State sportswashing ownership or Profit-seeking ownership?

[Red in STL]

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

You're in a minority, the Glazers would probably be acceptable if they hadn't saddled us with the debt they got to buy us in the first place

 

[bosnian_red]

State ownership wouldn't lose me as a fan but any success would feel fake. It's like the little bit of pride you get in FM when you properly play the game compared to using the editor to pump money to your club or save/reload to get a better result. Yeah in both ways you won.... But it feels like cheating in one method. State ownership would make the success that comes feel hollow when we start throwing Chelsea level of spending every summer and blow all the competition out of the water. You lose the sense of pride when you start spending cheating levels of money. I'd much rather go through some struggles and build normally, fairly, reasonably and achieve success that way.

 

[Red in STL]

State ownership wouldn't lose me as a fan but any success would feel fake. It's like the little bit of pride you get in FM when you properly play the game compared to using the editor to pump money to your club or save/reload to get a better result. Yeah in both ways you won.... But it feels like cheating in one method. State ownership would make the success that comes feel hollow when we start throwing Chelsea level of spending every summer and blow all the competition out of the water. You lose the sense of pride when you start spending cheating levels of money. I'd much rather go through some struggles and build normally, fairly, reasonably and achieve success that way.

Why fake, as the rate it's going the competition will be against other state owned entities or dubious consortiums

 

[bosnian_red]

Why fake, as the rate it's going the competition will be against other state owned entities or dubious consortiums

Focusing purely on the pitch, we don't need to be state owned to still be competing and succeeding against these clubs. All we need is an owner who wipes out the debt, and lets the club be self sufficient and doesn't take money out of the club, and makes smart decisions. City have transformed not just because of money, because they've made a hell of a lot of very smart decisions. Don't be clouded by just them being state owned and think it's all money. Money enabled them to make smart decisions but United could have made each and every single one of the decisions that they made - but we didn't. I don't want United to be a state run club from a football perspective, because quite frankly United just don't need it to still be at the top. Other clubs who don't have as much money might have a decision to make one day. United is exempt from that unless we keep the trajectory of the past decade of making horrible decisions and burning money on pointless debts and dividends.

 

[georgipep]

You're in a minority, the Glazers would probably be acceptable if they hadn't saddled us with the debt they got to buy us in the first place

Yeah, definitely in the minority and I realise it's not perfect setting but the alternatives are much worse in my view.

 

[Red in STL]

Yeah, definitely in the minority and I realise it's not perfect setting but the alternatives are much worse in my view.

The alternatives, whilst possibly objectionable, would get us where we need to be, that is never happening with the current ownership

 

[Zed 101]

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

I was responding to the point of view that the only option would be for utd to be purchased by a consortium looking to make profit, that actually it would be a poor investment in terms of risk and dividends.

A sole purchaser may be motivated by vanity or bragging rights, there is certainly a rivalry between Arab states in regards to football club ownership, other motives, i.e. ineos may see other benefits i.e. marketing, prestige, brand portfolio, this may be the case of a bidder like Amazon were they to throw their hats into the rink, but they would needs a business where other streams would benefit, unlike an investment group.

 

[georgipep]

The alternatives, whilst possibly objectionable, would get us where we need to be, that is never happening with the current ownership

"get us where we need to be", for me, does not include be the vehicle for sportswashing, not being a member owned populistic circus.

 

[georgipep]

I was responding to the point of view that the only option would be for utd to be purchased by a consortium looking to make profit, that actually it would be a poor investment in terms of risk and dividends.

A sole purchaser may be motivated by vanity or bragging rights, there is certainly a rivalry between Arab states in regards to football club ownership, other motives, i.e. ineos may see other benefits i.e. marketing, prestige, brand portfolio, this may be the case of a bidder like Amazon were they to throw their hats into the rink, but they would needs a business where other streams would benefit, unlike an investment group.

I mainly agree, thus have said many times that people need to be careful what they wish for.

 

[sugar_kane]

Focusing purely on the pitch, we don't need to be state owned to still be competing and succeeding against these clubs. All we need is an owner who wipes out the debt, and lets the club be self sufficient and doesn't take money out of the club, and makes smart decisions. City have transformed not just because of money, because they've made a hell of a lot of very smart decisions. Don't be clouded by just them being state owned and think it's all money. Money enabled them to make smart decisions but United could have made each and every single one of the decisions that they made - but we didn't. I don't want United to be a state run club from a football perspective, because quite frankly United just don't need it to still be at the top. Other clubs who don't have as much money might have a decision to make one day. United is exempt from that unless we keep the trajectory of the past decade of making horrible decisions and burning money on pointless debts and dividends.

Came here to say pretty much this.

We don’t need sugar daddies, we just need someone to clear the debt and run the club properly.

Better facilities are also important but they can still be delivered without oil money.

No point ridding ourselves of the leeches just to sell our soul.

 

[Red in STL]

We don’t need sugar daddies, we just need someone to clear the debt and run the club properly

Know anyone with a few billion to spare?

The choices are, a sugar daddy, an oil type state or a business person/consortium looking to make money - that's it

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

The alternatives, whilst possibly objectionable, would get us where we need to be, that is never happening with the current ownership

This. Whether we like it or not, many big European clubs at this moment have massive backing from government-based entities that are either local or foreign at the moment. Let's have a look at some right here:

Real Madrid - Funded by the Spanish government through illegal tax cuts, sponsored by a state-owned company from the UAE (Fly Emirates).
Barcelona - Funded by the Spanish/Catalan government through illegal tax cuts.
Bayern Munich - Backed by several German companies with deep ties with the German government, and now sponsored by Qatar Airways.
PSG - Owned and funded by Qatar Sports Investments.
Manchester City - Owned at 81% of the shares by Abu Dhabi United Group.
Newcastle United - Owned at 80% of the shares by the (Saudi) Public Investment Fund.
Zenit Saint-Petersburg - Owned by Russian majority state-owned Gazprom.

We can complain about the state of affairs and the arrival of sportswashing in football ownership, but the fact remains that those clubs usually don't feck around when public funds are involved.

 

[FrankFoot]

This. Whether we like it or not, many big European clubs at this moment have massive backing from government-based entities that are either local or foreign at the moment. Let's have a look at some right here:

Real Madrid - Funded by the Spanish government through illegal tax cuts, sponsored by a state-owned company from the UAE (Fly Emirates).
Barcelona - Funded by the Spanish/Catalan government through illegal tax cuts.
Bayern Munich - Backed by several German companies with deep ties with the German government, and now sponsored by Qatar Airways.
PSG - Owned and funded by Qatar Sports Investments.
Manchester City - Owned at 81% of the shares by Abu Dhabi United Group.
Newcastle United - Owned at 80% of the shares by the (Saudi) Public Investment Fund.
Zenit Saint-Petersburg - Owned by Russian majority state-owned Gazprom.

We can complain about the state of affairs and the arrival of sportswashing in football ownership, but the fact remains that those usually clubs don't feck around when public funds are involved.

That's not the idea, if you do this you can name every big club in all countries, cause certainly they all attract sponsors from national companies.

I think that it's not the same as being literally owned by an state like PSG, Newcastle, or City, who pump infinite money into the club using owned-state companies to replace revenue they can't produce cause they were never big clubs.
Look at the salary PSG is paying to Mbappe just for him not to leave to Madrid, there is no way they pay him that ridiculous money without Qatar cheating, cause PSG could never produce that money.

 

[Red in STL]

That's not the idea, if you do this you can name every big club in all countries, cause certainly they all have sponsors from national companies.

I think that it's not the same as being literally owned by an state like PSG, Newcastle, or City, who pump infinite money into the club using owned state companies to replace revenue they can't produce cause they were not big clubs.
Look at the salary PSG is paying to Mbappe just for him not to leave to Madrid, there is no way they pay him that ridiculous money without Qatar cheating the FFP.

Out of that list only Bayern is not essentially a state owned entity

RM were/are essentially propped up by the Spanish government
Barca by the Catalan regional government
The rest are funded by State owned businesses or investment funds
There are others that used to be state funded but probably aren't these days, most of the former Soviet states had teams that were state funded, Dynamo Kiev, Red Star Belgrade and so on

 

[Tincanalley]

An American consortium "like the Glazers" is not a realistic prospect. Nobody is taking over United in a £5bn+ leveraged buy out (with the debt being loaded on to the club's balance sheet). Comparing that hypothetical to a "monster sportswashing project" is a transparent attempt by you to swing the outcome of any potential poll in this thread, towards your preferred option of a state buyout.

Excellent- well said.

 

[StiffTackle]

We all know the things that the sportswashing countries are accused of and we continue to watch the premier league whilst their teams compete in it. We’re all complicit in sports washing bi matter who owns our particular club. They know we know what goes on, so they aren’t trying to change hearts and minds. Apathy is the desired outcome here and if we dont care enough to have boycotted the sport by now we never will.

So for me it doesn’t matter. I’ll take the sports washing state or I’ll take the polluting, tax dodging brexiteer. As long as they come in and act responsibly (no boehly DoF for me please) and alleviate the financial burdens the Glazers put on us - what will be will be.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

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.

Very few are questioning other's integrity. It's just for some, supporting a sports-washing project does not sit right. If those people stop supporting United, it wouldn't matter to United one bit as we have so many supporters. I personally would be way less enthusiastic about us if we are state owned and this probably would mean apathy at one point.

 

[bringbackbebe]

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

I agree. I think given the alternatives, we're better off if they stay on as primary investors & bring in an additional shareholder who brings in enough money to pay off the debt & redevelop OT. Not likely to happen since anyone investing so much will want more control.

 

[AlPistacho]

I work for a company that sells military material en masse to the Middle East, so I've already thought long and hard about this subject.

The key thing I believe is that increased economic, political and cultural ties between the West and developing countries such as these generally progress in correlation with improved human rights standards there. For example, I'd say we've seen far more positive change over recent decades from the likes of Qatar - due to the increased social spotlight/goodwill/leverage/etc. we have from engagement with them - than we have from the likes of North Korea or Iran. It's also important to note that these countries are of huge global strategic importance; ostracising them would only push them further towards the influence orbits of less progressive superpowers such as China, which is of no benefit to us at all.

Given that I don't believe increased co-operation between ourselves and these countries has a negative impact on the human rights situations there, my conscience is clear for us to continue reaping the substantial benefits that do result from these relationships, such as the inward investment which keeps our economy (maybe including Manchester United) ticking and the intelligence sharing that keeps us safe.

There you go. The lord of war doesn’t object so it’s settled.

 

[georgipep]

I agree. I think given the alternatives, we're better off if they stay on as primary investors & bring in an additional shareholder who brings in enough money to pay off the debt & redevelop OT. Not likely to happen since anyone investing so much will want more control.

The additional investor will either have certain ROI expectations or will come from the same source, needing sportswashing. I can't see why anyone would just dump money on something that doesn't generate returns right away.
And fans don't like dividend payouts right?

 

[sugar_kane]

Know anyone with a few billion to spare?

The choices are, a sugar daddy, an oil type state or a business person/consortium looking to make money - that's it

I’m comfortable with the money makers provided they let football experts run the club. I’d rather we were ran as a self sustainable business than some falsely inflated entity, we don’t need to be financially doped in that way because our history of success and dedicated fan base already makes us more revenue than most clubs in the world.

The reason the Glazer model is so hateful is because of the debt and the terrible way they ran the club, meddling where they shouldn’t and being hands off where attention was needed. They let us spend around as much money on transfers as Man City it was just pissed up the wall by a series of managers who were ill suited to the club.

If a competent set of owners had been in charge these past ten years and we had spent the same amount of money I’m certain we’d have won the league and be in a much healthier position right now squad wise. Maybe we’d have even saved some cash to spend on the ground.

 

[bringbackbebe]

The additional investor will either have certain ROI expectations or will come from the same source, needing sportswashing. I can't see why anyone would just dump money on something that doesn't generate returns right away.
And fans don't like dividend payouts right?

It'll be Saudi Arabia. They're the only ones who can afford to shell out 7b without blinking an eye & not care about returns. United's revenues are about 600m - so justifying a 7b investment which "can" generate a profit of about 50m a year & having to put up with fan trouble on dividend payout etc is absurd for anyone else tbh.

 

[GregM40]

 

[BarstoolProphet]

It'll be Saudi Arabia. They're the only ones who can afford to shell out 7b without blinking an eye & not care about returns. United's revenues are about 600m - so justifying a 7b investment which "can" generate a profit of about 50m a year & having to put up with fan trouble on dividend payout etc is absurd for anyone else tbh.

Really doubt anyone considering buying a Premier League nowadays are doing so with dividends in mind. Instead they do so with the sole focus on asset growth, speculating that value of the clubs will continue to rise at an extraordinary rate.

 

[Tarrou]

I know I'll get slammed on here for saying it. But, I think the best outcome may be that the Glazers keep the club but get a minority outside investment sufficient to fund the stadium improvements. It's taken them far too long but they seem to finally be learning from their earlier mistakes, if we get someone new in they may make the same mistakes all over again.

As opposed to a Boehly at Chelsea, the Glazers have always been hands-off type owners. That worked well when the football side of the club was being run by Gill and Ferguson. It has been terrible for the past decade under Woodward. They were clearly a bit tight with funds during the Gill/Ferguson era, but I think there has been lots of money spent during Woodword's tenure. It has just been wasted.

- They have (FINALLY) rid themselves of Woodward. I'm not certain of the competence of the Arnold / Murtough combination but it seems an upgrade on Woodward that's for sure.
- They have hired an intelligent, modern manager who still has something to prove, rather than managers on the decline living off their reputations or, well I don't like to badmouth Ole because I love the man, but you all know what I mean.
- They began investing more in the youth set-up a few years back and we seem to be beginning to reap the rewards of that with some exciting youth prospects around the first team (Garnacho in particular, but also a few others who seem close).
- They have recognized the stadium needs investment and are well into the planning process. They probably don't have the money for this themselves but that's where a minority investment could help.
- It's hard to say for certain but they seem to be trying to get some control over our bloated wage structure which makes it so hard to unload failed players (the current salary negotiations with De Gea insisting he take a pay-cut if he wants to stay, we're rid of Ronaldo and Cavani, there was a thread on here a few days ago saying they were trying to cap salaries around 200k).
- It's early to say for certain but the recruitment this summer seems to have improved although certainly still less than perfect. (overpaid for Anthony because we delayed so long in going for him, I love Casemiro but we may also have overpaid for him if he declines as rapidly as Matic did but at the moment it's looking a great signing as are Martinez, Malacia and Eriksen).

If feels like we've finally turned a corner and are improving on all fronts in a sustainable fashion. I would really hate to have a new owner come in and kick the table over and start all over again.

the Glazers could have got rid of Woodward any time they liked, but chose to keep him for years, because he was running the club how they wanted

the problem wasn't Woodward, it was the Glazers, and the fact they ran the club to make money and could not give one feck about success as long as they made it.. Woodward was a symptom of that

the fact they finally stumbled upon a decent manager is neither here not there, they had to get lucky on that front at some point

 

[bringbackbebe]

Really doubt anyone considering buying a Premier League nowadays are doing so with dividends in mind. Instead they do so with the sole focus on asset growth, speculating that value of the clubs will continue to rise at an extraordinary rate.

That was the approach 20 years back when TV rights & commercial revenue were increasing at an exponential pace. That's pretty much peaked & revenues have more or less flattened out - I doubt there's going to be significant asset value increase like what we've witnessed. Glazers for eg have seen their investment grow from 700m to (at least) 4b in about 15 years (13% compounded a year). In 15 year's time, United are not going to be worth 25b.

The only reason why someone will want us at the 6-7b valuation being touted is sports washing.

 

[Infra-red]

That was the approach 20 years back when TV rights & commercial revenue were increasing at an exponential pace. That's pretty much peaked & revenues have more or less flattened out - I doubt there's going to be significant asset value increase like what we've witnessed. Glazers for eg have seen their investment grow from 700m to (at least) 4b in about 15 years (13% compounded a year). In 15 year's time, United are not going to be worth 25b.

The only reason why someone will want us at the 6-7b valuation being touted is sports washing.

Let's wait and see. I'd be very surprised if the pool of potential buyers consisted solely of nation states - in fact, I'm not expecting any nation states to make a play for United.

 

[BarstoolProphet]

That was the approach 20 years back when TV rights & commercial revenue were increasing at an exponential pace. That's pretty much peaked & revenues have more or less flattened out - I doubt there's going to be significant asset value increase like what we've witnessed. Glazers for eg have seen their investment grow from 700m to (at least) 4b in about 15 years (13% compounded a year). In 15 year's time, United are not going to be worth 25b.

The only reason why someone will want us at the 6-7b valuation being touted is sports washing.

That's the thing - we don't know if it has peaked yet. Noone could have foreseen the exponential rise in asset value back then and no one can now say for a certainty that we have reached the peak. There's several potential revenue streams yet to be fully explored (matchday experience, streaming rights, alternative venue income etc.). There's a reason small market American sports teams are valued the same as the worldwide megaclubs in football.

 

[Red in STL]

That's the thing - we don't know if it has peaked yet. Noone could have foreseen the exponential rise in asset value back then and no one can now say for a certainty that we have reached the peak. There's several potential revenue streams yet to be fully explored (matchday experience, streaming rights, alternative venue income etc.). There's a reason small market American sports teams are valued the same as the worldwide megaclubs in football.

In it's current format the TV rights probably have peaked, commercial opportunities haven't reached even close to a peak, United started the idea of localized sponsorship and such like and there's a lot still untouched

 

[georgipep]

It'll be Saudi Arabia. They're the only ones who can afford to shell out 7b without blinking an eye & not care about returns. United's revenues are about 600m - so justifying a 7b investment which "can" generate a profit of about 50m a year & having to put up with fan trouble on dividend payout etc is absurd for anyone else tbh.

I really hope you're wrong for my own United support's sake

 

[LawCharltonBest]

So… would you take a Middle East bid now to stop one of these PE US firms getting us?

 

[red thru&thru]

So… would you take a Middle East bid now to stop one of these PE US firms getting us?

I would ALWAYS take ME over these US firms.