The Glazers have named their price

I want the owner who is chomping at the bit to run this team back to glory. I want the owner who will knock the Glazers out with a strong offer they cannot refuse. Not going to get involved in the modern day demonizing of some owner possibilities, as what matters for that ownership group is winning. This is a sport. It is a pleasurable pastime made more pleasurable when you win. If you're going into this with a laundry list of hopes that you'll get some perfect fit like the local hero riding in on his horse and saving the day you are just setting yourself up for disappointment.

What matters is two things: deep pockets and competitive drive. This club must have a deep pockets type owner at some point in the near future to compete and sustain being a "big club." Chelsea has Boehly now who is going to be aggressive with deep pockets. Arse has Kroenke who has put a clinic on in the NFL and has a team now plus the deep pockets. City has the second biggest bankrolling owner in the sport and it shows in everything they do. Newcastle is coming with the richest ownership group in the sport. Glazers are probably not up to snuff to compete with the big dogs and we need an owner who is.
 
I know its a huge investment but I think we should actually be a very good option to buy as a club. I could be wrong but from my, admittedly, amateur opinion I see:

1. The sum it takes to buy the club
2. Clear the debts fully
3. Invest in the stadium and training facilities
4. Find the right people to put in place to guide the club, for me most importantly the right manager is already there.

Lets say it takes roughly 6-7b to achieve this, or can anyone better informed maybe give me a more accurate figure?

Then the fact is that debt free the club should require very little further investment and should in theory run off its own revenues. Hell if we become successful again then the owner could take dividends without angering fans, especially if the club remains debt free.

Seems to me like as healthy an investment you could make in terms of a football club. Not like we need to be built from the ground up like City were.
 
The fact that went over our budget suggests to me that they’re not looking to sell.
 
Boondog said:
I want the owner who is chomping at the bit to run this team back to glory. I want the owner who will knock the Glazers out with a strong offer they cannot refuse. Not going to get involved in the modern day demonizing of some owner possibilities, as what matters for that ownership group is winning. This is a sport. It is a pleasurable pastime made more pleasurable when you win. If you're going into this with a laundry list of hopes that you'll get some perfect fit like the local hero riding in on his horse and saving the day you are just setting yourself up for disappointment.

What matters is two things: deep pockets and competitive drive. This club must have a deep pockets type owner at some point in the near future to compete and sustain being a "big club." Chelsea has Boehly now who is going to be aggressive with deep pockets. Arse has Kroenke who has put a clinic on in the NFL and has a team now plus the deep pockets. City has the second biggest bankrolling owner in the sport and it shows in everything they do. Newcastle is coming with the richest ownership group in the sport. Glazers are probably not up to snuff to compete with the big dogs and we need an owner who is.
Click to expand...

The club has deep pockets and runs itself sustainably based on its past merits.

What we need is an owner who doesn't necessarily want to profit from owning United and just has it for the prestige and thrills.
 
NewYorkRed said:
The fact that went over our budget suggests to me that they’re not looking to sell.
Click to expand...

Or they are spending a relatively little amount of the clubs money in order to keep us from being so shite we drive the market price down?
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
The club has deep pockets and runs itself sustainably based on its past merits.

What we need is an owner who doesn't necessarily want to profit from owning United and just has it for the prestige and thrills.
Click to expand...
I think you are being unrealistic. This is a business. The owner has a right to take some profit from the club time to time. Shouldn't be all the time, but to act like the owner should never profit is ridiculous and demonstrates a lack of business knowledge on your part.

Right now as a fan base we have a groupthink developing where ridiculous ideals are being held for any new owner coming in. He can't take money from the club. He can't be from the middle east they torture people and hate gays. He can't be from the US they don't understand English football. He can't be an owner who wants to use the brand commercially to make money. And so on.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
There’s also our debt at £500m and renovation/rebuild of OT, upgrades to Carrington etc that could be up to 1.5bn.

5.5-6 bn investment for paltry financial return is a steep price still.
Click to expand...

Owners of football clubs dont generally buy them as a return on investment directly, its more of a branding tool for the superrich owners. Roman lost billions on the Chelsea sale, having to give up the clubs debts to him personally.

Manchester United will go Jim Ratcliffes portfolio and will, in the case of a purchase, be subject to sponsorships from his other business ventures and profile building. But the most important thing is that he gets to live the dream of just owning a Premier League club as one of only 20 on the planet. I dont believe he wants to buy it as an investment, but rather because he simply wants to own Manchester United. For the good of the club.
 
Boondog said:
I think you are being unrealistic. This is a business. The owner has a right to take some profit from the club time to time. Shouldn't be all the time, but to act like the owner should never profit is ridiculous and demonstrates a lack of business knowledge on your part.

Right now as a fan base we have a groupthink developing where ridiculous ideals are being held for any new owner coming in. He can't take money from the club. He can't be from the middle east they torture people and hate gays. He can't be from the US they don't understand English football. He can't be an owner who wants to use the brand commercially to make money. And so on.
Click to expand...

I think you have missed the part where MUFC is the only club that pays shareholder dividends. There is established history in the Premier League that owners do not siphon money from the club. Except the Glazer family.

Sure yes, dividends from suplus is a right the board can give to shareholders. But heres the important aspect: They dont have to.

The Glazer family has invested none of their own money into the club, and only saddled it with debt. The funds the owner allocate for player purchase come from the clubs own cash reserve, earnings and bankloans, not owner investment.

MUFC is a football club with a business aspect. Football clubs are different from commerce businesses that sell products in the sense that they are just that, football clubs.

The only thing thats unrealistic is expecting our owners, and only our owners, to take care of the club like other club owners do.
 
Tom Cato said:
I think you have missed the part where MUFC is the only club that pays shareholder dividends. There is established history in the Premier League that owners do not siphon money from the club. Except the Glazer family.

Sure yes, dividends from suplus is a right the board can give to shareholders. But heres the important aspect: They dont have to.

The Glazer family has invested none of their own money into the club, and only saddled it with debt. The funds the owner allocate for player purchase come from the clubs own cash reserve, earnings and bankloans, not owner investment.

MUFC is a football club with a business aspect. Football clubs are different from commerce businesses that sell products in the sense that they are just that, football clubs.

The only thing thats unrealistic is expecting our owners, and only our owners, to take care of the club like other club owners do.
Click to expand...
No I get that. Just pointing out that acting like an owner should never take money from the club is naive. And the Glazers failure is well established. No need to beat that horse any more here I am in full agreement they need to go.

Moving forward and in the hopes that a sale goes through some time in the next year or two I think it's important for the fan base to realize that maybe they're going to have to deal with someone other than an Englishman with 100% pure intentions buying the team.
 
Tom Cato said:
I dont believe he wants to buy it as an investment, but rather because he simply wants to own Manchester United. For the good of the club.
Click to expand...

I dunno about the last sentence. For his own ego more than the good of the club, I would think. But whatever (yes, I know he's apparently a United fan).

But in general, yes - I would think that he isn't likely to regard it as a brilliant investment first and foremost. There's a limit to how much money you can make from owning a football club. The dividends the Glazers have taken out during their time aren't exactly huge relatively speaking. If you want to make a huge profit from the business itself (not from developing the brand and then sell it at some point, but from running the business itself), there are many things you can buy that are much more profitable than a football club. It's extremely expensive to run a football club.
 
Boondog said:
I think you are being unrealistic. This is a business. The owner has a right to take some profit from the club time to time. Shouldn't be all the time, but to act like the owner should never profit is ridiculous and demonstrates a lack of business knowledge on your part.

Right now as a fan base we have a groupthink developing where ridiculous ideals are being held for any new owner coming in. He can't take money from the club. He can't be from the middle east they torture people and hate gays. He can't be from the US they don't understand English football. He can't be an owner who wants to use the brand commercially to make money. And so on.
Click to expand...
I think you’re being extremely naïve

name me any owner of a top (ie world brand) professional club world wide - nba, nfl, football, nhl - where an owner takes millions out of the club besides our Glazers.

people own these top clubs for the prestige and plough millions of their own money in to have that privilege.

Top clubs like the bulls, cowboys, Madrid - across all sports - would not accept their owners taking dividends.

Build the brand and sell at a profit but don’t take from the club
 
Honest question, but why won’t the Glazers sell?

It makes no sense to me to take ~ £20m of dividends each year for an investment that you actually didn’t invest bugger all money into when you could just sell and take a few billion right now instead. Particularly when you’re at the age they are and have zero interest in football it seems.

What are they gaining apart from the value increasing a little each year? Is it just leverage for other investments?
 
I don’t know why I keep on having thoughts of Kanye West buying Man United.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.