arse, isn't true.

It's truly remarkable.

 

[AneRu]

The Glazers and FSG are selling because once the super league fell through, they will have to borrow, and we're talking serious huge borrowing (especially for the Glazers who leveraged United) to invest in the next 10 years. Neither have that commitment nor are prepared to loan at the levels it will take to bring OT & Anfield back to the top of football whilst fighting out for honours at the same time. I'd imagine the Glazers would get some very very bad terms to loan another couple of billion.

There are lots of US investors that would not have to borrow at the same rates in order to buy the clubs and improve the infrastructure.

Boehly's investment and the interest in Chelsea should absolute shit on that idea.

Because Boehly made the decision doesn't make it right, who knows maybe five years from now Chelsea funds will be up in arms against him like we are against the Glazers. Our question is: is spending 6b to 9b on United the best use of money? Because that's the question a 'for profit owner' would have to say yes to sufficiently to commit those funds.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I don't get it


I don't know who's interested, I don't know what their wealth/asset wealth is. I don't know what their intentions are, I haven't a clue what their business plan(s) might be and on what terms but I'm asserting none of it is viable and demanding you show me details numbers to prove that this assertion I've just plucked out of planet arse, isn't true.

It's truly remarkable.

Plus, if anything the Glazers should prove to everyone what a sound investment United are. You can borrow at junk bonds levels, run the club like absolute shit, piss a billion pounds away on shit players, win next to feck all for a decade, and then still walk away with an absolutely ridiculous return on your investment.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Because Boehly made the decision doesn't make it right, who knows maybe five years from now Chelsea funds will be up in arms against him like we are against the Glazers. Our question is: is spending 6b to 9b on United the best use of money? Because that's the question a 'for profit owner' would have to say yes to sufficiently to commit those funds.

Others wanted to spend big on Chelsea also though, so he wasn't alone.

Quite simply, a few people will find it viable, plenty won't. The idea there's only one type of potential buyer is the silly thing here. As an investment, United is like buying solid gold.

 

[red thru&thru]

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.

Well, you make an assumption. US consortiums typically buy for progits first, ME will purchase for sportswashing first.

So, the reason you set out to purchase something has to always be taken into account.

It's not a real difficult concept rhat we're talking about.

 

[red thru&thru]

Why has Boehly committed to invest 4.25 bn in a much smaller club?

I'm yet to receive a reply to this.

Why did Ballmer spend 2.4 bn on the Clippers in 2014.

My guess, they see it as an opportunity, quite risk free. When have sport or football clubs ever depreciated? They are a pretty sound investment, safe as houses pretty much.

In the 6 years between 2012-2018, United's market cap more than doubled in value to 4.25bn, despite being shite. Our status in World football, our huge fan base, the money in tv, the possibilties of streaming and eventual UEFA Super league, the 100 year steady inflation of the worth of clubs make United a very sound investment.

Clubs may not depreciate, however, the thing you keep overlooking is, the running costs of keeping the club relevant and and the asset to keep appreciating.

A lot of money will be borrowed if a consortium takes over. How do they propose to run the club?

Chelsea I have not looked into. I'm looking at United. If you have the figures of Chelsea's running coats, than you'll be able to shed more light on how a consortium would purchase and run United?

 

[red thru&thru]

I don't get it


I don't know who's interested, I don't know what their wealth/asset wealth is. I don't know what their intentions are, I haven't a clue what their business plan(s) might be and on what terms but I'm asserting none of it is viable and demanding you show me details numbers to prove that this assertion I've just plucked out of planet arse, isn't true.

It's truly remarkable.

So why talk about a subject you have no clue about? You sure have commented a lot on something you know nothing about?

I proposed a question. If you didn't know the answer, why comment?

 

[phelans shorts]

So why talk about a subject you have no clue about? You sure have commented a lot on something you know nothing about?

I proposed a question. If you didn't know the answer, why comment?

You have done exactly this endlessly the last few pages.

You’ve created a mythical scenario and declared that it’s the only potential outcome, and any evidence that it’s not accurate you’ve just either ignored or just rambled on again about your imagined scenario.

 

[Tarrou]

thread is toxic again, the United match can’t come quickly enough so we all have something else to whinge about

But seriously there’s no need to be aggressive if you disagree about stuff

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I proposed a question. If you didn't know the answer, why comment?

You posted a question with no possible answer, and used it as “proof” that your imaged scenario was correct.

No-one has the answer to your question, certainly not you.

 

[stw2022]

Youtube getting involved in lucrative sporting rights deals along with Amazon and Apple with Netflix looking to get on on the deal. Any prospective buyer will surely be looking at that as a major money spinner in years to come.

If we're looking at where any potential owner might be looking for revenue increases

 

[phelans shorts]

Youtube getting involved in lucrative sporting rights deals along with Amazon and Apple with Netflix looking to get on on the deal. Any prospective buyer will surely be looking at that as a major money spinner in years to come.

If we're looking at where any potential owner might be looking for revenue increases

Oh yeah, TV rights are going to shoot up with Amazon particularly getting their foot in the door as they have. They’ll probably be getting a lot more games in the short term future with BT in all likelihood missing out.

Could absolutely see Amazon going to UEFA too in an attempt to become the main player worldwide for their competitions, which would be a HUGE sum and have major knock ons for clubs.

 

[red thru&thru]

You have done exactly this endlessly the last few pages.

You’ve created a mythical scenario and declared that it’s the only potential outcome, and any evidence that it’s not accurate you’ve just either ignored or just rambled on again about your imagined scenario.

Please, expand. I don't understand what mythical scenario I have come up with?

 

[red thru&thru]

You posted a question with no possible answer, and used it as “proof” that your imaged scenario was correct.

No-one has the answer to your question, certainly not you.

So, when people say it will be a US consortium, they say this for a reason. It's me trying to understand how it stacks up logically. That's all.

I'm not asking anything mythical here. Or am I?

Hahaha, stop replying to my posts then! Just ignore them in the fact you can't answer the question because you don't know. Simple.

 

[Andycoleno9]

If this drags until next summer, we are fecked. They will not invest a single euro on new players

 

[Señor Sloppy]

And plenty are. I'll reel off a shitload if you like, but maybe just best we stick with our scenario of one, Steve Ballmer.

Plenty of large US investors could drum up billions though, so of course it's viable. More likely though is that the Glazers will get more money from the ME and sell to them.

I'm actually not so sure that such ME bidders are inevitable.

There's only ever been three wealth funds from this area that have bought football clubs. It's a very particular strategic decision for a country to purchase a high profile football club such as ourselves, with a very limited pool of related wealth funds who can execute this. To very briefly go through a "potentials" list:

• Abu Dhabi - already de facto own Man City
• Dubai - reportedly tried to buy Liverpool back in 2007, but there's since been a change of strategic direction after the previous CEO (a Liverpool fan) stepped down. They haven't shown any indication that they want to become involved with sports for many years
• Saudi Arabia - already own Newcastle. Owning a second Premier League club, even through a private sector vessel, would cause many complications
• Kuwait - haven't shown any indication that they want to become involved with sports
• Oman - haven't shown any indication that they want to become involved in sports. Furthermore, it would take a big scaling up in their resources for them to purchase and run Manchester United, given their current total assets "only" amount to $18bn. It's also worth noting that Oman as a country has nowhere near the resources of UAE/KSA/Qatar
• Bahrain - a slight possibility, though they do seem to have chosen F1 as their sports vessel of choice rather than football. Identically to Oman, they'd need to need to significantly scale up their resources to purchase and own ourselves, as their total assets are also worth $18bn. Similarly, Bahrain as a country has nowhere near the wealth of UAE/KSA/Qatar
• Qatar - probably the most likely buyers from this region, as they are obviously already heavily involved with football and so a presence in the Premier League would undoubtedly be very appealing to them. However, given they already own PSG, it would cause significant damage their reputation as reliable partners if they were to suddenly jettison PSG the moment a shinier toy like ourselves came along. As a result, I wouldn't rule out Qatar sponsoring a private individual to "reserve" Manchester United for them now, before transferring official ownership to QSI a few years down the line, after they've incrementally scaled back their involvement with PSG

Outside of those funds, we're simply looking at private individuals/firms, who really aren't in the same bracket of buyers as wealth funds. For example, see the "distinguished" ownerships of GFH at Leeds United, Munto Finance at Notts Country, the Al-Hasawi family at Nottingham Forest, Al Thani at Malaga.

 

[Messier1994]

Fair enough.

However, if I generalise, which isn't out of turn if I look at football owners in England, majority of the US consortiums have purchased a club with profits in mind, and ME investors with sportswashing.

The way the deals have been structured for their respective clubs are very different. Manchester United are currently losing around £2m a week. It's very difficult how this is turned around, without significant investment.

So, after purchasing the club for £6bn (which most of it will be borrowed), it becomes very difficult to see where they would borrow the extra cash needed to invest into the club. Borrowing against the club will be almost impossible, especially as the value of the club, on paper, wouldn't be of what it was purchased for.

So, as you can see, a model which relies very heavy on borrowing, becomes less and less plausible. Can it happen? Of course. Just very unrealistic to see how.

That's all.

Yeah, and the same applies to US owners outside the UK too, like Elliot when they took over AC Milan and others. Football clubs can often be poorly run. They can come in, clear debt problems that exist, let the club regroup, and sell not that long after.

We know that there were like 27 or 28 bids for Chelsea that were deemed to be sufficiently legit to garner valuation before they created a short list. There will be a lot of interest and also certainly bids placed for this club. OTOH, to commit the necessary funds to both buy the club and to finance the necessary investments in the infrastructure — it is a big commitment and it won’t be easy for many to reach the level Glazers require.

I am sure their will be interest from US specialist investors, the Middle East, I am sure some industrial player with some kind of streaming interest will poke around and we will have interest from really wealthy individuals. I wouldn’t rule out the ‘US consortium’, but I agree with you that it’s perhaps not fair to say that they have come out on top of many processes like this.

Lastly, it is true that the US pro teams are valued much higher than European sports team. But remember — as an owner of a US pro team all leagues, as far as I know, like the NBA, NHL, MLB and NFL have some sort of Cap on spending. Take the NHL for example, a part of the players’ salary goes into an escrow account, the league measures “Hockey Related Revenue” for all clubs, and after each season the players salaries are adjusted so that the players get exactly 50% of all revenue and the owners get exactly 50% of all revenue. NBA is similar. The NFL doesn’t have guaranteed salaries, right? MLB has some kind of soft Cap (NYY often spends twice and much as most other high spending teams and then pay like a 3rd of their payroll additionally in fines going over the cap). Super roughly, I am not an expert on US pro sports. But all successful teams are usually very profitable. Valuing a hockey team to 2.3bn is a lot easier if the club makes a profit of 150m a year, can’t get relegated etc etc etc.

 

[red thru&thru]

Yeah, and the same applies to US owners outside the UK too, like Elliot when they took over AC Milan and others. Football clubs can often be poorly run. They can come in, clear debt problems that exist, let the club regroup, and sell not that long after.

We know that there were like 27 or 28 bids for Chelsea that were deemed to be sufficiently legit to garner valuation before they created a short list. There will be a lot of interest and also certainly bids placed for this club. OTOH, to commit the necessary funds to both buy the club and to finance the necessary investments in the infrastructure — it is a big commitment and it won’t be easy for many to reach the level Glazers require.

I am sure their will be interest from US specialist investors, the Middle East, I am sure some industrial player with some kind of streaming interest will poke around and we will have interest from really wealthy individuals. I wouldn’t rule out the ‘US consortium’, but I agree with you that it’s perhaps not fair to say that they have come out on top of many processes like this.

Lastly, it is true that the US pro teams are valued much higher than European sports team. But remember — as an owner of a US pro team all leagues, as far as I know, like the NBA, NHL, MLB and NFL have some sort of Cap on spending. Take the NHL for example, a part of the players’ salary goes into an escrow account, the league measures “Hockey Related Revenue” for all clubs, and after each season the players salaries are adjusted so that the players get exactly 50% of all revenue and the owners get exactly 50% of all revenue. NBA is similar. The NFL doesn’t have guaranteed salaries, right? MLB has some kind of soft Cap (NYY often spends twice and much as most other high spending teams and then pay like a 3rd of their payroll additionally in fines going over the cap). Super roughly, I am not an expert on US pro sports. But all successful teams are usually very profitable. Valuing a hockey team to 2.3bn is a lot easier if the club makes a profit of 150m a year, can’t get relegated etc etc etc.

Oh, I certainly agree with you. I'm not saying a "US consortium" will not purchase United.

All I'm asking is, at the figures of purchasing at around £6bn, and then more billions to be spent on the infrastructure, how viable does it make it to get your ROI, especially in the short - long term?

I have no doubts a consortium can come and purcahse United. But overall, these consortiums are in for the profit. Could the money spent in United, be spent elsewhere for better profits?

And we all know United are being well over valued. This is what is unique about our club, you are purchasing a prestigious name.

 

[Messier1994]

I'm actually not so sure that such ME bidders are inevitable.

There's only ever been three wealth funds from this area that have bought football clubs. It's a very particular strategic decision for a country to purchase a high profile football club such as ourselves, with a very limited pool of related wealth funds who can execute this. To very briefly go through a "potentials" list:

• Abu Dhabi - already de facto own Man City
• Dubai - reportedly tried to buy Liverpool back in 2007, but there's since been a change of strategic direction after the previous CEO (a Liverpool fan) stepped down. They haven't shown any indication that they want to become involved with sports for many years
• Saudi Arabia - already own Newcastle. Owning a second Premier League club, even through a private sector vessel, would cause many complications
• Kuwait - haven't shown any indication that they want to become involved with sports
• Oman - haven't shown any indication that they want to become involved in sports. Furthermore, it would take a big scaling up in their resources for them to purchase and run Manchester United, given their current total assets "only" amount to $18bn. It's also worth noting that Oman as a country has nowhere near the resources of UAE/KSA/Qatar
• Bahrain - a slight possibility, though they do seem to have chosen F1 as their sports vessel of choice rather than football. Identically to Oman, they'd need to need to significantly scale up their resources to purchase and own ourselves, as their total assets are also worth $18bn. Similarly, Bahrain as a country has nowhere near the wealth of UAE/KSA/Qatar
• Qatar - probably the most likely buyers from this region, as they are obviously already heavily involved with football and so a presence in the Premier League would undoubtedly be very appealing to them. However, given they already own PSG, it would cause significant damage their reputation as reliable partners if they were to suddenly jettison PSG the moment a shinier toy like ourselves came along. As a result, I wouldn't rule out Qatar sponsoring a private individual to "reserve" Manchester United for them now, before transferring official ownership to QSI a few years down the line, after they've incrementally scaled back their involvement with PSG

Outside of those funds, we're simply looking at private individuals/firms, who really aren't in the same bracket of buyers as wealth funds. For example, see the "distinguished" ownerships of GFH at Leeds United, Munto Finance at Notts Country, the Al-Hasawi family at Nottingham Forest, Al Thani at Malaga.

Great summary.

And Jimmy Ratcliffe/Ineos shouldn’t be underrated. It’s a big group. You can see how they could benefit from getting a lot of attention.

They have started selling that car, Ineos Grenadier, copy of the old Land Roover defender, built to be as practical as possible, diesel straight 6, fairly cheap at 45k.


They own what 3 football teams. Into cycling and F1 too. Should have the resources, but the group’s structure is really complex and it’s hard to figure out it’s financial status.

 

[glazed]

It appears the Glazers think owning Manchester United is worth £3 billion plus in sports washing value, which cannot be utilized by them or another corporate entity but only by somebody with an awful image.

In other words, the worse the regime buying the club, the more the club is worth to them. In technical economic parlance this is called 'some fekked up shit.'

 

[DevilRed]

People may not want to hear this, but its 90% likely we are getting taken over by another conglomerate/private equity type owner.

There simply aren't enough middle eastern wealth funds currently in the market for a club. The Chinese have also stopped much of their overseas acquisitions.

The choices are limited.

 

[dove]

People may not want to hear this, but its 90% likely we are getting taken over by another conglomerate/private equity type owner.

There simply aren't enough middle eastern wealth funds currently in the market for a club. The Chinese have also stopped much of their overseas acquisitions.

The choices are limited.

Well, we don't need a lot of them. Just 1.

 

[croadyman]

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.

After the Gakpo fiasco happy to accept ME owners despite the obvious issues with them

 

[croadyman]

People may not want to hear this, but its 90% likely we are getting taken over by another conglomerate/private equity type owner.

There simply aren't enough middle eastern wealth funds currently in the market for a club. The Chinese have also stopped much of their overseas acquisitions.

The choices are limited.

Well that could be another nail in us

 

[Plant0x84]

People may not want to hear this, but its 90% likely we are getting taken over by another conglomerate/private equity type owner.

There simply aren't enough middle eastern wealth funds currently in the market for a club. The Chinese have also stopped much of their overseas acquisitions.

The choices are limited.

Big Uncle Jim to the rescue!!

 

[Plant0x84]

After the Gakpo fiasco happy to accept ME owners despite the obvious issues with them

 

[croadyman]

I am a hypocrite and will admit that

 

[oneway]

Count me in too