Glazer Family Consider Selling? (Source unverified)

[Lost bear]

No thanks. If the state of his factories is anything to go by, our already broken dressing room would become an even more toxic workplace. And just wait until he starts berating the manager or pitting players against each other on Twitter. He probably would only pretend to buy the club anyway before trying to back out by sh*t talking us on social media. Apartheid Clyde can stay well away.

Musk would be a dreadful owner. Without getting into detail, the guy is a complete shit.
He’d be as bad as the current mob.

 

[Crashoutcassius]

Clubs shared are down due to environment, not connected to performance of club. Glazers are professional investors, they aren't going to panic on a market pull back and sell at a bad time when sentiment is terrible, unless they are forced to

 

[sparx99]

I’m not sure I’ve ever really understood why the Glazers don’t want to sell. £20-50m in dividends a year versus putting £3.5bn in your pocket. The interest alone on having that in your accounts would exceed the dividends they take. That’s before they reinvest it. It’s not good business to hold onto Utd.

 

[Josep Dowling]

I’m not sure I’ve ever really understood why the Glazers don’t want to sell. £20-50m in dividends a year versus putting £3.5bn in your pocket. The interest alone on having that in your accounts would exceed the dividends they take. That’s before they reinvest it. It’s not good business to hold onto Utd.

Not 100% sure of capital gains taxes in America but would easily wipe out 10-20% of any profit they make on the sale. So that’s £350-£700m to pay in taxes. But then if the company is based in Cayman Islands no doubt they won’t pay tax either.

 

[Infra-red]

I’m not sure I’ve ever really understood why the Glazers don’t want to sell. £20-50m in dividends a year versus putting £3.5bn in your pocket. The interest alone on having that in your accounts would exceed the dividends they take. That’s before they reinvest it. It’s not good business to hold onto Utd.

Unless you think it is going to be worth a lot more than £3.5bn at some point in future. It's generally been assumed that they are waiting on the streaming rights & Super League bonanzas to kick in before they even consider selling (unless they receive a ridiculous offer in the interim).

In the short term, its probably more likely that the Glazers will look to bring in a strategic co-investor/PE firm, to whom they would sell a portion of the club, while the family retain overall control (see City and Silver Lake). They were rumoured to be attempting to persuade the Saudis of the benefits of such a deal a few years ago (without success obviously, as they instead decided to purchase Newcastle outright).

 

[Cassidy]

I’m not sure I’ve ever really understood why the Glazers don’t want to sell. £20-50m in dividends a year versus putting £3.5bn in your pocket. The interest alone on having that in your accounts would exceed the dividends they take. That’s before they reinvest it. It’s not good business to hold onto Utd.

Well, it wouldn't be 3.5bn in their pocket as debts would need to be paid off.
Then there is tax.
But ultimately owning United brings various business opportunities so why sell it when you have that plus a steady income stream.
They will also likely view the industry is still on a trajectory of growth which means they would expect it to be worth a lot more than 3.5bn at some point (e.g imagine the value after implementing something like a European Super League)

 

[bosnian_red]

People fantasizing about the Glazers selling United and talking about all these random billionaires who could hypothetically afford us as if they would also be better owners makes me laugh always. This is 100% a "be careful what you wish for" sort of thing. But also a "never going to happen" sort of thing. The Glazers have no reason to sell for a long time. But there are also far worse owners than the Glazers out there. And most of the very few people who could hypothetically afford us, would be worse people to own us (i.e., sports washing projects).

Best thing to hope for is Glazers just care a little more about the club and put a bit more effort into owning us properly, but generally, think fans should move on from this topic because it's entirely pointless.

 

[McTerminator]

I’m not sure I’ve ever really understood why the Glazers don’t want to sell. £20-50m in dividends a year versus putting £3.5bn in your pocket. The interest alone on having that in your accounts would exceed the dividends they take. That’s before they reinvest it. It’s not good business to hold onto Utd.

They won’t get £3.5bn though.

They would need to pay off the debts they took out which will be secured against their shares. Their actual take home from a sale would therefore be significantly reduced.

 

[Member 122739]

Cant see the Glazer's getting the money they'd want to sell. The Saudi's were the best option for them but thank feck they went for Newcastle instead. Naming rights would be a problem too... imagine Old Trafford being renamed the Tesla Arena? Jim Ratcliffe is the most obvious option but I don't think he fancies it.

 

[Gordon Godot]

They won’t get £3.5bn though.

They would need to pay off the debts they took out which will be secured against their shares. Their actual take home from a sale would therefore be significantly reduced.

What debts are those? THe club debt is on the club, not the shares. The Glazers dont have to repay it. IF they have raised other personal loans then tough, but not aware these are significant.

 

[Member 122739]

What debts are those? THe club debt is on the club, not the shares. The Glazers dont have to repay it. IF they have raised other personal loans then tough, but not aware these are significant.

True but any potential buyer will be aware of the debt and factor that into any price that they are willing to pay.

 

[Gordon Godot]

True but any potential buyer will be aware of the debt and factor that into any price that they are willing to pay.

Yes but that is normal business. The share price also reflects the existnece of the debt. The Glazers do not repay it, it is not their debt. Its the clubs, thanks to them

 

[McTerminator]

What debts are those? THe club debt is on the club, not the shares. The Glazers dont have to repay it. IF they have raised other personal loans then tough, but not aware these are significant.

I mean I’m no expert on leveraged buy outs, so can’t talk about ultimate responsibility for the debt.

However, who has ultimate liability for the debt doesn’t matter.

Taking a really simplistic approach for the sake of explanation, if you own a company worth £1m and you saddle it with £500k of debt you are not going to get paid £1m by a potential buyer unless the debt is being discharged also.

 

[Mickeza]

I’m not sure I’ve ever really understood why the Glazers don’t want to sell. £20-50m in dividends a year versus putting £3.5bn in your pocket. The interest alone on having that in your accounts would exceed the dividends they take. That’s before they reinvest it. It’s not good business to hold onto Utd.

The dividends are irrelevant. You don’t sell an asset before its price has peaked. You buy low and sell high. Why would they sell for 3.5bn now if they think it’ll be worth 5bn in 10 years?

 

[Gordon Godot]

I mean I’m no expert on leveraged buy outs, so can’t talk about ultimate responsibility for the debt.

However, who has ultimate liability for the debt doesn’t matter.

Taking a really simplistic approach for the sake of explanation, if you own a company worth £1m and you saddle it with £500k of debt you are not going to get paid £1m by a potential buyer unless the debt is being discharged also.

We are confusing things. You buy a company by buying the shares (or at least 51%) to get control. The debt is part of the company, you dont need to repay it. The share price already reflects the debt. The current market cap of the shares is $2bn, so anyone looking to bid would be paying a premium to that. If the new owner wanted to reduce the debt then they would need to fund that as well.

 

[Slysi17]

Well, it wouldn't be 3.5bn in their pocket as debts would need to be paid off.
Then there is tax.
But ultimately owning United brings various business opportunities so why sell it when you have that plus a steady income stream.
They will also likely view the industry is still on a trajectory of growth which means they would expect it to be worth a lot more than 3.5bn at some point (e.g imagine the value after implementing something like a European Super League)

That's false. The club value won't increase that much unless Manchester United overtake Liverpool or Manchester City to win a premier league or champions league which I can't see happening as the Glazers won't invest to do it. Getting top four won't increase the value that much.

 

[Slysi17]

Also the share price is down 50% and Liverpool and Manchester City are more valuable now. Glazers are fools if they think Manchester United will grow much more.

 

[Tarrou]

That's false. The club value won't increase that much unless Manchester United overtake Liverpool or Manchester City to win a premier league or champions league which I can't see happening as the Glazers won't invest to do it. Getting top four won't increase the value that much.

it will if the European super league happens and/oclub gets to negotiate its own TV deal

it could also increase if they push plans through for a new stadium

 

[Mickeza]

Also the share price is down 50% and Liverpool and Manchester City are more valuable now. Glazers are fools if they think Manchester United will grow much more.

What are you talking about? A clubs value isn’t dictated by where they finished in the fecking league last year.

 

[Slysi17]

it will if the European super league happens and/the club gets to negotiate its own TV deal

it could also increase if they push plans through for a new stadium

Super league won't happen. It won't be accepted as their would be outright war from fans. Also, they have only talked about the new stadium. I will wait and see on that as they haven't even bothered investing in it for the past 15 years

 

[Tarrou]

Super league won't happen. It won't be accepted as their would be outright war from fans. Also, they have only talked about the new stadium. I will wait and see on that as they haven't even bothered investing in it for the past 15 years

You’re probably right, but the Super League or something similar is what I think they’re holding out for.

 

[Cassidy]

That's false. The club value won't increase that much unless Manchester United overtake Liverpool or Manchester City to win a premier league or champions league which I can't see happening as the Glazers won't invest to do it. Getting top four won't increase the value that much.

Club value will increase if revenue significantly increased. Thats just economics.

 

[GoldanoGraham]

Every stock is currently down…..looking like Chelsea purchase was well overpriced already!

 

[Bastian]

 

[Escobar]

Now you get the club cheap. I hope a proper owner make an offer. Unlikely though but once the Glazers get lost, we will be much better off for sure

 

[Red the Bear]

Shouldn't this basically ensure that they're not looking to sell?

 

[RkkMan]

Shouldn't this basically ensure that they're not looking to sell?

Why? The only way Utd goes back to being the most valuable club in England is if we win trophies and make renovations everywhere like the stadium, training ground and improving playing personnel in the men's/women's first team and the club is no longer in a state where these things will happen organically rather via investment, heavy investment to be specific something The Glazers will never do.
The club's value has peaked and it'll only stagnate or go down from here. Unless The Super League happens selling is their best bet and I personally think it happens within 3-5 years max.

 

[choccy77]

Shouldn't this basically ensure that they're not looking to sell?

With stock that low, it now means the club is more attractive to buy. Therefore in theory, someone could buy up more available shares to increase stakehold.

Of course, the 51% ownership is the target that would require negotiation with Glazers in order to buy out in full.

That's where it would get messy price wise.

 

[stw2022]

Share price is irrelevant. We’re a predominantly privately owned company for all intents and purposes who only offered small share offer to help with debt financing.

What matters to the owners is the price of the shares when they sold them. If anything shares being worth less now may increase chance Glazer’s might buy them back to sell on once market increases

 

[Bestietom]

If they pumped more money into the team and stadium, they would probably fetch 5 billion in 5/6 years time.

 

[pocco]

If they pumped more money into the team and stadium, they would probably fetch 5 billion in 5/6 years time.

The question is what would they get now and what would the cost of improving the team and stadium to get it to a level where it takes the value of the club to 5 billion? And ultimately, is it worth it to them?

 

[arthurka]

Shouldn't this basically ensure that they're not looking to sell?

Not if your philosophy is buy low sell high.

 

[Lastwolf]

With stock that low, it now means the club is more attractive to buy. Therefore in theory, someone could buy up more available shares to increase stakehold.

Of course, the 51% ownership is the target that would require negotiation with Glazers in order to buy out in full.

That's where it would get messy price wise.

It's not that much cheaper, the shares entered the market at like $14 and have been there or there abouts the whole time, if someone was buying the club outright, this value wouldn't necessarily indicate the buy price (they need to buy voting shares also, which would be more expensive by nature). For Example Microsoft have a bid for Activision-Blizzard going through the motions atm, at $95 a share, at the time they put the bid in it was ~$60

 

[Red the Bear]

Not if your philosophy is buy low sell high.

Well it certainly isn't high right now.

Why? The only way Utd goes back to being the most valuable club in England is if we win trophies and make renovations everywhere like the stadium, training ground and improving playing personnel in the men's/women's first team and the club is no longer in a state where these things will happen organically rather via investment, heavy investment to be specific something The Glazers will never do.
The club's value has peaked and it'll only stagnate or go down from here. Unless The Super League happens selling is their best bet and I personally think it happens within 3-5 years max.

Whether rightfully or foolishly i think they're gonna try to get us back to winning stuff again .
If they didn't they would have already binned us by now.
Unless they're not very smart business wise

With stock that low, it now means the club is more attractive to buy. Therefore in theory, someone could buy up more available shares to increase stakehold.

Of course, the 51% ownership is the target that would require negotiation with Glazers in order to buy out in full.

That's where it would get messy price wise.

They have enough shares to ensure that a takeover won't happen unless they want it so, I can't see this happening.

 

[Keefy18]

The dividends are irrelevant. You don’t sell an asset before its price has peaked. You buy low and sell high. Why would they sell for 3.5bn now if they think it’ll be worth 5bn in 10 years?

Isn't our worth dropping though? Seems the longer they stick around our financials slowly deteriorate.

 

[::sonny::]

They wouldn’t able to manage a farmer

 

[arthurka]

They wouldn’t able to manage a farmer

We could add infrastructure maintenance and rebuild to that.

 

[Mickeza]

Isn't our worth dropping though? Seems the longer they stick around our financials slowly deteriorate.

The share price is being battered like all stocks. I don’t think that has any real relevance though. Investors like the ones who bought Chelsea are betting that media deals in the EPL are going to explode in the future - that the potential is still untapped hence why they’re spending 3.5bn on them - and that’s only because RA was forced to sell. The Glazers will also believe media deals hold huge future growth potential and as such the asset will only continue to grow in value.

 

[Red the Bear]

It's not that much cheaper, the shares entered the market at like $14 and have been there or there abouts the whole time, if someone was buying the club outright, this value wouldn't necessarily indicate the buy price (they need to buy voting shares also, which would be more expensive by nature). For Example Microsoft have a bid for Activision-Blizzard going through the motions atm, at $95 a share, at the time they put the bid in it was ~$60

That one's a bit tricky as basically they forced their hands due to Activision being on a downward spiral because of the controversies surrounding them, a tad different from where we are.

 

[Pexbo]

Share price bares absolutely no relation on the club’s current value. It’s more representative of the stock market.

If the club goes up for sale, it will be a bidding war between billionaires and consortiums like we saw with Chelsea.

The Man Utd shares are second class shares anyway, you could buy every single one and have zero control over the club.