I’m not saying you’re wrong, the Glazers might sell up tomorrow if the right offer arrives, but if one part of your business empire is providing the financial support to keep the rest of your business empire from collapsing then it wouldn’t be usual to sell that part off.
That’s my take on it and I like it that way because, to my mind, it keeps the Glazers walking that tightrope between the minimum practical investment to keep the club ticking over and the maximum possible dividends to keep the rest of their empire afloat.
What’s often overlooked is that they’ve already diluted their holding by selling a portion of the business as shares (while protecting their control by making them non-voting shares).
From an ownership perspective, thats actually the equivalent of taking on a further loan, as those non-voting shareholders now own a portion of the business (and get their portion of the business value if it’s sold) and they get their annual dividends in the same way that the banks get the interest on their loans.
What tickles me is that their selling a part of their holding to raise funds, albeit without relinquishing control, is little different in outcome to taking a further bank loan.
But the united supporters and the media who rage against the clubs debt don’t recognise it for what is in effect a form of debt to be paid going forward, though to varied institutions and individuals, not a bank.
This further ties the Glazers to the club because it diminishes their take from any sale.