I have a feeling that we will be bought by Dubai
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Avram Glazer was in Dubai in September this year. Spoke to Dubai ministers. It was about starting a cricket team but you never know. Buying the club could of come up.
Dubai or USA consortium but can't see Ratcliffe
Yeah that's a definite possibility
The dubai - abu dhabi dynamic will be funny. Last time I visited Dubai (something like 2012/2013), they were going through some financial hardship and had to get bailed out by Abu Dhabi.
Everywhere you went there was a large picture of the Sheikh of Dubai and a much larger picture of the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi right next to him.
Everywhere you went there was a large picture of the Sheikh of Dubai and a much larger picture of the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi right next to him.
The official statement itself had said that the Glazers are exploring many options and the in October Sir Jim Ratcliffe himself stated that the Glazers weren't willing to sell. Journalists had since investigated what was going behind the scenes and the truth seem to be that while the majority want to sell at least one of the Glazers want to remain. Which really makes me wonder. Are the Glazers planning to sell a huge stake of the club while retaining a minority state in it? Would a bid that offered such arrangement be preferred to let's say a whole sale? In that case then the Glazers would aim at a seller who would increase value to the club sale. No one would want his shares prices to remain frozen or go down. We now know that share prices tend to skyrocket when a sale is on the cards. Which kind of point the sale to a US consortium. They are the ones who would, more likely, sell in the future.
I'm starting to think this. Sell a big stake to a US based consortium, enabling the club to kick on with personnel and stadium/training facilities which will make the club more profitable. And likely still have a condition whereby they will ALL get dividends from it.
Dubai is a small fry compared to Abu Dhabi. I think they’ve been bailed out a couple of times. There was talks about another one in 2020.
Saudi have the biggest oil fund in the middle east so if it’s a dick measuring contest we’ve already lost.
The actual wealth of the prospective buyer is important up to a certain amount say 10-60bln net worth , after that it all becomes a bit redundant as it’s unlikely the club needs anything north of 2bln invested and that’s new stadium and facilities.
So getting the biggest and best wealth fund isn’t the goal here, the goal should be how they plan to invest and the model they propose moving forward.
The actual wealth of the prospective buyer is important up to a certain amount say 10-60bln net worth , after that it all becomes a bit redundant as it’s unlikely the club needs anything north of 2bln invested and that’s new stadium and facilities.
So getting the biggest and best wealth fund isn’t the goal here, the goal should be how they plan to invest and the model they propose moving forward.
Man Utd doesn’t need 6b with the money we bring in. We really don’t need that much, only to spend wheat we earn
That will be tight both financing the rebuild of the infrastructure and investing in the squad.
It will be difficult.
Oh I agree there will need money put
in for infrastructure but as far as needing it versus Citys owners it’s just not necessary. Can you imagine the amount that would bring our average spending to if we continued how we are with 10b odd added on? I’d honestly start thinking about not following the club any more if it’s 400m spent every year
Guess this wil be the new official song then always playing on Old Trafford: (Pretty catchy i have to admit)
Indeed. Dubai's financial mismanagement is well known and they are subordinate to their much richer and more powerful neighbour - I can't see them challenging Abu Dhabi head on with two teams in the same city.
I still think a US consortium of some kind is more likely if the Glazers sell the whole club (which is itself, by no means certain).
It's the investment corporation of Dubai and their net worth at last count was singing like 300 billion. It's not exactly small fry
Did you skip over “compared to Abu Dhabi” in my post?
I watched a pretty thorough tour of Dubai on youtube not long ago and it seems like a bit of a mirage. Everything looked shitty and falling apart, they have nice hotels, but have never ending stream of trucks hauling human waste out of them. The place came across as a dump. I don't think they are as rich as people think.
Last edited:
Simon Stone's tweet still sounds pointless. That is unless it's code talk for sommat else.
There’s a reason Liverpool and United announced they’re both for sale on the eve of a tournament in the Middle East when the whole Arab world is watching. There’s only one type of buyer both sellers are looking for in my opinion.
I saw that documentary on those shit trucks a few years ago, is the shit carrying still going on?
I have been obsessively trying to find info on who the potential buyer can be the last day or two. Mapped out the legal team at Latham & Watkins doing the transaction, looked at social media if any selfies could be found, gone through transaction records, checked many reports.
But I just can't get a feel either way. Nothing feel quite right. You don't get the feeling that there is symetrics between the report, one thing point in one direction, then the next thing point in another direction.
*Why is Dubai mentioned? Because they are the one country who don't own a football team. Glazers traveled to Dubai. Like its definitely not the worst guess, but at the same time -- Chelsea was for sale a while back. Why didn't they try to buy Chelsea if they wanted to get a top football club? The Saudi's (another fund than the Newcastle owners) at least made a big offer for Chelsea, but they were cut on a technically.
The PL already cleared one Saudi fund from not being identical to the state. With that precedent -- another Saudi fund "should" not be prevented from buying another PL team. Like why would they? The PL finds that one fund is not run by the Saudi state. Then they find that another fund is not run by the Saudi state. But these two funds cannot own a PL team each -- because both are run by the Saudi state or what? Makes no sense. The Saudi media fund at least made a bid for Chelsea, which Dubai didn't.
*Jimmy Radcliff? Checks a lot of boxes. But not really the biggest one. An investment in Manchester United of a total of like 8-9bn can be seen as attractive -- for someone that has so much money that they don't know how to spend it, and is willing to roll the dice and certainly don't mind the additional power and influence owning Manchester United means. For Radcliff, the little I know of him, it would be all about "fan value". Is that enough to go way above and beyond on the purchase price of an already extremely expensive toy? I don't quite get the feeling that it adds up to be honest.
*US Consortium? Like, there is no thing as a "US consortium" in business. Oh here comes another US consortium, they often make these type of investments. Except in football -- where it undoubtedly has somewhat been a thing. But if you look at big Merger & Acquisitions -- its downright rare that a consortium is involved. It simply means that the transaction is too big for one party -- but that there still is logic in making the transaction with the help of several bidders. There is no logic behind expecting a buyer to be a "consortium" -- since its the exception, not the rule. If anything, it just means that someone is punching a bit above its weight class. Perhaps there is a logic for it in sport team ownerships, but its not that obvious. For me consortium's make much more sense if its infrastructure or real estate that is sold. Something really really basic. Like lets say a power grid is sold, it doesn't matter much if you own 75% or 25% of it. Its worth the same, you aren't worried about what management will do with the grid. You just send out the bills.
Is it private equity? Venture capital? A hedge fund?
Like it can of course be more than one buyer -- but its just a very unclear term from my POV.
*I for a while got the feeling that it could be a US betting company (MGM / Ceasars). As I am sure most know, the US online betting market have opened up rapidly the last years. Naturally, existing entities in the US is trying to take their slice of it and the established European betting companies are of course investing a ton to also get a foothold there. But its kind of an unfair fight, because the European companies have a home market that isn't challenged at all by the US companies coming out of the woodwork, and the fight is solely on the US companies back yard. They can of course buy existing betting companies in Europe -- which they also have done. But MGM or Ceasars buying United -- it is a different kind of statement. Raine Group have done business with these companies lately.
But I just don't think they are strong enough. Draftkings have a market cap of like 10bn, the bigger US alternatives perhaps 14bn. They invest tremendous amounts in advertising -- and its just not profitable business right now.
*While I certainly can't rule out any of the most talked about alternatives above, I just can't shake the feeling that the buyer could be a surprise option.
Jim O'Neill gave an interview on Bloomberg just the other day. He tried to buy United what 10 years ago with a 1.2bn offer. He trashed the current asking price. His group (the Red Knight) definitely is very connected. Its full of ex bosses from Goldman and other big investment banks. If Jim O'Neill doesn't have a clue about who is buying United -- then its kept close to the chest. If he does know it, what he said could be interesting.
And he said one thing that caught my attention, first basically that he would never take a proposal with the current ask to his companions, he then added the interesting part which was something like a strong word of caution to whomever buys United, that it will not be a walk in the park to own the Club. There will be a lot of drama attached to it. And like with the attention it gets -- it won't be a walk in the park to own it. Drama at the club could reflect on certain type of owners. When something like the Mason Greenwood incident happens -- the owners could be asked about it. But only, if the new owners are responsible and will be expected to act like it. For some kind of hedge fund, they are untouchable. Faceless. How much have the enormous protests impacted the Glazers? Not much. Its not like Abu Dabi gets exposed if its exposed that City had cheated the FFP -- nobody cares, nobody expects anything else from them.
It doesn't have to mean anything, but to me it did sound like Jim O'Neill wanted to scare someone away or at least criticize a buyer for not thinking it through. Who would this be a thing for? Most certainly someone like Apple Inc. Like Tim Cook don't want an event meant to be about presenting iPhone 15 be stormed by angry fans or UK journalists asking why United haven't bought a new GK despite lost the first 3 games of the season. Like, you get what I mean. There will be protests if OT is to be replaced by a new arena. Whatever. The attention everything United gets -- its massive. Even if Apple is talked about all the time, its not on the headlines of big papers often.
I don't know, but listening to Jim O'Neill, I just did not get the impression that United would be bought by either faceless money/owners or scruple free people if you get what I mean. The above could also apply to Jim Radcliff -- but not more so than to Jim himself (unless he wants Radcliff to join the Red Knights).
I wouldn't rule out an industrial buyer. I know many would, I respect their arguments for sure. It certainly don't have to be Apple. Could be Tencent or Alibaba or Amazon. It was when I saw this interview that I started to consider the Betting industry, but like I said above, they are too small. Jim ONeill's warning would of course have made sense in relation to MGM, Ceasars and co too.
*The last alternative I would not rule out is that -- a large political risk -- is seen on the Horizon. Something that would result in clubs being worth a lot less in 10-20 years time. And hence everyone just puts up their clubs for sale right now while they still can get premium pay.
Last edited:
Liverpool actually announced they are for sale a few weeks before United, not on the eve of the World Cup.
You said they were bailed out and small fry. 300 billion exactly how much do you think we need in an owner?
It's true that there are a lot of premier league players on show. I read "The English Premier League had more players called up for the 2022 World Cup than any other league, with 136 players making their way to the tournament. This represented nearly one in every six players at the tournament. The league with the second-most players was Spain's La Liga, with 83." Manchester City has the most with 16, and we are second with 14. Liverpool has only 7 (statista.com)
Combine that with the BE-in BE-out coverage and maybe oil rich Arabs regard EPL as their domestic league and will start using it not just for sports washing but also as a proxy for inter-Arab status?
I think the main reason for the timed sale announcement was so the Arab world can see exactly what impact football has on Western culture, the heroes, the villains, the complete disregard for any and all logic. If they didn't already know, they do now.
No I agree using the money generated and grow the business would surely be sufficient but new owners would always need to bring financial backing. 400m for players might be fun though.. At least once.
Liverpool did it ages ago, but I think the reason United did it before the world cup is because we have no football till boxing day. No distractions on the pitch and with the players.
The emirate was bailed out by Abu Dhabi. They are small fry compared to Abu Dhabi. Why do you keep ignoring “compared to Abu Dhabi”?
It's very hard to know from the outside. My guess would be that it was mainly the Liverpool sale that triggered the Glazer interest. And that in turn was triggered by the prospect of global recession and an increase in interest rates at a time when the club needed a level of new investment to keep pace with City (or even the top four) that was impossible to get a decent return on in the new climate. The same factors are also true for us to a lessor extent. So Arab oil money is at the heart of the problem whichever way you look at it.
tl;dr Liverpool buying Bellingham wasn't worth a for profit business having a slightly greater small chance of winning UCL or EPL and it set off a logic cascade.
It means if the Glazers sell then they already know who they are selling to as these things take a long time to finalise
Perhaps, I heard Mark Goldbridge come to this conclusion.
But it totally depends on what type of owner we are getting. We are a publicly traded company with a strict obligation for the board to ensure that the market get all information necessary to evaluate the company. You don’t have to turn every rock to be sure that there aren’t any skeletons in the closet. The board is personally liable and won’t stake their personal financial situation to keep Glazers dirty laundry from a buyer.
In addition, Glazers don’t own 100% of the shares of Manchester United plc, a company incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands. To buy all shares, you complete a merger. I am not familiar with how long it takes to complete a merger on the Caymans, would guess that it’s faster than elsewhere, that is why you list there, it’s big-owner friendly.
But before they proceed to a merger — it’s of course a done deal who the buyer is.
So you've been happy with us being the richest club, and spending the most in numerous seasons over the last 30 years.
But don't want us to spend tooo much?
Having seen City dominate this last decade, surely all we really want to happen is re-instating ourselves as the dominant club?
As long as it's not "too" dodgy a regime?
No, there’s still consequences for us buying big and poorly. With that level of spending there’s so much that goes into supporting a football club that would be lost
Lucky for you we have Big and Poorly under contract for three more years and are paying the consequences.
Very good.
I don't want "investors", I'm so sick of it especially when they own so many clubs in various sports
My top 6 most likely buyers’ list and the odds I would assign them against what I currently know.
Looking at the reports, we have very little intel. Very few sources actually claiming to know anything. We know Jim Ratcliffe will make a bid. Not much more.
The below is based on my own guesses, I am not just copying what others are reporting. So take it as that, perfectly possible that everything is based on misunderstandings.
1. Qatar Sports Investment — 15%
It is the one buyer that makes the most sense for me. They have invested extremely heavily in sports, tourism and entertainment. It is a tremendously rich country for which an investment like this is fairly small.
Most notably, they would easily get by far the biggest synergies of any potential buyer. Scouting, sports science, media deals and so forth. Group friendly deals between us and PSG. They have heavy media interests in Al Jazeera.
We already know that Qatar is interested in buying a Premier League team, from 2016:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...eckons-World-Cup-chief-Hassan-Al-Thawadi.html
“I can see it happening down the road. It’s likely. There’s such a passion for football and the Premier League in particular. Everyone on the street has an opinion.’” — Hassan Al-Thawadi
They have also been linked to us in the past:
https://syndication.bleacherreport....over-good-move-for-manchester-united.amp.html
“Manchester United FC (England) - In 2010, £1.5 billion bid was said to be on the table by Qatar Holding.”
Do I think it’s likely? No. Not before we hear that they have any definite interest
2. “Elliot Investment Management” / Any other hedge fund or group of hedge funds — 12.5%
Big football clubs are rarely for sale. Right now we have had several big transactions, but that is not the norm but the exception. Outside of the PL and Serie A — the +51% rule is the norm.
Between say 2025 to 2050 — it’s definitely possible that none or only one big PL club will be sold. There will be new filthy rich in 2040. There will be investors wanting a big PL team that don’t exist today.
If a hedge fund buys a PL team in 2022 with the aim to own it for 10-15 years, there is basically no reason to not expect a decent return when it’s sold in say 2035.
In addition, it’s of course the door opener of all door opener to own the biggest sports brand.
It’s of course impossible to predict which hedgefund would buy us.
Do I think it’s likely? No, it’s typically an investment with a too long horizon for a hedgefund. Financing is hard to come by right now. It’s one thing to come in and invest in a club with too much debt — with a much shorter horizon. It’s another to start a 10-15 year project.
3. Saudi Media Group — 5.5%
They bid for Chelsea. The PL has found that Newcastle is owned by a fund (the Saudi Public Investment Fund) which is independent of the Saudi state. If Saudi Media Group also is found to be independent from the Saudi state — the PL could surely not object to another Saudi based owner independent from the state owning a PL club.
The Saudis have also not invested that much in Newcastle either. Maybe they shift focus? They obviously were willing to ant up for Chelsea. If we look at the last auction of a PL club just what 7m ago, the richest participant was the Saudi Media Group.
Do I think it’s likely? No. Not before we hear that they have any definite interest. Just 100% speculation at this point.
4. Jim Ratcliffe — 5%
There is a possibility that Ratcliffe has been indicated a number and declared that he is willing to pay that. Say 5.5bn. It’s possible that the Glazers want to sell to him, give the club back to an English owner. It’s possible nobody else will bid over him.
Do I think it’s likely? No. Not before we hear that everyone else with deeper pockets won’t be interested.
5. Apple Inc — 3%
First a little back ground to how these auctions normally work. It’s Insider Information regarding Manchester United plc. You cannot spread that information freely, unless it’s sent out to all investors at the same time. There are special provisions for so called Market Soundings. You basically list who gets which information, keep records of it. But since you want some info on the lay of the land — you often start a secret market sounding process with a few select investors. You “wall cross” them. Then when you know that there is a foundation for a deal, you disclose everyone else to the auction. Nothing is decided, but you know that there is interest.
My best bet is that we have definite interest from one buyer that is not Apple — and then someone leaked that Apple also was interested, just to get every potential investor out there to open their eyes. What does Apple know that we don’t? Amazon, Disney, Netflix, Rakuten, Alibaba etc etc etc. Hence I don’t believe in Apple.
But unlike many others, I would not 100% rule them out.
We got a source saying that there are interest. It came out really really fast, and it just don’t feel totally fabricated:
“Apple have expressed an interest in discussing a potential deal. …CEO Tim Cook is keen to explore the opportunities owning United could provide - and will line up talks with the banks appointed to oversee the sale, which include The Raine Group.”
Apple will have a very professional strategic investment team, and they just struck a big deal with the MLS meaning that they surely commissioned reports on the impact of football on streaming.
They have “too much money”. Just like buying Manchester United wouldn’t be a horrible investment for a hedge fund, it’s not like Apple would buy us for 6bn, invest 3bn over 10 years — and then only be able to sell us for 2bn. They are getting their money back.
OTOH, it is also hard to see exactly how much owning us actually would benefit their Apple+. Like sure, you get Man Utd TV. But that isn’t exactly 5,000,000 subscribers with the content it has now. Could it be 50,000?
Do I think it’s likely? Nope, of course not. I just don’t think the upside is that big for Apple and I especially don’t think they want to diversify their business more than absolutely necessary.
6. Dubai — 2.5%
The biggest argument in favor of Dubai is that they do — not — own a PL team. I just don’t think that is a very good argument. And why aren’t Kuwait also mentioned, aren’t they richer than Dubai?
Dubai has a different profile than Qatar, and is like the financial capital of the Middle East. They are more into normal business. They aren’t as rich.
Sure they did bid för Liverpool way back — but that was at a totally different level.
If they wanted a soccer team — why did they not bid for Chelsea? Makes no sense to me.
Looking at the reports, we have very little intel. Very few sources actually claiming to know anything. We know Jim Ratcliffe will make a bid. Not much more.
The below is based on my own guesses, I am not just copying what others are reporting. So take it as that, perfectly possible that everything is based on misunderstandings.
1. Qatar Sports Investment — 15%
It is the one buyer that makes the most sense for me. They have invested extremely heavily in sports, tourism and entertainment. It is a tremendously rich country for which an investment like this is fairly small.
Most notably, they would easily get by far the biggest synergies of any potential buyer. Scouting, sports science, media deals and so forth. Group friendly deals between us and PSG. They have heavy media interests in Al Jazeera.
We already know that Qatar is interested in buying a Premier League team, from 2016:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...eckons-World-Cup-chief-Hassan-Al-Thawadi.html
“I can see it happening down the road. It’s likely. There’s such a passion for football and the Premier League in particular. Everyone on the street has an opinion.’” — Hassan Al-Thawadi
They have also been linked to us in the past:
https://syndication.bleacherreport....over-good-move-for-manchester-united.amp.html
“Manchester United FC (England) - In 2010, £1.5 billion bid was said to be on the table by Qatar Holding.”
Do I think it’s likely? No. Not before we hear that they have any definite interest
2. “Elliot Investment Management” / Any other hedge fund or group of hedge funds — 12.5%
Big football clubs are rarely for sale. Right now we have had several big transactions, but that is not the norm but the exception. Outside of the PL and Serie A — the +51% rule is the norm.
Between say 2025 to 2050 — it’s definitely possible that none or only one big PL club will be sold. There will be new filthy rich in 2040. There will be investors wanting a big PL team that don’t exist today.
If a hedge fund buys a PL team in 2022 with the aim to own it for 10-15 years, there is basically no reason to not expect a decent return when it’s sold in say 2035.
In addition, it’s of course the door opener of all door opener to own the biggest sports brand.
It’s of course impossible to predict which hedgefund would buy us.
Do I think it’s likely? No, it’s typically an investment with a too long horizon for a hedgefund. Financing is hard to come by right now. It’s one thing to come in and invest in a club with too much debt — with a much shorter horizon. It’s another to start a 10-15 year project.
3. Saudi Media Group — 5.5%
They bid for Chelsea. The PL has found that Newcastle is owned by a fund (the Saudi Public Investment Fund) which is independent of the Saudi state. If Saudi Media Group also is found to be independent from the Saudi state — the PL could surely not object to another Saudi based owner independent from the state owning a PL club.
The Saudis have also not invested that much in Newcastle either. Maybe they shift focus? They obviously were willing to ant up for Chelsea. If we look at the last auction of a PL club just what 7m ago, the richest participant was the Saudi Media Group.
Do I think it’s likely? No. Not before we hear that they have any definite interest. Just 100% speculation at this point.
4. Jim Ratcliffe — 5%
There is a possibility that Ratcliffe has been indicated a number and declared that he is willing to pay that. Say 5.5bn. It’s possible that the Glazers want to sell to him, give the club back to an English owner. It’s possible nobody else will bid over him.
Do I think it’s likely? No. Not before we hear that everyone else with deeper pockets won’t be interested.
5. Apple Inc — 3%
First a little back ground to how these auctions normally work. It’s Insider Information regarding Manchester United plc. You cannot spread that information freely, unless it’s sent out to all investors at the same time. There are special provisions for so called Market Soundings. You basically list who gets which information, keep records of it. But since you want some info on the lay of the land — you often start a secret market sounding process with a few select investors. You “wall cross” them. Then when you know that there is a foundation for a deal, you disclose everyone else to the auction. Nothing is decided, but you know that there is interest.
My best bet is that we have definite interest from one buyer that is not Apple — and then someone leaked that Apple also was interested, just to get every potential investor out there to open their eyes. What does Apple know that we don’t? Amazon, Disney, Netflix, Rakuten, Alibaba etc etc etc. Hence I don’t believe in Apple.
But unlike many others, I would not 100% rule them out.
We got a source saying that there are interest. It came out really really fast, and it just don’t feel totally fabricated:
“Apple have expressed an interest in discussing a potential deal. …CEO Tim Cook is keen to explore the opportunities owning United could provide - and will line up talks with the banks appointed to oversee the sale, which include The Raine Group.”
Apple will have a very professional strategic investment team, and they just struck a big deal with the MLS meaning that they surely commissioned reports on the impact of football on streaming.
They have “too much money”. Just like buying Manchester United wouldn’t be a horrible investment for a hedge fund, it’s not like Apple would buy us for 6bn, invest 3bn over 10 years — and then only be able to sell us for 2bn. They are getting their money back.
OTOH, it is also hard to see exactly how much owning us actually would benefit their Apple+. Like sure, you get Man Utd TV. But that isn’t exactly 5,000,000 subscribers with the content it has now. Could it be 50,000?
Do I think it’s likely? Nope, of course not. I just don’t think the upside is that big for Apple and I especially don’t think they want to diversify their business more than absolutely necessary.
6. Dubai — 2.5%
The biggest argument in favor of Dubai is that they do — not — own a PL team. I just don’t think that is a very good argument. And why aren’t Kuwait also mentioned, aren’t they richer than Dubai?
Dubai has a different profile than Qatar, and is like the financial capital of the Middle East. They are more into normal business. They aren’t as rich.
Sure they did bid för Liverpool way back — but that was at a totally different level.
If they wanted a soccer team — why did they not bid for Chelsea? Makes no sense to me.
Last edited:
I have a mate who works in Dubai (for a big insurance company so not anyone who should know anything really) who told me months ago he'd heard Dubai were in talks to buy us. There was no noise that we were even for sale at that stage, let alone about them, so I laughed him out of it.
Got a fairly smug message from him this week. He's convinced it'll happen.
@Messier1994 not sure how it impacts prospects of Qatar buying us but they've recently put up for sale a minority stake in PSG
Its quite funny to think how Manchester United used to be owned by local small business owners like Louis Edwards, who got the team winning the European Cup and built the stadium from the ground, and now we’re debating which Oil Rich Nation can possibly afford us.
- Status