The value of it is having a bit of ownership of United. At the end of the day, we have a lot of fans. Look at the NBA owners, they don't gain anything from ownership. Most owners of sports teams don't seek to make profit off the team, either their there as fans/collectors or they want to sell the club at a higher valuation. Most owners of franchises or sports don't get and don't even want to get immediate returns. The Glazers have muddied the idea of ownership for our fan base. In United's case, we are very expensive, not everyone can afford to buy the full pot. However, we are a PLC and those shares are able to be made available to the public. Having a board vote on things would limit the ability if one entity to potentially hurt the club. I see this like Madrid or Barca's presidency, where the CEO is judged on performance on and off the field. We won't have another Woodward if our board had more power.
Realistic buyers...
- Thread starter Rozay
- Start date
The value of it is having a bit of ownership of United. At the end of the day, we have a lot of fans. Look at the NBA owners, they don't gain anything from ownership. Most owners of sports teams don't seek to make profit off the team, either their there as fans/collectors or they want to sell the club at a higher valuation. Most owners of franchises or sports don't get and don't even want to get immediate returns. The Glazers have muddied the idea of ownership for our fan base. In United's case, we are very expensive, not everyone can afford to buy the full pot. However, we are a PLC and those shares are able to be made available to the public. Having a board vote on things would limit the ability if one entity to potentially hurt the club. I see this like Madrid or Barca's presidency, where the CEO is judged on performance on and off the field. We won't have another Woodward if our board had more power.
We’re talking about 4bn worth of investment here. How many people are queuing up to invest that money to make a few million every year? Investors will look at the trouble that occurs when fans aren’t happy and decide their money is safer and more profitable elsewhere.
Plus It also gives us an opportunity to put rules in place that prevent a Glazer style ownership model. For example, the medium in which shares are bought to prevent being saddled with debt. We could even put in place an ownership model that limits how much shares can be controlled. Look at Bayern, there are multiple brands like Addidas than own significant shares at Bayern, they trust the leadership structure ( who are not major shareholders) to ensure the club is well run on and off the field. People forget how attractive United are and how many fans we genuinely have. Owning us would not be for business to a lot of people, for the extremely rich it would be having the ability to have a say in how the club is run, for others it would be a collection piece. 4 plus billion to one person is a lot to sell, but in tint pieces to different entities, that's more achievable.
Putting aside that I dispute that value, it'd only be £4 billion for one person or entity.
The shareholders won't be putting in £4 billion each (if that's the price). They will be buying up shares in a company that's supposedly worth £4 billion.
Depending on how the float goes you might end up with one or two people owning 10%, some may even own 20%. Magnier and McManus owned a combined 28.89% of Man Utd when they agreed to sell their shares to the Glazers.
Its unlikely that any one shareholder would come out of the float owning £1 billion worth of Man Utd shares, unless they really, REALLY wanted to make a play at getting a controlling stake and were willing to go in at a price I'd consider unwise.
Instead you would get lots of different shareholders probably grabbing a couple of per cent each to add a successful sports franchise to their portfolios. Yes, at a cost that would seem expensive to most normal people but certainly nowhere near £4 billion.
Exactly.
I’m not fully clued up on potential buyers - but I know we’d struggle to tease in a buyer if our valuation is around the £4billion mark. That also needs to factor in the type of buyers that we’d even want in the first place - but I highly doubt the Glazers would care if it meant they get their 4billion.
I really can’t see them leaving for another couple of years at least.
I really can’t see them leaving for another couple of years at least.
Yes, but a smaller percentage of shares owned is just a smaller percentage of that few million profit. There are numerous more profitable, less hassle investments for people to make. Football is a volatile market that has reached the tip of an iceberg. At their current valuation it’s surely not a good investment.
I think more than 1 person needs to buy Utd otherwise it could be exactly the same.
If 1 person buys 50 % that's 2 billion,
Could put 10% for fans to try buy,
Then get other investors for the other 40%
That's just a rough way, would be nice if fans could buy more but unrealistic unless a few millionaires about
If 1 person buys 50 % that's 2 billion,
Could put 10% for fans to try buy,
Then get other investors for the other 40%
That's just a rough way, would be nice if fans could buy more but unrealistic unless a few millionaires about
So they ‘only’ get De Gea’s salary a mere pittance apparently, so they won’t have any qualms about selling then will they?
Look, all I'm saying is we are not a business that loses 130m a year because boycotting of matchday isn't permanent and therefore would be hard to use as a reason for a reduced valuation. That's all I'm saying, jesus christ.
I can understand the thinking that the protests will cause enough annoyance on the Glazers' side that they will go "feck it, 2.5bn is good enough. I'd take it can leave."
But look at it this way: They have a club that has consistently underperformed on the pitch for nearly a decade but still did tremendously well on the commercial side. Now the club is finally performing on the pitch with a bunch of players yet to reach their peak. The club could easily be worth more than 4bn in the future. Would you give up that chance?
If that's all you're saying, then fine. Obviously no boycott of matchday attendance is 'permanent' and it's kind of weird you're still mentioning it.
Again, for anyone else, projected financial impact of the protests will be useful information for the organizing groups/entities to have, if they don't have it already.
As our latest financial statement subtly implied, this valuation is contingent on securing greater broadcast rights. That's what's really behind project Big Picture and the Super League. The Glazers believe that, at some stage, they will be able to control more of United's broadcast rights and squeeze more out of the global customer base.
First they tried to undermine the Premier League's collective rights structure through project Big Picture. That failed. So they then pushed for the Super League project. That has failed too. Potentially with dire consequences for their long term plan, especially if the Government ends up legislating around what is considered as sanctioned match e.g. has to be authorised by English footballing authorities. That would kill the super league permanently and also the possibility of United selling its own rights on direct to stream or some other platform, as the other Premier League clubs would likely never agree to this.
So that begs the question: where is the additional value the Glazers hope to extract going to come from?
Man Utd is a fine investment if you're long term goal is to take home a guaranteed £1 million a year. However, look at what we're paying the Glazers in management fees, loans, dividends. That's not what they're after.
With the Government's fan led review there's an increasing regulatory risk that their route to direct to customer content may be cut off, potentially permanently. Furthermore, the next Premier League rights deal is likely going to be smaller than the current one. Where is the road to this supposed £4 billion valuation?
If I was advising the Glazers I'd tell them to sell their shares ASAP before potential investors get spooked by the possibility of Government intervention and political risk. There is no way that Man Utd can become a £4 billion business if that route lies through trying to break up the Premier League's collective bargaining over rights for sanctioned games. By going for the super league United and the other big six clubs have unleashed a regulatory can of worms that makes that possibility remote, at best.
No, not really. I don’t think states, particularly ones with motives that are, in my opinion, questionable, should be buying football clubs. But my answer was in the context of whether I’d like us to be subject to a Saudi takeover, with all of the connotations that would go with that.
I don’t have a plan, nor did I suggest I did. Other than to accept that even if we do everything well it’s entirely likely that we won’t be able to compete with state-backed ownership models that aren’t especially concerned with making money.
Personally, I’d love to see the Glazers leave the club but I also know that that road is fraught with danger, too. I’m not so naive as to think that many people smart enough to become multi-billionaires would want to spend billions of pounds buying businesses that make, at best, relatively modest profits. Moreover, as was mentioned on some podcast or other this week, for all the noise, how many takeovers at that sort of level have happened? Ever? Football’s dirty little secret is that it makes almost no sense for anyone other than state-backed schemes to do that in the current climate, with no guarantee of anything other that getting involved in an oligarch/oil money mini league at the top of the PL.
Clubs that are much cheaper but with lots of potential upside make more sense in if you can stomach a 10-15 year project. Look at Everton. They’ve spent a shedload, are building a new ground and have an ostensibly world class manager and are still in a battle for a EL spot. That’s what it can cost you to be 8th in this league.
I'm curious about the perception of debt being an issue still.
The way the Glazers bought the club is exactly the same as buying a buy to let property for example with a mortgage.
The way the Glazers bought the club is exactly the same as buying a buy to let property for example with a mortgage.
Jeff Bezos
Zuckerberg
Jack Ma
Elon Musk
Actually no, they have the money but dont give a shit about football.
So all the protests and only the Saudi can buy the club.... awkward
Zuckerberg
Jack Ma
Elon Musk
Actually no, they have the money but dont give a shit about football.
So all the protests and only the Saudi can buy the club.... awkward
What a lot of people does not seem to grasp or does not want to grasp is that buying manchester united makes little to no economical sense from a strictly business point of view. The numbers mentioned in the media is around 5.5 billion USD. For that amount you can buy two MLB teams, two NHL teams and 1 NBA team. These are franchises that have massive tv deals, salary caps and lots of merch sales. If i have 5.5 billion USD just lying around i know what i would purchase.
Rich people tend to become rich by spending their money wisely not by throwing them away at bad investments.
Rich people tend to become rich by spending their money wisely not by throwing them away at bad investments.
It would be great to see the club being owned 51% by the fans, the way its done in Germany.
I see two realistic buyers, if Glazers should sell the club (but that will not happen):
1) Jim Ratcliffe
2) Mohamed Bin Salman.
1) Jim Ratcliffe
2) Mohamed Bin Salman.
Forget the estimated net wealth figures for the super-rich multi-billionaires.
They almost all to a man, or woman, don't have that in available cash.
Their net worth is the total value of their investments and the assets in the companies they own, not the amount of money they've got in the piggy-bank.
It's all theoretical money; what they're worth, not what they've got.
The average multi-billionaire is said to only have around 1% of that value in liquidity (actual cash available).
Even at the top of the tree, Jeff Bezos is known to only draw around $84k per year in salary. Not exactly a fortune.
He's estimated to have a total net worth of between $195 & $200 billion, but in all likelihood will only have access to a couple of $ billion that he can spend.
He wouldn't squirt his entire available personal dosh on buying anything that costly.
Image what other multi-billionaires, with smaller, but still mind-blowing fortunes, have available?
They simply couldn't afford to be spending $3 or $4 billion on a football club, unless they sell off assets, or borrow the money to do so.
Even if they wanted to buy Utd, they would almost certainly raise the funds through finance (loans) even if they had the readies in their hand.
To buy the club, you're looking at a wealthy individual, or more likely a consortium, who would have to borrow the money needed (even more debt).
Either that, or a ME state backed entity.
That's if the Glazers want to sell in the first place.
Then there has to be a business plan.
How do you service the finance costs, as well as running the business and how do you intend to grow the business to maintain its success?
If the TV revenues and sponsorships are only growing incrementally at a modest rate, that doesn't give you much room to manoeuvre.
With the ESL gone (for now, thank goodness), where is that prospect of growth coming from?
What chance of getting a decent return for your investment if the profits have to be spent elsewhere, just to keep rolling forward?
Any takers?
They almost all to a man, or woman, don't have that in available cash.
Their net worth is the total value of their investments and the assets in the companies they own, not the amount of money they've got in the piggy-bank.
It's all theoretical money; what they're worth, not what they've got.
The average multi-billionaire is said to only have around 1% of that value in liquidity (actual cash available).
Even at the top of the tree, Jeff Bezos is known to only draw around $84k per year in salary. Not exactly a fortune.
He's estimated to have a total net worth of between $195 & $200 billion, but in all likelihood will only have access to a couple of $ billion that he can spend.
He wouldn't squirt his entire available personal dosh on buying anything that costly.
Image what other multi-billionaires, with smaller, but still mind-blowing fortunes, have available?
They simply couldn't afford to be spending $3 or $4 billion on a football club, unless they sell off assets, or borrow the money to do so.
Even if they wanted to buy Utd, they would almost certainly raise the funds through finance (loans) even if they had the readies in their hand.
To buy the club, you're looking at a wealthy individual, or more likely a consortium, who would have to borrow the money needed (even more debt).
Either that, or a ME state backed entity.
That's if the Glazers want to sell in the first place.
Then there has to be a business plan.
How do you service the finance costs, as well as running the business and how do you intend to grow the business to maintain its success?
If the TV revenues and sponsorships are only growing incrementally at a modest rate, that doesn't give you much room to manoeuvre.
With the ESL gone (for now, thank goodness), where is that prospect of growth coming from?
What chance of getting a decent return for your investment if the profits have to be spent elsewhere, just to keep rolling forward?
Any takers?
Last edited:
The Premier League is to bring in a new owners' charter to stop future attempts to join a breakaway Super League.
It follows Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester City and Tottenham agreeing to join the failed European Super League last month.
All owners will have to sign up to the new rule "committing them to the core principles" of the league with breaches punished by "significant" sanctions.
It follows Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester City and Tottenham agreeing to join the failed European Super League last month.
All owners will have to sign up to the new rule "committing them to the core principles" of the league with breaches punished by "significant" sanctions.
I would prefer MBS to the Ambani. At least MBS takes care of his people and he indulges in other countries affairs (Yemen war) whereas the greedy Ambani hurts the people of his own country to make himself richer.
Okay.
Hopefully this the start and hopefully the Glazers start to think feck it, this ain’t worth it. But who knows.
Any new potential owners of Manchester United have the best footing. The fact the club can run & pay for itself (with the right people in charge), is such an attractive proposition.
I wonder what the repayments are on a 4 billion loan? I’d doubt the club would be easily paying that and all other running costs.
I don’t agree with this.
Potential owners would have to fork out around 4 billion (the largest some ever paid for a sports franchise) in order to buy somthing that will “pay for it self”.
fans also won’t accept the owner make huge profits from, in fact most fans generally demand owners put money into the club rather than take it out.
I don’t think that is an attractive proposition for investors
It would make the loans the Glazer took out To buy the club look like small change
The reason these guys buy clubs is either to line their pockets or ego. There are no cares about the fans generally other than how can they get us to spend money on trinkets from the club. They don't usually look to take a much out of the club BUT the valuation will need to go up on their investment. That is what they would want and if they spend $4bn I don't see a lot of upwards valuation in the near future. When these trolls bought the club back then I thought 'I sure hope they don't run it like they do the Buccaneers'. Unfortunately, they do and that is why they wanted the Super League; so they had zero risk of getting relegated and could just take money from the club and not invest in much back in. I wish I lived in FL I would protest at their home.
This is why the club won't be purchased by an owner who wants to earn profits from the club.
Sovereign state (or of similar ilk) or fan ownership, with no returns are the only viable options.
Without proper solutions, suppose there's very little point of asking the Glazers to leave.
Do the likes of Gary Neville know there are potential owners who want to buy the club and hence the constant chat of them selling? I don't know.
This is why "investors" are viable options.
Ridiculous post.
Thinking about Manchester United Football Club having paid 1.5billion dollars in interests on Glazers "investment", without having made any substantial downpayments on the loan/debt itself. The way they have been able to loan their way from rich to richer is completely absurd.
That being said, someone would either have to be a United-fan, Saudi-Arabia or really naive to forge out 4 billion on a club without demaning considerable revenue in the short-term and that is a prospect which in itself is scary.
That being said, someone would either have to be a United-fan, Saudi-Arabia or really naive to forge out 4 billion on a club without demaning considerable revenue in the short-term and that is a prospect which in itself is scary.
Hong Kong needs publicity.
Or maybe Ole can talk to Norway?
World's biggest fund:
https://www.statista.com/statistics...s-worldwide-based-on-assets-under-management/
Or maybe Ole can talk to Norway?
World's biggest fund:
https://www.statista.com/statistics...s-worldwide-based-on-assets-under-management/
The Saudis simply have bad PR. MBS was new to the scene and made many mistakes. UAE was much wiser and had much better PR. It was on their encouragement that the Saudis got involved in Yemen. Their reasons are very different and Al Nahuyan took MBS under his wing.
The country is a lot more complicated than people who just read the news only could understand.
They can't ease religious extremism without the Iranians agitating about it. It's a catch 22 situation there. That doesn't make it any better about freedom in Saudi. Do they have the capacity to buy United? Absolutely. Would they run it well if they buy it? Yes. Would they buy it? I don't think so.
And that why the bezos, Zuckerbergs, musks, gates, Ma's and other super wealthy people are not interested. There are so many different avenues that with almost 100% certainty will generate more profits for them than united will. So the risk vs reward is not worth it.
I dont really see United going fan owned. Sure there are plenty of fan owned clubs out there, but the clubs were either formed as fan owned clubs or the restructuring were done when the club was peanuts compared to Uniteds current valuation. Do we have any any examples of bigger clubs(any sport will do) going from privately owned to fan owned?
Bill & Melinda Gates just announced their divorce. Surely one of them needs a mid-life crisis, post-divorce toy to play with?
This.
Other than venting their frustrations at the Glazers, there isn't any real solutions out there -- financially, politically or otherwise. The protests will go nowhere with the Glazers and are just going to build up more frustrations and feelings of impotency amongst the fans.
Gary's being a populist. The fact that he's working for the very company that started this slippery slope of commercialisation going is just pure hypocrisy. People at BT have a lot to lose too with new players like Amazon, Netflix, Google and their technologies to stream directly to the consumers will be the next phase.
ESL is no different but just an evolutionary stage of what happened back in 1992 -- just at a bigger scale. It also takes into account emerging technologies and business models. The next phase of bypassing the middleman ie broadcasters is the most natural step of this evolution. No different to Deliveroo, Uber etc
I think the Glazers will stay simply because the gold mine will be United selling their television rights individually. With 500million fans globally, that's a lot of untapped revenues. The ESL was just a transitory phase in that untapped potential.
The Glazers are here to stay unless someone can offer them something that they cant refuse. Or their current businesses are in dire straits and they need the cash -- this I see is probably their biggest weakness. The changing e-commerce scene, with Covid accelerating that change, will make their mall properties even deeper shit.
Covid maybe their biggest enemy.
Last edited:
By market close price today, Man Utd has the market cap at 2.847B. It needs the share price rise to $25 to have 4B market cap.
I am thinking the possibility to transfer the ownership to fans through some institutions. We can set the limit of the max number of shares every fan can own. The voting power is same for each share holder. The share can be transferred. There could be dividends every year in case we have too much cashes left.
lets say 4B is the initial offering target. The max purchase amount is $40000 and the min is $400 per fan. Thus, we need 100k - 10m fans to commit the purchase with at least $400 put down. After the initial offering, the shares can be traded and transferred through the institution based on ask/bid. The max limit of the total number of shares per fan still holds.
how does it sound?
I am thinking the possibility to transfer the ownership to fans through some institutions. We can set the limit of the max number of shares every fan can own. The voting power is same for each share holder. The share can be transferred. There could be dividends every year in case we have too much cashes left.
lets say 4B is the initial offering target. The max purchase amount is $40000 and the min is $400 per fan. Thus, we need 100k - 10m fans to commit the purchase with at least $400 put down. After the initial offering, the shares can be traded and transferred through the institution based on ask/bid. The max limit of the total number of shares per fan still holds.
how does it sound?
Last edited:
I haven't seen any report giving indication as to who could've bought them. Maybe the Malaysian prince bought the shares after him making a public declaration of his interest in purchasing them. It reminds me a little of the speculation in 2003, when Malcolm Glazer along with Dutch media tycoon, John de Mol were upping their stake in the club and John de Mol's name only came into public view after he passed a certain threshold, which meant the PLC had to make his identity known.
He can always sell this plot of land in Singapore as a down payment for United.
The Real Crazy Rich Asian Palace Is Worth a Cool $3.5 Billion
Gangsta life in the hood.
He was looking to buy Valencia not long ago and gave a statement on how he would run the club, which from a fans perspective sounded like a ideal ownership type of person, due to what he outlined.He can always sell this plot of land in Singapore as a down payment for United.
The Real Crazy Rich Asian Palace Is Worth a Cool $3.5 Billion
Gangsta life in the hood.