Barcelona can't sell the club, we can.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) look forward to a new life under Ruben Amorim. What system will we be playing? What players will impress? and how will it all go? We also say goodbye to Ruud Van Nistelrooy and review United's 3-0 win at home against Leicester City.
- Status
A salient question would be - where is the money coming from given that the bidder’s net worth isn’t nearly as much as the club he is seeking to buy outright. This is particularly meaningful because the bidder is linked to a nation state. Is he obtaining his funds through other elements linked to the state ?
This would make for a more compelling piece than “he’s a quiet guy whose car of choice in England is a Mini Cooper”
We got a game postponed and a major sponsor walk away.
If they go back now it’ll be much worse. I’d even predict government intervention if fan protests got out of control due to how close they are to ME.
Do we still have to post respectfully if the Glazer's end up staying?
I think its posturing to squeeze an extra billion or so from the Qatari, Avram has been working on them to ignite interest and they have bid so its now cloak and daggers for the next month.
Its not financially feasible or wise for the Glazers to stay beyond this point especially with the Gvt now actively talking about bringing in a football regulator. We all know that the said regulator is coming in to target owners like the Glazers and if they pass the 50+1 rule and outlaw breakaway leagues and debt financing of football ownership and operations then their biggest assest goes from worth 5 billion to nothing in a blink of an eye.
Do you also notice how the Regulator talk is surfacing at critical points in the United sale? I wouldn't put it past someone high up in gvt is batting for one of the bidders and Sir Jim alluded to it in his bid statement.
If you see the fury that fans displayed during the Super League debacle, you know what will happen if they announce their debt ladden stay and don't even think about the sale of Old Trafford. That shit don't fly in England, the government will step in. The cnuts were too afraid to rename Old Trafford, they wont dare sell it the riots will see all United games canceled, top four and a few sponsors gone.
The options that are available in America aren't available in the UK. The Glazers may be greedy but they aren't stupid, the war with the fans has seen four of them fed up and any funny financial engineering nonsense will ignite big protests and make sponsors jittery.
Yeah none of us know how much he's actually worth so it's reasonable to question where all this funding is actually coming from.
There are legitimate concerns if it is a state backed bid of course but if it truly isn't a state backed bid then that raises arguably more concerns and questions.
Can these guys afford United?
If not are they borrowing to fund it?
Maybe HBJ can afford it but if so is Sheikh Jassim borrowing from his Father to fund it?
Is this a vanity project for his son or a long term business decision that both are invested in?
Because if the funding is coming from HBJ or money is being borrowed in his name, he's not exactly a young man and has 15 children. What happens when he passes? Will the club be sold off to an investment firm or whoever to split the proceeds between his children?
Asking these questions about the prospective owners of Manchester United doesn't make someone racist mate. Baseless accusations like that contribute nothing to the discussion.
But we don’t know what they net worth is. That’s my point. If the estimated values are
Incorrect then blame the model that was used.
You’re putting too much stock into estimated net worth and outsiders not knowing what money he has under his control imo. Isn’t that what the second bidding process is for, to assess if the potential buyers have the funds available?
I think the Glazers look at United in strictly transactional terms. They have an asset that despite the debt, has appreciated insanely over the past couple of decades and is likey to continue appreciating because of inflation and the increasing global proliferation of the Premier League and the absurd money TV contracts will continue to bring in the coming years. They own the biggest brand in the most lucrative league, so they’re not likely to sell unless they get an exceptional bid.
Glazers will stay I recon.
I don't think anyone is asking where his money is coming from because nobody genuinely believes it isn't state backed
not even the Qatari defence league in here
I agree that our footballing heritage is all about the players, fans, staff etc but all of that is completely independent of the owners, so I don't see much of that changing regardless of who owns us
The exact same argument was used when the Glazers took over and some fans felt so strongly that they chose to walk away and start a new club. I personally thought that was a mistake as my connection to the club is not influenced by who the owners are, I'll continue to support the players on the pitch regardless of who owns us.
I do get the point of not wanting to get in the same boat as City, PSG etc - it's part of my own reservations with the Qatari bid
Although I actually thought Qatar did a pretty good job of hosting the World Cup, I heard only positive reports from anyone who went out there.
It’s Jason in Friday the 13th. Just when you think you have killed the monster he wakes up and the nightmare carries on.
Knowing where the money comes from is at the heart of the question of any bid. In the Qatari case, it’s not sufficient to flog the usual trope of “he has far more money than his Forbes ranking lists”. This is applicable to all bidders.
The backlash will be huge if they don’t sell now.
The Glazers must know there is no realistic way they can stay as owners. Putting aside the unrealistic prospect of them taking on extra debt (unaffordable) or attracting extra investment (previously failed to do so, resulting in current process), after dangling the prospect of a sale in front of fans, to then try to stay on as owners will cause a much larger percentage of fans to become militant in their opposition to the Glazers. I can see boycotts of sponsors and large protests leading to matches getting postponed becoming the norm.
And they’ll answer that during the process to all relevant authorities?
I still think we’d be state owned in some way but the thought process of “We all know what the real story is” seems to be blinding a lot of fans on here to the point you’re questioning the Financial Times and using guesstimates on net worth.
It’s like Chelsea. Did they ever disclose how much their new owners are worth? How they’re able to throw around 700m in 6 months?
It’s unrealistic for any fan to completely know the ins and outs of owners finances .
It makes no sense. What does make sense is them giving the impression some don’t want to sell to push the price up.
We need a big poster at Old trafford...."Daddies dead....time to move on....forever in his shadow....Joel & Avram!"
I mean did you read the article? It wasn't exactly subtle
One of the benefits of placing an article in FT is that people will probably presume it’s legitimate because, well it’s FT.
I did?I mean did you read the article? It wasn't exactly subtle
Yeah, it works too. There is an article about me in the FT somewhere which some PR firm sorted for me
Previous examples of this?
then surely you can see that it's a puff piece right?
It's not journalism, it's advertising
What do you classify as significant investment?
Would you say they have not allowed the senior team the necessary capital for investments?
Seems there is no internal deal to be had. Positive at least.
I agree, I made the same comment in a thread a couple of days ago, but some journos seem to think the Glazers staying is a realistic prospect.
I’m asking because there’s so many assumptions and people telling each other they’re correct based on little from what I can see.
Has FT got a history of puff pieces?
And there is why our protests worked
That was before their exit we dangled in front of the fans, its withdrawal will attract a violent reaction. And it is that fan reaction that will attract the interest of a newly installed football regulator willing to test and show the extent of their power and relevance.
The competitiveness of the league needs constant investment into the first team and periods where we haven't the team sunsequenty suffered. If the Glazers couldn't guarantee this under simpler financing I cant see how they would pull it off with the pressure keeping a vulture like Elliot happy.
The odds are so against them that its most likely they are posturing.
Most mainstream outlets have had controversial articles at one time or another. They are not infallible, nor are their journos immune from being influenced or bamboozled by those they interview. An outlet like FT should know better than to post such weak content.
I think it's a puff piece based on what was written, but it's impossible to know for sure..
it's not about the FT or calling their integrity into question though - it's just the industry
you can pay for placements there like all the other major publications
NYT, Forbes, the DM, they all do it
pretty sure I've got a price list somewhere if you don't believe me, but it's from a few years ago now..
most of the major ones at that time charged between 10k and 20k for an article, but it has to be reasonable obviously.. they don't just print any all shite, but at the same time they never struck me as particularly picky either
Edit: just checked and FT charged $8,900 for a feature. But that took 2-4 weeks to be placed, so I imagine it's quite a bit more for big dogs who want it done quick
Last edited:
Not going to happen is it. We need to riot and get every match called off until they’re gone.
They’ll look to take out a multi billion loan to upgrade the facilities you watch
They’ll look to take out a multi billion loan to upgrade the facilities you watch
There is no other viable option for them both other than to sell.
Since when news from the united stand is considered as reliable. Can we quote marvel while at it?
They’re selling. You don’t do all this and piss off powerful people and rich states, it would be beyond idiotic.
Isn't it more who they are quoting? In this case The Athletic (apparently, I have no idea if they said it or not)
The club needs massive investment and there are more and more clubs with rich owners who will slowly but surely push United to the fringes. The influx of money isn't really relevant if you have to keep reinvesting that money to compete or exist. The fact our revenue has gone up so much and yet we have a decrepit stadium and facilities, a squad that is still in need of a few hundred million spending on it and huge debt and repayments should tell you that its not some sort of magical cash cow.
If they want the club to be worth 10bn in 5 years time they need to invest a billion and a half plus which they will not do.
If Avram and Joel can't afford buying the rest then the club will be sold. I can't imagine a situation where they take more debt to do that. Not only would it create massive backlash from the fans, but it won't actually make sense financially since they can't possibly add more debt on top of the one we're currently servicing. The share price will also tank if they decide not to sell, and they'd need to invest heavily in the summer and in the stadium for United to maintain its value.
I think they'll sell simply because there's no future where they can make more money out of the club without a significant investment that they can't afford. I also think members of the family are starting to really hate the negativity associated with this ownership. I remember last year fans going after businesses their nieces own and I can imagine this will get much worse if they decide to stay.
- Status