Realistic buyers...

[thepolice123]

Some musings:

1. Now that Ed 'gotta keep paying my JP Morgan buddies/handlers 60m per year' Woodward is gone, are there any realistic scenarios where the Glazer spawn aggressively pay off the debt?

2. I wonder how much one season of fan boycotting would impact their asking price. IIRC, this year's accounts so far showed we lose around 5m of matchday income per home game; roughly 150m/year. How much would a merchandise boycott tack on that, in theory. Please no 'FaNs WoN'T sTaY AwAy FoR tHaT lOnG U nOoB' type stuff. Just purely mathematically, how much and how fast would a boycott affect the Glazers' asking price.



Not necessarily. Like some people have said, if you can make the value drop faster than they can extract value from the club and make it clear this will continue as long as they're around, you might be able to scare them into selling. Basically give them no hope of the value ever rising. Trouble is, that means harming the club financially in the short/mid term.

Honestly, I'd imagine that to be akin to bringing a knife into a gunfight. Bulk of our revenues come from product licensing, broadcasting and sponsorship. Matchday tickets and things like T-shirt sales take up non-substantial amounts of it.

From a purely mathematical perspective, I think the club will run just fine even if it loses 150m/year from matchday. It definitely will not relegate the club and probably will only make us slightly less competitive in the transfer market.

 

[Roboc7]

Some musings:

1. Now that Ed 'gotta keep paying my JP Morgan buddies/handlers 60m per year' Woodward is gone, are there any realistic scenarios where the Glazer spawn aggressively pay off the debt?

2. I wonder how much one season of fan boycotting would impact their asking price. IIRC, this year's accounts so far showed we lose around 5m of matchday income per home game; roughly 150m/year. How much would a merchandise boycott tack on that, in theory. Please no 'FaNs WoN'T sTaY AwAy FoR tHaT lOnG U nOoB' type stuff. Just purely mathematically, how much and how fast would a boycott affect the Glazers' asking price.

What you are overlooking is the opportunity cost of maintaining a supposed £4bn asset that gives you just £22m per year that you have to split 6 ways. Their end game would have been some form of a super league or clubs being allowed to individually negotiate broadcast rights and the like but as things stand owning the club doesn't make sense from a purely financial pov.

Back in the day when they took over the club was somewhat undervalued and its commercial appeal underexploited but right now we have to spend in excess of £100m per year just to keep the likes of Leicester, Spurs, Liverpool and Chelsea from taking our CL spot. Failure to maintain us as a title challenging outfit is already eating into our ability to maintain the value of sponsorships if the new shirt deal is anything to go by.

The end game for such a takeover is always increasing the value and selling it off at huge premium. The football landscape has changed dramatically with the takeover of City, Chelsea and PSG making it more expensive to maintain a club at its level efficiently.

Also have to take into account a huge stadium redevelopment or new stadium will be required that’s loads more borrowing.

As you say the Glazers are hanging on because they don’t want to miss out on a Super League and/or selling own broadcast rights. If they feel that’s unlikely and fans keep putting pressure on them they’d start to think, I’m sure even they know no one is ever paying £4b.

 

[AneRu]

I agree with this post.

I've always believed they were looking at a Super League format to milk in the long run. And now that looks to be off the table they might genuinely sell.

Tweets below from a Bloomberg journo.

He is right, it doesn't make any sense at all. As things stand, if the Glazers don't attract a rich buyer they have no other choice than to sell off bits and pieces on the stock market. Right now, they have to hope a super rich buyer turns up because of the fans don't relent then sponsors will start making noises and the only way to silence the fans is to have a big summer outlay which the club cannot afford in this pandemic.

 

[Adnan]

He is right, it doesn't make any sense at all. As things stand, if the Glazers don't attract a rich buyer they have no other choice than to sell off bits and pieces on the stock market. Right now, they have to hope a super rich buyer turns up because of the fans don't relent then sponsors will start making noises and the only way to silence the fans is to have a big summer outlay which the club cannot afford in this pandemic.

I think the below scenario (first tweet) is what will probably end up happening.

 

[RoyH1]

We're in a bit of a pickle when it comes to ownership of the club due to the price tag. American style businessmen or investment funds will want a sizeable return on investment and we'll be in the same situation as we are with the Glazers. The only organisations with that kind of cash and who don't money back every year are nation states looking for a PR project, and unfortunately, that comes with problems of its own.

I want no part of my club being the property or connected to someone like the murderous crown prince of Saudi Arabia. If he buys us, I will quietly and without a fuss stop actively supporting the club.

My best bet at this point, is a mixed bag of investors with a big name connected to Man Utd in the mix. Beckham and a couple of international businessmen in the mix. Maybe a big fortune from India? A big Asian company looking to have a worldwide brand name?

If we're going the state owned route like PSG and City, I want Ole to personally lobby the Norwegian government and have us bought by the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. They have 90 billion, so United is a little drop in the ocean for them.

 

[AneRu]

I think the below scenario (first tweet) is what will probably end up happening.

Could fans organize themselves and pool resources together for such a venture, is it even practical? If the Glazers want an exit I think they could offer the majority stake to fans and if several million turn up I think it could work but that's a long shot because there is a big difference between supporting a club and committing significant portions of your savings towards owning or saving it.

 

[thepolice123]

One thing people need to realise is this:

When someone has 500m net worth, it doesn't mean that person can just take out 300m or 400m to finance something. Many people will be shocked at how much money these millionaires or billionaires have tied up in their own businesses and assets. Its next to impossible to even utilise them.

Its like for example if your net worth is 100k:

House: 50k (after loans)
Car: 20k
Liquid cash: 20k
Toys collection and Pokemon cards: 10k

You're not going to liquid everything and buy a stake in Manchester United. Even something like £1000 would require serious thinking considering the liabilities you have to pay.

People are dreaming when they talk about having Beckham round up his United loving buddies and Usain Bolt and Mcgregor and takeover the club. Have some basic finance knowledge jesus christ.

 

[red thru&thru]

We're in a bit of a pickle when it comes to ownership of the club due to the price tag. American style businessmen or investment funds will want a sizeable return on investment and we'll be in the same situation as we are with the Glazers. The only organisations with that kind of cash and who don't money back every year are nation states looking for a PR project, and unfortunately, that comes with problems of its own.

I want no part of my club being the property or connected to someone like the murderous crown prince of Saudi Arabia. If he buys us, I will quietly and without a fuss stop actively supporting the club.

My best bet at this point, is a mixed bag of investors with a big name connected to Man Utd in the mix. Beckham and a couple of international businessmen in the mix. Maybe a big fortune from India? A big Asian company looking to have a worldwide brand name?

If we're going the state owned route like PSG and City, I want Ole to personally lobby the Norwegian government and have us bought by the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. They have 90 billion, so United is a little drop in the ocean for them.

Billionaires such as Ambani's also have blood on their hands. Him and his like are working with the Modi to pass farming bills to take away the farmers lands for pittance. Farmers are committing suicides and police are killing protestors. They too have blood on their hands.

 

[Adnan]

Could fans organize themselves and pool resources together for such a venture, is it even practical? If the Glazers want an exit I think they could offer the majority stake to fans and if several million turn up I think it could work but that's a long shot because there is a big difference between supporting a club and committing significant portions of your savings towards owning or saving it.

I don't think fans could if i'm honest. But I think what could end up happening is small chunks could be sold off in time to billionaires like the Malaysian prince who went public with his interest in acquiring Avram Glazers shares, which were reportedly sold for $96m. It may take a few years, but it may allow someone to position themselves for a total buy out, if given enough time.

 

[trevor newnham]

I would be distraught if the Saudis owned the club. Their regime is loathsome, hypocritical. Please believe me that this is not a racist, islamaphobe view. There are many appalling regimes in this world and Saudi Arabia is up there with the worst. I would seriously reconsider my love for the club ( for 60 years) if it were owned by Saudis

 

[Sting]

I really don’t think there’s anyone out there other than the oil nations who can actually afford to pay the club’s Valuations. The profit margins in football clubs is so low no one smart enough to make $4b+ is going to invest that much money into a business which generates almost the same profit as some of its employees.

The best we can hope for is an executive with bit of football knowledge to make better decisions going forward.

 

[hungrywing]

Like a lot of others, I think the 'real' price of the club is probably around 2.5Bn (Roughly assets + liabilities and then pretending for a moment that the Glazer/Woodprat debt isn't there)

Any and all prospective buyers will probably agree with that valuation (or even a bit lower).

And this begs a bit of an interesting question:

Do the Glazers have competent money-people telling them something similar; because then they know this, too. AKA way way in the back of their minds, that 2.5 Bn figure just may be their 'lowest price they'll sell for'.

Adviser: 'Look, Av, Joel. You can ask for four, sure. But the club is worth around two-and-a-half-billion, ok? End of fecking story. Just know that. Because everyone who could afford to pay for it knows it. So don't push it and make yourselves look stupid. Am I getting through to you. Do you understand what we are telling you. Two-point-five, ok? You're essentially walking around asking people to pay three bucks for a sixty-cent Klondike bar, two-million for a seven-hundred grand Ferrari. Joel, don't glance at your car. It's a metaphor. No, not the car. Yes, the car is still a Ferrari. No, asking for four does not make you look like a bad-ass businessman. Not to the people who you'd be dealing with. Nod if you understand what I am telling you.'

If they sell at 2.5 Bn, it's around a billion in profit, give or take. (Please no 'but greedy people just want more of course they won't stop at just a billion in profit' type responses. We all understand that.)

Again, there's a chance they might have 2.5 Bn in their minds as 'the real price of the club'

And if the fan base protests/boycotts can weigh on their minds enough, you get the picture.

Yes maybe - if we hurt them so much that they stop invest in the squad. If we are willing to lose some of our best players, drop out of the C.L and accept sinking into the same mediocrity we had under Moyes

That level of damage would take some time; (plus the Moyes damage was around 70% Woodward and 30% Moyes.)

And there are scenarios where some of the players would side with the fans and take on lower wages (obviously with the future promise of being brought back up to normal). It'd be a game of chicken between the fans and the Glazers.

Personally, unless someone shows proof that we'd somehow do considerable irreversible damage to our income streams (doesn't seem likely) or that the Glazers can do similar damage out of spite on their way out (can't think of anything right now that's not illegal), I think it'd be useful information for the fanbase to have. AKA "X months is how long we can damage the club financially for without risking more than a Y% impact on our income streams once the Glazers are gone and the "blockade" is lifted."

Honestly, I'd imagine that to be akin to bringing a knife into a gunfight. Bulk of our revenues come from product licensing, broadcasting and sponsorship. Matchday tickets and things like T-shirt sales take up non-substantial amounts of it.

From a purely mathematical perspective, I think the club will run just fine even if it loses 150m/year from matchday. It definitely will not relegate the club and probably will only make us slightly less competitive in the transfer market.

It'd take us from ~20m profit per year (pre-covid) into 130m+ loss per year. Any prospective buyer at the negotiating table would surely point that out.

Buyer: "You want me - or not just me, but anyone - to pay 4Bn for a business that loses 130m a year?"
Glazers: "Yes. 'Cause that's how business is business at the big boi table, amirite." *hi five each other*
Malcolm Glazer: *rotates in his grave*

 

[Adisa]

If the stock market price of the club is 2.5bn, there is no chance the Glazers sell for as little as that. They will demand a premium.
I personally value the company at just over £3bn. Anything above that is a good deal for the Glazers.

 

[#07]

The Glazers should just float the club on the stock market. There would be a scramble for shares that would push up their value and they'd make a big profit.

There's no need for United to have one sugar daddy owner. It can be run like most companies: with major shareholders who would demand competent management to maximize their investment.

This is how United was run from the time it originally went public, to the time the Glazers managed to buy enough shares to take it private (and run it off the road).

 

[thepolice123]

It'd take us from ~20m profit per year (pre-covid) into 130m+ loss per year. Any prospective buyer at the negotiating table would surely point that out.

Buyer: "You want me - or not just me, but anyone - to pay 4Bn for a business that loses 130m

Matchday reveune is close to 100m instead of 150m, we lost about 20% of that due to the pandemic. We also lost 101m last season because we didn't play in the Champions League. I think that hurt us the most. Despite all that we still managed to spend 200m in the transfer market. Next season we will be back in Champions League. I don't think another 100m loss from matchday will cripple us in any form, mathematically speaking. People underestimate how big we are commercially.

Also what makes you think that the Glazers wouldn't recognise the fact that the fans would return to the stadium once they are out? Thinking that boycotting matches would reduce our valuation is just bizarre.

 

[ManchesterYoda]

If you look at the reasons for buying a football club then at 4 billion none of them make that much sense.

1.Commercial/Profitable Return.
You would need 200 million clear profit every year to make this work.
Unless the game is regulated and wages/transfer fees are capped then this is a difficult target for any investor and would ultimately make the fans unhappy due to the elevated costs of season tickets, TV subscriptions, merchandise etc.

2. Political Gain.
Russians, Chinese, Arabs trying to take control of the club for various reasons. You have to question the motives for this. I still don't understand the motives of the Man City and PSG owners. Surely it has to be political influence and therefore promoting their own countries and ideals via club success. Again this is a poor model for fans as the club is effectively being used as a front.

3. Multiple Fan Ownership.
At 4 billion you would need 8 million fans putting up 500 quid each or 4 million if you went for a 50% ownership model.
Seems an impossible stretch and who would own the other 50% and for what reason.

4. Super Rich Fan
This would be the preferred option. A buyer with an emotional connection to the club, no desire to make huge profits, a fan pleaser.
4 billion is way to much to attract this type of person. Not going to happen unfortunately.

Looks like we are stuck between a rock and a hard place for eternity.

Start some kind of fund where there are 4 million £1,000 bids for sale and each individual fan can buy as many as they want/can afford. I don't think it's impossible to raise £4 billion for 100% ownership this way at all. Each bid also = 1 vote. So most ordinary fans like myself would have contributed £1,000 and have 1 vote but some wealthier fan might have contributed £500,000 and so they have 500 votes out of 4 million. There is more than likely quite a few ordinary fans that can afford £2,000, £3,000 so the number of total fans needed is not actually 4 million and could end up being under 1 million.

 

[hungrywing]

Matchday reveune is close to 100m instead of 150m, we lost about 20% of that due to the pandemic. We also lost 101m last season because we didn't play in the Champions League. I think that hurt us the most. Despite all that we still managed to spend 200m in the transfer market. Next season we will be back in Champions League. I don't think another 100m loss from matchday will cripple us in any form, mathematically speaking. People underestimate how big we are commercially.

Also what makes you think that the Glazers wouldn't recognise the fact that the fans would return to the stadium once they are out? Thinking that boycotting matches would reduce our valuation is just bizarre.

No one ever said that. Is English your native language? Not having a go; honestly asking since if you go back and read the initial post you'll see it's asking for the opinion of (hopefully) top-level financially literate people who might be able to chime in.

Aside from that, a 100m loss/year deficit not making a dent is very interesting. Thank you for that.

 

[acnumber9]

The Glazers should just float the club on the stock market. There would be a scramble for shares that would push up their value and they'd make a big profit.

There's no need for United to have one sugar daddy owner. It can be run like most companies: with major shareholders who would demand competent management to maximize their investment.

This is how United was run from the time it originally went public, to the time the Glazers managed to buy enough shares to take it private (and run it off the road).

And what would change? The shareholders would want their dividends the same way the Glazers do.

 

[#07]

And what would change? The shareholders would want their dividends the same way the Glazers do.

Responsible companies don't tend to force dividends in bad times. Even massive oil companies will routinely suspend dividend payments to invest in their infrastructure. Which United should given the leaky roof makes us look pretty tin pot to sponsors etc. The Glazers even took a dividend during the COVID pandemic, despite claiming the pandemic had hit the club for £100m. Not a small dividend either. They didn't even bother to adjust it to take account of how the business had suffered due to COVID. They just kept taking the same amount they always do.

Also, the PLC took dividends when we used to routinely break the British transfer record.

The dividends are, relatively speaking, a tiny issue. The issue is the Glazers' loading a club that was debt free from 1931 with literally billions in debt. Taking dividends far beyond what's reasonable. Awarding themselves millions every year in management fees. God knows what for. Taking loans from the club. Again. God knows what for. As well as appointing a CEO who decided the best team to run the club would be his mates from University, leading to us becoming a soft target for agents across Europe and a laughing stock amongst experienced football operators.

If we had a proper board, like we did before Magnier and McManus fell out with Sir Alex, they would never have allowed the club to be run the way it has under the Glazers. They would have demanded proper, professional people run the business to maximise its success.

The PLC operated fine for like two decades. Yes, there was a wage structure, yes there were limits that meant we couldn't get players like Batitsuta and Ronaldo. But we were a well run operation. The ground was regularly reinvested in and capacity expanded. It took about a decade for Old Trafford to go from 45,000 all seater to 76,000 all seater. Old Trafford is is literally falling apart right now. The Glazers just about sign off a new lick of paint every so often.

There is an ocean of difference between how we were run before 2005 and how we're run now.

 

[red thru&thru]

I don't think fans could if i'm honest. But I think what could end up happening is small chunks could be sold off in time to billionaires like the Malaysian prince who went public with his interest in acquiring Avram Glazers shares, which were reportedly sold for $96m. It may take a few years, but it may allow someone to position themselves for a total buy out, if given enough time.

Do we know where these shares went/were bought by?

 

[acnumber9]

Responsible companies don't tend to force dividends in bad times. Even massive oil companies will routinely suspend dividend payments to invest in their infrastructure. Which United should given the leaky roof makes us look pretty tin pot to sponsors etc. The Glazers even took a dividend during the COVID pandemic, despite claiming the pandemic had hit the club for £100m. Not a small dividend either. They didn't even bother to adjust it to take account of how the business had suffered due to COVID. They just kept taking the same amount they always do.

Also, the PLC took dividends when we used to routinely break the British transfer record.

The dividends are, relatively speaking, a tiny issue. The issue is the Glazers' loading a club that was debt free from 1931 with literally billions in debt. Taking dividends far beyond what's reasonable. Awarding themselves millions every year in management fees. God knows what for. Taking loans from the club. Again. God knows what for. As well as appointing a CEO who decided the best team to run the club would be his mates from University, leading to us becoming a soft target for agents across Europe and a laughing stock amongst experienced football operators.

If we had a proper board, like we did before Magnier and McManus fell out with Sir Alex, they would never have allowed the club to be run the way it has under the Glazers. They would have demanded proper, professional people run the business to maximise its success.

The PLC operated fine for like two decades. Yes, there was a wage structure, yes there were limits that meant we couldn't get players like Batitsuta and Ronaldo. But we were a well run operation. The ground was regularly reinvested in and capacity expanded. Old Trafford is is literally falling apart right now. The Glazers just about sign off a new lick of paint every so often.

There is an ocean of difference between how we were run before 2005 and how we're run now.

They invest in infrastructure to help them remain profitable. The leaky stand at Old Trafford only affects one thing. Match going fans and unless it stops fans going I doubt they’d give much of a feck.

People complained about the PLC all the time. United fans have complained about their ownership for as long as I know. The ground was expanded to increase profit at a time when our revenue was more dependant on fans attending. They didn’t do it because they just wanted to see more fans at the ground and the only reason we haven’t done it since is because it’s not financially viable.

I’m not defending the Glazers. I’d love to see change as much as anyone. I just don’t see this realistic scenario where we are bought over and everything is rosy again. Yes, removal of the debt can only be a positive. That’s if the debt is even paid off. But a scenario where we are bought over by altruistic people with the betterment of Man United at mind is fanciful at best.

 

[thepolice123]

No one ever said that. Is English your native language? Not having a go; honestly asking since if you go back and read the initial post you'll see it's asking for the opinion of (hopefully) top-level financially literate people who might be able to chime in.

Aside from that, a 100m loss/year deficit not making a dent is very interesting. Thank you for that.

I'm not a top level financially literate person.

It'd take us from ~20m profit per year (pre-covid) into 130m+ loss per year. Any prospective buyer at the negotiating table would surely point that out.

Buyer: "You want me - or not just me, but anyone - to pay 4Bn for a business that loses 130m a year?"
Glazers: "Yes. 'Cause that's how business is business at the big boi table, amirite." *hi five each other*
Malcolm Glazer: *rotates in his grave*

My post was in response this when you suggested that the 4Bn valuation would be "taken into consideration" because "we are a business that loses 130m a year". Fact is we are not. Because the fans will return to the stadium once new a buyer takes over the club, and that is assuming that fans decide to permanently boycott matchdays. You have to factor that into the negotiation. Any smart seller will recognise the potential gain the buyer stands to earn and factor that in.

 

[Counterfactual]

Responsible companies don't tend to force dividends in bad times. Even massive oil companies will routinely suspend dividend payments to invest in their infrastructure. Which United should given the leaky roof makes us look pretty tin pot to sponsors etc.

Also, the PLC took dividends when we used to routinely break the British transfer record.

The dividends are, relatively speaking, a tiny issue. The issue is the Glazers' loading a club that was debt free from 1931 with literally billions in debt. Taking dividends far beyond what's reasonable. Awarding themselves millions every year in management fees. God knows what for. Taking loans from the club. Again. God knows what for. As well as appointing a CEO who decided the best team to run the club would be his mates from University, leading to us becoming a soft target for agents across Europe and a laughing stock amongst experienced football operators.

If we had a proper board, like we did before Magnier and McManus fell out with Sir Alex, they would never have allowed the club to be run the way it has under the Glazers. They would have demanded proper, professional people run the business to maximise its success.

The PLC operated fine for like two decades. Yes, there was a wage structure, yes there were limits that meant we couldn't get players like Batitsuta and Ronaldo. But we were a well run operation. The ground was regularly reinvested in and capacity expanded. Old Trafford is is literally falling apart right now. The Glazers just about sign off a new lick of paint every so often.

There is an ocean of difference between how we were run before 2005 and how we're run now.

What mechanism would you use to stop a repeat of the Glazer buy-out? Prevent anyone owning more than 10%? A company resolution stating no future debt-funded buyouts?

If the company were valued at £2-3 billion, what dividends would need to be paid out annually to make shareholders interested (the dividend yield?). Would it be prohibitive?

 

[#07]

They invest in infrastructure to help them remain profitable. The leaky stand at Old Trafford only affects one thing. Match going fans and unless it stops fans going I doubt they’d give much of a feck.

People complained about the PLC all the time. United fans have complained about their ownership for as long as I know. The ground was expanded to increase profit at a time when our revenue was more dependant on fans attending. They didn’t do it because they just wanted to see more fans at the ground and the only reason we haven’t done it since is because it’s not financially viable.

I’m not defending the Glazers. I’d love to see change as much as anyone. I just don’t see this realistic scenario were we are bought over and everything is rosy again. Yes, removal of the debt can only be a positive. That’s if the debt is even paid off. But a scenario where we are bought over by altruistic people with the betterment of Man United at mind is fanciful at best.

The PLC wasn't perfect. I listed examples of where it stopped Sir Alex securing the signings he wanted.

You're right about the reasons why the ground was expanded. However, as United keep telling us matchday revenue is actually still important. Even if Florentino Perez wants us to believe otherwise. United, and others, have been pleading poverty because they're losing £100m in matchday revenue. Moreover, there is more matchday revenue that could be squeezed out of United. If Old Trafford was expanded to 90,000 or higher it'd still be full.

That's where the PLC differed from the Glazers. Because the PLC wanted dividends but wanted them to be sustainable they would've continued to expand the ground, and they wouldn't want our roof to be leaky cos it looks crap. People will still shop at Primark if the roof is leaky but they fix the roof so customers have better experiences. Basically every well run club in England has invested in their stadiums while ours has been let rot. The boards of those clubs want money just like Magnier and McManus and the rest. They just understand that investing in the ground, creating what in salesy talk would be called 'positive customer experience' helps the brand as a whole in the long term.

The Glazers don't care about that though because their aim is not to have a sustainable long term investment. Its to extract as much money out of United as possible and then flip it. So for the Glazers the cost it would take to invest in the stadium and redevelop the landbanks United has around Old Trafford doesn't make sense? Yes, long term all of that will increase Man Utd's profitability. But for them it doesn't matter because the profitability won't be so big that they think its worth eating into their dividends and management fees today.

Its the same reason we only ever spend big when Champions League is at risk. Why would the Glazers invest in trying to catch City if we finish second? For them the prize money between first and second aint that different. Anyone with eyes on revenue would point to how consistently winning trophies increases revenue, because popularity surges as does demand for your product. However, again, that's not what the Glazers are interested in. For them the amount it would take away from their income from the club to secure additional long term profits seems like a waste of money.

If United was a public company and big shares were held by Pension funds and the like. People who want to grow their money over not just years but decades and are happy to see it slowly accumulate, we'd be in a much better position than under the Glazers. I don't see any reason to feel like its the Glazers, a human rights abuser or bust.

What mechanism would you use to stop a repeat of the Glazer buy-out? Prevent anyone owning more than 10%? A company resolution stating no future debt-funded buyouts?

If the company were valued at £2-3 billion, what dividends would need to be paid out annually to make shareholders interested (the dividend yield?). Would it be prohibitive?

When was the last time Netflix paid a dividend? Doesn't the market still believe in Netflix and buy Netflix?

To some the questions you ask are for legislators, regulators and the market?

Hopefully the Crouch review will lead to some real change in the way football is governed and the Government will implement its recommendations. Then it will be up for the market to decide if Man Utd is worth holding. I think many will go in on it. But that's my personal belief.

 

[acnumber9]

The PLC wasn't perfect. I listed examples of where it stopped Sir Alex securing the signings he wanted.

You're right about the reasons why the ground was expanded. However, as United keep telling us matchday revenue is actually still important. Even if Florentino Perez wants us to believe otherwise. United, and others, have been pleading poverty because they're losing £100m in matchday revenue. Moreover, there is more matchday revenue that could be squeezed out of United. If Old Trafford was expanded to 90,000 or higher it'd still be full.

That's where the PLC differed from the Glazers. Because the PLC wanted dividends but wanted them to be sustainable they would've continued to expand the ground, and they wouldn't want our roof to be leaky cos it looks crap. People will still shop at Primark if the roof is leaky but they fix the roof so customers have better experiences. Basically every well run club in England has invested in their stadiums while ours has been let rot. The boards of those clubs want money just like Magnier and McManus and the rest. They just understand that investing in the ground, creating what in salesy talk would be called 'positive customer experience' helps the brand as a whole in the long term.

The Glazers don't care about that though because their aim is not to have a sustainable long term investment. Its to extract as much money out of United as possible and then flip it. So for the Glazers the cost it would take to invest in the stadium and redevelop the landbanks United has around Old Trafford doesn't make sense? Yes, long term all of that will increase Man Utd's profitability. But for them it doesn't matter because the profitability won't be so big that they think its worth eating into their dividends and management fees today.

Its the same reason we only ever spend big when Champions League is at risk. Why would the Glazers invest in trying to catch City if we finish second? For them the prize money between first and second aint that different. Anyone with eyes on revenue would point to how consistently winning trophies increases revenue, because popularity surges as does demand for your product. However, again, that's not what the Glazers are interested in. For them the amount it would take away from their income from the club to secure additional long term profits seems like a waste of money.

If United was a public company and big shares were held by Pension funds and the like. People who want to grow their money over not just years but decades and are happy to see it slowly accumulate, we'd be in a much better position than under the Glazers. I don't see any reason to feel like its the Glazers, a human rights abuser or bust.



When was the last time Netflix paid a dividend? Doesn't the market still believe in Netflix and buy Netflix?

To some the questions you ask are for legislators, regulators and the market?

Hopefully the Crouch review will lead to some real change in the way football is governed and the Government will implement its recommendations. Then it will be up for the market to decide if Man Utd is worth holding. I think many will go in on it. But that's my personal belief.

But the cost of further expanding the stadium is so high that it’s impractical to do so. That’s not likely to change with ownership.

The only reason Primark or any other retailer care about customer experience is so more people shop and spend more money there. If the leaky roof at Old Trafford affected the bottom line they would fix it. That’s my point. While fans fill the stadium no businessman is going to care. None of them have their consumers interest at heart.

We didn’t consistently win things under the PLC because they saw the value in winning. We won because we had Alex Ferguson. The same way we won under the Glazers because of him. What did our PLC do after we won the treble? Replaced our greatest ever keeper with a freebie and added Quinton Fortune.

 

[#07]

But the cost of further expanding the stadium is so high that it’s impractical to do so. That’s not likely to change with ownership.

The only reason Primark or any other retailer care about customer experience is so more people shop and spend more money there. If the leaky roof at Old Trafford affected the bottom line they would fix it. That’s my point. While fans fill the stadium no businessman is going to care. None of them have their consumers interest at heart.

We didn’t consistently win things under the PLC because they saw the value in winning. We won because we had Alex Ferguson. The same way we won under the Glazers because of him. What did our PLC do after we won the treble? Replaced our greatest ever keeper with a freebie and added Quinton Fortune.

Again. Good points.

However, they did, eventually invest in Barthez on the goalkeeping front (which looked sensible at the time).

I'm not going to pretend like, suddenly, the PLC would be amazing. However, I can see few reasons to believe it would be worse than what we've got now. And for me it'd be better than an Oligarch or a sportswashing project.

 

[hungrywing]

I'm not a top level financially literate person.



My post was in response this when you suggested that the 4Bn valuation would be "taken into consideration" because "we are a business that loses 130m a year". Fact is we are not. Because the fans will return to the stadium once new a buyer takes over the club, and that is assuming that fans decide to permanently boycott matchdays. You have to factor that into the negotiation. Any smart seller will recognise the potential gain the buyer stands to earn and factor that in.

Ok at least I see what you're trying to say now. Again, is English your native language? Not having a go. Literally everyone understands that the protest/boycott would end when the Glazers leave. That's the whole point; aka for *them*, should they stay, the revenue loss would be 'permanent'. Really interesting that you thought it was even possibly about fans staying away forever, which makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Tiber]

We should be realistic. It would be some US hedge fund/investor like David Tepper, or a foreign state like that the much rumored Saudi's.

Shame Bezos doesn't have a secret passion for United, Amazon would even be a huge improvement on team viewer

 

[acnumber9]

Again. Good points.

However, they did, eventually invest in Barthez on the goalkeeping front (which looked sensible at the time).

I'm not going to pretend like, suddenly, the PLC would be amazing. However, I can see few reasons to believe it would be worse than what we've got now. And for me it'd be better than an Oligarch or a sportswashing project.

And the Glazers have invested money too. Yes it’s money United made, but that was the case with the PLC too.

As far as I can see the biggest issue is the debt and the fact the Glazers have entrusted the running of the club to people who don’t know how to run a football club. Is it guaranteed that the debt would be cleared by a PLC? I’m not sure. Is it guaranteed that we are run better? It’s possible, but I’m not sure about that either.

The only alternative is somebody buying the club that doesn’t want to make a profit. That’s both incredibly unlikely and doesn’t guarantee they run the club properly either. It’s a shit situation with different potentially shit alternatives.

 

[G_and_T]

I echo a lot of the sentiment here.
I think the club can't have one owner and that isn't a bad thing. My wish is that shares are sold and fans are able to buy them.
I have seen a few people on SM hope for the Saudi's ... I will be the first person outside OT protesting that murdering regime. That would be a million times worse than what we have now.

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

Anyone who won’t steal £2b from the club is good with me. The only way is up from the Glazers.

 

[sullydnl]

Personally I'd be fine with someone who wants to make a profit owning the club.

I just want them to make their profit while running the club well, investing adequately in the club's facilities, maintaining a high standard of competitiveness and avoiding anti-football ideas like the ESL (as it was proposed). If they do that then they're welcome to whatever they make for themselves.

The thing is, we're an insanely wealthy club. There was scope for someone to make profit from us without leeching our lifeblood to quite the same extent that the Glazers have.

 

[Abdullah7]

I'm shocked that United fans haven't pushed yet for MbS to save the club. We'll look like Arsenal or Tottenham in 3-5 years with the Glazers (SCUM) and our best players will move on. Where City and PSG will be battling for the champions league with the best squads. We'll have to penny pinch those Glazers who will never listne to the fans.

Stoping UAE & Qatari owners is a Must if you don't fancy MbS. Push for the German model which will take more time but will be fruitful at the end.

Fans must plan ahead. It can't work both ways.

But the cost of further expanding the stadium is so high that it’s impractical to do so. That’s not likely to change with ownership.

The only reason Primark or any other retailer care about customer experience is so more people shop and spend more money there. If the leaky roof at Old Trafford affected the bottom line they would fix it. That’s my point. While fans fill the stadium no businessman is going to care. None of them have their consumers interest at heart.

We didn’t consistently win things under the PLC because they saw the value in winning. We won because we had Alex Ferguson. The same way we won under the Glazers because of him. What did our PLC do after we won the treble? Replaced our greatest ever keeper with a freebie and added Quinton Fortune.

After losing to Barca in Rome he sold Cristiano. Our recruitment team came up with 3 fantastic superstars. Obertan, Owen and Tony Valencia. What a time to be alive back then.

under the glazers.

 

[acnumber9]

I'm shocked that United fans haven't pushed yet for MbS to save the club. We'll look like Arsenal or Tottenham in 3-5 years with the Glazers (SCUM) and our best players will move on. Where City and PSG will be battling for the champions league with the best squads. We'll have to penny pinch those Glazers who will never listne to the fans.

Stoping UAE & Qatari owners is a Must if you don't fancy MbS. Push for the German model which will take more time but will be fruitful at the end.

Fans must plan ahead.



After losing to Barca in Rome he sold Cristiano. Our recruitment team came up with 3 fantastic superstars. Obertan, Owen and Tony Valencia. What a time to be alive back then.

under the glazers.

Yeah, and it was shit. I’m not claiming the Glazers have done a great job. I’m saying a PLC isn’t an automatic improvement. We shouldn’t romanticise an ownership model that United fans also hated.

 

[thepolice123]

Ok at least I see what you're trying to say now. Again, is English your native language? Not having a go. Literally everyone understands that the protest/boycott would end when the Glazers leave. That's the whole point; aka for *them*, should they stay, the revenue loss would be 'permanent'. Really interesting that you thought it was even possibly about fans staying away forever, which makes absolutely no sense at all.

Yes, English is my native language.

I understood you perfectly, I'm not so sure you did. All I'm trying to say is its strange to suggest that the loss of matchday revenue would result in a lower asking price from the Glazers, perhaps naive even.

Everything I mentioned are all hypothetical situations in response to yours. I don't think it is even a possibility that fans will boycott it permanently. If you ask me, ultimately it comes down to a war of attrition which fans will lose. It requires the combined efforts of the entire fanbase to pull this off and I daresay majority are ambivalent about this . There are already disgruntled fans who are unhappy that yesterday's match was cancelled, what makes people think the stadium wouldn't be filled once its opened?

 

[Abdullah7]

Yeah, and it was shit. I’m not claiming the Glazers have done a great job. I’m saying a PLC isn’t an automatic improvement. We shouldn’t romanticise an ownership model that United fans also hated.

Then a question should be asked for reforms against states owning clubs. Al Thani & Al Nhyian will not be tilted unless you have Saudi's. Real Madrid was Franco's domination show in the dark ages of Europe. Barca were squished in that period and a certain di Stefano was stolen from them. it took them 70 years to rectify that and they weren't in the mess that we have ourselves now.

You can't play catch up with these boys under the glazers.

It's now or never.

 

[hungrywing]

Yes, English is my native language.

I understood you perfectly, I'm not so sure you did. All I'm trying to say is its strange to suggest that the loss of matchday revenue would result in a lower asking price from the Glazers, perhaps naive even.

Everything I mentioned are all hypothetical situations in response to yours. I don't think it is even a possibility that fans will boycott it permanently. If you ask me, ultimately it comes down to a war of attrition which fans will lose. It requires the combined efforts of the entire fanbase to pull this off and I daresay majority are ambivalent about this . There are already disgruntled fans who are unhappy that yesterday's match was cancelled, what makes people think the stadium wouldn't be filled once its opened?

To even consider that is what's 'bizarre'. No one was saying that and you just took it and ran.

In the HYPOTHETICAL situation where droves of credible finance people came out and stated their opinion that around twenty-four months of a full boycott would force the Glazers to lower their asking price by around 25% and thirty-six months would cause them to lower it by 40%, I think the protesters would have an easier time convincing fence-sitters to join in.

The purpose of this 'exercise' and the others was stated earlier; to give protesters at least a rough idea of how much financial impact they could conceivably have. A useful thing to know in concert with any other efforts to put pressure on the Glazers. Would any such movement 'fizzle out'? Maybe. Could it also take firm root? Sure.

 

[Brophs]

Then a question should be asked for reforms against states owning clubs. Al Thani & Al Nhyian will not be tilted unless you have Saudi's. Real Madrid was Franco's domination show in the dark ages of Europe. Barca were squished in that period and a certain di Stefano was stolen from them. it took them 70 years to rectify that and they weren't in the mess that we have ourselves now.

You can't play catch up with these boys under the glazers.

It's now or never.

Then let’s choose never.

 

[#07]

And the Glazers have invested money too. Yes it’s money United made, but that was the case with the PLC too.

As far as I can see the biggest issue is the debt and the fact the Glazers have entrusted the running of the club to people who don’t know how to run a football club. Is it guaranteed that the debt would be cleared by a PLC? I’m not sure. Is it guaranteed that we are run better? It’s possible, but I’m not sure about that either.

The only alternative is somebody buying the club that doesn’t want to make a profit. That’s both incredibly unlikely and doesn’t guarantee they run the club properly either. It’s a shit situation with different potentially shit alternatives.

Yes but the difference is investors are unlikely to scrutinise every item of spending the way the Glazers do.

Its possible, of course, that a new board would employ a CEO and tell them that their remit is to squeeze every ounce of profit out of the club. Scrap the women's team, cut back on the academy or bin it etc. Things the Glazers have done.

However, most investors don't tend to behave like this. Usually they bring in a CEO they think is competent and will deliver returns for the shareholders. Those shareholders generally don't get antsy unless the annual report is extremely disappointing. Most investors will not intervene if a CEO has plans to invest in our stadium unless they think that will significantly hit our bottom line -- which it wont unless the CEO is proposing a Tottenham Hotspur style stadium rebuild, rather than to fix the roof, attend to the structure and put some decent internet in the ground etc.

We could bin the Glazers' management fees, loans and reduce the size of the United dividend and still make a lot of investors quite happy with their returns. Again, most investors who would put money into Man Utd will have huge portfolios. United will just be one of many eggs, so they won't necessarily want to take out of the club what the Glazers do every year. Pretty much all the Glazers' eggs are in the United basket, so they need to keep extracting wealth from the club at a high (IMO excessive) rate.

A good Board, with a proper CEO who runs the company sensibly and in a way that builds the brand, would be much better than what we've got. As well as significantly better than the other options.

 

[Abdullah7]

Then let’s choose never.

OK not a fan of a state backed team. then you must be against PSG & MCFC? correct? They're a big problem. can you plan ahead and tell me the strategic approach you'd be adobting to take them over?