State sportswashing ownership or Profit-seeking ownership?

[Sultan]

Unless they changed it infrastructure isn't counted towards FFP, anyway FFP was introduced to counter the oil type money, until Abu Dhabi came along it didn't exist

If I, as an owner want to pay whatever over-the-odds I like for shirt sponsorship it's my business. The money is coming to the club, the UK and our economy. It's a win-win situation for the club and the country.

Yes, I can take being accused of being morally bankrupt.

 

[georgipep]

Best case (not going to happen any time soon): Member ownership

Between the two option: Profitseeking ownership.

I'll jump the ship if we become a sportswashing project for a dictatorship.

How is member ownership the best case? Do you want directors elections? Politics and populism? Check Barcelona for a good example of the pitfalls of that model.

Profitseeking private ownership is the way to go, for me.

 

[Red in STL]

How is member ownership the best case? Do you want directors elections? Politics and populism? Check Barcelona for a good example of the pitfalls of that model.

Profitseeking private ownership is the way to go, for me.

Depends on the profit seeking model, that's exactly what we have now and we don't want that

A model like the Bezos/Washington Post might be a better way

 

[Zed 101]

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out...led-2022-far-targeting-trans-people-rcna20418

"State lawmakers have proposed a record 238 bills that would limit the rights of LGBTQ Americans this year — or more than three per day — with about half of them targeting transgender people specifically.

Nearly 670 anti-LGBTQ bills have been filed since 2018, according to an NBC News analysis of data from the American Civil Liberties Union and LGBTQ advocacy group Freedom for All Americans, with nearly all of the country’s 50 state legislatures all having weighed at least one bill."

This is not whataboutism. It's the hypocrisy in the media demonising others whilst not paying attention on their own shores. Not much was made in the media during the WC in Russia despite gangs going around bashing gays with the tacit approval of the authorities. Qatar never arrested a single gay person or stopped them from sleeping with each other in privacy and yet is still being demonised.

It is truly terrifying, I have just watched the US and the holocaust documentary series, a subject on which I am well versed anyway, but it is an interesting presentation of the mindset and behaviour of the everyday people and legislature of the USA before and during WWII, the parallels pose some truly worrying questions about the USA under the current extreme conservatism.

 

[Red in STL]

It is truly terrifying, I have just watched the US and the holocaust documentary series, a subject on which I am well versed anyway, but it is an interesting presentation of the mindset and behaviour of the everyday people and legislature of the USA before and during WWII, the parallels pose some truly worrying questions about the USA under the current extreme conservatism.

It is truly terrifying, I have just watched the US and the holocaust documentary series, a subject on which I am well versed anyway, but it is an interesting presentation of the mindset and behaviour of the everyday people and legislature of the USA before and during WWII, the parallels pose some truly worrying questions about the USA under the current extreme conservatism.

Fortunately, if that's the right word, this doesn't apply at national level where they've just passed some safeguards at the federal level.

Pretty much all of these bills will be in Republican states and a lot of them will be where the bible thumpers have a lot of sway

The problem with the media is that there are no fairness controls, Fox News for example would be illegal in the UK and it's not the only one, some people get their info solely from the likes of Fox or right-wing conspiracy sites, the likes of CNN and NBC to cover these issues but Conservatives wouldn't be seen dead watching them

 

[Zed 101]

How is member ownership the best case? Do you want directors elections? Politics and populism? Check Barcelona for a good example of the pitfalls of that model.

Profitseeking private ownership is the way to go, for me.

Problem with profitseeking ownership is 5-6bn purchase plus 1-2bninvestment in the infrastructure, an outlay between 6-8bn, if the new owners then take no money out of the club and buy no players, assuming all of our debts are cleared and we cut all the excess expenditure from our wage bill it would still take 30+ years to break even on their investment and that is assuming a manager can keep us successful without investment.

OK they would still have the value of the club but assuming that remains stable the only way they gain from it is either by leveraging debt against it or selling it on once as per the Glazers, that would probably be one of the worst long term investment plans in history. Remember that Glazers purchased utd for £790m at a time when players and their wages were a fraction of their cost now, and profit margins were much greater, it also was not their money so everything since has been pure profit for them, selling up until now has not been too tempting, clubs were not achieving such prices until Chelsea skewed the price in no small part due to the massive debt owed to Abramovich.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

I'm obsessed with Ryan Reynolds after seeing that documentary.

Ryan Reynolds owns Wrexham. WTF

What would be the equivalent for United? Prince Harry? Vince McMahon? The Rock? All three?

 

[Zed 101]

Fortunately, if that's the right word, this doesn't apply at national level where they've just passed some safeguards at the federal level.

Pretty much all of these bills will be in Republican states and a lot of them will be where the bible thumpers have a lot of sway

The problem with the media is that there are no fairness controls, Fox News for example would be illegal in the UK and it's not the only one, some people get their info solely from the likes of Fox or right-wing conspiracy sites, the likes of CNN and NBC to cover these issues but Conservatives wouldn't be seen dead watching them

Yeah I know we get American news stations here sometime I watch them just out of voyeurism TBH some of the stuff people say blows my mind..... that said the BBC are not the impartial bastion they once were, definite bias and sensationalism unfortunately.

 

[Red in STL]

Yeah I know we get American news stations here sometime I watch them just out of voyeurism TBH some of the stuff people say blows my mind..... that said the BBC are not the impartial bastion they once were, definite bias and sensationalism unfortunately.

I live in the US and trust me, the BBC is an impartial bastion in comparison, the BBC is always accused by each party and their supporters of being biased, which indicates to me that they're pretty balanced because they piss both sides off!

 

[Red in STL]

I'm obsessed with Ryan Reynolds after seeing that documentary.

Ryan Reynolds owns Wrexham. WTF

What would be the equivalent for United? Prince Harry? Vince McMahon? The Rock? All three?

George Clooney

 

[Norii]

There's a lot of hypocrisy around this issue.

People will act outraged and demand human rights abusing states stay away from their clubs.

Then those same people wont have an issue with large sports brands who make billions off the back of Asian sweat shops sponsoring their team. When it was announced United were for sale, I remember people being excited at rumours of Apple wanting to buy the club....The same company who use Chinese factories that need to install suicide nets because the conditions are so awful.

If we're going to take the moral high ground about oil money lets keep the same standard across the board.

 

[Red in STL]

Problem with profitseeking ownership is 5-6bn purchase plus 1-2bninvestment in the infrastructure, an outlay between 6-8bn, if the new owners then take no money out of the club and buy no players, assuming all of our debts are cleared and we cut all the excess expenditure from our wage bill it would still take 30+ years to break even on their investment and that is assuming a manager can keep us successful without investment.

OK they would still have the value of the club but assuming that remains stable the only way they gain from it is either by leveraging debt against it or selling it on once as per the Glazers, that would probably be one of the worst long term investment plans in history. Remember that Glazers purchased utd for £790m at a time when players and their wages were a fraction of their cost now, and profit margins were much greater, it also was not their money so everything since has been pure profit for them, selling up until now has not been too tempting, clubs were not achieving such prices until Chelsea skewed the price in no small part due to the massive debt owed to Abramovich.

So all that's left is philanthropist but I'm guessing they wouldn't regard a professional sports team worthy of that level of support

 

[shamans]

I live in the US and trust me, the BBC is an impartial bastion in comparison, the BBC is always accused by each party and their supporters of being biased, which indicates to me that they're pretty balanced because they piss both sides off!

It used to be the case but it no longer is at all. I put BBC slightly above CNN maybe but neither are impartial if you watch them regularly.

 

[Infra-red]

Problem with profitseeking ownership is 5-6bn purchase plus 1-2bninvestment in the infrastructure, an outlay between 6-8bn, if the new owners then take no money out of the club and buy no players, assuming all of our debts are cleared and we cut all the excess expenditure from our wage bill it would still take 30+ years to break even on their investment and that is assuming a manager can keep us successful without investment.

OK they would still have the value of the club but assuming that remains stable the only way they gain from it is either by leveraging debt against it or selling it on once as per the Glazers, that would probably be one of the worst long term investment plans in history. Remember that Glazers purchased utd for £790m at a time when players and their wages were a fraction of their cost now, and profit margins were much greater, it also was not their money so everything since has been pure profit for them, selling up until now has not been too tempting, clubs were not achieving such prices until Chelsea skewed the price in no small part due to the massive debt owed to Abramovich.

Of course nobody is going to be able to recoup a £6bn investment with dividends. Anyone buying United will be doing so in the hope that the value of these clubs hasn't peaked yet - their ROI comes further down the road, when they sell the club off for a handsome profit.

Even if we end up with many peoples' nightmare scenario of a US consortium of some kind (perhaps with a PE fund in tow, whose primary aim is maximising their returns) the only way they can reasonably see any profit is by increasing the value of United as a business - that means significant investment into players and infrastructure, as well as exploring potential new avenues of commercial & broadcast revenues (eg streaming rights). Just because a group might happen to be American, does not automatically mean they are The Glazers mkII, looking to leach off the club while it dies a slow death - that business model has run its course, hence the Glazers' "strategic review".

 

[Krakenzero]

How is member ownership the best case? Do you want directors elections? Politics and populism? Check Barcelona for a good example of the pitfalls of that model.

Profitseeking private ownership is the way to go, for me.

But that's what United currently have. And they have spend now 18-20 years complaining about it.

Barcelona is financially at the ropes right now. They are also the 2nd most sucessful team of the century. The first one isn't a profitseeking private ownership either.

 

[Red in STL]

But that's what United currently have. And they have spend now 18-20 years complaining about it.

Barcelona is financially at the ropes right now. They are also the 2nd most sucessful team of the century. The first one isn't a profitseeking private ownership either.

There's different versions of profit seeking ownership, there's the the Glazer way of purchasing it using borrowed money and placing the debt on the club and there's buying it and running it as a profit making business

 

[glazed]

Our governments do billions in trade creating countless job opportunities with such nations. A complete boycott on the scale of Russia would show those Arabs. Who cares about us losing jobs and not being able to heat our homes and cripple our businesses.

Doesn't mean we have to respect their values or want them owning 'our' football club. Unless you think it's just another business and you're just a customer?

 

[Sultan]

Doesn't mean we have to respect their values or want them owning 'our' football club. Unless you think it's just another business and you're just a customer?

Definition of "ours"?

 

[Valencia's Left Foot]

I've seen this debated across Redcafe, fanzines and social media and thought it deserved a thread. But MODS feel free to close if this is too similar to other threads

People seem to think the two likeliest options are A state Backed takeover or a PE type takeover which would be owners not looking to invest or bothered about on-field success, but seeking a profit. Add your own thoughts.

I respect everyone's opinion, but request that you explain your reasons

I don't care who the owners are as long as they legitimately have a strong desire to win...someone who is competitive and has pride in owning a winning club. If seeking profits is their only goal than they need to get the hell out.

 

[Valencia's Left Foot]

I'm therefore not sure I'll be a United fan if we get taken over by a state.

This is such a weak mentality to me. I've been a United fan since birth, it runs in my family's blood and I'm never going to allow some dipshit owners to take that away from me.

 

[MUFC OK]

 

[glazed]

Definition of "ours"?

The club we have an irrational desire to watch winning football games due to the transplantation of primitive tribal urges onto a commercial sporting organisation which we (may) give money to.

 

[Red in STL]

This is such a weak mentality to me. I've been a United fan since birth, it runs in my family's blood and I'm never going to allow some dipshit owners to take that away from me.

Weak mentality - I say that is the very definition of a plastic fan!

 

[ROFLUTION]

This is such a weak mentality to me. I've been a United fan since birth, it runs in my family's blood and I'm never going to allow some dipshit owners to take that away from me.

Im in the exact same situation as you family wise. Ive met the biggest players and I’ve lived for United. And feck you for calling me weak, if anything this makes me stand up for having ethical owners more.

At least I dont have a need to call other fans weak to convince myself im a bigger fan or a correct fan. We’re all different - but to me you just go along with any morals even though it would make the clubs results shallow and hollow like what we see with City. To me that goes directly against the history of this club (before the Glazers, feck them too)

Edit: feck the poster above too who belittles a lifelong fan and capsules me as plastic because I believe there’s no need to sportswash our great club. How on earth is it plastic to stand up against immoral owners?

 

[Eugenius]

Of course nobody is going to be able to recoup a £6bn investment with dividends. Anyone buying United will be doing so in the hope that the value of these clubs hasn't peaked yet - their ROI comes further down the road, when they sell the club off for a handsome profit.

Even if we end up with many peoples' nightmare scenario of a US consortium of some kind (perhaps with a PE fund in tow, whose primary aim is maximising their returns) the only way they can reasonably see any profit is by increasing the value of United as a business - that means significant investment into players and infrastructure, as well as exploring potential new avenues of commercial & broadcast revenues (eg streaming rights). Just because a group might happen to be American, does not automatically mean they are The Glazers mkII, looking to leach off the club while it dies a slow death - that business model has run its course, hence the Glazers' "strategic review".

Private equity companies are not known for investing more than they need to. Especially when there is very little financial return on a new training ground or building a new stadium for £1bn which doesn't increase capacity too much.

 

[Red in STL]

Im in the exact same situation as you family wise. Ive met the biggest players and I’ve lived for United. And feck you for calling me weak, if anything this makes me stand up for having ethical owners more.

At least I dont have a need to call other fans weak to convince myself im a bigger fan or a correct fan. We’re all different - but to me you just go along with any morals even though it would make the clubs results shallow and hollow like what we see with City. To me that goes directly against the history of this club (before the Glazers, feck them too)

Edit: feck the poster above too who belittles a lifelong fan and capsules me as plastic because I believe there’s no need to sportswash our great club. How on earth is it plastic to stand up against immoral owners?

A lifelong United fan (or of any other club) doesn't give up supporting their team because of whomever the owners happen to be,

There's a difference between supporting your team and supporting the owners, they aren't mutually exclusive, you can do one without doing the other

 

[ROFLUTION]

A lifelong United fan (or of any other club) doesn't give up supporting their team because of whomever the owners happen to be,

There's a difference between supporting your team and supporting the owners, they aren't mutually exclusive, you can do one without doing the other

Please enlighten me on how YOU will do this then. Will you sing anti owner songs each week?

If you just support the team like always, and you go to the stadium and you sing United songs, you will indirectly or directly be part of a sportswashing agenda, there’s no way around it.

 

[Red in STL]

Please enlighten me on how YOU will do this then. Will you sing anti owner songs each week?

If you just support the team like always, and you go to the stadium and you sing United songs, you will indirectly or directly be part of a sportswashing agenda, there’s no way around it.

I have done so in the past

Stopping supporting the team financially, not going to games or buying merchandise and that kind of thing is perfectly fine, stopping supporting a team completely because of who owns it is a step too far IMO for a true fan

 

[GioF]

There’s such a huge difference in State ownership when looking at City, Newcastle, PSG etc and then the likes of us and Liverpool.

We are universally recognised as the biggest club in the UK and top 3 in Europe. We have the history of the great sides and also the Munich disaster and the way we came back is something which money could never buy.

If we are bought by a state and backed financially then I would be happy.

The likes of city who some people outside the Uk didn’t even know existed says it all. They have quite literally bought their titles. They bought their manager. They bought players who didn’t even know there was another team in Manchester. They all went for the pound note.

We can offer the money to compete with City and Newcastle who let’s be honest couldn’t attract top players if it wasn’t for the cash, AND the history/fan base from all over the world.

The only other team who could be state owned and I genuinely wouldn’t feel jealous of would be Liverpool. They have the history/fan base etc.

 

[Krakenzero]

There's different versions of profit seeking ownership, there's the the Glazer way of purchasing it using borrowed money and placing the debt on the club and there's buying it and running it as a profit making business

I agree that in the end it's about managing the club well. For some, that could be financial sustainability and stock price. For some that could be wins and trophies.

Anyway, it looks like a Fracking corporation is now being linked to the club. I would like to know if they are preferable to all sportwashing states, most of them of just some of them. My impression is that there's no big difference to be made in ownership.

 

[ROFLUTION]

I have done so in the past

Stopping supporting the team financially, not going to games or buying merchandise and that kind of thing is perfectly fine, stopping supporting a team completely because of who owns it is a step too far IMO for a true fan

Your boycot will do nothing this time though - it has no function as the owners dont care/dont need your money.

How about the results? If United buy Mbappe and other stars and our results will be because of that, wont that only/mostly be because of the owners?

So you’ll raise your fist with one hand to protest against the owners, but salute them with your other hand if we win the league? (Due to the results they make happen due to mega spending)

 

[Red in STL]

I agree that in the end it's about managing the club well. For some, that could be financial sustainability and stock price. For some that could be wins and trophies.

Anyway, it looks like a Fracking corporation is now being linked to the club. I would like to know if they are preferable to all sportwashing states, most of them of just some of them. My impression is that there's no big difference to be made in ownership.

I think the objection to the ME states is morality and ethics and there's nothing wrong with that, except most people are making comments using electronic equipment that comes from an equally immoral and unethical source and probably happily driving their cars and heating their homes using fuel obtained from other equally objectional sources, to me it's selective objection

 

[Sultan]

United has been part of my life and no matter the owner this will not stop. Home and away games for decades have been ingrained the in my ecosystem. It's a heart thing.

Morality police are welcome to question my integrity if they think the owners are not to your taste.

 

[phelans shorts]

I think the objection to the ME states is morality and ethics and there's nothing wrong with that, except most people are making comments using electronic equipment that comes from an equally immoral and unethical source and probably happily driving their cars and heating their homes using fuel obtained from other equally objectional sources, to me it's selective objection

feck me not this dumb shit again.

You’re making a totally false equivalency. People need heat. People need transport. People need phones and the internet in the modern world, it’s just a fact. You just make yourself look like that meme of the guy in the well telling everyone how clever he is when you make statements like this.

 

[Red in STL]

Your boycot will do nothing this time though - it has no function as the owners dont care/dont need your money.

How about the results? If United buy Mbappe and other stars and our results will be because of that, wont that only/mostly be because of the owners?

So you’ll raise your fist with one hand to protest against the owners, but salute them with your other hand if we win the league? (Due to the results they make happen due to mega spending)

I don't salute or praise the owners - I support the team that's out there on the pitch no matter who they are

Any player we've bought in the past or in the future is down to the owner, and we've had some objectional ones in the past, Google Louis Edwards as an example

 

[Red in STL]

feck me not this dumb shit again.

You’re making a totally false equivalency. People need heat. People need transport. People need phones and the internet in the modern world, it’s just a fact. You just make yourself look like that meme of the guy in the well telling everyone how clever he is when you make statements like this.

But you don't have to get phones and computers from China, we're just not prepared to pay the price of one built in the UK or somewhere else that's not a morally objectional place

One can also argue that it's morally objectionable to transport food halfway round the world so we can eat out of season strawberries or whatever but we most of us do it anyway

I don't like the idea of ME states buying clubs but it's a bit hypocritical to say "well we need other stuff from equally objectional states because it's cheaper"

 

[georgipep]

Depends on the profit seeking model, that's exactly what we have now and we don't want that

A model like the Bezos/Washington Post might be a better way

Give me what we have over Barcelona or City ownership, any day of the week

 

[georgipep]

Problem with profitseeking ownership is 5-6bn purchase plus 1-2bninvestment in the infrastructure, an outlay between 6-8bn, if the new owners then take no money out of the club and buy no players, assuming all of our debts are cleared and we cut all the excess expenditure from our wage bill it would still take 30+ years to break even on their investment and that is assuming a manager can keep us successful without investment.

OK they would still have the value of the club but assuming that remains stable the only way they gain from it is either by leveraging debt against it or selling it on once as per the Glazers, that would probably be one of the worst long term investment plans in history. Remember that Glazers purchased utd for £790m at a time when players and their wages were a fraction of their cost now, and profit margins were much greater, it also was not their money so everything since has been pure profit for them, selling up until now has not been too tempting, clubs were not achieving such prices until Chelsea skewed the price in no small part due to the massive debt owed to Abramovich.

And how would that problem going to be solved by a member owned model?

 

[georgipep]

But that's what United currently have. And they have spend now 18-20 years complaining about it.

Barcelona is financially at the ropes right now. They are also the 2nd most sucessful team of the century. The first one isn't a profitseeking private ownership either.

I'm fine with our model and owners, especially in the context of the most plausible alternatives

 

[Flexdegea]

I'll support the club no matter what as the club is the fans, the players, stadium, history etc


At the same time it's a bit sickening how a lot of fans seem to be foaming at the mouth about becoming a state owned club, especially after all the abuse we have gave city, and even Chelsea when they were run with a blank chequebook on steroid money.


Never mind the human rights issues as well, it's doesn't sit too well with me.