Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dubai ownership will be a dream come true for every Manchester United fans
 
Roario said:
United's biggest problem is the price tag.

The people buying United would expect an ROI of at least 4% annually on their investment if it were invested elsewhere.
That number is not realistic if the price of the club is over 4 billion.
The Glazer family got 1.2 billion over 17 years. About 70 million a year.
To get 4% of 4 billion, you need 160 million a year.
The numbers obviously get worse the more expensive the club gets.

This is why it is not realistic to get business people to buy United. The numbers just don't work as an investment.
Even if they doubled the net income, it wouldn't work at 4 billion.

I'm not a financial analyst and the numbers is not entirely accurate because it will likely be more money going out
towards the end of their ownership. I think it would be a hard buy for most investors.

Edit: This is also assuming no loans are taken to buy United.
Click to expand...

You're not counting the growth of the asset in price as value, the club is worth 6 times what they paid for it. So, if the club where to sell for 5 Billion, - the 790mil it cost to buy the club (discounting the fact that over half of it was a bank loan they didn't personally repay at all), selling the club alone means they got 300million a year.
 
nickp91 said:
Dubai ownership will be a dream come true for every Manchester United fans
Click to expand...
A lot of posters would find the idea disconcerting, and understandably so.

Though I do think it would be a better outcome for the club ahead of the likes of Ratcliffe and any dodgy US consortium. Just not a good outcome for the rest of the league.

For me personally, a Dubai ownership would be the best outcome for us on the pitch and getting the investment needed for a new stadium. I've accepted the fact we're going to get shit owners regardless, I'd rather they weren't the heinous journalist murdering, head-chopping types (Saudi) nor Glazer MK II (US ownership).
 
Please not another US takeover. They should just stick to American sports.
 
In my opinion, we're probably going to be bought by a US consortium. The Glazers and Raine group has huge connections there + most ME major players already own clubs of their own. US consortiums have a bad name for obvious reasons. However FSG had shown that its possible to have sensible club owners as well. ME owners remain my favourite option mainly because they have the capital and the will to truly inject the outrageous amount of money the club needs to + that much needed ruthlessness to bring in the best in the job without getting entangled in nostalgia that crippled us. Jim Ratcliffe's bid is my least favourite option. The last thing we need is to have someone who doesn't have the outrageous capital needed to invest in the club and who hires family and friends in highly sensible roles.
 
devilish said:
I very much doubt it would really be the case
Click to expand...
I think you'd be surprised, loads of people were done when the Glazers too over and the same thing would happen with a state takeover. I think you're under-estimating just how many people are jaded with modern football and how much of a kick in the teeth it would be. It might not make a notable change in the fan base unless you're a matchgoer and you notice these things, but it's nonsense to say it would be a dream come true for every fan.

I know for me personally it would be the day I walked away from the club and didn't look back and I'm certainly not alone in that.
 
Dion said:
I think you'd be surprised, loads of people were done when the Glazers too over and the same thing would happen with a state takeover. I think you're under-estimating just how many people are jaded with modern football and how much of a kick in the teeth it would be. It might not make a notable change in the fan base unless you're a matchgoer and you notice these things, but it's nonsense to say it would be a dream come true for every fan.

I know for me personally it would be the day I walked away from the club and didn't look back and I'm certainly not alone in that.
Click to expand...

a- Football is a drug. I lost count of how many times I swore not to watch United anymore. Guess what? I am still here

b- Success bring people in just as failure push people out. I've seen that with my very eyes at supporters clubs etc. If fans leave when United are successful then they won't be missed.
 
Dion said:
I think you'd be surprised, loads of people were done when the Glazers too over and the same thing would happen with a state takeover. I think you're under-estimating just how many people are jaded with modern football and how much of a kick in the teeth it would be. It might not make a notable change in the fan base unless you're a matchgoer and you notice these things, but it's nonsense to say it would be a dream come true for every fan.

I know for me personally it would be the day I walked away from the club and didn't look back and I'm certainly not alone in that.
Click to expand...
United have been taking money from dodgy sponsors for years. Respect your opinion, but I don't see any drop in the fanbase. Increased investment will attract fans in the future. Fans want to see ambition and Dubai will provide us with that.
 
devilish said:
a- Football is a drug. I lost count of how many times I swore not to watch United anymore. Guess what? I am still here

b- Success bring people in just as failure push people out. I've seen that with my very eyes at supporters clubs etc. If fans leave when United are successful then they won't be missed.
Click to expand...
There’s a difference in match going regulars leaving and tv watchers. Any bid from the ME or Sur Jim will surely want a community aspect to the club, respecting that it’s Manchester United.whilst it’s important to grow globally it’s also important to not lose its roots because they are the base
 
golden_blunder said:
There’s a difference in match going regulars leaving and tv watchers. Any bid from the ME or Sur Jim will surely want a community aspect to the club, respecting that it’s Manchester United.whilst it’s important to grow globally it’s also important to not lose its roots because they are the base
Click to expand...

100%

And I would add we need to be concerned about English Football in general. Why we are against the Super League.
it will end up killing smaller clubs.

But it is likely to be one of these ME buyers. Who else has unlimited funds.
 
golden_blunder said:
There’s a difference in match going regulars leaving and tv watchers. Any bid from the ME or Sur Jim will surely want a community aspect to the club, respecting that it’s Manchester United.whilst it’s important to grow globally it’s also important to not lose its roots because they are the base
Click to expand...

I agree with you on paper but in reality that doesn't really matter. Match going regulars aren't necessarily from Manchester. I lost count of how many Maltese I know who have season tickets. They usually loan them to other Maltese whenever they can't go and watch the game themselves. I am sure that people from other countries close by do the same. Thus if a small minority of local fans decide to relinquish their season ticket to start supporting Salford of FC United then I am sure that there would be others to take their place. What can't be replaced are those horde of young supporters who had grown up seeing Chelsea and City being a success. A whole generation of supporters had since been lost.

Also let's say a ME owner comes in, he promises to rebuild OT while keeping the prices low, he brings VDS as CEO, Mitchell as head of recruitment and Edwards as DOF + United ends up signing Bellingham, Kane and Rice next season. Do you think that most of the local fans would still be angry with him?
 
devilish said:
In my opinion, we're probably going to be bought by a US consortium. The Glazers and Raine group has huge connections there + most ME major players already own clubs of their own. US consortiums have a bad name for obvious reasons. However FSG had shown that its possible to have sensible club owners as well. ME owners remain my favourite option mainly because they have the capital and the will to truly inject the outrageous amount of money the club needs to + that much needed ruthlessness to bring in the best in the job without getting entangled in nostalgia that crippled us. Jim Ratcliffe's bid is my least favourite option. The last thing we need is to have someone who doesn't have the outrageous capital needed to invest in the club and who hires family and friends in highly sensible roles.
Click to expand...

FSG are sensible enough to know to get out. Thats what concerns me about a US consortium. God I hope its not US otherwise I cannot see how there will be much difference.
 
devilish said:
a- Football is a drug. I lost count of how many times I swore not to watch United anymore. Guess what? I am still here

b- Success bring people in just as failure push people out. I've seen that with my very eyes at supporters clubs etc. If fans leave when United are successful then they won't be missed.
Click to expand...
Nobody said it wouldn't attract fans. The statement was that 'it would be a dream come true for every United fan'. This is demonstrably untrue.

And lots of people give up drugs every day, just because some don't doesn't mean nobody does.
 
Is there a risk that the Glazers will sell the assets separately, such as the land around the stadium?
Also, on Apple, given they're a listed company, doesn't that make a takeover process more lengthy? Would they need some sort of approval from their shareholders?
 
UnitedFan93 said:
United have been taking money from dodgy sponsors for years. Respect your opinion, but I don't see any drop in the fanbase. Increased investment will attract fans in the future. Fans want to see ambition and Dubai will provide us with that.
Click to expand...
Not relevant to the point I was making. City are evidence success attracts supporters, nobody contests that.

The injection is that it will be a dream come true for every supporter, I can assure you it won't. And there's a massive difference been a few dodgy sponsors and actually becoming a state operation.
 
Dion said:
I very much doubt it, given it will be the day many stop supporting the club entirely.
Click to expand...
Won't be a significant number. Oil states have been investing in all kinds of businesses in all countries for years and no one has cared enough to make a significant noise. And footballing worls has all kinds of dodgy folks for decades now. Nothing surprises nowadays.

If investments in the club are sound and look sensible, the fans will get behind the club, regardless of their dislike towards the ownership.
 
Red Dreams said:
Whoever ends up buying our club, none of us will be happy.
The club is too big for an ordinary business to take over.
Click to expand...
Is it though? If the club was sold for, say 7 billion, I am not sure it would even be on the top 20 list of the biggest mergers and acquisitions so far in 2022.
 
Think we'll get some progress updates on this once the World Cup is done and journos are back in the UK?

I want the wheels to start rolling and to know which parties will try to buy United.
 
Dion said:
Nobody said it wouldn't attract fans. The statement was that 'it would be a dream come true for every United fan'. This is demonstrably untrue.

And lots of people give up drugs every day, just because some don't doesn't mean nobody does.
Click to expand...

My first post was in response to many fans leaving United. I don't think it would be the case. Regarding your statement here, there's no knight in shining armour ready to own United. That's certainly not Jimmy Brexit the tax dodger who threatens common people's jobs if the UK dared pushing for EU laws regarding pollution
 
devilish said:
My first post was in response to many fans leaving United. I don't think it would be the case. Regarding your statement here, there's no knight in shining armour ready to own United. That's certainly not Jimmy Brexit the tax dodger who threatens common people's jobs if the UK dared pushing for EU laws regarding pollution
Click to expand...
Depends on your definition of many fans. I've got zero doubt thousands of supporters will abaddon the club over such a move, it happened before and it will happen again. Even if tens of thousands replace them it's still a tragedy.

I also roundly reject the notion that all bad people are as bad as each other. The Glazers/Ratcliffe etc are bad, governments are worse.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
Won't be a significant number. Oil states have been investing in all kinds of businesses in all countries for years and no one has cared enough to make a significant noise. And footballing worls has all kinds of dodgy folks for decades now. Nothing surprises nowadays.

If investments in the club are sound and look sensible, the fans will get behind the club, regardless of their dislike towards the ownership.
Click to expand...
In the grand scheme of things for the club? No I doubt it will, but a few thousand people losing their club is still a terrible thing.

And no, people have cared to make significant noise, but the ears in the PL aren't receptive.
 
Dion said:
Depends on your definition of many fans. I've got zero doubt thousands of supporters will abaddon the club over such a move, it happened before and it will happen again. Even if tens of thousands replace them it's still a tragedy.

I also roundly reject the notion that all bad people are as bad as each other. The Glazers/Ratcliffe etc are bad, governments are worse.
Click to expand...
Forgetting the specifics, this is a dumb argument. You do realise most governments are basically run by people and interests connected to billionaires like Ratcliffe?
 
Roario said:
United's biggest problem is the price tag.

The people buying United would expect an ROI of at least 4% annually on their investment if it were invested elsewhere.
That number is not realistic if the price of the club is over 4 billion.
The Glazer family got 1.2 billion over 17 years. About 70 million a year.
To get 4% of 4 billion, you need 160 million a year.
The numbers obviously get worse the more expensive the club gets.

This is why it is not realistic to get business people to buy United. The numbers just don't work as an investment.
Even if they doubled the net income, it wouldn't work at 4 billion.

I'm not a financial analyst and the numbers is not entirely accurate because it will likely be more money going out
towards the end of their ownership. I think it would be a hard buy for most investors.

Edit: This is also assuming no loans are taken to buy United.
Click to expand...

For sure, for most/many investors. If all our shares were of equal class and all floated on NYSE — I don’t think we would have a market cap of 7bn (as long as we saw no takeover plays).

But — with that said — many many companies pays zero percent dividend. Amazon don’t pay any dividend (growth company). Berkshire Hathaway never pays any dividend (investment company). At least 90% of the NYSE top 500 shares don’t pay 4% dividend.

How come everyone are interested in buying shares anyway? It’s of course because if you measure ROI you look at both direct yield (dividend) and the yield you get at exit, when you sell the share.

If you buy 100% of the shares of Man Utd today for 6bn and invest 3bn in the club, 1.5bn in the arena and Carrington and 150m per year over 10 years — how much will you get if you sell 100% of the shares 2033? At that point, with the 3bn investment, we would be far and away one of the top 1-3 clubs in the world.

If we are sold for 13.32 bn — the buyer got his 4% yearly yield. Right?

And remember, 13bn is a sick amount of money, but it’s not a big market cap for a company.
 
i can’t wait to watch a virtual game of applechester pro football club, playing at the itrafford multiplex, complete with floating island centre circle.
 
It’s depressing but when you look at the possible options of an American consortium that have a terrible history of running PL clubs, Middle Eastern state or some bloke from the UK who will probably leverage against the club, the Middle Eastern state comes out looking like the good guys.
 
crossy1686 said:
It’s depressing but when you look at the possible options of an American consortium that have a terrible history of running PL clubs, Middle Eastern state or some bloke from the UK who will probably leverage against the club, the Middle Eastern state comes out looking like the good guys.
Click to expand...

Good guys not the right word, but the safest option for the future of our club yes.
 
Dion said:
Not relevant to the point I was making. City are evidence success attracts supporters, nobody contests that.

The injection is that it will be a dream come true for every supporter, I can assure you it won't. And there's a massive difference been a few dodgy sponsors and actually becoming a state operation.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, respect your view.

At the end of the day, for the last 30 years the club has chosen to do business with the likes of Aeroflot (Russian State-owned), Saudi Telecom (Saudi State-owned), Myanmar's CB Bank, simply because they paid the most.

We even accepted £1million to play in a testimonial in Saudi back in 2008, mid-season.

If you haven't walked away from the club by now, then why not?
 
crossy1686 said:
It’s depressing but when you look at the possible options of an American consortium that have a terrible history of running PL clubs, Middle Eastern state or some bloke from the UK who will probably leverage against the club, the Middle Eastern state comes out looking like the good guys.
Click to expand...
It's something we need to get used to now as there's plenty of foreign money / involment in things we use on a daily basis, at this point they might as well own our football club.
 
Dion said:
I very much doubt it, given it will be the day many stop supporting the club entirely.
Click to expand...
Easier said than done that’s for sure. I couldn’t do it no matter who owned us. Once it’s in the blood it’s there to stay. As fans we now have to except the new norm, what ever that is.

I hate change like this but we’ve no choice as fans, we’re the cannon fodder. If we’re to catch City up (( and soon to be Newcastle )) then for me it’s the only way forward. On a personal note somebody like Jeff Bezos would do me.
 
Roario said:
United's biggest problem is the price tag.

The people buying United would expect an ROI of at least 4% annually on their investment if it were invested elsewhere.
That number is not realistic if the price of the club is over 4 billion.
The Glazer family got 1.2 billion over 17 years. About 70 million a year.
To get 4% of 4 billion, you need 160 million a year.
The numbers obviously get worse the more expensive the club gets.

This is why it is not realistic to get business people to buy United. The numbers just don't work as an investment.
Even if they doubled the net income, it wouldn't work at 4 billion.

I'm not a financial analyst and the numbers is not entirely accurate because it will likely be more money going out
towards the end of their ownership. I think it would be a hard buy for most investors.

Edit: This is also assuming no loans are taken to buy United.
Click to expand...

For sure, for most/many investors. If all our shares were of equal class and all floated on NYSE — I don’t think we would have a market cap of 7bn (as long as we saw no takeover plays).

But — with that said — many many companies pays zero percent dividend. Amazon don’t pay any dividend (growth company). Berkshire Hathaway never pays any dividend (investment company). At least 90% of the NYSE top 500 shares don’t pay 4% dividend.

How come everyone are interested in buying shares anyway? It’s of course because if you measure ROI you look at both direct yield (dividend) and the yield you get at exit, when you sell the share.

If you buy 100% of the shares of Man Utd today for 6bn and invest 3bn in the club, 1.5bn in the arena and Carrington and 150m per year over 10 years — how much will you get if you sell 100% of the shares 2033? At that point, with the 3bn investment, we would be far and away one of the top 1-3 clubs in the world.

If we are sold for 13.32 bn — the buyer got his 4% yearly yield. Right?

And remember, 13bn is a sick amount of money, but for a market cap, it’s a smaller amount.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.