Why the negativity against Ed and the Glazers? Sorry I don't follow

[Revan]

25m in financial costs, 17m in taxes and then earnings per share of 0.24£. If I'm not mistaken.

Oh, I thought that we payed less than that on taxes. So, it is a bit more than I though. It is circa 60m instead of 50m.

Of course, the taxes is something that you can do feck all about it. Financial costs could be set to 0 (if there is no debt and so no interest payments), but then taxes increase (someone who has studied this more can help me on how much they increase, I bet it is closer to 25m than to 0). Dividends is the only money which goes into their pockets, I believe it is around 20m pounds, which means that Glazers get 80% of it (the other goes to other shareholders) or circa 16m.

 

[Revan]

I do realise what they are, which is precisely why I want them gone. Barca/Bayern/Madrid are all owned by the fans and exist solely to win titles, it's difficult for us to compete with that long term. Then you have the oil clubs City/Chelsea/PSG etc, we're at a huge disadvantage with the Glazers and be better off with new owners.

It isn't though, considering that the money which goes out of the club is minuscule. Even with the dividends which goes out, we still have more money than Barca and Bayern, I guess 10m less than Real. Since Fergie left, we have invested much more than them, which maybe means that Fergie wasn't lying when he said that the owners always backed him. And well, all United fans need to do is to pay a bit more than 1.5b pounds, which would give them a majority of shares.

Also, 25% of Bayern is owned from companies. Recently, Rummenige has been calling for the abolishment of 50 + 1 rule which exists on Germany, which means that Bayern seem to want to go into a more English/Italian model when someone (not the fans) own the club. No idea why, and no idea how serious they are about it.

Finally, there has been a long long time since Roman put a penny on Chelsea. Chelsea is a self-sustained club. City and PSG are not.

 

[endless_wheelies]

Leech owners and a vice-chairman that held us back this summer. What's not to hate?

 

[Green_Red]

Woodward:

- spending the summer pretending to sign fabregas, waiting all summer to sign fellaini so he could pay OVER Fellainis buyout clause to sign him, then making a fumbling attempt to get at left back in at 11.30pm on deadline day. Waiting so long to move for Herrera that we had to wait a whole extra year to get him.

- stories when LVG took over of him telling players to fight for a place only for Woodward to go behind his back telling their agents to find them a new club, so Woodward would then have funds to bring in players like Falcao who LVG never asked for, resulting in LVG spending half his first season complaining about how "imbalanced" our squad was. Then come the second season LVG is moaning about the club not signing the players he actually wanted, or the "profile" of players he wanted. Mentioning Pedro constantly for some reason.

- Mourinho right from the off being shocked at how terribly organised everything at the club was, including our pre season schedule, and now seemingly being in the same position LVG was in where Woodward decides to "back" him by making his own decisions about what players we need.

- this idiotic situation we have where we deliberately let half our squad run their contracts down as if this won't cause any kind of unrest or problems down the line.

- I don't care which kitchen company is our official sponsor, I care how well the team is managed and run. We did perfectly fine with money before Woodward was on the scene. The main difference he's coincided with is the football side of the club suddenly being run embarrassingly badly year after year. It has reached a point where it is no longer possible that he isn't part responsible.

All very valid points. The main two you missed out on were Woodward is responsible for bringing in two managers who coach a brand of football that is the antithesis of what Manchester United is all about. He is not a football club chairman.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

There is a lot of reason to be against the Glazers but, it has always been a myth that the club has not spent money on wages and transfers with them owning the club.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

Not sure Bailly Fred and Lindelof really count,

Just be thankful you're not the one telling Ed That.

if someone like Everton signed them no one would think they'd challenge. On the others it's just the bare minimum to stand still, take Lukaku, Pogba and Sanchez out of our first XI and it's mid table quality.

Nah

 

[vidic blood & sand]

Take the responsibility for identifying players

And the scouts do what exactly?

or providing "a list" away from the manager.

Which is what a lot of people here are saying he should not get involved in, but trust the manager.

The club needs a sustainable long term recruitment strategy driven by a Director of Football/Sporting Director. Hiring an elite Director of Football should be the main priority.

I think that's bollox, and so would Ferguson.

One thing I really dislike about the current strategy is "we need a centre back". There is so much that goes into constructing a squad that identifying the need for a player in a position is nowhere near enough. Do they have the complementary skills to produce a quality partnership with existing players, do they fit the style of play, are they the right age profile, will they fit the culture of the squad and most importantly, do they have the right mentality to play for United.

Specific players should be identified, not profiles and transfers should be planned so those players are signed at the optimum time to provide value and when they are ready to contribute in the first team. That's a full time role, not a bit part of the manager and MD's roles.

No upgrades out there who either want to join us, or who represent value for money. Bummer huh?

 

[crossy1686]

Seriously what are you on about. I'm explaining why you don't have a clue what's going on when it comes to the Glazers, you proved it with your response. Worst thread ever!

Seconded. This has to be the worst thread ever. Open show of support for the Glazers and Ed, it's depressing as hell. The most disappointing thing is the amount of people who think they're good for the club.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

Seriously what are you on about. I'm explaining why you don't have a clue what's going on when it comes to the Glazers, you proved it with your response. Worst thread ever!

You Write nonsense, and then get upset when that nonsense is pointed out to you.

 

[Revan]

Seconded. This has to be the worst thread ever. Open show of support for the Glazers and Ed, it's depressing as hell. The most disappointing thing is the amount of people who think they're good for the club.

I don't like what some other posters say = worst thread ever.

The Glazers argument is the most religious argument in the history of football. Burn the nonbelievers who think that the Glazers aren't that bad, burn them with fire!

 

[vidic blood & sand]

Beautiful comment. I won't lie to you, im definitely one of those fans you have stated above. in general i am having a hard time coming to grips with us not being able to compete but in fairness how can you blame us? The statistics will show you that after the money spent we should be able to compete and not look like an absolute mess. More than 700 million pounds spent after Fergie left and we look worse than Liverpool footballing wise. That's a tough pill for any reasonable fan to swallow.

However my problem really doesn't come from Ed woodward but more from the managers. Im sticking my knife of dissatisfaction in mourinho currently and I do think Im justified. I'd also rather not give him another season whether or not we finish top 4. His style is just not worth it nowadays when the likes of leicester city are able to entertain.

Agreed!

Manchester United are traditionally and attacking entertaining football club. Even Tommy Doc and Atkinson kept that tradition going. Mourinho does not acknowledge that tradition, and so was doomed from the start. I know it, you know it, but those who put success before entertainment are now struggling with it.

Tradition rules, not success!

 

[Minimalist]

Not being intentionally rude But if you dont follow why theres negativity towards woodward and glazers by now, is there even any point explaining?

What an intentionally pointless post.

 

[SER19]

What an intentionally pointless post.

In what sense? It also makes no sense that you have italicised the word that you did. In doing so you’re suggesting that you knew my motivations in raising a question, and have chosen to highlight it. Not only that but your own post, without elaboration serves no purpose. It’s making you come across as a bit dim.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

So... You're putting faith in a failed winger

A bit harsh.
I would describe him as not the greatest winger we've had, and is adapting himself as a decent wingback who represented England adequately in the world cup.

who is a adequate backup as left-back, and a extremely injury-prone guy who needs years to get into shape after eating himself fat between injuries who the managers who've had him all say he isn't a great professional, something he has admitted to himself?

Nonsense. I would describe him as professional and committed.

We don't know who Mourinho has targeted, those were examples of available players. What we do know is that this transfer round he hasn't been backed.

We don't know? Well that makes all the difference.

Van Gaal "steadied" the ship on course for a iceberg. Every single transfer done by LvG or under his tenure was a failure.

Massive potential though. Falcao and Di Maria had everyone reaching for the kleenex.

We couldn't even score 50 goals in his last season and we were just as bad as under Moyes.

The plan was awful.

And the mistakes were learned and will not be repeated.

Good side on paper?

Absolutely!

de Gea

Valencia smalling/Bailly Rojo/Jones Young/Shaw

Mata Matic Fred Pogba Lingard Sanchez

Lukaku Rashford Martial

Top side, and it would be improved further if realistic improvements were available.

We have some good players and a lot of holes in our team.
No right-winger

Who's available?

which makes the rwb overworked. No proper lwb

We have two.

which holds us back on the left. Both who make it harder for our already sub-par cb's. We've got huge holes with some great quality here and there. Unless those players are of the Kante-mould then they cannot paper over the cracks.

What????

We haven't yet seen Matic link up with Pogba and Fred. I'm looking forward to it.

This conversation is getting us nowhere though, you've decided you are fine with everything but the manager and I'm not about to change my view based on arguments that Shaw is looking good or that someone rates Rojo/Jones/Smalling/Lindelöf as champion-quality cb's.

I think you need a quick bath in realism.

 

[Dumbat12]

I dont like the glazers either and you are right they put the club in debt, but what I am saying is if Edwards, who always wanted to sell the club anyway, was in charge now we wouldnt be able to compete with billionaires. We were the richest club back then because we had the richest owner, but talked of profits in the 20 million bracket.

How so? As I said, if we judge by what happened, we were breaking transfer records left and right before Chelsea and City figuratively existed. Edwards also didn't want to sell until the Rock of Gibraltar fiasco and before that his own stunts that forced him to resign as chairman. He actually refused before that a Murdoch bid. The club's revenues are all that is needed for us to compete with the billionaires. You think that money we invested in the past few years comes out of Glazer's pockets? Hell no. You're also completely forgetting how much money wise football has grown in these past 15 years. You can't compare football finances now for any club with what was then. Back then Real Madrid buying Zidane for 45 million pounds was considered as absurd as PSG buying Neymar for 200 million today. We were easily paying that kind of money under Edwards and co before the Glazer takeover.

We also didn't have an owner man, we were floating on the stock market. Many people held shares, billionaires, millionaires, whatever. There was not a single owner. And Glazers weren't rich at all, relatively speaking, they brought the club with loans with which they later used the club's finances to pay.

Abromovich came in and changed the landscape then the sheik. Without the glazers and their cut throat competitiveness and the money made through it we wouldnt have been able to compete. In fact if you look at it another way and sold to someone else we might have been an oliagarchs plaything like City or Chelsea and maybe be a lot better off.

He didn't change the landscape, he made Chelsea as rich of a club as us, but that didn't stop our financial might. We could still buy anyone we wanted and we had plenty of money to do so before the Glazer takeover. With the difference that back then the "biggest club in the world" actually meant something apart from finances. Every player wanted to play for us, not Madrid. Now, apart from finances, there are a number of clubs that are far ahead of us in terms of reputation.

 

[Castia]

Leech owners and a vice-chairman that held us back this summer. What's not to hate?

What about the hundreds of millions they've funded since SAf retired? there's no sign at the moment that another £200m would improve us because we keep wasting the money on shite.

The money we've spent in the last 4 years should put us on par with the best in Europe instead we're playing like Stoke in disguise.

One of the top rated midfielders and world cup winner Pogba looks like Charlie Adam whilst Alexis who's proved he's among the best players in the Prem looks like a past it Rooney who's lost about 6 yards of pace since January.

Then you have our £75m defensive duo in Bailly (glass hammer) and Lindeflop who aren't any better than the already average Jones and Smalling who've been around since SAF days its a fecking mess but lets just keep throwing hundreds of millions at it with our never ending supply of cash.

 

[crossy1686]

I don't like what some other posters say = worst thread ever.

The Glazers argument is the most religious argument in the history of football. Burn the nonbelievers who think that the Glazers aren't that bad, burn them with fire!

I don't see things as black and white as that unfortunately. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and there have been clear pros and (mostly)cons during the Glazers rein, but for some reason people on this forum insist on taking sides and a lot of people are confusing their support for the Glazers with their distain for Mourinho. If Fergie was still in charge, the green and yellow scarfs would be out at some point again this season and this place would be awash with anti-Glazer threads.

That's why this is the worst thread ever.

 

[crossy1686]

Agreed!

Manchester United are traditionally and attacking entertaining football club. Even Tommy Doc and Atkinson kept that tradition going. Mourinho does not acknowledge that tradition, and so was doomed from the start. I know it, you know it, but those who put success before entertainment are now struggling with it.

Tradition rules, not success!

The West Ham way, Arsenal way, Southampton way, Liverpool way, I could go on. Every club in the world thinks it has a 'way'.

SAF even said the following on it:

Ferguson said: "I hope that before I die, someone can explain the 'West Ham way'. What is it? They last won a trophy in 1980, the FA Cup.

"I never played against any West Ham team that played football I was afraid of. They were always surviving, or lucky as hell against us.

Turns out the 'way' is just winning games.

 

[Revan]

How so? As I said, if we judge by what happened, we were breaking transfer records left and right before Chelsea and City figuratively existed. Edwards also didn't want to sell until the Rock of Gibraltar fiasco and before that his own stunts that forced him to resign as chairman. He actually refused before that a Murdoch bid. The club's revenues are all that is needed for us to compete with the billionaires. You think that money we invested in the past few years comes out of Glazer's pockets? Hell no. You're also completely forgetting how much money wise football has grown in these past 15 years. You can't compare football finances now for any club with what was then. Back then Real Madrid buying Zidane for 45 million pounds was considered as absurd as PSG buying Neymar for 200 million today. We were easily paying that kind of money under Edwards and co before the Glazer takeover.

We never broke world's transfer record under the previous PLC. We broke it though under Glazers when we signed Paul Pogba.
We broke 3 times English transfer record under the previous PLC. We broke it twice under Glazers with Di Maria and Pogba. While we didn't break transfer record with Lukaku, he is still the second most expensive player ever bought by an English club

He didn't change the landscape, he made Chelsea as rich of a club as us, but that didn't stop our financial might. We could still buy anyone we wanted and we had plenty of money to do so before the Glazer takeover. With the difference that back then the "biggest club in the world" actually meant something apart from finances. Every player wanted to play for us, not Madrid. Now, apart from finances, there are a number of clubs that are far ahead of us in terms of reputation.

I guess then that Fergie was having mental problems when he complained about the inflexible wage structure (which then changed under Glazers), when he wanted Batistuta, but got Dwight Yorke instead, etc.

Ferguson was keen to sign Batistuta.
We looked at the situation, but at that time, the wages Batistuta wanted, and of course we're talking net.
I can't remember the figures now, (but) they would have jeopardised our wage structure at the club at the time, and therefore turned it down.

Or that Fergie had to sell in order to buy, according to Peter Kenyon. But yeah, it seems that Fergie had problems with the previous owners which were angels, but somehow only had praise for the current devils. I guess all great people are weird.

 

[Esquire]

I do realise what they are, which is precisely why I want them gone. Barca/Bayern/Madrid are all owned by the fans and exist solely to win titles, it's difficult for us to compete with that long term. Then you have the oil clubs City/Chelsea/PSG etc, we're at a huge disadvantage with the Glazers and be better off with new owners.

Glazers will not sell. This club is a cash cow. Who can afford the asking price if there is even one? New owners may be even worse because the only candidates who won’t look to make money off the club are the oil states. Be careful what you wish for.

Glazers and Ed are smart folks and I think they surely cannot believe the BS that they spew about commercial success not equating trophies. Sure, we are the biggest club commercially and stock price is at an all time high. But what is the product we are selling? Without the winning, fans who do not have a direct connection with the club will look elsewhere.

 

[Morpheus 7]

You Write nonsense, and then get upset when that nonsense is pointed out to you.

Ha..I ain't upset more bewildered at your understanding of Man United and the Glazers. Ludicrous thread, it really is. You didn't really point anything out to me mate, I'm not sure if you read my post properly or simply didn't understand it.

 

[Revan]

I don't see things as black and white as that unfortunately. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and there have been clear pros and (mostly)cons during the Glazers rein, but for some reason people on this forum insist on taking sides and a lot of people are confusing their support for the Glazers with their distain for Mourinho. If Fergie was still in charge, the green and yellow scarfs would be out at some point again this season and this place would be awash with anti-Glazer threads.

That's why this is the worst thread ever.

For me personally, it isn't about taking sides, it is more about separating facts (or at least what I think are facts) with myths and legends. Some of the facts are:

- Unlike what some people claim, we weren't breaking records right and left under previous owners, we couldn't give to Fergie always players he wanted (Batistuta, Luis Ronaldo etc), we had an inflexible wage structure, Fergie was told (via media) that he has to sell before he has to buy. Just imagine the scenes if Gill or Woody did that to Fergie, knives would have been sharped.
- While we were technically the richest club in the world, our revenue was stagnating. I am saying technically, because Italian clubs were spending more, similar to how City now spends more.
- That Fergie was in a kind of difficult position being in open fight with the two main shareholders we had. Luckily, they controlled less than 50% (precisely 29.89%), otherwise Fergie would have been sacked.
- That we had a totally inadequate commercial team for 21th century. We had 2 people working there, under Glazers the number grow to 150. And despite the dramatic increase in the TV deals, our commercial deals dwarf the TV money, something that didn't happen ever before.
- That we actually are spending a lot, since Fergie left, we have a higher net spent than any other club in the world bar City, and the highest wage bill in England (I guess second in the world after Barca, but might be wrong).
- That Fergie never said a bad word about Glazers, and said that they have always been supportive, but the decision to not spent was always his. While he might have been lying, since he left, we spent a shitload of money, so maybe, he was actually telling the truth. Hate Glazers - campaign should probably consider that.

There are also some other facts:

- That United was bought in a very bad manner, when the club was bought with a debt, and then the club had to pay a large part of it. That money was spent essentially cause we were 'privileged' to be ruled from Glazers.
- That we have been clueless on the pitch in the last 5 years, and seemed even more clueless outside of it.
- That we replaced Ronaldo with Valencia and Owen.

Of course, there are also some myths, lies or cliches like:

- Glazers are parasites/leeches. They're a cancer to the club. They are the worst thing to have ever happened to United.
- Glazers didn't put a single penny of their own money when they bought the club (what about the PIK payments in 2010?).
- United are not spending much compared to other clubs (we are spending more than any other club bar City, a club that has much more money than us cause of his owner).
- We didn't spend much money this summer so the money is going into Glazers pockets. We are a PLC, we will know if it happens, it hasn't happened yet.
- Glazers care only about getting into UCL, everytime we reach that goal we don't invest. What about the previous summer when we got Lukaku, Lindelof, Matic and then in January Sanchez? I believe we never spent more money than in 17-18 season.
- United broke transfers right and left before Glazers and were signing everyone they wanted.

In addition to Ed-specific idiocies like:

- Ed knows nothing about football (guy who has been first or second highest executive for 15 years knows nothing about his job, interesting), he knows less than an average Caftard about football (you'll find it in the thread).
- Ed's only job was to back or sack the manager. Interesting, I am sending my CV to United for Ed's job right now.
- Ed should have signed Maguire for (it starts on 70m, but one poster said 200m).

And so on, and so on. The list is endless.

In reality The Glazers/Ed debate could/should be an interesting one, and there is much to be said both positively and negatively about them, but for some reason, even after 13+ years the initiation of the totally dishonest campaign, every interesting debate gets lost into a sea of nonsense and cliches.

 

[Dumbat12]

We never broke world's transfer record under the previous PLC. We broke it though under Glazers when we signed Paul Pogba.

If you're ignoring the 10 years or so that we spend absolutely nothing during the Glazers, sure.

We broke 3 times English transfer record under the previous PLC. We broke it twice under Glazers with Di Maria and Pogba. While we didn't break transfer record with Lukaku, he is still the second most expensive player ever bought by an English club

In the past 5 years. What about the 10 years before that? What happened then? Who did we brought? Who did we spend big on? You can't just ignore the 10 years before that we were in a complete limbo and couldn't do shit aside from letting SAF win championships purely due to his managerial abilities.

I guess then that Fergie was having mental problems when he complained about the inflexible wage structure (which then changed under Glazers), when he wanted Batistuta, but got Dwight Yorke instead, etc.

And who did Sir Alex got during the Glazers tenure? SAF had off the pitch problems with the ownerships, not on the pitch. We could have easily signed Batistuta, but by Martin Edwards accounts, his wages were ridiculous. Look at Madrid's wage structure. Only Bale is on big money, the rest are on normal wages. Even though Madrid has way more stars, better players and reputation than us? Having financial might shouldn't mean that you have to be irresponsible with it.

Again, we could have brought anyone, even Batistuta. It just wasn't a sensible choice. And we didn't exactly make the wrong choice given that we won the treble with Dwight.

 

[Esquire]

It isn't though, considering that the money which goes out of the club is minuscule. Even with the dividends which goes out, we still have more money than Barca and Bayern, I guess 10m less than Real. Since Fergie left, we have invested much more than them, which maybe means that Fergie wasn't lying when he said that the owners always backed him. And well, all United fans need to do is to pay a bit more than 1.5b pounds, which would give them a majority of shares.

Also, 25% of Bayern is owned from companies. Recently, Rummenige has been calling for the abolishment of 50 + 1 rule which exists on Germany, which means that Bayern seem to want to go into a more English/Italian model when someone (not the fans) own the club. No idea why, and no idea how serious they are about it.

Finally, there has been a long long time since Roman put a penny on Chelsea. Chelsea is a self-sustained club. City and PSG are not.

Interesting, why would Bayern want to do that? Their model clearly works.

Real is in effect a national team and is backed by facilities from Spanish banks they don’t have to worry about funds.

 

[Andersons Dietician]

For me personally, it isn't about taking sides, it is more about separating facts (or at least what I think are facts) with myths and legends. Some of the facts are:

- Unlike what some people claim, we weren't breaking records right and left under previous owners, we couldn't give to Fergie always players he wanted (Batistuta, Luis Ronaldo etc), we had an inflexible wage structure, Fergie was told (via media) that he has to sell before he has to buy. Just imagine the scenes if Gill or Woody did that to Fergie, knives would have been sharped.
- While we were technically the richest club in the world, our revenue was stagnating. I am saying technically, because Italian clubs were spending more, similar to how City now spends more.
- That Fergie was in a kind of difficult position being in open fight with the two main shareholders we had. Luckily, they controlled less than 50% (precisely 29.89%), otherwise Fergie would have been sacked.
- That we had a totally inadequate commercial team for 21th century. We had 2 people working there, under Glazers the number grow to 150. And despite the dramatic increase in the TV deals, our commercial deals dwarf the TV money, something that didn't happen ever before.
- That we actually are spending a lot, since Fergie left, we have a higher net spent than any other club in the world bar City, and the highest wage bill in England (I guess second in the world after Barca, but might be wrong).
- That Fergie never said a bad word about Glazers, and said that they have always been supportive, but the decision to not spent was always his. While he might have been lying, since he left, we spent a shitload of money, so maybe, he was actually telling the truth. Hate Glazers - campaign should probably consider that.

There are also some other facts:

- That United was bought in a very bad manner, when the club was bought with a debt, and then the club had to pay a large part of it. That money was spent essentially cause we were 'privileged' to be ruled from Glazers.
- That we have been clueless on the pitch in the last 5 years, and seemed even more clueless outside of it.
- That we replaced Ronaldo with Valencia and Owen.

Of course, there are also some myths, lies or cliches like:

- Glazers are parasites/leeches. They're a cancer to the club. They are the worst thing to have ever happened to United.
- Glazers didn't put a single penny of their own money when they bought the club (what about the PIK payments in 2010?).
- United are not spending much compared to other clubs (we are spending more than any other club bar City, a club that has much more money than us cause of his owner).
- We didn't spend much money this summer so the money is going into Glazers pockets. We are a PLC, we will know if it happens, it hasn't happened yet.
- Glazers care only about getting into UCL, everytime we reach that goal we don't invest. What about the previous summer when we got Lukaku, Lindelof, Matic and then in January Sanchez? I believe we never spent more money than in 17-18 season.
- United broke transfers right and left before Glazers and were signing everyone they wanted.

In addition to Ed-specific idiocies like:

- Ed knows nothing about football (guy who has been first or second highest executive for 15 years knows nothing about his job, interesting), he knows less than an average Caftard about football (you'll find it in the thread).
- Ed's only job was to back or sack the manager. Interesting, I am sending my CV to United for Ed's job right now.
- Ed should have signed Maguire for (it starts on 70m, but one poster said 200m).

And so on, and so on. The list is endless.

In reality The Glazers/Ed debate could/should be an interesting one, and there is much to be said both positively and negatively about them, but for some reason, even after 13+ years the initiation of the totally dishonest campaign, every interesting debate gets lost into a sea of nonsense and cliches.

Stunning post and I fully agree with what you’ve said. Sorry I have nothing to add.

 

[Revan]

If you're ignoring the 10 years or so that we spend absolutely nothing during the Glazers, sure.

The years when we signed Carrick, Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves, Tevez, Berbatov, Valencia, Young, Jones, De Gea, RVP, Kagawa for what was (relatively speaking and taking the time into consideration) big money?

In the past 5 years. What about the 10 years before that? What happened then? Who did we brought? Who did we spend big on? You can't just ignore the 10 years before that we were in a complete limbo and couldn't do shit aside from letting SAF win championships purely due to his managerial abilities.

Fergie: No value in the market, I don't want to spend.
LUHG: Nah, he is lying.
Fergie leaves, United suddenly starts to spend like someone who has just won the lottery.
LUHG: But why didn't we spend in the previous years. Hint: it is 3 lines above.

I
And who did Sir Alex got during the Glazers tenure? SAF had off the pitch problems with the ownerships, not on the pitch. We could have easily signed Batistuta, but by Martin Edwards accounts, his wages were ridiculous. Look at Madrid's wage structure. Only Bale is on big money, the rest are on normal wages. Even though Madrid has way more stars, better players and reputation than us? Having financial might shouldn't mean that you have to be irresponsible with it.

Again, we could have brought anyone, even Batistuta. It just wasn't a sensible choice. And we didn't exactly make the wrong choice given that we won the treble with Dwight.

So essentially we could have signed Batistuta, but because we couldn't, we signed Yorke. It doesn't matter how good he did, what it matters is that we had to settle for lesser choices, cause the elite players like Batistuta, Ronaldo, Zidane, Figo, Nedved etc were totally out of our reach. Be it transfers, wages or combined, we couldn't sign them.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Esquire]

For me personally, it isn't about taking sides, it is more about separating facts (or at least what I think are facts) with myths and legends. Some of the facts are:

- Unlike what some people claim, we weren't breaking records right and left under previous owners, we couldn't give to Fergie always players he wanted (Batistuta, Luis Ronaldo etc), we had an inflexible wage structure, Fergie was told (via media) that he has to sell before he has to buy. Just imagine the scenes if Gill or Woody did that to Fergie, knives would have been sharped.
- While we were technically the richest club in the world, our revenue was stagnating. I am saying technically, because Italian clubs were spending more, similar to how City now spends more.
- That Fergie was in a kind of difficult position being in open fight with the two main shareholders we had. Luckily, they controlled less than 50% (precisely 29.89%), otherwise Fergie would have been sacked.
- That we had a totally inadequate commercial team for 21th century. We had 2 people working there, under Glazers the number grow to 150. And despite the dramatic increase in the TV deals, our commercial deals dwarf the TV money, something that didn't happen ever before.
- That we actually are spending a lot, since Fergie left, we have a higher net spent than any other club in the world bar City, and the highest wage bill in England (I guess second in the world after Barca, but might be wrong).
- That Fergie never said a bad word about Glazers, and said that they have always been supportive, but the decision to not spent was always his. While he might have been lying, since he left, we spent a shitload of money, so maybe, he was actually telling the truth. Hate Glazers - campaign should probably consider that.

There are also some other facts:

- That United was bought in a very bad manner, when the club was bought with a debt, and then the club had to pay a large part of it. That money was spent essentially cause we were 'privileged' to be ruled from Glazers.
- That we have been clueless on the pitch in the last 5 years, and seemed even more clueless outside of it.
- That we replaced Ronaldo with Valencia and Owen.

Of course, there are also some myths, lies or cliches like:

- Glazers are parasites/leeches. They're a cancer to the club. They are the worst thing to have ever happened to United.
- Glazers didn't put a single penny of their own money when they bought the club (what about the PIK payments in 2010?).
- United are not spending much compared to other clubs (we are spending more than any other club bar City, a club that has much more money than us cause of his owner).
- We didn't spend much money this summer so the money is going into Glazers pockets. We are a PLC, we will know if it happens, it hasn't happened yet.
- Glazers care only about getting into UCL, everytime we reach that goal we don't invest. What about the previous summer when we got Lukaku, Lindelof, Matic and then in January Sanchez? I believe we never spent more money than in 17-18 season.
- United broke transfers right and left before Glazers and were signing everyone they wanted.

In addition to Ed-specific idiocies like:

- Ed knows nothing about football (guy who has been first or second highest executive for 15 years knows nothing about his job, interesting), he knows less than an average Caftard about football (you'll find it in the thread).
- Ed's only job was to back or sack the manager. Interesting, I am sending my CV to United for Ed's job right now.
- Ed should have signed Maguire for (it starts on 70m, but one poster said 200m).

And so on, and so on. The list is endless.

In reality The Glazers/Ed debate could/should be an interesting one, and there is much to be said both positively and negatively about them, but for some reason, even after 13+ years the initiation of the totally dishonest campaign, every interesting debate gets lost into a sea of nonsense and cliches.

It’s not hard to wonder why - football is an emotional investment from fans. When you don’t know what’s really happening in the boardroom and the conversations between management and manager, you can only infer what is happening from what we are seeing on TV. What is true is that this club is a commercial monster and the Glazers helped build that and rightly as owners can reap benefits. That said, it is clear that there is a shift in spending on transfers and the circumstantial evidence tell us that (i) they are not going to heavily invest when we have a squad that (they feel) we can compete to be top 4 and (ii) they and Ed think they know football players and their footballing value better than Mourinho.

 

[Revan]

It’s not hard to wonder why - football is an emotional investment from fans. When you don’t know what’s really happening in the boardroom and the conversations between management and manager, you can only infer what is happening from what we are seeing on TV. What is true is that this club is a commercial monster and the Glazers helped build that and rightly as owners can reap benefits. That said, it is clear that there is a shift in spending on transfers and the circumstantial evidence tell us that (i) they are not going to heavily invest when we have a squad that (they feel) we can compete to be top 4 and (ii) they and Ed think they know football players and their footballing value better than Mourinho.

(i) There is no evidence about it. We reached UCL in summer of 2015. Then we spent 152m on players that summer, though a large part of that (102m to be precise) was funded via transfers (mostly Di Maria who kind of useless the previous season, anyway, and had become a squad player who wasn't starting). We reached UCL in the summer of 2017. Then we spent 164m, with 11m being funded via transfers. This doesn't include the agent fees and signing on fees (you can only imagine how high they were for players like Ibra, Pogba, Lukaku or Sanchez). We also have a monstrous wage bill, which only got increased in last January (despite Ibra and Mhiky departed) and again this summer.

(ii) You don't need a PhD in economics of football to know that spending 70m+ for 29 years old players which are not called Ronaldo or Messi is most likely bad business. Willian, Perisic are good players but not 70m good, neither the much younger Maguire (who was available for 12m the previous summer, and I guess much cheaper than 70m before WC, so if Mourinho really liked him, why he decided to get him this late).

 

[jem]

I don't think so. The amount of money it would have cost to buy him from Tottenham, the benefits would have been marginal at best. Tottenham may have simply refused to sell as well.

They may well have refused, but from what I've seen Aldeweireld is a class act, and far, far ahead of where either Bailly or Lindelof are at the moment.

 

[endless_wheelies]

What about the hundreds of millions they've funded since SAf retired? there's no sign at the moment that another £200m would improve us because we keep wasting the money on shite.

The money we've spent in the last 4 years should put us on par with the best in Europe instead we're playing like Stoke in disguise.

One of the top rated midfielders and world cup winner Pogba looks like Charlie Adam whilst Alexis who's proved he's among the best players in the Prem looks like a past it Rooney who's lost about 6 yards of pace since January.

Then you have our £75m defensive duo in Bailly (glass hammer) and Lindeflop who aren't any better than the already average Jones and Smalling who've been around since SAF days its a fecking mess but lets just keep throwing hundreds of millions at it with our never ending supply of cash.

Well we finished second on 81 points last season so logic dictates that our upwards trajectory would continue with more spending.

They could graciously allow us to spend another £500m of our own money this summer and we'd still have drastically underspent overall.

 

[Kemizee]

As I said, only the dividend goes to Glazers (and other shareholders), the other money remains in the club and is reinvested, be it on the team, academy, stadium, commercial deals etc.

To be totally fair, some money goes into interest payments (which would have gone in taxes) and a little bit on taxes (would have been more if it wasn't for the interest payments). Regardless all the money combined for dividend, interest payments and taxes is I believe less than 50m pounds, or less than 10% of the money we generate. The other 90%+ is reinvested.

Anyway, even that 10% that goes out is totally normal. Everyone pays taxes bar Catholic Church, and owners of every business get some money from that business, otherwise they wouldn't own it in the first place. Regardless, the money which goes out is not significant (circa 20m) compared to the money which is reinvested (500m+).

Yours (and others) opinion doesn't matter. It isn't a matter of an opinion, it is a matter of facts. It is a totally objective process, United is a PLC which means that they have to declare profits, revenues, dividends, payments etc. And to make it public, which means that anyone can go and read the sheets for itself. So unless you believe that Glazers are falsifying the sheets - which is a big crime and people end in jail for less than that - they aren't pocketing more money than what I said.

I appreciate your nice and detailed explanation. Thank you Revan.

 

[Esquire]

(i) There is no evidence about it. We reached UCL in summer of 2015. Then we spent 152m on players that summer, though a large part of that (102m to be precise) was funded via transfers (mostly Di Maria who kind of useless the previous season, anyway, and had become a squad player who wasn't starting). We reached UCL in the summer of 2017. Then we spent 164m, with 11m being funded via transfers. This doesn't include the agent fees and signing on fees (you can only imagine how high they were for players like Ibra, Pogba, Lukaku or Sanchez). We also have a monstrous wage bill, which only got increased in last January (despite Ibra and Mhiky departed) and again this summer.

(ii) You don't need a PhD in economics of football to know that spending 70m+ for 29 years old players which are not called Ronaldo or Messi is most likely bad business. Willian, Perisic are good players but not 70m good, neither the much younger Maguire (who was available for 12m the previous summer, and I guess much cheaper than 70m before WC, so if Mourinho really liked him, why he decided to get him this late).

As I said, we just don’t know and can go on what we see from the press. You put up some good counter arguments against the conventional views and I don’t disagree with them. That said, you knew what Mou was all about when you got him, so not backing him and then trying to manage him and the fans through the press is not a good look. I am not saying Mou is perfect (god knows at times last season I wanted him gone) but honestly not getting a RW in this year is negligent for everyone involved in the recruiting process. I can understand the board’s reluctance to getting another CB in.

 

[steffyr2]

Take the responsibility for identifying players or providing "a list" away from the manager. The club needs a sustainable long term recruitment strategy driven by a Director of Football/Sporting Director. Hiring an elite Director of Football should be the main priority.

One thing I really dislike about the current strategy is "we need a centre back". There is so much that goes into constructing a squad that identifying the need for a player in a position is nowhere near enough. Do they have the complementary skills to produce a quality partnership with existing players, do they fit the style of play, are they the right age profile, will they fit the culture of the squad and most importantly, do they have the right mentality to play for United.

Specific players should be identified, not profiles and transfers should be planned so those players are signed at the optimum time to provide value and when they are ready to contribute in the first team. That's a full time role, not a bit part of the manager and MD's roles.

Bull. Having written all that about a bureaucracy set up to find that perfect player, there will still come a time where the manager says, "I need an experienced center defender. "

And he should get that defender in the biggest, richest club in the world. Unless winning isn't important to said club.

 

[Revan]

This is a very interesting article on Glazers rule on United: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/32615111

Some of the interesting part is on the debt and on the increase of commercial revenue. Bear in mind, the article is 3 years old, and since then the commercial revenue has increased even more. The vodafone deal explanation (providing that is true on the article) shows very much how much better at getting money Glazers are compared to the previous owners.

I believe that there were a lot of things to get worried, be negative and against Glazers takeover back then, and as article explains Deloitte and co. were not only wrong, but totally wrong. At the same time, without the benefit of hindsight, it was very easy to think that United were going to be on deep shit when Glazers took over, it really looked so. No one expected that the commercial growth will be so big, as to essentially prove all doubters totally wrong.

At the same time, MUST campaign, let's call a spade a spade here, was totally selfish and had nothing to do with supporters. Main goal was to devaluate the club in order for Glazers to accept a low bid from Red Knights. But because the Red Knights were just talkers, and because Glazers have already declined bigger bids (from Middle East, likely Qatar before PSG happened) than Red Knights were ever going to offer - if they had the money to offer a serious bid on the first place - the Red Knighs never truly attempted a takeover, and MUST died with it. For this reason I just cannot stand MUST-born cliches, which not only aren't based on anything resembling the reality, but were totally dishonest in the first place, and had a clear agenda on mind (i.e taking the club from some millionaires to some other millionaires). People who criticize Glazers based on their informed opinion are totally fine, people whose opinion is a copy-paste MUST propaganda on the other hand is something I have low tolerance for (and most anti-Glazers unfortunately belong to this season group), probably because for many years I belonged to that group too.

 

[JPRouve]

As I said, we just don’t know and can go on what we see from the press. You put up some good counter arguments against the conventional views and I don’t disagree with them. That said, you knew what Mou was all about when you got him, so not backing him and then trying to manage him and the fans through the press is not a good look. I am not saying Mou is perfect (god knows at times last season I wanted him gone) but honestly not getting a RW in this year is negligent for everyone involved in the recruiting process. I can understand the board’s reluctance to getting another CB in.

Your concerns about a right winger are understandable but there is one fact that you need to keep in mind, it's that every year when we spend around 140m-150m on player acquisition we are at the limit for that current year, last summer we spent that money, then we spent an undisclosed fee for Sanchez in the form of a signing bonus, that bonus most likely comes from this year's budget, logically you are not going to see it because we never do but the money is still spent, so when you take that into account you should understand that we most likely spent a part of our budget last January, I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining budget was around 40m-50m after Fred and Dalot purchases. We can borrow money, it wouldn't be an issue but if we do it has to be for a long term and high profile target because it's going to impact the next budgets.

 

[Revan]

Your concerns about a right winger are understandable but there is one fact that you need to keep in mind, it's that every year when we spend around 140m-150m on player acquisition we are at the limit for that current year, last summer we spent that money, then we spent an undisclosed fee for Sanchez in the form of a signing bonus, that bonus most likely comes from this year's budget, logically you are not going to see it because we never do but the money is still spent, so when you take that into account you should understand that we most likely spent a part of our budget last January, I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining budget was around 40m-50m after Fred and Dalot purchases. We can borrow money, it wouldn't be an issue but if we do it has to be for a long term and high profile target because it's going to impact the next budgets.

Exactly. While this season we were close to out limits of spending (cause we owned money from previous 2 years), we could have easily spent a lot more. Just that the transfer would have needed to be done on installments and so the majority of money would have been payed on the next 2 years. That is fine if you sign a long term prospect (like Varane) or a world class player like Bale, but not for Perisic or Willian, signings which would have affected us in the next 2 years, at the same time wouldn't drastically improve the team. Roughly speaking, we needed either to sign players of right age and quality, or finance signings via sells (as in sell Martial to buy Willian), not many other options there.

I believe that next season we'll have a net spent of close to 200m, and depending on players sales, we will break every record on how much we'll spend. Real might outdo us though, considering that they have been stockpiling money for a long time now, and need half their squad to replace. So, I guess providing that we can get good money from some of our defenders, Mata, and possibly Martial, we're going to spend 250-300m next summer, with Real going even higher.

 

[red thru&thru]

Glazers and Ed messed up when appointing both LVG & Jose. So they have to take blame. Can't keep blaming Jose, he's doing what he always does. Everyone knew it.

We could have worse owners and we could have better. We just need to set up a footballing department now, starting from a DoF. We as a club need to adapt. The fact that stories are coming out that we are looking to reshape, is good even if it is late.

 

[dirkey]

As much as I hate Jose now, and want him gone, how can anyone excuse Woodward? You either back your manager,, or sack him. He's left him in a completely untenable position. Who does he think he is, deciding who is good enough to sign? That's up to the manager. If you don't trust the manager's judgement in the market, then you simply don't trust the manager at all. He's hung him out to dry, now we're all simply waiting it out until the end. And he's clearly also leaking stuff to the press. This after years of being an absolute idiot and pawn to get new contracts for Madrid players. The man's a complete buffoon, and I'd argue he needs to go even more than Jose.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

There is a lot of reason to be against the Glazers but, it has always been a myth that the club has not spent money on wages and transfers with them owning the club.

For nearly 10 years under Fergie they didn't invest while the club paid off the debt they put on the club to buy us.

Just because they've started spending in the last few years doesn't take away from the fact that their under spending and poor decision making got us into this mess from being the number 1 club in England for 2 decades.

 

[Dumbat12]

The years when we signed Carrick, Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves, Tevez, Berbatov, Valencia, Young, Jones, De Gea, RVP, Kagawa for what was (relatively speaking and taking the time into consideration) big money?

Except Berbatov, none of them were really big signings (excluding RVP who we brought for 20 million which was peanuts). Almost all of them were brought for under 20 million.

Fergie: No value in the market, I don't want to spend.
LUHG: Nah, he is lying.
Fergie leaves, United suddenly starts to spend like someone who has just won the lottery.
LUHG: But why didn't we spend in the previous years. Hint: it is 3 lines above.

Curious, considering that before Glazers acquisition of United, Fergie spend big. Ferdinand, Nistelrooy, Veron, Keane, Cantona, Ronaldo, Staam, Yorke, Cole, Rooney, etc. All incredibly big signings for their time both in name and price.

Fergie's "value in the market" was him just protecting the Glazers from slack. He didn't mind paying money if the players were good as we've seen that already, so the only conclusion left is that he had no money to spend big on players during the Glazer ownership. The reason why Fergie defended the Glazers while badmouthed a number of the previous shareholders and Edwards was simply because Fergie was allowed full control over the club when Glazers where in control while he constantly butted heads with Edwards and the rest of the board, especially in the last years of their tenure, and it became pretty clear that one of them had to go. That is the only good thing the Glazers have done for the club - they allowed Fergie full control.

So essentially we could have signed Batistuta, but because we couldn't, we signed Yorke. It doesn't matter how good he did, what it matters is that we had to settle for lesser choices, cause the elite players like Batistuta, Ronaldo, Zidane, Figo, Nedved etc were totally out of our reach. Be it transfers, wages or combined, we couldn't sign them.

They were not "out of our reach" as you put it, they were simply not required enough for us to spend big cash on them. SAF was easily winning the league even without them so the board didn't see it necessary to buy them. Edwards didn't say "Batistuta was impossible for us", he simply said that the signing wouldn't have been worth it considering the wage disruption that would have followed. And he was right. You take a look at Madrid today, after they've won their CL's, when was the last time they spend big on anyone? They threw huge money when they chased the La Liga and the CL's, now they're content with what they have. We had the same situation.