Martin Edward’s almost sold United to Michael Knighton in 1988 for 20-30mOr Leicester costing 30m
Liverpool just 300m only 10 years ago.
But there’s no money in it.
that wouldnt buy a reserve player these days!
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
- Status
that wouldnt buy a reserve player these days!
So what’s propping it up that it’s now a bubble?
I remember the Saudis bidding 1.5 billion for us in 2011 and fans saying it was such a great deal for the Glazers. I’m sure the math checked out then as wel
All it takes is for different tv deals or a super league to happen in 5 years time and they’ll make back buckets of money
Given the clamour to buy Chelsea 6 months ago, evidence would suggest you’re wrong.
oil money, obviously
there are only so many nation states
the world is devolving from oil
and there is a cap on how much it's worth it to these states to pump money into a football club, especially when they see the Saudi's already involved
it's already costing several times as much as it cost City's owners to buy/build an elite club
do you honestly think this is sustainable? its killing the game and peoples interest in the game too
Chelsea were probably 3x times cheaper. And they got sold quickly and under unique circumstances. It makes sense that private equity would be circling around to try and scalp some value there don't you think? Most of those buyers likely thinking it'd be sold on the cheap but backed out when they saw the price.
United isn't going on the cheap, and sadly I don't see anything other than a nation state buying us.
What’s oil money got to do with it though? You dont have to win leagues to be a successful asset.
I’d also argue more oil clubs, more top teams in England raises the value of everybody. Look at the top teams in the rich lists etc, it’s becoming dominated by English teams from 1 to 20, it’s not just Man City hoovering up all the money and it proves you don’t have to win leagues to raise your income
oil money has created hyper inflation in the transfer market
City could be world class players for 20m when they took over. 20m buys you Nico Williams today, who is frankly shit.
only reason Chelsea remained competitive is they had their own sugar daddy.. and that is the way it's all been heading for a while
anyway I take your point about it raising the value of everyone, that has been happening.. but there has to be a saturation point to all this
I am not suggesting it is definitely now or anytime soon (just that it's way more likely to be soon than it was 10 years ago), and for an investor to put 6bn into United, they need very good reasons to think this growth is sustainable
I’d argue the opposite. Transfers have stabilised. The hyper inflation only really happened during the Neymar fiasco. It also works both ways, the money doesn’t go out of the game. If anything pumping so much money in would attract investors simply because top clubs outside of oil clubs have player assets as well. You can plan around it.
Again, people were telling us 25 years ago that transfers were out of control and unsustainable. Now look. I remember when Roman bought Chelsea and spent 100m in his first window and that was football Armageddon. Everybody would have to risk bankruptcy to compete with them. Veron, Crespo, Makelele ..the end was nigh. Football was dead .
We bought Eric Cantona for 1m in 1992 (confirmed in documentary with Edwards). 7 years later that didn’t even buy you Andy Impey. In fact Wim Jonk or Impey cost you more than double.
Within 10 years of that transfer Inter were paying Coventry City almost 20 times as much for Robbie Keane.
As for Man City, arguably their first World Class (at the time of signing), was Robinho, who went for 43m, just 10m or so less than the transfer price for Haaland (obviously a tonne more in agent, player and daddy fees), or 20 less than they paid for Cancelo.
We could do this for every decade to prove hyper inflation, but there’s actually an argument the market has become more stable in the past decade.
Last edited:
People forget that the Glazers bought when Fergie was still here and trophies were rolling in, that's why they were able to monetize our brand.
Now we are out of Europe, broke and haven't won the title in a decade whilst City are now dominant, Liverpool are years ahead of us and Newcastle didn't even need six months to look ominous but none of these clubs need major infrastructural investment like we do.
Our revenues have flatlined and could decline whereas the only way to raise them is to get back among the the elite of European football, something which would cost money. I don't think we are lucrative enough to pay top dollar on then invest a couple of billions in infrastructure and playing staff whilst turning a reasonable profit in this environment.
If the new owner runs us on business lines he will encounter the same issues that the Glazers faced, remember the Glazers did spend a billion pounds over an eight year period so it's no guarantee that even if you spend a billion over three or five years you will reestablish the club at the upper echelons of the game, fighting for top honors.
The more and more I think about this I wonder whether this is all a ruse. I can understand the implications with Liverpool also selling up, the Super League being out of the question and soaring interest rates, that is surely has to be real and they are selling up. But the pessimist in me asks what if?
What if they have stopped people talking about Ronaldo leaving, the interview, and the current crisis at the club. What if, come January Erik Ten Hag comes back wanting a striker to replace Ronaldo, and the Glazer's say, 'no the clubs for sale, we aren't spending anything'. Only for February to roll around and them to say, 'oh no suitable financial alternatives were found; we are carrying on until a suitable bid/offer comes'.
I guess I just expect the worst these days...
What if they have stopped people talking about Ronaldo leaving, the interview, and the current crisis at the club. What if, come January Erik Ten Hag comes back wanting a striker to replace Ronaldo, and the Glazer's say, 'no the clubs for sale, we aren't spending anything'. Only for February to roll around and them to say, 'oh no suitable financial alternatives were found; we are carrying on until a suitable bid/offer comes'.
I guess I just expect the worst these days...
money is definitely leaking out of the game, clubs are spending 100s of million a year in player salaries
and like I said, it could go on and on for sure.. not disputing that
even if we all accepted it was a bubble (which we don't).. that doesn't mean it will stop soon
but the risk for investors is much higher now at these valuations..
I doubt, they even publicly admitted they are looking to sell, for the first time ever. They probably feel it's the right time to do so, the super league looks to be dead at this point and with the global recession looming, it maybe is the right time to sell to be honest.
Even with the debt, and the big transfer spend in 2022, this shite club is projecting profits of 100-110m next year.
Tickets haven’t been this hard to come by since we had a 45,000 seater stadium.
But no one is getting United off the Glazers for a bargain deal, that's simply not happening. They are paying a premium, we are no longer the dominant but undervalued force we were in 05 because we actually need investment just get build a competitive team in addition to other investments.Or Leicester costing 30m
Liverpool just 300m only 10 years ago.
But there’s no money in it.
Yes we will grow but it's no longer certain or as easy as it was twelve years ago when we were making CL finals for fun. Let's not kid ourselves we are facing a big challenge just to reestablish ourselves as a CL team and in ten years or so that will affect the growth of our fan base.
What on Earth does this have to do with his post?
Just reads like a bizarre attack on a different opinion because you don’t like the clearly valid one you quoted
Makes it even more bizarre the point you’re making about “sales through the media” when yourself posted the following the other day:
Yes. And I've never said a sale can't be done through the media.
This particular poster kept on talking about how business is done and very insistent on it.
We all can hazard a guess at things through our own experiences. However, to be adamant on how something is done or isn't, is very different.
What is £100m year when you have invested or face having to invest £7bn to own the club and get it back on track? There is a reason why the Glazers are selling now, the oil clubs have made it incredibly difficult to be competitive and profitable and we both know that losing the former will always affect the latter.
Spot on!
The 'Super league' or something similar will occur, the PL's position as the world's most saleable professional football extravaganza is under attack now, and the top clubs in Europe want to be in on the act. If our top six clubs leave to join the Super League, then the PL is dead.
With Amazon Prime, Disney +, NetFlix and other mass media interests getting involved with mega bucks made from mass world-wide LIVE sales, the 'Super League' is just around the corner. Anyone anywhere in the world can watch all Utd (and other clubs) games, for the price of membership of PRIME, Disney+, etc.
Our new owners would make billions, even APPLE are now interested, its reported in the Daily Mail they could make the Glazers price of £5.8B in one week
It just doesn’t make sense. The Ronaldo news was a positive for them; so why would they leak this lie, hire intermediaries to deal with a sale that isn’t going to happen etc…
Spot on!
The 'Super league' or something similar will occur, the PL's position as the world's most saleable professional football extravaganza is under attack now, and the top clubs in Europe want to be in on the act. If our top six clubs leave to join the Super League, then the PL is dead.
With Amazon Prime, Disney +, NetFlix and other mass media interests getting involved with mega bucks made from mass world-wide LIVE sales, the 'Super League' is just around the corner. Anyone anywhere in the world can watch all Utd (and other clubs) games, for the price of membership of PRIME, Disney+, etc.
Our new owners would make billions, even APPLE are now interested, its reported in the Daily Mail they could make the Glazers price of £5.8B in one week
is it really just around the corner? it was rejected emphatically
I agree it will happen sadly, I just think its gonna take a while to come about
That also means settling for fourth every year and being knocked out of UCL early (if we can even guarantee a place there annually) while being skint like Wenger era, and the field is now even tougher with doped up Newcastle.
The Champions League change which is the first step to a Super League under a different name starts in 2026 is it, it’s absolutely on the horizon.
that seems quite a bit different from the proposed closed shop super league though?
I don't think so, it's closer than what we think see @phelans shorts.
My Great Grandson will be viewing Lowery's 'Going to the match; (recently acquired by the Lowery Gallery) and asking his dad "did people really go in their thousands, to sit/stand in the cold, on undersized seats, with rubbish wi-fi, to watch football (or now call 'Soccer spectacular's') just to sing songs to the players"?
It is a half closed shop under those proposals already, like I said it’s the first step down a murky road hence why many of us are/were against it
A little clarification on the “debt” thing.
The debt is in Manchester United plc. There is no way the Glazer’s will ‘pay off’ the debt. There is however without a doubt a so called Change of Control clause in the credit lines the club has. These clauses means that when the Glazers’ sell their shares, I.e the club get a new controlling owner, all these loans will immediately fall due and become payable instantly (for the club, not the Glazers).
As a consequence, a takeover always include an element in which the new buyer refinance the debt of the target.
In addition, we cannot look at “debt” as a red flag. Our debt red flag refers to what the Glazers did when the club took over the debt the Glazers took on to buy the club. Our club will 100% ‘be in debt’ after a takeover. For tax reasons.
Let’s say someone buys 100% of the club for 6bn and then gifts the club 3bn to build a new stadium, renovate Carrington and improve the squad. As a result of this big investment, we all of a sudden stats to make a profit of 200m. That profit is then taxable. Would be much better for the new owner to besides a capital contribution also give the club a loan with interest keeping the profits to a minimum to avoid the Tax Authority yearly taking a big chunk of our income.
The debt is in Manchester United plc. There is no way the Glazer’s will ‘pay off’ the debt. There is however without a doubt a so called Change of Control clause in the credit lines the club has. These clauses means that when the Glazers’ sell their shares, I.e the club get a new controlling owner, all these loans will immediately fall due and become payable instantly (for the club, not the Glazers).
As a consequence, a takeover always include an element in which the new buyer refinance the debt of the target.
In addition, we cannot look at “debt” as a red flag. Our debt red flag refers to what the Glazers did when the club took over the debt the Glazers took on to buy the club. Our club will 100% ‘be in debt’ after a takeover. For tax reasons.
Let’s say someone buys 100% of the club for 6bn and then gifts the club 3bn to build a new stadium, renovate Carrington and improve the squad. As a result of this big investment, we all of a sudden stats to make a profit of 200m. That profit is then taxable. Would be much better for the new owner to besides a capital contribution also give the club a loan with interest keeping the profits to a minimum to avoid the Tax Authority yearly taking a big chunk of our income.
The ESL will happen eventually and then our value doubles overnight
Yep, any investor will know this too
Just as long as the interest payments are less than the potential tax taken, then sure.
The feck are you on about? Newcastle needed fecking loads of major infrastructural investment, there's even talk of them completely revamping their training ground/facilities and their entire backroom structure has changed.
and also know how emphatically it was rejected only a short while ago (a big reason the Glazers are selling)
Losses made from infrastructure investment can be set against future profits. In that scenario a £3b investment would offset corporation tax for years without any debt.
The investment needed for Newcastle facilities is a drop in the ocean for their owners compared to what a 'for profit' owner would view it. So in essence they don't need it because they already have it and it won't hamper how they would be able to fund their first team.
Spot on!
The 'Super league' or something similar will occur, the PL's position as the world's most saleable professional football extravaganza is under attack now, and the top clubs in Europe want to be in on the act. If our top six clubs leave to join the Super League, then the PL is dead.
With Amazon Prime, Disney +, NetFlix and other mass media interests getting involved with mega bucks made from mass world-wide LIVE sales, the 'Super League' is just around the corner. Anyone anywhere in the world can watch all Utd (and other clubs) games, for the price of membership of PRIME, Disney+, etc.
Our new owners would make billions, even APPLE are now interested, its reported in the Daily Mail they could make the Glazers price of £5.8B in one week
Anyone have any insight on the status of the Joint Selling Arrangements of like the PL?
Before everyone started to talk about Super Leagues etc, this was all that was discussed. That United wanted to sell the rights to their own games and so forth. I am not sure how it works, but per default I have understood that the home team in a game has the right to sell the rights to that game. If we play a friendly in the summer at Old Trafford, we can sell the TV rights from the game to anyone we want. Should the other team get any money? Well it’s up to us to negotiate that with the team we play against before they agree to play against us.
In the Premier League, it has been agreed — by a majority vote? — that instead of each club negotiating the sale of the rights to their home games, all teams lump together all their rights and sell it as a package.
I think all sport leagues today at least partly bundle the rights to some games into a package which they sell. But the US pro leagues for example mostly have each team selling a significant number of their games.
This would of course be tremendously valuable for us, and have much less value to like Brentford.
If it hasn’t changed before, why should it change in the future? I don’t know if it will. Depends on how the PL’s by-laws are structured, if these things are renegotiated etc etc etc.
But everyone knows that eventually, unnecessary middle man’s are deleted. In this case, there are two three unnecessary middle mans.
Look at some major sources of income we have and how differently we treat them:
(1) Sale of tickets — We sell our own tickets directly or through resellers. Why? It’s really easy. I bet we get like 95% of the price of a ticket
(2) Sale of Jerseys — We only sell the rights to sell our jerseys and they are sold by someone else. Why? They are sold in venues all over the globe. Would take a tremendous organization to put up our own venues across the globe. We get what, 5% of the income of a sold jersey?
(3) Sale of TV rights — We only sell the rights to broadcast our games. The rights are largely also sold to a reseller, who in its turn sell it to TV channels. Why? Historically you need satellites, cables, studios and what not in like 50 different countries. How much of the money do we get? I think it’s impossible to know for sure. Here we however have had a tremendous technical development. Like a League 2 Club could today easily broadcast their own games in a professional way to the entire globe.
It’s far from a given that it’s best to keep the old monopolistic selling of broadcasting rights in this new environment.
I agree with pretty much your whole line of reasoning. A lot of people in this thread have the thinking horizon of a mayfly.
Football has experienced massive change in the last 20 years and so has society. The changes might feel like they are flat-lining but I'd argue that's deceptive.
If anything, it might be on the verge of a period of even greater change.
Kuwait investment also an option
Well that would be a sickener after all the excitement this week of a possible sale
I was bring sarcastic it’s obviously bullshit.
- Status