On the one hand, United fans moan that we don't compete with the biggest clubs in Europe, and on the other they seem reluctant to see a takeover. History shows us that sentiment and business don't go together - therefore, it is not necessary to have a United fan as a major owner. We also don't want a tycoon taking over the club as a trophy amongst his other business trophies. The best ownership structure would be a mutual - whereby the shareholders run the club for the benefit of its fans, but that won't provide the financial clout needed going forward to compete at a global level. So for me, the best ownership structure is that we have one wealthy owner, who is looking to develop his own business interests (e.g. media rights, sponsorship). United would be part of the wider business, but could not be used to subsidise other businesses in the group - i.e. it would remain a stand-alone business with its own board of exec and non-exec directors. Its remit would be to become the most successful and most high profile football club in the world. The initial investments would feed the success, which in turn would cover the initial investment. The one owner I would prefer is Sheikh Mohammed (of Dubai), who has always shown integrity in his business UK dealings. He is neither a dictator nor an egoist and he invariably employs the best brains to achieve his goals. Above all, he has financial clout to promote his interests.

I think that a takeover would'nt be that bad. We moan were not winning the champions league and chelsea have all the money but if an abromavich[sorry if that not how you spell it] buys the best for chelsea then we would'nt complain if we had someone buying the best for us.

I agree with Peter Hayman. United can't stay as a plc if we want to win the CL regularly. Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Juve, Milan, Inter, Roma, Barca and Real are all controlled by rich persons or families and they are doing fine. I think it's a bigger risk to stay as a plc. Just look what happened during the summer. Veron and Becks were sold to more ambitious clubs and the plc refused to sign Fergie's number 1 transfer target instead opting for a 39m profit. Why can't people see the risk in that??

With respect Frederick, you missed part of the point. All those clubs you mention except Chelsea are in precarious financial positions. The Milan clubs and Juve don't have the cash to splash; Barca are in massive debt. Liverpool are sound but Arsenal are in a very precarious position. Therefore, it makes sense to have a committed benefactor and not a plc, but one who is financially sound and completely committed, and could not usurp the club's assets in case his other business interests went belly-up.

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear! When are you going to learn? Anyone who

'invests' over 3/4 billion pounds in a business (and let's face it, it is a

buisiness to them not a football club and not something they are emotionally

attached to) wants a return on that investment. That means taking money

OUT of the club. Yes, they may buy a few 'world class' players to bolster the

team to start with but eventually that will have to be paid for by, among other

things, raising ticket prices. (If you want to watch United at Chelsea from the Shed end it'll cost you B#49! - if you want to watch Chelsea at United from the Stretford end it'll cost you B#24!) Investors are ultimately only interested in taking money OUT of the club. Supporters are not interested in special dividends and profits, only that they be re-invested in the club, spent on the team and facilities. Once they have shares they keep shares. It's a life-long passion, an emotional attachment. If you are a United Red then you know what I mean. I cannot urge United fans strongly enough to join Shareholders United, The Manchester United Supporters Trust and buy as many shares as you can afford (or pledge the shares you already own). The difference you make may just be the difference that keeps our beloved club independent to continue its glorious tradition. Go on, do it now! http://www.shareholdersunited.org/

Hi Peter, Adam and Fredrik,

thanks for your comments. I would say at Old Trafford that sentiment and business has gone together very well. So well in fact that we are the most popular football club in the world with the biggest turnover bar none. This has been built up over time from the money raised by local supporters attending the matches through thick and thin and spending their hard earned on 'THEIR CLUB AND THEIR TEAM'.

I don't know how you can come to the conclusion if the supporters owned the club that we would lack the financial clout at a global level ? This year we are already sitting on 39 million pounds profit. Which other soccer club in the world can achieve this amount of profit ?

Unfortunately we don't use all of these profits for the good of the club, team and supporters because investor shareholders want to get their hands on it and take it out of the club. If their were a significant number of supporter/shareholders this money would be kept in the club as supporters who care about the club don't want dividends and special dividend payments to be made.

I would not want Sheikh Mohammed to come within a million miles of buying United because it has been built from our families hard work and love through the generations. Why would we wish to sell something that is priceless to us ?

I would like all 53,000,000 or so United supporters to have the opportunity to own a small part of the club they support. We are all a large extended family and we should all work together and share the joy that OUR club produces.

If you truly love and care about the club own a share in it. Don't suggest we sell all our history, tradition and heritage down the river to someone with a few quid as status symbol.

Visit the trust website and do the right thing http://www.shareholdersunited.org


Cheers Sean Bones.
Manchester United Supporters Trust (SU).

My family (my grandad, my dad and myself) can boast 166 years of supporting and, significantly, contributing to, Manchester United. There are many others like us. Manchester United should NOT be the plaything of some rich person. It should be for the supporters. It is the supporters who have made the Club - NOT any rich person or persons.

I implore all Manchester United supporters to buy some shares and, more importantly, to pass the message to as many other people as you can. To pass the message to people who care about Manchester United (like ourselves). The clock is ticking, of that I am sure. Whether it is already too late I know not. But we MUST try. We MUST. We owe it to people like my grandad who watched and supported Newton Heath. Who watched and supported Manchester United in the 1920/30's when the club very nearly ceased to exist. It is for them and their memory that we fight. That should never be forgotten.

It seems that a lot of people have the idea that if someone, like Abramovitch, was to take over United, then the sky would be the limit. We could have any player we wanted and there wouldn't be any questiona asked as to price or availability. This is nonsense. We would just get all the mercenaries who don't really want to play their hearts out for United, just rake in the megabucks they would be paid. Chelsea haven't proved anything yet, and even if they do win something, would it last? There are already rumblings of discontent within the Chelsea ranks, and should the owner get fed-up at some future stage, move on, or even, as has happened in the past, die, then the club would be up the creek without a paddle. United have always had a togetherness envied by other clubs. We have players who would go through fire for the team, who appreciate the history and the glory that is Manchester United. Look at Ole. He has stayed even when other clubs have come in for him and he was warming the bench on a regular basis. What about Nicky Butt? Another player who would die for the team.<br>
This would soon disappear if we were owned by someone who wants the club as a "hobby", the reason given by Abramovitch. The fans already feel that they come a long way last when decisions are being made by the present Board. How much further back would they come if one person, answerable to no-one, had complete control? Very far back indeed. The only way to keep our club ours is to make sure that the Board listens to our voice, and the louder our voice, the more they will listen. The only way to get a louder voice, is to own more shares in the club. Join Shareholders United and keep our club independant. It is only 5 years ago that Rupert Murdoch wanted to buy us out.
<br>If he had been sucessful, he would have hived off any profits to prop up the parts of his empire that weren't making as much money as us. A single owner can do wondrous things, in the short term, but he can also sell us down the river when he gets fed-up with his new toy. Sir Matt Busby is probably spinning in his grave at the idea of us becoming just a part of someones business portfolio. United is too great to be someone's plaything.

There are essentially two types of Manchester United shareholders - 'investor shareholders' who want to take a profit OUT of the club and 'supporter shareholders' who want to keep the money in the club to build the team, the stadium and keep ticket prices down.

The predators circling over OT at the moment are obviously investor shareholders - they will use Manchester United to line their own pockets - regardless of any initial Abramovich style blow out on players to appease the more gullible fans. In the end they will want a return on their investment and that means taking money OUT of the club. That is precisely why they would want to take the club private - because then they don't have to declare public accounts - so the money can be siphoned away invisibly. Once its a private company, then without the new owners consent, there is nothing anyone can do about it - EVER.

Speculating about which billionaire might actually mount a bid is pointless because in the end they are all the same regardless of any individual personalities. Anyone who spends a billion pounds o.n.o. buying a business is not then going to throw money at it out of the goodness of their heart. They will have to get a return on that investment and that means taking money out of the club that could have been spent on players, stadium and keeping ticket prices down.

10% of the shares is enough to block a privatisation of the club and supporter shareholders own up to 17% currently. Therefore we need to unify the majority of supporter shareholders against selling out and to get every single United fan to take a stake in their club. It could literally come down to a single share in the end. We don't know how many of that 17% are loyal supporters and how many are after a quick profit. If its close to 10% then every single share could count.

All the loyal United fans should be going out now and buying shares in their club - before the opportunity to do so is taken away from them FOREVER.

Whether you buy shares through any stockbroker or the supporters trust www.ShareholdersUnited.org is not that important at the moment - as long as you do it.

I think a takeover will be good for United. This is because United will be able to afford the best players in the game e.g Raul, Figo, Owen... but there is a bad side to it. If so-and-so takes over and suddenly loses interest after a while, united will be in debt. if the club wants the best, than the club should taken over but the supporters trust fund should keep going just in case we ever need it.

I support the aims of SU and would prefer working towards, if you like, a 'plc cooperative' rather than taking the dangerous sugar daddy who spirits away our B#70ish million in the bank option. However, SU's set up seems to be limited in the way it operates. The figures bandied about speak for themselves: around 15% supporter shareholders, but only about 1% of shares under the control of SU. I have a few shares myself, but electronically which means I don't have certificates. It would be nice just to be able to turn over my voting to them each year when the time comes, or let them know about the shares without turning them over to SU, or even if SU could make an alliance with one of the e-sharetrading sites so users could have the real time buying option on their site if they so want. And I'm not really interested in commemorative certificates. I can see there are obstacles to my suggestions, but the more different ways there are to invest / register the more of the 15% will come into the view of SU. Are any of you SUeys who always comment on stories like this in a position to give the SU view on these things?

If we want an owner who doesn't withdraw money from the club we should remain a plc? Excuse me! I don't get it. How much money have the plc paid in dividends during the last ten years? 50m? And how much money has the Agnelli family invested in Juve during this time? Berlusconi, Agnelli, Perez, Moratti, Roman et al don't use their clubs to profit themselves, they invest large sums in their respective clubs to get access to the PASSION and the BRAND which surounds the club which in turn generate profit in their daily business as TV, oil, construction, food, cars and so on. Why can't the SU understand this?

I would just like to add my support to the SU cause (from a fans point of view rather than a business one). A takeover by some rich businessman would be bad for the club as well as the english game. Manchester United is already the biggest (and most hated!) team in the country and having an unlimited pot of cash would push us even further ahead. Call me old fashioned, but I believe you should earn success and not buy it - what Chelsea (and Blackburn a few years ago), Real Madrid etc. are doing isnt 'sport', it's effectively cheating in my book, how can you take any pride in that success?

From faraway Malaysia I watch the recent developments with concern and hope that our efforts in trying to safeguard the future of the one Club that we love will not be in vain.

I don't think anyone of us should be seduced by what Mr. Roman A is doing at Chelsea and delude ourselves that private ownership is the way to go. Once the honeymoon period is over there will be price to pay for the millions of pounds invested. What if no trophies have been delivered and no honours have been won within the time frame allowed? Would he not up his millions and move on to some other pursuits that he fancies? What then becomes of the club?

Sure, we can dream of acquiring fantastic players but how many of these players will be ready to live and die for the Red cause? To me they are mercaneries at best and by getting them into the heart of United we will be losing our heart & soul & identity.

I support the efforts of Shareholders United and hope that more among us will join in and be united this way.

Chris Lee
Malaysian Red Devil

Hi 'The Devil',

If there is a take over of the club, the supporters trust would cease to exist ,as the shares owned by them would have to be sold to the person taking over the club.

If your a united supporter do you bit and buy a share.

www.shareholdersunited.org.

Cheers Sean.

Hi Pro-rata,

Your post is a very valid one. I always try to get involved in any debate involving SU along with many others who feel equally passionate. I feel if you love United you have to do your best to defend the club.

We have been looking at ways to work together with the 15% of supporter/shareholders but it's difficult to do everything at once it's really a evolution process. We are a long way down the road with this but not at the final destination yet.

Obviously if you had a million supporter/shareholders you need a method to bring everyone one together in a democratic way. SU really serves that purpose and is a focal point to do that task.

We have a high number of members with separate shareholdings in the club. They wish to keep their own shares separately from our share scheme and that's fine. They send us there proxies at AGM time to vote in line with the SU democrat process.

Most feel the SU membership of 10 pound a year in the UK is a price worth paying for the newsletters and the ability to connect up with each other in a professional way. The one United share you also get with it, which you can if you wish keep separately from your own personal shareholding represents a doubling of shares each year in relation to the number of members we have. The immediate aim is to stop take-over and increase supporter/shareholder influence at the club. By including a share in the membership it serves that purpose and intention.

Please join the trust.


Cheers Sean Bones.

Hi Fredrik,

I totally understand your argument but I have to say I am happier with the club being owned by the people who have built it up to what it is today it's supporters.

Why should we give away something that is so precious to us. We don't need to sell our souls to be successful, we already are.

I'm not in any way convinced that Juve, Chelsea or any other team will do any better then us because of there owners. I would strongly argue the opposite in fact.

No individual could match 53 million supporters all adding a little of their love for the club and working together as one.

Next time your at OT look me up and we can have a chat.


Cheers in friendship,

Sean Bones.

Trouble is Frederik that none of the current candidates to take over Man Utd can hold a candle to Agnelli or Berlusconi in terms either of wealth or of attachment to our club. United is attractive to takeover partly because it is cash rich, which is because the plc is holding huge chunks of potential dividend money back from the shareholders. Presumably the plc have an idea that they want to do something with that cash down the line (expand OT perhaps), but if a private owner pockets that extra money you can flush any such ideas down the toilet: I think with the current candidates this is a far more likely scenario. Show me a billionaire Lou Edwards and I might change my mind, but until then I'm with SU.

Pro-rata, I agree that the persons mentioned so far are only interested in the money the club has and to profit themselves, not developing the club long-term. I still think that a passionate mega-rich die-hard United fan would be the ideal owner for United. I don't trust the plc. Why didn't they support Fergie in his attempts to sign Ronnie? The money was obviously there as the 39m profit shows?? And Roman A is not stupid. He knows very well that he will never recover the money he's investing in Chelsea. And the same goes for Perez, Agnelli and so on. But still they do it, year after year. How many years has the Agnelli family supported Juve?? That's what I call a long-term passionate successful support.

Apart from pure speculation, does anyone have any evidence at all to suggest that any takeover would result with us being in a weaker position (either financially, commercially, in the league, reputation wise etc)?
The people against a takeover seem to think thay any potential buyer has sinsiter and evil reasons for doing so. I cant understand where these fears are coming from. Dont they understand that we already have investors taking money out of the club?...and not putting much back in.
I resent the fact that this great club is run by and for investors. Their main priority is ensuring a return on their investment. Footballing success is a bonus to them. The club should be run for the fans, with success as the number 1 priority. That doesnt necessarily mean splashing out B#150m in a couple of weeks, but it does mean that if there is player we need, the manager is allowed to buy them. This year, we've gone for the cheap and cheerful options and i am worried that will come back to haunt us.

Jericho - yes, there is evidence, although it's quite dry/boring stuff. Only about 30% of the plc's retained earnings are paid out to "investors" i.e. shareholders. This is actually quite low compared to your average FTSE100 co (Barclays pays 80%, BP about 50%). Anyway, two points from this "cash surplus" - it makes United a very attractive target for would be buyers, particularly if the share price is low; secondly, you have to wonder whether there's some strategy for a major investment somewhere (diversification to baseball to get closer to fan base?). The current model isn't the problem then, it's how the cash is (not being) spent on reinvestment. Any would-be buyer would IMO take far more out that at present.

Sean-with respect, Juve and Real are already doing much better than United (just look at the CL finals during the last ten years) because they DON'T have to follow the regulations a plc must follow. And more depressing, they will continue to buy the world's best players and this difference in CL success will continue until Real and Juve become plcs or until United is owned by a private owner. Of course I wouldn't like to see the club in the hands of an american media mogul, but can somebody please explain the difference between a private owner and a plc withdrawing money from the club!

Fredrik you know as well as I there is not much between us and Juve and Real. We beat Juve twice last year. We had a bad first leg against Real but we beat them in the second leg. It's close and we can definetly compete.

The difference between a private owner and a plc is vast. When a privite owner takes over it's pot luck who you get. You may get a good owner more likely a bad one.

In a plc the company has to be run to the benifit of all it's shareholders in the company. A private owner can do what ever he likes, double ticket prices is the first one that comes to mind. He can take everything out of a club he owns if he wishes.

SU's stratagy is to increase the supporter/shareholder influence in the club over time. Why would Sir Alex who knows a thing or two about a football club say '' Groups like SU can only be good for the game. I'd urge United Fans to get involved.''

Football is about winning but selling the soul of your club down the river is far more important to me. It's about community and family that's the tradition that United has been built from over the years at Old Trafford.

The people who love and care about the club the most it's supporters, should make the effort to take care of it's future and protect the magic we have created. Not leave anything to the whim of a wealthy individual.

I'm sorry that you feel the way you do.



Cheers Sean.

Fredrik, Jericho, the whole point of the argument is the difference between the two kinds of 'investors'. I believe what the Manchester United Supporters Trust are saying is simply this. The more supporters who own shares the better BECAUSE supporters will NOT withdraw money from the club. They will simply reinvest their dividends and keep the money in the club. If there are enough supporters owning enough shares they will have a greater say in what the club does with their money. Only 'investor' shareholders will want to cash in their dividends and take profits out of the club (as will any 'sugar daddy' owner eventually). Supporter shareholders don't want special dividends they want fair ticket prices, better facilities, and more money invested in the team. That is why fans owning shares is so important. Its got nothing to do with understanding the stock market...it's not a thing only 'rich, posh' people do...it's about a passionate belief in the future of the club we love more than anything. The club is our heritage, let's buy a piece of it and make sure it stays that way! Join the Manchester United Supporters Trust NOW (www.shareholdersunited.org)

Sean, Paul-As I understand it we agree upon most things. I don't want to see the club in the hands of an American or Dutch media mogul or any other investor without a big United heart. Even the present format is to be preferred. I would definately welcome a much bigger influence of the supporters on the club. And the only way to achieve that is, as you point out, to buy shares in the club. The problem is that it will take a lot of fans and a lot of money to accomplish this, and to be honest, I don't think it's realistic. But at least the influence will be bigger even if a take-over is out of the question. I do belive, maybe I'm just day-dreaming, that the best solution would be a rich owner/family taking control of the club. <br> They should be die-hard United fans and should be prepared to inject money to enlarge OT, buy world-class players like Ronnie and Metzelder, something the present board is unwilling to do. They should work in a close collaboration with the local and worldwide fans and the local community. Why not have some fans on the board? It should be a long-term strategy like the way the Agnelli family is running Juve. Finally, Sean there's quite a big difference between Juve and Real and United. Come May and this will be even more clear to everybody. We beat them twice last year but as I said just look at which teams that have plyed in the CL finals during the last ten years.