Sell me the Glazers: Positive Arguments for Glazer ownership

Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by Lentwood, May 14, 2019.

  1. May 15, 2019
    #81

    Che Guevara New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2018
    Messages:
    137
    Supports:
    Celtic
    Utd enjoyed huge success and spent massively on the squad under the Glazers, so blaming the Glazers simply makes no sense imo.
  2. May 15, 2019
    #82

    Bestietom Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,579
    Location:
    Ireland
    Far too much thought on commercial deals than on the Football. We need change from this.
  3. May 16, 2019 at 21:57
    #83

    zizi New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    114
    More than happy to have a reasoned and logical discussion about why i don't think the Glaziers are bad, as long as it stays that way without irrational arguments made. 99% of the fans get too emotional and have a binary mindset: team loses, its the owners/chairman's fault, and are unwilling and incapable of looking past that.

    Have the Glaziers taken out money, yes. But if that is the only argument than it doesn't stack up, as there has been more then enough to assemble a title winning squad. Money spent isn't the issue, money spent unwisely is, and the players the money was spent on wasn't chosen by the Glaziers.
    Last edited: May 17, 2019 at 01:08
  4. May 16, 2019 at 23:06
    #84

    Che Guevara New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2018
    Messages:
    137
    Supports:
    Celtic
    Brilliant comment mate, absolutely spot-on.
  5. May 17, 2019 at 16:07
    #85

    Scholsey2004 Full Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    1,896
    Location:
    Barnsley
    You forgot to mention their punctuality.
  6. May 17, 2019 at 18:06
    #86

    Lentwood Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,333
    Location:
    West Didsbury, Manchester
    Yes but surely the Glazers, by allowing Ed to continue in his current role, ARE somewhat accountable for our poor recruitment? Time and time again we have made not just bad but shockingly woeful decisions in the transfer market and yet still the club persists with the same approach/structure
  7. May 17, 2019 at 18:22
    #87

    Tincanalley Turns player names into a crappy conversation

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    6,080
    Location:
    Ireland
    Rational? The Glazers are the beneficiaries of a hostile takeover bid. The whole family is on the board. They don’t share the values of United supporters or even football supporters. They don’t care about the stadium. They installed Ed their money man as CEO. The club will never prosper or be a happy place under them. Out.
  8. May 17, 2019 at 18:41
    #88

    MackRobinson Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2017
    Messages:
    761
    Location:
    Terminal D
    Supports:
    Football
    What does them being American have to do with anything?
  9. May 18, 2019 at 21:38
    #89

    zizi New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    114

    There seems to be a common theme of mistaking responsibility and fault. Yes the Glaziers are ultimately responsible, and by proxy Woodward, but that doesn't mean they are at fault. The solution is to fix the fault, and that in my opinion is giving too much authority to managers, who were the ones who chose our transfers. And it appears as though a new approach is being taken with the introduction of a transfer committee.

    The family are on the board in name only, i'm not really sure what the issue with that is or what implications you think it has? And which big clubs don't have a 'money man' at the helm? Also don't forget, they were still the owners while SAF was in charge, we've had plenty of good under them.
  10. May 18, 2019 at 22:36
    #90

    Fluctuation0161 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,098
    Location:
    Manchester
    Link?
  11. May 18, 2019 at 22:38
    #91

    Fluctuation0161 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,098
    Location:
    Manchester
    They haven't put the structure in place for successive managers to work. Spent money for LVG then saw acked him and got Jose in who needs totally different players.

    They have spent more on debt than on players since 2005.
  12. May 18, 2019 at 22:38
    #92

    Fluctuation0161 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,098
    Location:
    Manchester
    This is fair comment. The only positive I can agree with.
  13. May 18, 2019 at 22:38
    #93

    Lentwood Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,333
    Location:
    West Didsbury, Manchester
    We did have good times under the Glazers, none of which were anything to do with them. If anything, the brilliance of the team, manager and staff they inherited allowed them to continue this charade for as long as they have.
  14. May 18, 2019 at 22:52
    #94

    Makaveli1 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2019
    Messages:
    13
    I'm sure Fergie didn't like various agents, what's the bigger compromise? Deal with a few greedy agents or cripple your team whilst empowering your rivals? Would be clarifying to know if his 'No value in the market' stuff was a lie to cover the Glazers or if it was his decision, then we could know where a hefty portion of the blames lies for this mess. Letting the likes of Aguero, Silva, Robben, slip away whilst we mostly signed dross set us up for failure long term. It was disgusting to witness. RVP was an epic signing but a band-aid.
    Last edited: May 18, 2019 at 23:21
  15. May 18, 2019 at 23:14
    #95

    Tincanalley Turns player names into a crappy conversation

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    6,080
    Location:
    Ireland
    There is a lovely Irish word for rubbish. Rámeis. And that's about as kind as I can be towards your proposition. The family on the board in name only? Ah, no. Why would any Manchester United supporter (assuming you are one) defend the Glazers or Woodward at this point? They are in the process of bringing a beloved club to its knees. Ferguson knew they were poison. He, like the four managers who followed him, was inadequately supported under them. The journey to mediocrity began when Ronaldo was sold and not replaced; but all this slow decline is very well documented elsewhere. Mourhino should have been supported, so should LVG. I think OGS has already realised that Woodward only wants a yes man. These are dark days at the club, and the last few games are the symptoms. The player power thing is only a symptom. The revolving door manager thing is only a symptom.

    Another symptom is the stadium is in need of an upgrade. Look at the way the Glazers are running Tampa Bay. It's business before football, shirts before supporters. I generally don't get into arguments here. I certainly don't need a newbie telling me the difference between responsibility and fault. I know where the fault lies, I think. In this case the only solution is this lot of parasites out of our collective hair, in my respectful opinion. Are you a United fan? If so, since when? Oh, and welcome to the Caf, by the way.
  16. May 18, 2019 at 23:24
    #96

    Celoti23-81 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2018
    Messages:
    133
    Let's face it, Glazers know jack about football. they have released money as and when a manager has wanted a player, albeit in their ethos of commercial gain.
    However, their persistence with Woodward has been the problem. Woodward is culpable for the bad footballing decisions, not the Glazers!
    A DOF is imperative in this day and age! Woodward is not fit for purpose. Although I did agree with him not sanctioning the transfers of William, Perisic and Aldeweireld!
  17. May 19, 2019 at 03:22
    #97

    Sky1981 Fending off the urge

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,256
    Location:
    Under the bright neon lights of sincity
    Moving the goalpost again. Fergie has explained the situation, fergie has said they're cooperative and the funds is always there.

    Cripple your team? Buying rvp was disgusting? What are you on about?
  18. May 19, 2019 at 10:32
    #98

    Makaveli1 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2019
    Messages:
    13
    I'm aware of what he's said, I was simply wondering if he was telling the truth since United fans such as Stephen Howson on youtube say he wasn't. If he was then that means he's responsible for severely weakening us long term rather than the Glazers.

    I was clearly saying that letting top talent who weren't out of our reach go to other clubs was disgusting to witness (under Fergie, post Ronaldo), RVP being the exception but was a band aid for 1 year. Yes it crippled us and most could see it coming, even if not this low. Not sure how that's moving the goalposts when it addresses the crux of the issue (whether Glazers are to blame)?
  19. May 19, 2019 at 11:06
    #99

    Josep Dowling Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,758
    Surely there can’t be United fans out there that believe having sold Ronaldo, Sir Alex wouldn’t want to buy someone of his calibre?

    We sold a player for £80m having just won the title back to back and been in two Champions League finals. We signed Owen, Valencia and Obertan off the back of this success.

    Whilst we won a few titles after that season that was the real start of the decline. Now we seem to finally spend the money but go out about it in the complete wrong way - signing the wrong players, aging players, injured players, extending contracts for mediocre players. The money being wasted here is all down to Woodward. If we didn’t waste money there would be more in the pot for transfers and offering contracts to players that deserve it. If the Glazers can’t see that they are just as culpable as Woodward for allowing one incompetent man to run the club to the ground.
  20. May 19, 2019 at 11:15

    Kill 'em all Pastor of Muppets

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    9,839
    They have shown that the money is there to be spent but at the same time they're not ready to take the decision to remove Woodward from the football side of things. We're paying one of the highest wage bills in football and the amount of spending we have done in the last 6 years is ridiculous when considering how little we got from it on the pitch.
  21. May 19, 2019 at 11:36

    Makaveli1 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2019
    Messages:
    13
    Yep, lost Ronaldo and Tevez that year and after the 08/09 final vs Barca Fergie said they've set the level we need to get to or something like that. So to see the team decline after that felt like a slap in the face. It does seem odd that Fergie wouldn't want to buy world class players, especially after breaking the transfer record multiple times before. But maybe he genuinely didn't rate Robben, Silva, Ageuro, Toure, Sneijder, Hazard, Modric for their prices or thought they had attitude problems. Tbf some did but they were worth it and letting our domestic and european rivals eat them up came back to bite us hard. I don't buy that we were out priced for them after seeing us successfully outbid other clubs for players in recent years when we're not even as attractive a club to join as we were back then, and some of their transfer prices weren't even that high.
  22. May 19, 2019 at 12:21

    Sky1981 Fending off the urge

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,256
    Location:
    Under the bright neon lights of sincity
    You believe the fans instead of sir alex ferguson? Are you saying saf is a yes man? He fought in the court over a horse once.

    And glazer sanctioned the 30m 29 yo rvp, even without a resale value, how's that not being supportive? They never tell saf who to buy or who not to buy.
  23. May 19, 2019 at 12:25

    Sky1981 Fending off the urge

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,256
    Location:
    Under the bright neon lights of sincity
    I honestly dont think woodward identify players on his own. That's madness of an epic proportion. I tend to believe that woodward just took a list from the manager, go out there and negotiate.

    There's 4 manager post saf, most of them has a beef to ground and if it's indeed woodward that made the decision they'd have come out and say so.

    In my eyes woodward simply trust the manager and tries to get them what they want. He might veto perisic and probably opted to get sanchez instead for marketing purposes but without a hindsight that isnt such a bad decision, who would have known Sanchez is finished this soon. Only last year he was arsenal best player.
  24. May 20, 2019 at 13:58

    Makaveli1 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2019
    Messages:
    13
    I doubt he's a yes man but maybe he thought it was the best thing to do to calm the tensions among fans. RVP was 29 but arguably the best striker in the league and only 24 million, perhaps he had a limited budget to do what he wanted with.

    Given recent years I'm inclined to think the money was there and that Fergie was being stubborn over signings towards the end of his tenure. It's a fairly popular view though that he was covering for the Glazers with his 'no value comments'.
  25. May 20, 2019 at 14:10

    Fluctuation0161 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,098
    Location:
    Manchester
    I think Fergie thought the best thing to do to ease tensions was to say no value. Better to say that than tell the media that the club could go under with the vast amount of debt and interest setup. Plus he had already fallen out with one set of owners. Probably did what he thought was best for the clubs survival at the time.
  26. May 20, 2019 at 16:07

    Sky1981 Fending off the urge

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,256
    Location:
    Under the bright neon lights of sincity
    I dont think he's covering for anyone. Honestly.

    The money was there. Probably not 400m but glazer wont veto anyone saf wanted, certainly not hazard especially over a few more million agent fee. We bought rvp for 24m. Hazard only cost 30m. 6m isnt something the glazer will pennypinched upon if saf wanted hazard. Let's be objective. They have no qualms paying 30m for fellaini, norngiving sanchez 350k per week.

    The year we sold ronaldo was an odd year, glazer has been spending every year since. It may be their fault or it wasnt but it's time we stop putting the blame on that one year for what happens 10 years after
  27. May 20, 2019 at 16:10

    Sky1981 Fending off the urge

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,256
    Location:
    Under the bright neon lights of sincity
    Saf said he's not giving in to agent fee. As much as it cost it's probably in the region of 5m at that time. Hazard alone only cost 30m. I doubt the board will be that inflexible over 5m extra. Besides, the whole things is in line with fergie character of being a man with principles. It's not out of character for him to tell the agents to feck off.
  28. May 20, 2019 at 19:14

    sparx99 Full Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    178
    I think Fergie adapted amazingly through the years with each team but I genuinely think he struggled when the money went through roof.

    He couldn’t accept that big money had to be spent and that includes agents.

    He was awfully stubborn at times and his ruthless streak waned as he aged. Think about how long some of Scholes, Rio, Neville hung about at the end. Neville retired himself at half time. In years gone by Fergie got rid of those players (Keane, Ince, Yorke, Cole, Kanchelskis) way before they were finished at the top level.
  29. May 21, 2019 at 09:05

    Lentwood Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,333
    Location:
    West Didsbury, Manchester
    Google "Glazers PIK loans"...because the Glazer takeover was considered high risk by the money lenders the interest rates were incredibly high. In 2010, after the Glazers had paid down a chunk of the debt, the loans where restructured and the interest payments became more manageable.

    Coincidentally, these years coincided with the "no value in the market years" when we had a net positive spend (+£14m)

    So I dont believe we didn't sign Hazard etc...because of agents fees, I think it was because the Glazers prioritised paying off their debt with our money