Obviously not this has been in the works for months
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Ronaldo's remaining deal was worth less than £16m as opposed to something that is in the region of £5-6Billion.
No. I suspect we should thank FSG for putting Liverpool up for sale. I imagine that's what's coerced them into following through at the fear of Liverpool garnering the biggest bidders.
We should thank Piers for taking care of the Ronaldo problem for us though. I was genuinely concerned we were stuck with the greasy manbaby for the remainder of the season.
Foxconn makes Apple products. They have blood on their hands just so that Apple can make exorbitant profits.
After Googling looks like they are only worth around €5bn between them
…Go on….
Yeah you have summed up my fears perfectly
Perfect timing considering their history with and what is currently happening at the Foxconn factory. They couldn't give a feck about CSR before until international pressure made them create supplier audits.
My objections lie more in the he-hired-actual-Phil-Neville-as-a-football-manager realm but I don’t doubt he’d also be cosying up to some pretty awful people, too.
Not that i would know anything at all, but i work for Apple and an acquisition like us makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I'm not saying Apple wouldn't diversify their interests but every single acquisition they have made up to now has been tech. Pie in the sky stuff by that journalist imo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple
Just hope the new owner doesn't sack Erik when after years of poor managers we could finally be on to something
Why would anyone want Apple to buy United? ticket prices would rise 1000% - you see the markup on their products?
Apple would milk the bell out of United with minimum investment. Look at their products compared to the competition. Outside of the M1 chip MacBooks (which are great), Apple mostly skates on brand recognition/their logo being a status symbol.
United needs a generous sugar daddy to renovate the stadium and to invest big bucks into the squad because that’s how far behind we’ve fallen. Not a corp like Apple
Apple would milk the bell out of United with minimum investment. Look at their products compared to the competition. Outside of the M1 chip MacBooks (which are great), Apple mostly skates on brand recognition/their logo being a status symbol.
United needs a generous sugar daddy to renovate the stadium and to invest big bucks into the squad because that’s how far behind we’ve fallen. Not a corp like Apple
Bring me the state funds. Mbappe vs Haaland at the Manchester derby
That does make you lick your lips doesn't it
Yes, bringing Mbappe who currently acts as a manager, director and the owner of PSG certainly makes you lick your lips.
You really think the club like - oh ronaldo made an interview, lets sell the club.
Yeah, but here is where it gets tricky, because doing it any other way is pretty dumb.
Lets say that you buy a hot dog-stand for 10,000. To buy the hot dog stand, you take a loan of 10,000 with 10 percent interest. The hot-dog stand sells hot dogs for 2 a pop with the cost for sold gods is 1 a pop (i.e. the profit per hot-dog is 1). After the hot-dog stand has sold 1,000 hot-dogs and paid for the costs, it will have 1,000 in cash. If the hot-dog stand has no further expenses, 1,000 will be taxed with 19%, i.e. 190. Lets say then that the remaining 810 is distributed to the buyer, its taxed again with 18% as a capital gain, i.e. 154. The buyer is left with 656 to pay of the interest and debt on the loan taken to buy the hot-dog stand. If instead its the hot-dog stand which is put in debt, it can use the entire 1,000 to pay interest and to pay of the debt.
In addition, the PL can try to limit the behavior we saw from the Glazers as much as it wants -- but I would say that its almost close to impossible. A buyer can easily create a costs for the club and milk it through that. Hence the PL would have to impose strict limitations on transactions between the owner and the club.
A bad owner will be a bad owner, think its hard for the PL to "ban" bad owners. If someone wants to buy a club and run it to the ground, they can do that. The FFP helps, because a club will lose its spot in the PL if it is gutted to hard. But like, a owner that wants to gut it can still do so but the club will be relegated.
With the above said, I still 100% think this is a mute point and that it is close to zero risk for a new owner of Manchester United to do what the Glazer's did and not invest in the club. Theoretically, how much could someone looking to gut the club take out from it. Sell of Rashford and some of the most valuable players. Sell future TV deals for a decade like Barca have done. Take up debt and pay dividend. Whatever. Even if they do everything possible, what could they take out from the club, 2bn? They bought the club for 7 bn, how much would they get back after doing all of the above? It wouldn't be 5bn.
Back in 2005, football clubs just weren't valued properly. They weren't seen as legit investments. The above works if you could buy us for like 1 bn. Corporate raiders haven't been a thing for decades. It only works if the underlying assets are undervalued.
I would illustrate it like this:
The Glazer 2.0 Buyer can pay X, which is the sum of what the buyer can get from gutting the club and then selling it minus a profit of say 5%. What would the Glazer 2.0 Buyer make? Lets say that they can gut the club of a 2bn, how much would the club then be worth? 1-2bn? Then deduct the profit of 5% on the investment. That would mean that Glazer 2.0 Buyer could pay approximately 2.5-3 bn for the club.
The "Boehly Type" Buyer can pay Y, which is the sum of what the buyer can get from selling the club in the future minus investments made in the club and say a profit of say 5%. What would Man United be worth in 2032 if a new owner puts it back on top of the football world and gives it a state of the art stadium and training facility? 10bn? That would mean that the Boehly type could pay 10bn minus 1.5bn investment in stadium and Carrington minus 1.5bn investment in the squad over 10 years minus 5% of cost of investment approximately 6.7 bn for the club.
The above is of course grave grave simplifications, but when the detailed math is done -- the result is the same. Glazer 2.0 will not even remotely be able to compete in a bidding for Manchester United plc in 2022.
That's a damning indication of how small time PSG are though. They knew they'd struggle to keep him at some farmers league so they offer him the world and then some. No chance Mbappe would be afforded that sort of leverage at United, especially with a manager like ETH.
It's also Mbappe, a top 3 player in the world. Not saying it would happen but we'd be silly to turn our noses up at him, not with where we're currently at.
Apple buy us. Ten Hag fired on day one, LVG returns alongside Tim Apple and Mike Smalling.
the difference is he doesn’t really care about the french teams. United he would take seriously
I love apple stuff, but more seriously don’t their phones consistently come top of tech reviews?
They’re expensive and they milk every penny off the consumer but they’ve got the product to justify it I think.
How I want to believe that's true
99.99% not. Anyone who is working in Corporate companies knows that Recession is coming in next year. Cost cutting and job losses are happening in all major companies with not many new projects in pipeline.
American owners FSG knows it is time to sell Football club at its peak, so Glazers too follow through as they know that money needs to be spent in refurbishing old trafford. Plus Chelsea being sold for OTT price might have pushed their thinking to make good money now.
So in terms of reasons for Sale
1. Upcoming Recession
2. Super League Failure
3. Old Trafford refurbishment
4. Chelsea OTT sale(opportunity for other clubs)
...
50. Fans protest
...
100+. Ronaldo interview
Last edited:
the french teams were just a trial run to learn how to take charge of a 'big club'
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...hester-united-for-sir-jim-ratcliffe-x6k5cfch2
Good post.
I completely agree with your point. I don't think any potential owner that we will get next will be a Glazer 2.0. I think the reasons the Glazers are selling is probably because they see your point about investment needed in the infrastructure and either don't have the money needed or are prioritising other interests of theirs. Any potential owner that will come in will know that the investment needed will be worth it in the end and them not investing and 'milking' the club will not be in their best interests in the value of the club long term.
I was just replying in regards to leveraged buyouts and saying that they are now banned is simply not true.
I'm just saying it wouldn't be wise to bring in another primadona after all we went through with Pogba and then Ronaldo, however good he is and he is damned good, for sure.
Corp with $250bn in cash reserves
Yes. Then it's good value. One man doing 4 roles for the price of one.
no. But knowing United and our image, we'd probably be interested. He's such a star now.
Apple buying us would be the ideal scenario but can’t see that happening.
He will hire his other brother to run United then. The more serious fella, not the dimwit bro who took over Nice on his behalf.
Apple products are rarely if ever top of the line in terms of specification and features. They are really good with their software application and efficiency though, but nah.
and I’m an Apple user both for my phone and laptop.
United would be adding to that cash reserve, they wouldn’t tap into it for United.
After digesting the news for the last couple of days I really do think Dubai owenership is the best way forward to compete at an elite level both on and off the pitch.
The other option’s out their don’t really do it for me. Radcliffe just comes across as a Glazer minus the debt!
The other option’s out their don’t really do it for me. Radcliffe just comes across as a Glazer minus the debt!
Think it's pretty lazy journalism but its meant to be that.
Look at how many people on twitter actually think Apple would be interested.
This is coming from the daily star, we should all wait until reputable sources actually tell us who is interested.
At the moment, it seems like there is only 2/3 interested parties.
I’m struggling to see why an Apple or a Facebook would be interested - purely for advertising?
Wait till I say this to my wife.
- Status