Before the first dollar is even paid
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
The economy is what it is, i.e. terrible right now. You never know exactly how some are impacted by it.
But like the oil states must be making tremendous much money right now, right? So it’s all not one sidedly bad. Hence why I dont really get the talk about how this will be a US focused process.
But like you need help from the big investment banks in a transaction like this. That is what is worrying me the most, because their balance sheets could have burning items.
Yeah, it all depends on what you compare us with. Our financials look strong compared to growth companies and weak compared to bank or real estate.
Chelsea’s price tag implied an EV of 5.7 times revenue according to the FT. Applying the same multiple to United, our price would land at $4bn.
A multiple of 5.7x revenue is not high at all. Neither would it be with a 8bn price tag. Our net debt-to-EBITDA ratio (ie do we have a lot of debt) is like 4 the normal year, which is perfectly OK.
You think...
Any investment at the sums they are talking about, will require them to give up a significant slice of control and have another party/s to appease. That party will want ROI, so Glazers will be under even more pressure to grow the club (e.g. bring back success, make sure we have CL football, retain high sponsorship income, sort out Old Trafford) which they can not. Although the statement gave other options, it's a "we're for sale" all the other phrases they used can be pretty much translated as "as long as you pay the asking price"
I mean, not really.
I am not fine with these state owners. I am definitely in favor of taking action, just the other day I was thinking why aren't people doing more? With the reach every individual have now, why don't we like boycott Fifa's sponsors? That would have a big impact. Boycott Heiniken trending on twitter. But with that said, we don't control who owns this team. For most of us, just walking away from following this club is not an option. Its not even like 'I hate tobacco, but I can't stop using it'. I love football. I love this club. I would just hate its owners.
So how should I feel if those horrible owners, give my favorite club money? I mean -- I can absolute hear how a panel of philosophers would discuss this topic. I don't know what is right or wrong, but I do know this, I can make my own decision and I will go feck it and celebrate if a striker bought with blood money scores for us. I will perhaps try to do more good somehow somewhere, to balance the karma up. But I will certainly not start to go, oh I think those bad people in the world have a point. So no matter what, i wouldn't say that sports washing works. At least not with these countries, perhaps more with individuals.
God sake. Its a perfectly valid attack. His opinion isn't valid because that guy just thinks it's so easy to buy a football club. You just say you want it and bingo you get it. Jim O'Neil even said what me and others have been saying. Your going to believe a successful businessman over him?What on Earth does this have to do with his post?
Just reads like a bizarre attack on a different opinion because you don’t like the clearly valid one you quoted
Because Chelsea is different. Chelsea had an owner who cared and invested into the infrastructure. Plus they were like 2 billion cheaper. A fairly lower price. Manchester United on the hand haven't. Had owners who didn't give a crap.Why do we think Todd bought Chelsea?
Are you being serious. So you're comparing a competition who has level playing field with salary caps etc in the US with the premier league which doesn't and is a free market. Jokes on you.
Hmmm… something isn’t the same as it was in 2012
I mean, yes really.
I'm not telling anybody to walk away from the club. I'm not judging your moral thought process regarding anything.
I'm just saying it's pretty evident that sports washing serves a purpose when "if you can't beat them - join them" is a growing narrative. And judging by this thread, it seems to be the case,
(I mean "I don't care about anything because my club gets money" is literally (one of) the way(s) sports washing works. You are officially sports washed. You have every right to be, and you don't have to defend it. But you are. Washed. And it's fine. It's how it's meant to work. It's by design.)
Does Berkshire Hathaway ever diversify into sports? Buy an undervalued quality asset, completely your field here Warren!
they invest in companies that pay good dividends
even if we continued to pay then at the rate the Glazers took them out, the ROI return is fairly poor for the principle investment required
Buffet wouldn’t go near us in a million years given the competitive disadvantages we’d have by competing versus nations, I would wager
There is considerable angst against state ownership. The reality on the ground says otherwise. The only other option to stay relevant in this economic environment was to push for the super-league (which had it's own demerits). No owner other than a state-owned entity would be able to go up against the incumbents with an endless pile of dough.
Unfortunately for us, there isn't a third viable model right now. We made our bed when we vehemently pushed back against the super-league. That has set in motion a sequence of events that may eventually end up with us being owned by a repressive regime somewhere in the middle-east. I was vocal on the forum about my support for the super-league. My logic was simple - if the FA or other football bodies can allow state-owned entities to buy football clubs then we should do what's best for our financial health without any moralistic judgements. Although that would have entrenched the Glazer ownership which none of us were in favor of.
It is firmly out of our hands right now. Call me a glory hunter but I would welcome being owned by someone who wants excellence in sporting achievements, even if for their own vested interests.
Unfortunately for us, there isn't a third viable model right now. We made our bed when we vehemently pushed back against the super-league. That has set in motion a sequence of events that may eventually end up with us being owned by a repressive regime somewhere in the middle-east. I was vocal on the forum about my support for the super-league. My logic was simple - if the FA or other football bodies can allow state-owned entities to buy football clubs then we should do what's best for our financial health without any moralistic judgements. Although that would have entrenched the Glazer ownership which none of us were in favor of.
It is firmly out of our hands right now. Call me a glory hunter but I would welcome being owned by someone who wants excellence in sporting achievements, even if for their own vested interests.
Unfortunately, this is the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. If we want success for our club, it seems like we're going to have to join the Middle Eastern party. I just don't see how a consortium works.
Also, whoever takes over us, it'll take time. We can't assume instant success. There will be hiccups along the way.
Yeah I agree, I was writing the post as more of a prompt to think about which kind of investor would have the deep enough pockets to address immediately our near term priorities, and conversely for those types, would the money be justified? Thanks for your response.
If state ownership is heavily pushed back, then I can only think of the likes of Blackstone or KKR, the biggest fish out there we can think of, to have a chance to sustain this arms race against oil and gas.
Clearly someone didn’t follow the conversation if they think I brought the Dodgers into it.
Chelsea also have a shithole of a stadium that desperately needs investment of a quite staggering degree, it was costed at 2.2 bn in March for the new stadium in that area of London, so someone is also talking out of their arse.
What are you on about. You did bring the dodgers into it. You posted a graph about their value increasing. Are you even educated. Look at the graph you posted. My comment had a point.
feck me this is just so sad.
No, the poster I replied to said that Todd Boehly didn’t buy Chelsea nor the Dodgers to make money, he did it because it looks cool or some bullshit, that’s how the Dodgers came into the conversation. I replied with a graph to show that he in fact, made a very profitable investment with the Dodgers.
It was 2 fecking posts man, how was that difficult for you to follow?
You’ve now made a complete mess of that, and you made a frankly ridiculous claim that Chelsea don’t need as much investment in infrastructure, when they clearly need more. And then you have the cheek to question my education.
My word.
Last edited:
Haha, why is it sad?
I don't think you understood the point I was making, to be honest.
Obviously, money has been made in sports teams. And lost too. My point was, that now the valuation is already sky-high that ROI opportunity has decreased. And given teams like the Dodger and Chelsea don't make a lot of profit either, there isn't much money to be made there either.
Your replies consistently misrepresent my point and I don't know if this is deliberate or what. But it's a very straight-forward point I'm making, so please stop doing that.
Oh my God I don't care about previous comments. What are you on about. I just pointed out you said the Dodgers increased value with a competition with salary caps etc by posting a graph which is different to the premier league which is a free market with none of those restrictions. My point is you can't use the MLB as evidence of how much Manchester United will increase his value. If you can't understand that then you need to go back to school and get educated.
The ROI is once again based on your belief that this is a bubble.
That’s absolutely no evidence to back up this opinion yet you keep spouting it as some kind of fact.
The landscape of football in the next 15 years will look vastly different and as I said yesterday, people claimed the 300m for Liverpool 10 years back was sky high and mean no huge ROI for FSG. How’d that turn out?
I didn’t.
I used it as proof that Boehly bought the Dodgers for a future ROI and that it has been a very profitable acquisition for him.
I don’t know what the feck you are banging on about, if you can’t understand the above I’m amazed you manage to get your underwear on the right way around.
You still don't get it. You can't use an American franchise where its a level playing field for all the teams to back up your point about the return on investment for Manchester United. Its you who puts on their underwear the wrong way round. Your freaking awful. When someone makes a valid point you throw your toys out of the pram like a kid.
What?
Are you playing stupid?
Absolutely no-one used an American franchise to back up a point about investment in United. It was used, and read slowly this time, to refute a claim that Boehly didn’t buy THE DODGERS for a return on investment.
No wonder you’re still a newb after 7 years if you can’t follow and understand a pretty straight forward debate.
Completely different competitions. Again level playing field for all teams while the premier league is based on who is more wealthy. Can't compare the 2 about return on investment. I am done. Don't reply to my posts again. Fed up with you.What?
Are you playing stupid?
Absolutely no-one used an American franchise to back up a point about investment in United. It was used, and read slowly this time, to refute a claim that Boehly didn’t buy THE DODGERS for a return on investment.
No wonder you’re still a newb after 7 years if you can’t follow and understand a pretty straight forward debate.
So anyway the news has all dried up about this eh? It was really crazy around the time Ronaldo was let go compared to now when no-one is talking about him. Does make me wonder...
Someone isn’t spending billions on sports clubs to make yearly profits - they’re doing it to grow the value of the asset. Build a new stadium, embrace new technologies through digital season tickets, and grow the media rights through online streaming and in 10 years time this club will be valued far higher than what they buy it for. The EPL is huge and we’re by far the biggest club that plays in it - the potential is absolutely huge.
I think we're bottoming out in terms of valuation and net profit though, which is why FSG and now glazers looking to sell, as well as the (now doomed) ESL. People are beginning to realise they can't compete with oil money and make much profit at the same time.
Just so I'm clear, as I may have misunderstood your post, are you saying the Glazers put out their statement, to its shareholders, SEC, etc, to deflect the news around us terminating Ronaldo's contract?
It’s never been about making profit in sports though, it’s about increasing the valuation.
I absolutely disagree about bottoming in, I think we’re going to see massive change in the digitalisation of football and mass content, VR etc. The popularity of Amazon Prime football content has just scratched the surface.
I’m also certain a European Super League is coming, but probably under the banner of UEFA & a non-closed shop.
The Glazers are getting out now because the Super League has been put back and because the investment needed now is going to be a stretch from them, they need investment in order to invest in the stadium & training, not because they think this is the peak.
Only Joel seems to even enjoy owning United, the rest have wanted out for ages. Now they have reached the stage of needing 1bn or so in new investment, it seems like a perfect time to sell up.
Last edited:
Dubai would be my pick. Most ambitious region in the world for the last 30 years, they would completely transform our infrastructure and turn the stadium/training ground into the best in the world. The club desperately needs ambition to restore itself as the biggest club in the world.
Don't think American investors or Ratcliffe would share the ambition required once you factor in acquisition costs. I hope we definitely stay away from American investors; they all seem pretty clueless about 'soccer'. At least the Middle East seem to have a greater understanding of football.
Don't think American investors or Ratcliffe would share the ambition required once you factor in acquisition costs. I hope we definitely stay away from American investors; they all seem pretty clueless about 'soccer'. At least the Middle East seem to have a greater understanding of football.
Absolutely clueless still, pretending anyone is comparing the Dodgers with the PL. Good luck getting the undies on.
There is so much value still to be added to football. We, united, still have to factor in the technology advances in football for customer experience, the women's game, the development in around OT. So much more added valution to be made.
The 2 of you need to keep this civil or stop debating. Leave the personal snipes out of it
the bubble thing is irrelevant to my point
the point I am making is related to ROI probabilities, which is how investors approach it
hence why I think we won’t be bought by private equity
I understand your point of view I just don’t think investors will see it that way
It's not a packet of sweets mate. It's an asset that's worth north of 5bn quid. Liverpool owners went public before ours did and they are in similar position.
Bang on. In order for the club to reach its enormous potential huge investment was required - they couldn’t borrow and dump more debt onto the club - protests would have stopped games and we also wouldn’t have the funds to spend on the squad that’s required with additional interest payments. They looked at an investor - but I think they’ve struggled due to the toxicity their ownership brings - and that toxicity is why despite knowing the club could potentially be worth 10bn plus in 10 years time it won’t happen under their ownership. Their model which has worked brilliantly for them financially until now isn’t going to get the next phase done - spending huge on the squad whilst servicing debt repayments yet still paying dividends on profits to boost the share price is no longer sustainable. A period of big investment and short-term loss is now required. Ultimately United is now far too big for their pockets.
Seriously? Have you followed the conversation and decided I’m the one to warn?
Before I even started to question his underpant decisions…..
his first post to me…
2nd….
3rd…
Seriously, have a read, I tried to debate respectful enough despite the fella questioning my education, then calling me awful. He’s finished off with a lovely post below this one also.
Last edited:
We can have a civil debate without you insulting me. Get stuffed. By the way I have reported you.
- Status