Realistic buyers...

Nytram Shakes said:
Compared to the past owners of clubs like Portsmouth, Leeds, Sunderland, Blackburn QPR.... the Glazers are next to saintly. At least they have kept us financially solvent and not let the club spend beyond its means, which those owners did and a few premier league clubs are still doing, and about a dozen championship clubs are doing. This doesn't mean we should like how the Glazers have used the club's funds, but they are far from the worse owners in football.
Click to expand...

They didn't do that. Our revenue is was simply too big.

If we had the owners you mentioned we would probably be in a similar spot to where we are now. Probably with less debt though.

Its hard to compare scenarios of course but they are easily RIGHT up there with the Worst.
 
The best owner is who will clear the debt, reinvest the funds made by the club and have the correct leadership in place.

The biggest decision the owner will have is to get the correct leadership at the club. City have done this well, and so have Lfc.
 
Champons League Final is the clash of the sports washers. Capitalist clubs nowhere to be seen this year. Says a lot.
 
laughtersassassin said:
They didn't do that. Our revenue is was simply too big.

If we had the owners you mentioned we would probably be in a similar spot to where we are now. Probably with less debt though.

Its hard to compare scenarios of course but they are easily RIGHT up there with the Worst.
Click to expand...
No they could of easily done that. You just have to look at the spending ludicrous spending ideas of the fans on this forum( like those who wanted to break the British transfer record for Sancho this summer in the midst of the global pandemic) to see how easily the club could over spend and get itself in trouble.

The owners for all there faults have kept the club financially stable which makes them better than huge chunk of the owners out there.
 
Nytram Shakes said:
No they could of easily done that. You just have to look at the spending ludicrous spending ideas of the fans on this forum( like those who wanted to break the British transfer record for Sancho this summer in the midst of the global pandemic) to see how easily the club could over spend and get itself in trouble.

The owners for all there faults have kept the club financially stable which makes them better than huge chunk of the owners out there.
Click to expand...

Well feck, that's true. Imagine an alternate universe where we had owners that spent an absolute fortune adding world class players to the squad, and they ended up putting us into massive debt. Like to a ludicrous degree. Maybe something mad like £400M+ plus worth of debt saddled onto the club :annoyed:

Just imagine...
 
Rampant Red Rodriguez said:
We need to starve them of enough money to fall short of repayments of the club debts and their other personal and business debts. Reduce their profits and make them hurt financially.

Keep the media pressure on them and they will be forced to sell. Maybe through government legislation and financial scrutiny in Parliament will be enough pain.

They also need targeting in ways that i am not allowed to say on a public forum. We need a tripartite attack on these ugly tramps.
Click to expand...
What do you suppose that will do to the club?

Are you really advocating destroying United just to get rid of someone you don't like?

You do realise that any replacement is more than likely going to worse, don't you?
 
Valar Morghulis said:
Well feck, that's true. Imagine an alternate universe where we had owners that spent an absolute fortune adding world class players to the squad, and they ended up putting us into massive debt. Like to a ludicrous degree. Maybe something mad like £400M+ plus worth of debt saddled onto the club :annoyed:

Just imagine...
Click to expand...
Well in an alternate universe we could have ended up with owners who instead of buying world class players would line their pockets with the profits the club made by not signing players at all.....

Some people here are so caught up in their hate with the Glazers, they fail to realize there is a real possibility we could end up with owners like the Venkys.
 
Last edited:
KungPaoChicken said:
Which of the current owners of Tottenham, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, City would you pick over Glazers? I'm not saying glazers are perfect, far from it. But lets be honest they for sure are not the worst either.

Sure some new owners could be better than glazers, but hey there is a huge chance they could be worse.
Click to expand...
City and Chelsea without a doubt.
 
Nytram Shakes said:
Compared to the past owners of clubs like Portsmouth, Leeds, Sunderland, Blackburn QPR.... the Glazers are next to saintly. At least they have kept us financially solvent and not let the club spend beyond its means, which those owners did and a few premier league clubs are still doing, and about a dozen championship clubs are doing. This doesn't mean we should like how the Glazers have used the club's funds, but they are far from the worse owners in football.
Click to expand...
Not comparable to those clubs at all because they don't generate the revenue United do and that revenue is generated even with awful owners like the Glazers which goes to show the huge worldwide brand name United have and why those leeches was so keen to own the club.

United unlike Chelsea and Man City didn't need a billionaire owner, commercially United are one of the strongest clubs in the world, a revenue of 500 to 600M per year. United should be spending the most of any Premier league club, they should also be running a much slicker operation not just with the right signings but in relation to the stadium up keep, club infrastructure and debt management all issues that are now under the microscope thanks to these protests.
 
They can float the stocks they have. Even now, they aren't 100 percent owners of United, at least 10 to 15 percent already belong to other parties. There are parties that if the stocks they owned became available that would seek to rack up as much as possible.

For me, I'd prefer to be where we were in the late 90's and early 2000's, without an owner, but with several major shareholders. That way we can create a cap on how ownership at United can occur before another potential owner tries to buy all possible shares. A lot of situations are possible.
 
always_hoping said:
Not comparable to those clubs at all because they don't generate the revenue United do and that revenue is generated even with awful owners like the Glazers which goes to show the huge worldwide brand name United have and why those leeches was so keen to own the club.

United unlike Chelsea and Man City didn't need a billionaire owner, commercially United are one of the strongest clubs in the world, a revenue of 500 to 600M per year. United should be spending the most of any Premier league club, they should also be running a much slicker operation not just with the right signings but in relation to the stadium up keep, club infrastructure and debt management all issues that are now under the microscope thanks to these protests.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter how big or small your revenue is. Even with this massive revenue we could easily have had an owner who over spent, you just have to look at the spending ideas of huge portion of the fans on this forum to see how this is possible. Take Rangers there income was so much bigger than every club in Scotland over than Celtic and they didn’t need to bankrupt them selves but there owners wanted all these players and it just wasn’t sustainable and caught up with them.

We could have had an owner who like fans many fans wanted a shiney new marque signing every transfer market. We could have had owner who did stupid things like break the British transfer for Sancho in the middle of a pandemic when everyone is loosing money. We could have had owners who would spent 200+ million every summer which a lot of fans seems to want. Just because the revenue is bigger doesn’t mean you can’t over spend.

No the glazers arn’t good owners, but they have at least balanced the books most years prior to the pandemic, which makes the better than a huge chunk of the owners out there.
 
Nytram Shakes said:
It doesn’t matter how big or small your revenue is. Even with this massive revenue we could easily have had an owner who over spent, you just have to look at the spending ideas of huge portion of the fans on this forum to see how this is possible. Take Rangers there income was so much bigger than every club in Scotland over than Celtic and they didn’t need to bankrupt them selves but there owners wanted all these players and it just wasn’t sustainable and caught up with them.

We could have had an owner who like fans many fans wanted a shiney new marque signing every transfer market. We could have had owner who did stupid things like break the British transfer for Sancho in the middle of a pandemic when everyone is loosing money. We could have had owners who would spent 200+ million every summer which a lot of fans seems to want. Just because the revenue is bigger doesn’t mean you can’t over spend.

No the glazers arn’t good owners, but they have at least balanced the books most years prior to the pandemic, which makes the better than a huge chunk of the owners out there.
Click to expand...
They don't balance any books not a penny of their own goes into transfers. They are such awful owners that they don't realise or seem to care that they could get more money out of this cash cow of theirs if they appointed football people over transfers and contracts than business men friends who over the last decade continue to make stupid decisions totally wasting money.
 
always_hoping said:
They don't balance any books not a penny of their own goes into transfers. They are such awful owners that they don't realise or seem to care that they could get more money out of this cash cow of theirs if they appointed football people over transfers and contracts than business men friends who over the last decade continue to make stupid decisions totally wasting money.
Click to expand...
It doesn't need to, we've spent nearly £1bn, if it was spent wisely (which it now appears to be doing) we'd be in a far better position than we are now.
 
alexthelion said:
It doesn't need to, we've spent nearly £1bn, if it was spent wisely (which it now appears to be doing) we'd be in a far better position than we are now.
Click to expand...
Partly my point that they don't need to balance books. Its money spent wisely at Liverpool, Chelsea, Man City clubs you reckon has worst owners. Those three clubs have very competent football men over transfer/players contracts and owners with a strong ambition to win trophies.

And money is still wasted now, for example Jones long term contract recently, same with pay rise given to DeGea. Other contracts allowed to run down and players let go for free.
 
always_hoping said:
They don't balance any books not a penny of their own goes into transfers. They are such awful owners that they don't realise or seem to care that they could get more money out of this cash cow of theirs if they appointed football people over transfers and contracts than business men friends who over the last decade continue to make stupid decisions totally wasting money.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with most of what your saying. The enormous amount of money we have spent certainly could have been spent better if Woodward had been even vaguely competent in football matters.

I do push back on the idea that they arn’t good owners as they arn’t spending there own money on transfers. Football is littered with owners financing transfers that the club couldn’t afford again and the clubs finances getting completely messed up because of it. For example, Sunderlands former owner spent Elis short spent loads of his own money on transfers, then he pulled the plug and the club was saddled with the wages and went into free fall. Look at what’s currently happening at Everton or Aston Villa, the clubs revenue can’t finance what they are spending and its coming from the owners. In recent years about a dozen clubs in the championship who have sold the stadium to the owners so the owner owns the club and stadium separately, this is done so the club can spend far more money than it earns. But is also means the club itself has lost the rights to its own stadium. The consequences of that are going to be felt for decades at these clubs. But Fans love it when clubs over spend until they see the consequences.

But again this doesn’t make the Glazers good owners. But while they balance the books and give the mangers enough to stay competive they can’t be considered among the worst in football.
 
I was never into the idea of Saudis buying the club. But I detest the fact that a tin pot club like City backed up by a state winning 5 titles in last 10 years and are on the verge of winning CL title.

No one else is going to invest 4 billion on this project other than a prince of an Arab state which is a sad reality. So more or less I'm all in for Saudis buying this club.
 
If we are being honest, money has been spent, unfortunately it was under the direction of a click bait maniac with little idea about football. Coupled with his insane belief that extending players on crazy wages would pay dividends as some other fool would come in and pay a transfer fee for dross we wanted to get rid of = where we ended up . .Bloated wage bill and not enough depth.
 
So Chelsea is valued at £4.25 billion according to the news reports, with Todd Boehly’s consortium bud winning…

… what does that make United worth? £5 billion? £6b?
 
I’d always previously thought we were too expensive to be bought but this Chelsea sale has changed my mind. They basically had 2 months to get a sale done and had bidders lining up for them, there were more than 20 interested parties. We’re a much bigger global brand, if the Glazers actually were interested in selling then billionaires and consortia would be queueing up to buy.
 
Nobody really. The glazers don't want to sell.

It would take some ridiculous valuation (like 7b-8b) to make them even consider it.

Theres just no way someone (smart) would stump up that type of money and then expect to make a return on it.
 
tjb said:
They can float the stocks they have. Even now, they aren't 100 percent owners of United, at least 10 to 15 percent already belong to other parties. There are parties that if the stocks they owned became available that would seek to rack up as much as possible.

For me, I'd prefer to be where we were in the late 90's and early 2000's, without an owner, but with several major shareholders. That way we can create a cap on how ownership at United can occur before another potential owner tries to buy all possible shares. A lot of situations are possible.
Click to expand...
That doesnt work though. If hypothetically you had 5 owners with 20% shares, (these figures can be anything) who decides whats right for the club? A new stadium, a rebuild, training facilities, a womens team, new manager etc. All 5 could theoretically push 5 different ways and hinder development. You always need a large shareholder with at least 51% so a final decision can be made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.