The Official Manchester United Thread (Vol 10)
Discussion
worsy said:
Risk of 50+1 ownership means they possibility that they can't have dividends.
There is zero risk. Why people keep jumping to this ownership model is bizarre. It simply won’t happen. Even if there was an attempt then the fans would have to buy the 50%. They wouldn’t be given it. Now explain how you’re going to get £2billion together in an organised fashion. A million fans would need to stump up £2000 each how likely is that given where the economy and people are currently? What about 10 million fans doing £200 each. Where are we going to find 10million fans willing to stump up £200 each?
It’s just a load of romantic nonsense. It isn’t going to happen.
unident said:
worsy said:
Risk of 50+1 ownership means they possibility that they can't have dividends.
There is zero risk. Why people keep jumping to this ownership model is bizarre. It simply won’t happen. Even if there was an attempt then the fans would have to buy the 50%. They wouldn’t be given it. Now explain how you’re going to get £2billion together in an organised fashion. A million fans would need to stump up £2000 each how likely is that given where the economy and people are currently? What about 10 million fans doing £200 each. Where are we going to find 10million fans willing to stump up £200 each?
It’s just a load of romantic nonsense. It isn’t going to happen.
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/funds/sports
I'll put a tenner in if you will
57Ford said:
Ah, you say that but we’re already up to £3.87 AND a dog chew. Extrapolate that trajectory and we’ll be formulating our bid within the decade.
Even better. I’ve put my weekly free £5 sky bet on an accumulator that will pay out £250k when it wins. I reckon if I do this every week for the next 155 years then we’re in with a shot. dickymint said:
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/funds/sports
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/funds/sports
I'll put a tenner in if you will
I’m in. Now we just have to find another 199,999,998 fans and we’re sorted https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/funds/sports
I'll put a tenner in if you will
Its only worth 4Bn if someone will pay 4Bn for it.
There is no way there are 4Bn worth of tangible assets on Utd's balance sheet, its all about future revenue streams & "Goodwill"
If the prospect of new legislation means that its no longer worth 4Bn because of new restrictions then who knocked the s
t out of the value of the club?
Was it the legislation or was it the stupids who acted in a way that precipitated the legislation?
No sympathy if it happens.
There is no way there are 4Bn worth of tangible assets on Utd's balance sheet, its all about future revenue streams & "Goodwill"
If the prospect of new legislation means that its no longer worth 4Bn because of new restrictions then who knocked the s
t out of the value of the club?Was it the legislation or was it the stupid
s who acted in a way that precipitated the legislation?No sympathy if it happens.
Wombat3 said:
Its only worth 4Bn if someone will pay 4Bn for it.
There is no way there are 4Bn worth of tangible assets on Utd's balance sheet, its all about future revenue streams & "Goodwill"
If the prospect of new legislation means that its no longer worth 4Bn because of new restrictions then who knocked the st out of the value of the club?
Was it the legislation or was it the stupids who acted in a way that precipitated the legislation?
No sympathy if it happens.
What legislation?There is no way there are 4Bn worth of tangible assets on Utd's balance sheet, its all about future revenue streams & "Goodwill"
If the prospect of new legislation means that its no longer worth 4Bn because of new restrictions then who knocked the s
t out of the value of the club?Was it the legislation or was it the stupid
s who acted in a way that precipitated the legislation?No sympathy if it happens.
unident said:
Gone a bit AMG said:
This.
Good riddance. Oil money it’ll be then. Or the ineos fella.
No chance of Jim Ratcliffe at Ineos IMO. He’s too clever to spunk £4bn at a high point. Plus it would put a major dent in his finances for something that he’s not exactly committed to. Might have been born locally but seems to be more of a Chelsea fan Good riddance. Oil money it’ll be then. Or the ineos fella.
If it’s the Saudis then we’re f
ked. Yes we’ll be able to outspend City, but look what comes with it. Also not sure how that would get through given that the Newcastle takeover was blocked. £4bn is a s
t ton of money for a club that’s carrying a lot of debt and must be at the top of the earnings valuation. ked it. Football is only scratching the surface of what can be made hence this move. It’s far from the peak. IMO obvs. What the yanks have now realised finally as far as footy is concerned the jeopardy in the sport makes it. So hopefully they’ll f
k off as it’s no way to build a business. Whatever the fall out it is the best chance we’ve had for years for a change of ownership. I’m with you on the Saudis but in the grand scheme of things we are not carrying much debt and we can now be bought. If you have a few billion.
The earning projections of the ESL were not fantasy. Look at what Netflix is now worth. Sky s
t it as did uefa and fifa. I’ve got another dog chew.
unident said:
Wombat3 said:
Its only worth 4Bn if someone will pay 4Bn for it.
There is no way there are 4Bn worth of tangible assets on Utd's balance sheet, its all about future revenue streams & "Goodwill"
If the prospect of new legislation means that its no longer worth 4Bn because of new restrictions then who knocked the st out of the value of the club?
Was it the legislation or was it the stupids who acted in a way that precipitated the legislation?
No sympathy if it happens.
What legislation?There is no way there are 4Bn worth of tangible assets on Utd's balance sheet, its all about future revenue streams & "Goodwill"
If the prospect of new legislation means that its no longer worth 4Bn because of new restrictions then who knocked the s
t out of the value of the club?Was it the legislation or was it the stupid
s who acted in a way that precipitated the legislation?No sympathy if it happens.
I believe some sort of enquiry is already being set up. This is why they are all so apologetic IMO. They recognise that its not impossible that they could have their toys taken away from them.
In the context of the sale (or partial sale) of the club you'd have to be barking to lay any money out before you see how this plays out.
Wombat3 said:
Any legislation or regulation that may now get introduced to restrict or limit foreign ownership or control. Note use of word "if" in last sentence.
I believe some sort of enquiry is already being set up. This is why they are all so apologetic IMO. They recognise that its not impossible that they could have their toys taken away from them.
In the context of the sale (or partial sale) of the club you'd have to be barking to lay any money out before you see how this plays out.
There won’t be any legislation, there won’t be any changes at all. At most there will be a sit down by someone in government with some representatives of the owners where they all agree that this last week wasn’t very good and they won’t do it again.I believe some sort of enquiry is already being set up. This is why they are all so apologetic IMO. They recognise that its not impossible that they could have their toys taken away from them.
In the context of the sale (or partial sale) of the club you'd have to be barking to lay any money out before you see how this plays out.
unident said:
Wombat3 said:
Any legislation or regulation that may now get introduced to restrict or limit foreign ownership or control. Note use of word "if" in last sentence.
I believe some sort of enquiry is already being set up. This is why they are all so apologetic IMO. They recognise that its not impossible that they could have their toys taken away from them.
In the context of the sale (or partial sale) of the club you'd have to be barking to lay any money out before you see how this plays out.
There won’t be any legislation, there won’t be any changes at all. At most there will be a sit down by someone in government with some representatives of the owners where they all agree that this last week wasn’t very good and they won’t do it again.I believe some sort of enquiry is already being set up. This is why they are all so apologetic IMO. They recognise that its not impossible that they could have their toys taken away from them.
In the context of the sale (or partial sale) of the club you'd have to be barking to lay any money out before you see how this plays out.
unident said:
There is zero risk. Why people keep jumping to this ownership model is bizarre. It simply won’t happen. Even if there was an attempt then the fans would have to buy the 50%. They wouldn’t be given it. Now explain how you’re going to get £2billion together in an organised fashion.
A million fans would need to stump up £2000 each how likely is that given where the economy and people are currently? What about 10 million fans doing £200 each. Where are we going to find 10million fans willing to stump up £200 each?
It’s just a load of romantic nonsense. It isn’t going to happen.
You don't need any money. You use an alphabet share structure that gives fans voting rights but leaves the equity alone.A million fans would need to stump up £2000 each how likely is that given where the economy and people are currently? What about 10 million fans doing £200 each. Where are we going to find 10million fans willing to stump up £200 each?
It’s just a load of romantic nonsense. It isn’t going to happen.
JeffreyD said:
Effectively making the current shares worthless.
No. The club retains its value and that remains in the equity shares. You do realise Man Utd already works like this, don't you? The Glazers and a couple of others hold a class of shares with 10x voting rights of the traded ones.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
No. The club retains its value and that remains in the equity shares.
You do realise Man Utd already works like this, don't you? The Glazers and a couple of others hold a class of shares with 10x voting rights of the traded ones.
No need to be patronising as it's you that clearly doesn't understand the economics.You do realise Man Utd already works like this, don't you? The Glazers and a couple of others hold a class of shares with 10x voting rights of the traded ones.
The money flows to the votes. Which is why the Glazers take the dough.
If the fans had 51% of the voting rights (which they can achieve with one share) they control the economy of the club.
JeffreyD said:
No need to be patronising as it's you that clearly doesn't understand the economics.
The money flows to the votes. Which is why the Glazers take the dough.
If the fans had 51% of the voting rights (which they can achieve with one share) they control the economy of the club.
The money goes to the equity. That is how the Glazers currently control the club yet investors can buy and trade shares at value.The money flows to the votes. Which is why the Glazers take the dough.
If the fans had 51% of the voting rights (which they can achieve with one share) they control the economy of the club.
As for your last point, Bayern Munich seem to do pretty well on and off the pitch with this model.
In other words, what you and others have claimed doesn't match reality.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
he money goes to the equity. That is how the Glazers currently control the club yet investors can buy and trade shares at value.
As for your last point, Bayern Munich seem to do pretty well on and off the pitch with this model.
In other words, what you and others have claimed doesn't match reality.
If the fans had the control how would the Glazers get their equity value?As for your last point, Bayern Munich seem to do pretty well on and off the pitch with this model.
In other words, what you and others have claimed doesn't match reality.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff