Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
devilish said:


According to sky it will probably be an American consortium
Click to expand...

My god, they're inept business owners. Looking to sell just because there's a lot of activity around them and don't want to be left behind, being followers rather than leaders. These guys had one good insight 17 years ago (football clubs could increase their earnings with better commercial performance) and that's it. Besides that, managed with no insight or inspiration for 17 years. Thoroughly mediocre businessmen.
 
MTF said:
My god, they're inept business owners. Looking to sell just because there's a lot of activity around them and don't want to be left behind, being followers rather than leaders. These guys had one good insight 17 years ago (football clubs could increase their earnings with better commercial performance) and that's it. Besides that, managed with no insight or inspiration for 17 years. Thoroughly mediocre businessmen.
Click to expand...
They didn’t, their dad did.
 
I’m surprised this has only reached 36 pages so far. Thought the day Glazers publicly declared a willingness to sell, it would be in the hundreds
 
trevor newnham said:
No,I can only go on what I have read in the broadsheets, on Wikipedia, on what I have culled from the web. I realise that this is not the be all and end all of knowledge. However, there have been constant articles of European women being raped in Dubai, and being imprisoned for having drunk alcohol, of questionable working practices (akin to Qatar). so forgive me if I have been led up the garden path by various news outlets
Click to expand...

Dubai has undergone massive transformation just the past decade. First time I went there it was very conservative, having a clothing police patrolling the beach kinda similar the currently popular Iranian version. It also was strictly luxerious hotels who could serve alcohol and in general it felt very unfriendly towards the female population. Now it feels like the safest city I have been to in addition to having eased up massively on the alcohol laws (now every bar is permitted to serve alcohol). Don't let official travel guidelines fool you, it's fast becoming way more liberal and western-oriented than most western cities.

As for the working practices - it's clear that international attention has improved the situation massively (removing the Kefala system and the Workers Act going through), even if they have some way to go still to satisfy Amnesty and the likes. Hopefully their aim of being the frontrunners in tourism, finance and tech science will improve the situation further.
 
the_cliff said:
From what I've heard they both used to support United together and their favourite player was Ronaldo, Prince Hamdan is also now good friends with Ronaldo.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember they were gushing over each other on social media earlier this year. Hopefully Ronaldo hasn't ruined that chance. Hamdan seems like he would make a very good face of an owners group.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
I think there are a lot of half-truths there. In my experience Dubai and Singapore are the two safest places I have ever been. There is a huge drinking culture there but like anywhere you try to avoid walking down the streets with an open bottle of vodka in your hand, I would bet significant money that the level of rape in Dubai is far lower than London or Vegas.
Click to expand...

Agree. I wouldn't hesitate sending my daughter across the city to buy groceries in the middle of night if she wanted to - it feels that safe. Agree on the alcohol part too. I mean you would get arrested for that in Scandinavian countries aswell.
 
BarstoolProphet said:
Dubai has undergone massive transformation just the past decade. First time I went there it was very conservative, having a clothing police patrolling the beach kinda similar the currently popular Iranian version. It also was strictly luxerious hotels who could serve alcohol and in general it felt very unfriendly towards the female population. Now it feels like the safest city I have been to in addition to having eased up massively on the alcohol laws (now every bar is permitted to serve alcohol). Don't let official travel guidelines fool you, it's fast becoming way more liberal and western-oriented than most western cities.

As for the working practices - it's clear that international attention has improved the situation massively (removing the Kefala system and the Workers Act going through), even if they have some way to go still to satisfy Amnesty and the likes. Hopefully their aim of being the frontrunners in tourism, finance and tech science will improve the situation further.
Click to expand...

Aye. I grew up in Dubai, leaving in 2010. Even for me, it's surprising how much it has liberalized in the last 12 years.

Still a long way to go, but progress is happening every year and I'll give them credit for that.

Probably the only Middle Eastern ownership I could accept from a moral standpoint.
 
Can guarantee the Chinese won’t be bidding. Even if they were, the foreign secretary would probably intervene on the grounds of it being a threat to our national security.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I’m surprised this has only reached 36 pages so far. Thought the day Glazers publicly declared a willingness to sell, it would be in the hundreds
Click to expand...
I think we are still digesting the news. Also, I'm apprehensive to start speculating on what happens next because I haven't a clue. This is bigger than any transfer rumour. It still hasn't sunk in fully for me that the club is actually for sale.
 
Homosexuality is still illegal in Dubai and it is still regularly criticised for human rights violations. Being one of the more liberal states where that is the case isn't enough. It's still abhorrent.
 
AltiUn said:
The Caf is popular but not that popular.
Click to expand...
He's doing most of the investing surely!
11beckham_goalblog-articleInline.jpg
 
pocco said:
I reckon consortium with ex players as the face of it. They'll see the backlash Vs Glazer's and try to keep us sweet.

I'm just praying it's somebody likeable, either way. The last however many years have been a struggle with the amount of people I've developed a dislike of at the club. Somebody like MBS and I'd be done.
Click to expand...

Will this consortium have enough though because the amount of redevelopment needed on ground and training facility won't be cheap,add to that money to improve both first XI and squad depth as well
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I’m surprised this has only reached 36 pages so far. Thought the day Glazers publicly declared a willingness to sell, it would be in the hundreds
Click to expand...
To be fair 36 pages is a lot considering it’s not even been 24 hours since the news broke.
 
Giant Midget said:
Aye. I grew up in Dubai, leaving in 2010. Even for me, it's surprising how much it has liberalized in the last 12 years.

Still a long way to go, but progress is happening every year and I'll give them credit for that.

Probably the only Middle Eastern ownership I could accept from a moral standpoint.
Click to expand...
Isn't it a process for everyone? No country was 'born' right. Most of the West stands as a good example
 
sullydnl said:
Homosexuality is still illegal in Dubai and it is still regularly criticised for human rights violations. Being one of the more liberal states where that is the case isn't enough. It's still abhorrent.
Click to expand...

recently they made it legal to have a baby outside of wedlock.. I mean they’re basically progressives at this point
 
You don’t need extreme wealth to compete with City on spending.
United are already bigger and have much further reach than City or Newcastle, it would be like someone buying Barcelona it could self sustain instantly.

Initial purchase would be large but most of the money the clubs spend would be its own.

Dont be blinded thinking we need equal wealth to Qatar, Abu Dhabi or Saudis That wealth is wonderful but it’s not like they use that entire wealth to spend they use a tiny tiny percentage to invest into these clubs to get them to a point of sustainability and propping themselves up.
 
pratyush_utd said:
Its debt to gdp ratio is 80% and recovery is still not expected till 2023. It has already been bailed out once in 2009.

All i am saying is being owned by State is bad and Dubai might be the worst option as it doesn’t have the financial power that other state entities have. Then what is the upside of getting such owner?
Click to expand...

Recovery from pre-pandemic levels yeah, but that can be said about most markets. The GDP is still expected to rise significantly and the tourism industry and the city itself is slowly getting back on its feet after being completely shut down. And Dubai has probably been working harder than any other market to diversify its economy for future sustainability. Again it's not as rich as Abu Dhabi or KSA PIF, but still a feck tonne of money circulating around DIC for us to be competing and developing.
 
Messier1994 said:
I work with public M&A and have a few thoughts on what is going on here, that I think are indisputable:

*”As part of this process, the Board will consider all strategic alternatives, including new investment into the club, a sale, or other transactions involving the Company.”

What does this means?
(a) Look, the board has a fiduciary duty to act in the way that is best for all shareholders. If there is a sale of the club, there will be litigation in the US. If they sold the shares of the club — and someone sues them saying ‘you lost us money by not selling off the assets instead’, the board will be deemed negligible if it can’t show that they acted “with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances”. That includes not just ruling out options without looking into them.

I.e. it is perfectly possible that they are looking to sell 100% of close to 100% of the shares.

This is what the entire first half of the PR is about:
“We will evaluate all options … Throughout this process we will remain fully focused on serving the best interests of our fans, shareholders, and various stakeholders.”

(b) We are dealing with the Glazers here, they won’t waste money if they don’t have to.

If the Glazers want to explore selling their shares and hence wants to sign top financial and legal advisors — who pays the retainer? The Glazsers can’t ask the financial advisor to send the bill to the Club.

With this mission for the financial advisor, they are acting on behalf of the club and Glazers won’t be picking up the bill.

*Could the new buyer be worse than the Glazers?

I don’t know the answer to that, of course. But it’s not 2005 anymore, where football clubs weren’t seen as investments and the sale of our club to the Glazers was perhaps not handled properly.

What I do know is this — the offers to buy the club will 100% be established against the background of what a buyer think can be justified against economical data or other concerns. Since there of course will be plenty of interested buyers, as a result, the highest bid will come from the buyer who sees the brightest future for Manchester United financially, which in its turn can motivate the highest price tag. At worst. There could of course always come in a buyer looking for an alibi, expensive toy or whatever.

The Glazers brought a club that — from a financial POV — was ‘decline proof’ for what a decade and a half. We are United, one of the the biggest club in the world. But this will not continue if the club remains outside all real competitions for titles for another 17 years or whatever. Slowly but surely our position in the football world is eroding. And it can get a lot worse fast. Under the Glazers, we haven’t contended for the title [since SAF left] really, but we been in and out of the Champions league, been the runner up for the title and so forth. There is no guarantee that we will become a CL team over the coming 10 years.

Hence, our club — for a new buyer — is anything but decline proof. This buyer could 100% buy one of the biggest clubs in the world and in 15 years time he looking to sell a mediocre PL team with a great history.

As a consequence, I personally think it’s very very likely that a new buyer will be looking to invest in the club. I just cannot imagine a scenario where a buyer — who will be the one entity that sees the brightest future for the team — will be someone who won’t look to invest in the club.

*What is the time frame?

The market is very very sour right now. There are no guarantees for any deal to get made fast.

For the Glazers to sell of their holdings of shares in United — it could be done fast. Could take a month. I've done a bigger transaction during one afternoon once, when the seller got word of that it was getting sanctioned the other day (but in that case a major owner bought out the other major owner).

But such scenario does not include a proper vendor auction process. It’s someone calling them up asking for a number, being given one, and then acting on it instantly.

A more likely scenario is Q1 2023. I think that is what they are aiming for. Q2 2023 could also be an option.

*The Raine Group is acting as the Company’s exclusive financial advisor

What can be read into the Raine Group acting as the financial advisor here? Had to make some calls and do some research to comment on this.

My first impression was that 'this will be a sale aimed at the US market' (while of course other buyers wouldn't be ruled out, but they would not be sought up). If it was a sale to including Asian/Arab/Gulf specific buyers to the same extent, I would have imagined that they would have engaged one of the bigger firms, i.e. one or more of JP, Goldman and co.

But that is probably not really the case here. Raine is a big player in sports related transactions. Did the Chelsea (advisor to Chelsea in the sale to Clearlake) and the transaction where the Abu Dabi people owning City sold 13 percent to Chinese investors. And at least a handful of other transactions in the US, including the MSG merger. They also do a lot of deals in the betting sector. A lot of transactions with Chinese investors.

Ultimately, I would like to say that we -- opposite to what I thought first -- chose the 'go to' advisor in this transaction. If anything, it is not an advisor with clear focus on the US market (although the process could focus on that market of course, we don't know).
Click to expand...

In addition to the above, since the Raine Group did the Chelsea sale, I thought it could be interesting to look at the rough time schedule for that transaction:

1. Abramovich was of course aware that he was likely to be sanctioned by the UK since late February 2021.

2. Abramovich put up the club for sale on 2 March 2022. At this point, Raine Group was engaged.

3. Raine Group invited interested buyers to make indicative offers for the club, including of course presenting themselves. The deadline for indicative offers to be submitted was set to 18 March 2022.

4. Around six- to seven bids were believed to be made for Chelsea, including:
* Stephen Pagliuca -- Founder (I think) of Bain Capital, and co-owner of the Boston Celtics
* Todd Boehly
* Saudi Media Group
* Centricus -- "An entirely British backed bid led by London-based asset management firm Centricus "
* Nick Candy -- U.K. property developer. Interested in building a new London stadium?
* Martin Broughton -- Former LFC chairman, backed by consortium
* Ricketts family -- Cubs owner

And perhaps also one or more of:
* Oaktree Capital
* Woody Johnson -- Johnson, 74, is an heir to the Johnson & Johnson consumer products fortune.

5. By 25 March 2022, a short list was created with 3-4 bidders.

The Saudi Media Group's offer did not make the short list.

6. The shortlisted bidders was given until April 11 to make improved offers for Chelsea

7. A preferred buyer could not be selected by mid April, as intended.

8. On the 28 April, Boehly was named the preferred buyer.

9. On the 29 April, Jimmy Radcliff made a bid.

10. On 28 May, the sale to Boehly was approved.

Some thoughts:
- The Saudi offer did not make the short list with reference to how it had desire to do due diligence on the club which didn't play well with Chelsea's eagerness for a quick sale. From my POV, this is 99.9% a made-up excuse to not get Saudi owners of Chelsea. Like I can of course not be 100% certain, but a DD of a soccer team must be very light. Compare it to a company with 10 factories and 100,000 employees. My bet is definitely that they didn't want to sell the club from an Oligarch to a dictatorship.

The Saudi bid was rumored to be of 2.1bn, and the sale ended up being 2.5bn. But ultimately, what you do is that create this short list, and then give the bidders on it to bid over each other. So that doesn't mean much.

- The time table above, just under 4 months, is tight and Chelsea wanted to get something done quickly. But its at the same time nothing extreme. I would say that 3-4 months is possible, 6-8 months is giving the process good time, and if it goes beyond that -- there is either some hick-up or the Glazers are shopping for a higher bidder to come out of the woodwork.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.