All anonymous, so don't fret. 
The Glazers
- Thread starter Livvie
- Start date
Definitely NO.
Ultimately, they've crippled United with a debt (we never had) that will haunt them and might destroy the club when the good times are not so frequent.
Ultimately, they've crippled United with a debt (we never had) that will haunt them and might destroy the club when the good times are not so frequent.
i voted get rid, although for what i´m not sure
I voted 'Better than I thought they would be' - I was against the Glazer takeover but it happened and I feel that things have not been as bad as many people feared. Liverpool, Newcastle and Portsmouth have show just how bad things can get if the wrong guy is in charge.
Positives:
- Unprecedented onfield success (3 Premier Leagues and back to back CL Finals)
- Fergie has been backed in the transfer market and we have a strong squad
- They stay in the background and dont meddle with the football side
Negatives:
- Large debt
- Rising ticket prices
Feel free to add to this quick list ...
Positives:
- Unprecedented onfield success (3 Premier Leagues and back to back CL Finals)
- Fergie has been backed in the transfer market and we have a strong squad
- They stay in the background and dont meddle with the football side
Negatives:
- Large debt
- Rising ticket prices
Feel free to add to this quick list ...
Most won't agree with this even though I think it's true.
The relative stability of the club is down to Ferguson's success and Glazers are more than aware of this.
I would probably vote "better than I thought they'd be" but that's not really saying much.
Voting "no, get rid" is also fairly meaningless without a plausible and realistic alternative scenario, which is the bit I always struggle with in this debate. If there was a straightforward "no" or "wish they'd never taken over in the first place" button I'd click the shit out of it.
Voting "no, get rid" is also fairly meaningless without a plausible and realistic alternative scenario, which is the bit I always struggle with in this debate. If there was a straightforward "no" or "wish they'd never taken over in the first place" button I'd click the shit out of it.
Kin hell...
Ralphie's gonna have a field day with you lot here..
Ralphie's gonna have a field day with you lot here..
I think most people will be in between the 'get rid' and the 'better than I thought they'd be' options. Both are true for me - they have been better than I expected and better than the gang at Liverpool for example, while also keeping their noses out of it unlike Roman, but obviously the debt is potentially crippling if it gets much higher.
I voted get rid. I don't think they are looking past their ownership and although success wise they are are the nail, we can't sustain our position with this rising debt and alienation of the fans.
same as. things go in phases and we should be investing further in the clubs future not servicing the debt for some no mark ginger absentee landlord
They haven't brought us success, thats all been down to Sir Alex. Once he leaves or the successs dries up you look at the situation the club will be left in (e.g. debt) and they can't be good for the club.
How about 'doing to them what the Bolsheviks did to the Tsar?' Gets my vote.
They havn't done anything good for this club.
Well apart from 3 leagues, a Champions league and the Carling Cup.
In many ways they seem to have helped with the internal politics that occured before they arrived. Making transfers happen seems to be far easier and the money has always been there to go after our main targets (no one can deny that).
We've probably had our most successful spell with SAF with them in charge, probably coincidence, but one could argue that he's helped SAF focus on the football.
As been mentioned before, short term we look fine. The debts are being controlled and I assume (in hope) are being reduced. But long term we still look very fragile, what happens if we get knocked out of the CL group stage when SAF retires? That would cripple our finances.
The only ray of hope appears to be the quality of youth coming through the ranks. I'd be much happier if we could hear some positive news on the debt.
We've probably had our most successful spell with SAF with them in charge, probably coincidence, but one could argue that he's helped SAF focus on the football.
As been mentioned before, short term we look fine. The debts are being controlled and I assume (in hope) are being reduced. But long term we still look very fragile, what happens if we get knocked out of the CL group stage when SAF retires? That would cripple our finances.
The only ray of hope appears to be the quality of youth coming through the ranks. I'd be much happier if we could hear some positive news on the debt.
That's not really true.
Think about the treble winnning season and the FA Cups we used to win pre-Glazer. We won 3 in a row then as well. I think we were more competitve in the transfer market as well.
We've spent about half as much per season since they arrived or something like that.
The size of the debt and the amount of money needed to service that debt is what causes me anger towards them. Servicing that debt is probably the reason for the hike in ticket prices (and pies!!). I think the argument about the silverware won since they took over is irrelevent as the squad they bought were already a successful team with great foundations and youth setup in place - they haven't built anything, just kept it ticking over. As the whether or not they have given SAF all the backing in the transfer market, well I guess we'll never know as SAF is too professional a man to say (maybe in his retirement autobiography).
Abit even stevens on:
No
And better than i thought they'd be
But then again thats obvious because when the Glazers took over all you saw around the place was "R.I.P United"
Was doom mongering to the extreme.
I do wonder who voted yes though.
No
And better than i thought they'd be
But then again thats obvious because when the Glazers took over all you saw around the place was "R.I.P United"
Was doom mongering to the extreme.
I do wonder who voted yes though.
Why is this poll secret? We should be allowed to know which two thick cnuts voted yes, well 2 so far anyway.
Also I object to the lack of 'should be slaughtered to the last man' option, seriously, they've fecking robbed us, if anyone shot them I would not be sorry.
Also I object to the lack of 'should be slaughtered to the last man' option, seriously, they've fecking robbed us, if anyone shot them I would not be sorry.
The thing is as soon as they took over Chelsea came into prominence and stole our limelight. Through a series of good buys and the emergence of Ronaldo we got back our place as top dogs. Rather than them have an influence on transfers ala Abramovich they have let Fergie get on with it and it has paid dividends. When you look at the players that have come in under their tenure they have more or less re-built the team while retaining the quality that was already in place. Under them we have bough Evra, Vidic, Carrick, Foster, Van Der Sar, Park, Ronaldo, Hargreaves, Anderson, Nani, Tevez, Berbatov, Valenicia, etc. Bar Nani and possibly Hargreaves I think the transfer policy has been very good. In that respect I cannot fault them.
It's the price that those purchases have cost the club and its fans though. I think the only noticeable sale under them was Ronaldo and I think it's fair to say it was the right time for him to move on. I think to a large extent they have re-built the squad and to suggest they have built on the success that was already there is not very generous as we looked like we were heading for a period of decline.
Oh, they did that? Was wondering who was going to take the credit.
See my above post they facilitated the transfers. Surely you cannot deny that. I hate the Glazers debt and ticket wise but I can't fault the money they have made available to Ferguson. It's the price to fans that those transfers have come at that riles me.
I can think of a few suspects.
What's all this 'money they have made available' bollocks?
Money's been coming in from all the same sources that were there before the Glazers arrived, there's just less off it available for transfers than there would have been if there wasn't now a huge debt to pay off.
That's less, as in not as much. You can throw as many spending figures as you want at this thread, there would still be have been more to spend if the money spent on debt repayment was added on. More as in, oh feck it why doesn't someone just shoot the cnuts.
Money's been coming in from all the same sources that were there before the Glazers arrived, there's just less off it available for transfers than there would have been if there wasn't now a huge debt to pay off.
That's less, as in not as much. You can throw as many spending figures as you want at this thread, there would still be have been more to spend if the money spent on debt repayment was added on. More as in, oh feck it why doesn't someone just shoot the cnuts.
I voted better than I thought.
Almost anyone shareholder would have done the exact same as the Glazers have.
SAF has been allowed to get on with doing the job and compared to many many other premiership owners we are blessed.
To me the debt isn't an issue at the moment because I still see MUFC the club company as separate from their holding companies where all the debt is.
MUFC is doing very well as a company and I think what its owners do with the profits is up to them. It is there profits, so whether they repay debt or buy yachts is irrelevant to me.
Almost anyone shareholder would have done the exact same as the Glazers have.
SAF has been allowed to get on with doing the job and compared to many many other premiership owners we are blessed.
To me the debt isn't an issue at the moment because I still see MUFC the club company as separate from their holding companies where all the debt is.
MUFC is doing very well as a company and I think what its owners do with the profits is up to them. It is there profits, so whether they repay debt or buy yachts is irrelevant to me.
Well I definitely think that Fergie has been backed in the transfer market whenever he wanted, but yes I am aware that some people do not agree.
For me, the fact that Fergie has publicly come out to say he has been backed by the Glazers is proof enough - others of course will tell you that Fergie is a liar
Compare this situation to Liverpool and Arsenal. Rafa is often publicly criticising his bosses for lack of investment and Wenger has made it clear that he had little money to spend in the last couple of seasons.
I voted 'No'.
All our success on the field has been in spite of, not because of the Glazers. Prices have been hiked up, net spending has been low, the club is precariously in debt, and the crowds at OT are dropping.
Short of getting involved in picking the team, I can't really think of many redeeming factors from the ginger leprechauns.
All our success on the field has been in spite of, not because of the Glazers. Prices have been hiked up, net spending has been low, the club is precariously in debt, and the crowds at OT are dropping.
Short of getting involved in picking the team, I can't really think of many redeeming factors from the ginger leprechauns.
If you take away the money we received for Ronaldo we've spent half as much in the transfer market in the equivalent time. If you include the Ronaldo money, it's about 20 times less. If you take into account the increased revenue they've made, the proportion of money 'they' have spent is even less.
I voted get rid. The Glazers have actually been worse than I expected -
They increased the ticket prices more dramatically than was predicted (60% in three years rather than 50% in 5 years).
They introduced the Compulsory ACS and various illegal Terms and Conditions to the Season Ticket contract, forcing the fans to take their own club to the Office of Fair Trading.
They cut spending in the transfer market (promised £20m a year plus £25m every few years, in fact they've spent around £1.5m a year).
They kicked the democractically elected fan groups off the Fans Forum and have created a division between the supporters and the club, the like of which has never been seen in this proud club's history.
Oh, and they allowed AIG to sponsor that Munich memorial.
Shame on them.
Well that's ok then, as long as you think that. The banks to whom the Glazers owe the money unfortunately are under the impression that over £500m of the debt is secured against Manchester United Ltd. But if the worst comes to the worst, be sure to drop them a line, won't you?
Come on manx, don't tell me you're surprised about the poll results.
Well that's ok then, as long as you think that. The banks to whom the Glazers owe the money unfortunately are under the impression that over £500m of the debt is secured against Manchester United Ltd. But if the worst comes to the worst, be sure to drop them a line, won't you?
And if the worst came to the worst when the debts are called in the banks would sell the MUFC shares. We just get new owners.
The shares of MUFC are worth far more than the assets of the club itself.
What would be so bad with getting new owners?
Jesus H fecking christ.
for me, the size of the ever increasing debt means the Glazers are and always will be bad for United.
The recent success has been great, but when I see the debt we are under, I can only think that it is the calm before the storm. That debt is too big, and growing, to not have a massive impact on the club soon or later.
The recent success has been great, but when I see the debt we are under, I can only think that it is the calm before the storm. That debt is too big, and growing, to not have a massive impact on the club soon or later.
As you note, so far the debt has been successfully managed in line with the original Glazer business plan. There is a worry about what might happen in the future but I am hopeful that the situation is stable.
The next 12 months will be interesting as I believe a first chunk of debt needs to be redeemed or refinanced by next August. So this will be a good indication of where we are at.
So we've not bought anyone then eben though I have listed almost a full team.
There's no evidence of this. Even the yanks at scouseland haven't rocketed the ticket prices and I think it's fair to say the demand is there. Huge debts seem to be something the Americans seem fond of and no surprise that's where the sub prime debt problem originated that led to this recession. You look at world debt and the East and West couldn't be more different. It's also the reason why HSBC have been virtually unaffected by the recession.
I think's it's 2013 if I remember correctly. If more people take on the Glazer model god knows what ill become of football.
I think that is senior debt you are talking about - a portion of the PIK comes up in August 2010 as far as I know.
cnuts, who've as good as robbed me from my club.
Get rid.
Now.
Get rid.
Now.
Yes, better than I thought they would be, but just get rid of them...