Glazers to consider selling Manchester United?

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
23,426
Yeah I did mean to add that, more a get the Glazers to approach him to see if he'd be interested in United when he had that sort of money to invest, rather than him going to them and appearing too keen. More likely to get the club slightly cheaper that way.

There had been quite a lot of rumour that the family were moving more towards a sale. Some of the lesser known siblings felt owning the club was bringing them unwanted grief and that it was a good time to move on from it. Joel and Avram were the ones who were keeping the family together on Utd but apparently the others have decided it's time to move on.

I think the price Chelsea got certainly opened a few eyes to the money that was still out there and maybe made the Glazers and FSG at Liverpool realise now is the time to get out.

There's a UK government regulator coming in to football soon which will create a problem for them and the new FFP rules coming in pretty much allow City/PSG to do what they want. The super league is dead in the water, the premier league is ruled by the 14 poorer clubs, TV/sponsorship contracts have hit a bit of a ceiling, ticket prices aren't going to be able to rise to much either.

I'm not saying the bubble has finally burst with football but it certainly feels like it's reached a bit of a peak how it makes the next jump is probably a problem you want to pass to the next generation of owners.
 

Justin Cider

Well-Known Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
3,091
Age
59
There had been quite a lot of rumour that the family were moving more towards a sale. Some of the lesser known siblings felt owning the club was bringing them unwanted grief and that it was a good time to move on from it. Joel and Avram were the ones who were keeping the family together on Utd but apparently the others have decided it's time to move on.

I think the price Chelsea got certainly opened a few eyes to the money that was still out there and maybe made the Glazers and FSG at Liverpool realise now is the time to get out.

There's a UK government regulator coming in to football soon which will create a problem for them and the new FFP rules coming in pretty much allow City/PSG to do what they want. The super league is dead in the water, the premier league is ruled by the 14 poorer clubs, TV/sponsorship contracts have hit a bit of a ceiling, ticket prices aren't going to be able to rise to much either.

I'm not saying the bubble has finally burst with football but it certainly feels like it's reached a bit of a peak how it makes the next jump is probably a problem you want to pass to the next generation of owners.

There was talk some of the Sons wanted to sell as soon as Malcolm died in 2014, but here we are nearly 9 years later and they still own the club, and I wouldn't be surprised unless they get an offer they can't refuse they may hang on to at least part of the club, even if it's only 25%

In theory United should be worth more than double what Chelsea were sold for simply because of the size of the club.

But there's an uneasy feeling when the two biggest clubs, and by quite some distance, in England are for sale at the same time, and a lot of what you say above is true, but I don't think the Super League debate is over yet. Monied people nearly always get what they want in the end, and the option for United to broadcast their own matches in the future is not totally dead in the water either.

And with the money coming into football, and more importantly where it's coming from I truly believe U.E.F.A's days are numbered as the ones calling the shots on European football, and F.I.F.A will have to keep their wits about themselves too.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
23,426
There was talk some of the Sons wanted to sell as soon as Malcolm died in 2014, but here we are nearly 9 years later and they still own the club, and I wouldn't be surprised unless they get an offer they can't refuse they may hang on to at least part of the club, even if it's only 25%

In theory United should be worth more than double what Chelsea were sold for simply because of the size of the club.

But there's an uneasy feeling when the two biggest clubs, and by quite some distance, in England are for sale at the same time, and a lot of what you say above is true, but I don't think the Super League debate is over yet. Monied people nearly always get what they want in the end, and the option for United to broadcast their own matches in the future is not totally dead in the water either.

And with the money coming into football, and more importantly where it's coming from I truly believe U.E.F.A's days are numbered as the ones calling the shots on European football, and F.I.F.A will have to keep their wits about themselves too.

I don't think any new owners will want them to be part of the group, their name is just toxic with the fans it needs to be a clean break. Yeah when Malcolm died the family all fell out arguing over who got control of what and how the family business should be run but Joel managed to convince them all to keep hold of Utd.

Chelsea's shares sold for £2bn the reporting is the Glazers are looking for a deal with £7-8bn for the shares so they want a lot more.

I agree the super league is in hibernation it will come round again they're currently in court arguing over UEFA acting as a monopoly, the initial drafting went against them but it's still far from over. The Premier League setup will make it very hard for them to be part of both though so it feels like the super league is on the back burner for at least a decade before they go for it again.

Utd will never own it's own TV rights and be part of the premier league so unless it becomes some sort of travelling show like the Harlem Globetrotters they'll always be part of a collective agreement. The only way out for them is a super league where they can agree new rules that give certain clubs more voting power as the premier league rules mean they'll never get enough votes to make that change.
 

Justin Cider

Well-Known Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
3,091
Age
59
I don't think any new owners will want them to be part of the group, their name is just toxic with the fans it needs to be a clean break. Yeah when Malcolm died the family all fell out arguing over who got control of what and how the family business should be run but Joel managed to convince them all to keep hold of Utd.

Chelsea's shares sold for £2bn the reporting is the Glazers are looking for a deal with £7-8bn for the shares so they want a lot more.

I agree the super league is in hibernation it will come round again they're currently in court arguing over UEFA acting as a monopoly, the initial drafting went against them but it's still far from over. The Premier League setup will make it very hard for them to be part of both though so it feels like the super league is on the back burner for at least a decade before they go for it again.

Utd will never own it's own TV rights and be part of the premier league so unless it becomes some sort of travelling show like the Harlem Globetrotters they'll always be part of a collective agreement. The only way out for them is a super league where they can agree new rules that give certain clubs more voting power as the premier league rules mean they'll never get enough votes to make that change.

I don't think people with the money needed tend to think like that, and they might think twice before putting major money in fearing the same fans who were so anti-Glazer might turn on them if there isn't instant success, if they did, and anyho they wouldn't necessarily own the club just part of the club, it maybe 45%, 35% and 20% yet.

We've been here before, but never say never, say United could get enough clubs onboard(say 4 or 5 at the beginning) that if they went with United selling their own rights that United would guarantee them 5%/10% more than they currently receive within the collective agreement enough clubs would eventually weaken, and United wouldn't have to rip off United fans to do it, even if it's only a few quid per game.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
23,426
I don't think people with the money needed tend to think like that, and they might think twice before putting major money in fearing the same fans who were so anti-Glazer might turn on them if there isn't instant success, if they did, and anyho they wouldn't necessarily own the club just part of the club, it maybe 45%, 35% and 20% yet.

We've been here before, but never say never, say United could get enough clubs onboard(say 4 or 5 at the beginning) that if they went with United selling their own rights that United would guarantee them 5%/10% more than they currently receive within the collective agreement enough clubs would eventually weaken, and United wouldn't have to rip off United fans to do it, even if it's only a few quid per game.

I think the sort of groups who want to buy a club will want 100% control and likely will want 100% of the gains in the long run, so they'll want to sever ties with the previous regime. To make the club grow you need the fans back on board to drive through sponsorship deals currently sponsors are turning away from Utd because a number of the fans are unlikely to engage positively due to the ownership issues. The new owners will be paying off the Glazer debt so keeping them involved would be tricky.

From memory in the premier league big structure changes require 14 of the 20 clubs a 2/3 majority to agree. I just don't see Utd being able to get a block that big to vote in their favour as they won't want to give us a bigger financial advantage even if it brings up their revenue. I doubt we'd even get City/Spurs/Arsenal/Chelsea on for a change to allow clubs to sell their own rights as it's clear that Utd/Liverpool would be massive winners from that deal.

As a whole the premier league needs to get rid of the 3pm blackout and start looking for a streaming partner so that all games can be accessed in the UK at a much better price that fans currently pay.
 

Mr C

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
10,209
I don't think SJR has the money, it must be a consortium.

I suppose he will need to sell Nice eventually. In case they both end up in the EC.

The fans there aren't super keen on SJR anyway, becasue he hasn't exactly done much there. He has put Brailsworth as director of Ineos sport, who knows nothing about football. So hopefully he won't put his nose in.
 

Justin Cider

Well-Known Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
3,091
Age
59
From memory in the premier league big structure changes require 14 of the 20 clubs a 2/3 majority to agree. I just don't see Utd being able to get a block that big to vote in their favour as they won't want to give us a bigger financial advantage even if it brings up their revenue. I doubt we'd even get City/Spurs/Arsenal/Chelsea on for a change to allow clubs to sell their own rights as it's clear that Utd/Liverpool would be massive winners from that deal.

As a whole the premier league needs to get rid of the 3pm blackout and start looking for a streaming partner so that all games can be accessed in the UK at a much better price that fans currently pay.

It would be slowly slowly catchy monkey, but it would only take one semi-established club to come onboard, and the rest would surely follow, knowing that United have a massive advantage over practically every other club in Europe in that for every ten United fans that would be prepared to pay to watch the matches on an individual basis on their 75' TV screens and not rely on dodgy streams, there will be 5 fans from rival clubs(in England) who will gladly pay the same amount to watch in the hope United get beat.

It's not only the 15:00 nonsense, it's the fact United can't broadcast live the u21/23 matches when there is a Premier League matches on the same night, how the hell the FPL get away with that is a mystery, obvious somebody will be making a lot of money out of it, and there doesn't seem to that much appetite to resolve the issue.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
23,426
It would be slowly slowly catchy monkey, but it would only take one semi-established club to come onboard, and the rest would surely follow, knowing that United have a massive advantage over practically every other club in Europe in that for every ten United fans that would be prepared to pay to watch the matches on an individual basis on their 75' TV screens and not rely on dodgy streams, there will be 5 fans from rival clubs(in England) who will gladly pay the same amount to watch in the hope United get beat.

It's not only the 15:00 nonsense, it's the fact United can't broadcast live the u21/23 matches when there is a Premier League matches on the same night, how the hell the FPL get away with that is a mystery, obvious somebody will be making a lot of money out of it, and there doesn't seem to that much appetite to resolve the issue.

You are just writing yourself a death sentence. Clubs like Utd already get more money through prize money and the TV selection bonuses. I actually think it’s good for the league that the money is split pretty evenly.

I don’t even think we could get City/Spurs/Arsenal/Chelsea on board let alone teams outside of the big 6.

Well the premier league set the rules they want all eyes on their product and the broadcasters will want the same to make sure they can generate the advertising revenues.

I think the streaming will be on the cards for the next round and there’s rumours the 3pm ban could be lifted for EFL clubs want to explore streaming income.
 

Cruella ne Ville

Moderator
Joined
Feb 21, 2021
Messages
1,207
I think SJR's bid for Chelsea was also submitted in the hopes of gaining access to the process so he could be prepared when United hit the market.

I know twitter is not the best way to determine which way the wind is blowing, but the amount of 'people' who are clamouring for oil money as the only way to compete with Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia really did surprise me. Had we valued winning and put a structure in place like other big clubs, and didn't have to pay for the privilege of being owned by the Glazers, we'd have been competing this whole time. We need an owner to clear the debts and fund infrastructure redevelopment. The club generates enough money on its own to be self sufficient if the owner keeps his mitts out of the till.
 

Justin Cider

Well-Known Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
3,091
Age
59
You are just writing yourself a death sentence. Clubs like Utd already get more money through prize money and the TV selection bonuses. I actually think it’s good for the league that the money is split pretty evenly.

I don’t even think we could get City/Spurs/Arsenal/Chelsea on board let alone teams outside of the big 6.

Well the premier league set the rules they want all eyes on their product and the broadcasters will want the same to make sure they can generate the advertising revenues.

I think the streaming will be on the cards for the next round and there’s rumours the 3pm ban could be lifted for EFL clubs want to explore streaming income.

Not sure why it's good that the smaller clubs, whose fans hate United with a passion, more so than the bigger clubs, should benefit from association with Manchester United as a collective. On an individual deal United would be able to dictate terms.

And it would be easier to get City and Chelsea onboard than the two North London clubs maybe as since their clubs were bought with dodgy money, especially in City's case they suddenly had millions and millions of new fans in the middle/far east and were not having to rely on the uneducated in Moss Side, and those with learning difficulties in Stockport for their support.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
23,426
Not sure why it's good that the smaller clubs, whose fans hate United with a passion, more so than the bigger clubs, should benefit from association with Manchester United as a collective. On an individual deal United would be able to dictate terms.

And it would be easier to get City and Chelsea onboard than the two North London clubs maybe as since their clubs were bought with dodgy money, especially in City's case they suddenly had millions and millions of new fans in the middle/far east and were not having to rely on the uneducated in Moss Side, and those with learning difficulties in Stockport for their support.

Well you can either be in the league or you can be on your own and if Utd are on their own they have no one to play which means nothing to sell as fans won't pay to watch a load of friendlies. Utd by agreeing to be part of the premier league agreed to only ever having the same voting power as every other club in the league.

Do people in the middle east outside of UAE give a toss about City? The native populations of these countries is also quite small, UAE is less than 10m people. Not all the nations in the middle east get on I doubt the natives of Saudi or Qatar will be cheering City. Success will bring more fans from all over the world just like it did for Utd there's no doubt Utd being the most successful club in the 90's gave us a huge boost as the premier league became the worldwide dominant league.
 

Justin Cider

Well-Known Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
3,091
Age
59
Well you can either be in the league or you can be on your own and if Utd are on their own they have no one to play which means nothing to sell as fans won't pay to watch a load of friendlies.

Why would United be outside the League? Do you not think the benefits(and pitfalls) have been discussed at boardroom level when the clubs have their regular get-togethers, do you think more and more clubs have their own TV channels just to show the occasional reserve/youth game, it will eventually come in as United and possibly Liverpool get the other clubs on side, maybe not the next time the TV deal is due, but maybe the one after that as the current deal gives the TV companies too much control over practically everything, kick-off times, dates, even policing costs, you may have noticed.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
23,426
Why would United be outside the League? Do you not think the benefits(and pitfalls) have been discussed at boardroom level when the clubs have their regular get-togethers, do you think more and more clubs have their own TV channels just to show the occasional reserve/youth game, it will eventually come in as United and possibly Liverpool get the other clubs on side, maybe not the next time the TV deal is due, but maybe the one after that as the current deal gives the TV companies too much control over practically everything, kick-off times, dates, even policing costs, you may have noticed.

Because to be a member of the premier league you need to agree to the terms and one of the key points is it's a collective.

If you don't want to be share the TV money under their rules you can't be in the competition.

Utd/Liverpool will never get the other sides onside in the numbers required they need 12 other clubs to join them to get to 14.

The rules around TV will likely change as we move from satellite to streaming but the split won't change.
 

Justin Cider

Well-Known Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
3,091
Age
59
Because to be a member of the premier league you need to agree to the terms and one of the key points is it's a collective.

If you don't want to be share the TV money under their rules you can't be in the competition.

Utd/Liverpool will never get the other sides onside in the numbers required they need 12 other clubs to join them to get to 14.

The rules around TV will likely change as we move from satellite to streaming but the split won't change.

Interesting you don't think the Super League is totally dead in the water but individual tv deals is a no-no when they are so obviously linked, and if the clubs(the breakaway ones. United/Liverpool and ....)are not allowed to play in the PL why not create or threaten to create their own League, The New Division One or something equally imaginative, the Pioneers, and United have always been Pioneers would soon get the rest of the clubs on board when they realise the next TV deal is reduced by up to 50% because United and Liverpool(and other rebels) aren't involved.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
23,426
Interesting you don't think the Super League is totally dead in the water but individual tv deals is a no-no when they are so obviously linked, and if the clubs(the breakaway ones. United/Liverpool and ....)are not allowed to play in the PL why not create or threaten to create their own League, The New Division One or something equally imaginative, the Pioneers, and United have always been Pioneers would soon get the rest of the clubs on board when they realise the next TV deal is reduced by up to 50% because United and Liverpool(and other rebels) aren't involved.

The Super League isn't dead but it will never fly with the premier league and the reason the Spanish/Italians want it is because the premier league is basically already the super league. They can see the gap between the premier league and other leagues is growing year on year so the super league was attempt to disrupt that.

It's likely any clubs from England that sign up to a new league would be kicked out of the premier league. It would likely hurt the remaining sides but they'd have no choice.

The small clubs realise their strength comes in unity the moment you bend over for Utd/Liverpool and let them take the riches you end up being like La Liga where there's 2-3 mega rich clubs and everyone else is broke.
 

jsp

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
23,426
Nice hasn’t gone well he appointed Dave Brailsford former head of GB cycling to be his director of football and they’ve signed a load of former premier league players on big wages.
 

O-Dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
1,999
Location
Cloud cuckoo land
Paywalled, why what do the fans say?
Guardian doesn't have a paywall.

Discussion of Ineos' poor sporting performance in cycling and football.

Various business ethics gripes, such as poor behaviour of Ineos at Graingemouth, the broken Grenadier promises, the flight to non-dom status whilst strongly backing Brexit, heavy involvement with fossil fuel industry etc.

But as others point out, he's a billionaire, so he can't be anything but a selfish dick. Not gonna find a decent one as they don't exist.
 

Justin Cider

Well-Known Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
3,091
Age
59
Guardian doesn't have a paywall.

Discussion of Ineos' poor sporting performance in cycling and football.

Various business ethics gripes, such as poor behaviour of Ineos at Graingemouth, the broken Grenadier promises, the flight to non-dom status whilst strongly backing Brexit, heavy involvement with fossil fuel industry etc.

But as others point out, he's a billionaire, so he can't be anything but a selfish dick. Not gonna find a decent one as they don't exist.

The bastards, they must think i'm an easy touch, to continue reading after the first paragraph they were asking for wonga :mad:

Agree, to have the personal wealth needed to be in a position to buy the club you must've walked all over quite a few people/organisations.
 

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
or Log in using
Don't have an account? Register now
Top