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

[sugar_kane]

It's not so much about the Glazers (parasites that they are) as Woodward right now.

He's made himself, Mourinho and the club look stupid by giving him a contract extension and then refusing to properly back him this transfer window.

This has then left us effectively in limbo with an a deeply unhappy manager who doesn't have the team he feels he needs to deliver, while also completely undermining him in the eyes of the players and the footballing world.

To make the situation worse Woodward has briefed the media that he refused Mou's targets based on his superior long term thinking from a football perspective (the ego on the man...) without seeming to realise the absurd irony of saying a manager is incapable of making sound decisions for the team while keeping him on at the club.

There are no half measures with a man like Mourinho, you either back him and let him build the team for success (even it is for the short term and at the expense of attractive football) or you get rid. You don't give him a contract extension and then throw him under the bus after the window closes.

It's also fair to seriously question the wisdom of hiring a man like Van Gaal without any real commitment to a complete change in footballing style (evidenced by replacing him with Mourinho, a manager with a totally different approach). I truly believe it was an appointment based purely on LVG's past achievements as opposed to any understanding of what would change on the pitch and the implications for the medium-term future of the club.

In short, I don't think the guy knows what he's doing when it comes to running a football club and he would also appear to be a bit of an egotistical knob.

Klopp also suggested that he put him off joining United by trying to sell him this 'Disneyland' idea of the club which I think says a lot about the guy in charge of our club right now.

 

[Dante]

It's not so much about the Glazers (parasites that they are) as Woodward right now.

He's made himself, Mourinho and the club look stupid by giving him a contract extension and then refusing to properly back him this transfer window.

This has then left us effectively in limbo with an a deeply unhappy manager who doesn't have the team he feels he needs to deliver, while also completely undermining him in the eyes of the players and the footballing world.

To make the situation worse Woodward has briefed the media that he refused Mou's targets based on his superior long term thinking from a football perspective (the ego on the man...) without seeming to realise the absurd irony of saying a manager is incapable of making sound decisions for the team while keeping him on at the club.

There are no half measures with a man like Mourinho, you either back him and let him build the team for success (even it is for the short term and at the expense of attractive football) or you get rid. You don't give him a contract extension and then throw him under the bus after the window closes.

It's also fair to seriously question the wisdom of hiring a man like Van Gaal without any real commitment to a complete change in footballing style (evidenced by replacing him with Mourinho, a manager with a totally different approach). I truly believe it was an appointment based purely on LVG's past achievements as opposed to any understanding of what would change on the pitch and the implications for the medium-term future of the club.

In short, I don't think the guy knows what he's doing when it comes to running a football club and he would also appear to be a bit of an egotistical knob.

Klopp also suggested that he put him off joining United by trying to sell him this 'Disneyland' idea of the club which I think says a lot about the guy in charge of our club right now.

A very good summary.

 

[Silver]

The club has generously backed two managers, and allowed them complete freedom to govern football related matters.

The Glazers and Woodward allowed Moyes to dismantle a league winning team and followed that up with hysterical marquee failures like Di Maria and Falcao under LVG. Mourinho has come in and been more successful than Moyes and LVG yet the board and Woodward won't back him when he wants to address actual problem areas like RW while at the same time expect him to progress with sub par players who Woodward and Glazers sanctioned and refuse to sell unless they make a profit.

What was the point of firing LVG if Woodward and the Glazers won't extend the same allowances to Jose that they did to LVG?

Kinda weird not to recognize how Woodward and the Glazers have brought us to this point.

 

[red thru&thru]

Where will Ed stop with his absurd footballing decisions? What will make him make the correct decisions?

 

[JPRouve]

Where will Ed stop with his absurd footballing decisions? What will make him make the correct decisions?

The only correct footballing decision left for him is to accept that the club needs someone else to take care of the footballing side. The only problem is whether the board is able to pick the correct person and let him do his job without unnecessary interferences.

 

[Johan07]

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.

Excellent post. I tip my hat to you sir.

 

[Sunny Jim]

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.

Great post

 

[ericking]

The first post in this thread doesn't offer any argument that supports the title. Bizarre.

 

[Offside]

The problem is, we have a manager who isn't getting the best out of his squad and is playing dire football having spent millions already, so the board will not trust him with more money which most likely (if we're being brutally honest) would be on another over-expensive flop who is played out of position, falls out with Jose etc. So, when you look at it like that Mouriniho really is the problem. If he was getting the best out of his team in every position, the board would be more confident in backing him I'm sure, as we are seeing at Liverpool whose fans used to moan about their owners but are now spending millions as Klopp is getting so much out of what he has bought so far then the positions of weakness become obvious, and the same is bound to happen if they spent more money. It's not wasted.

However, one might then wonder why we would persist with Mouriniho if we don't trust him with our millions. That's what is wrong with the board, they will realise it's not worth spending more money as it will only be wasted and we will still be miles off City, but we were still extremely comfortable in the top 4 and with barely any new signings, Mouriniho's pragmatic ways may get us top 4 again. That is all they care about, that the CL money keep rolling in. They aren't willing to back him, and they aren't willing to sack him.

So we have an awful situation whereby our manager isn't up to delivering us the league, but the board aren't ambitious enough to actually win the league and the owners don't give a feck as long as the money keeps coming in. We only sack managers when it becomes mathematically impossible to get top 4.

The likes of Ed Woodward are also absolutely clueless in giving these managers jobs in the first place, who clearly aren't Man United managers but it doesn't matter, they've finally got a manager who has delivered the top 4 two years in a row and that's why we've finally got a manager who is entering his 3rd season with us.

The only way this will end is when we don't finish in the top 4 which is a real possibility this year, and we will be back in the exact same position we were in 2014. The worry then is that we appoint another manager whose style of football the fans don't take to and who can't get the best out of what he has at his disposal, and the whole cycle goes again and before you know it we're Liverpool on some ridiculous number of years without a title.

Sorry to be so negative but the board and Jose are both major problems for us. Still, the money is still there and we'd be better off getting a manager the whole club is behind so the money which the club gave to previous managers actually gets put to some use. I mean Mouriniho has spent £300m and we look like we have no idea on the pitch...that's unacceptable. A decent manager could spent that much and challenge for the league. I'm certain a decent manager could come into the club now and challenge for the league with what we have. Lukaku, Lingard, Pogba, Martial, Rashford, Sanchez - there is so much talent there yet every single one is under-performing/low on confidence/unhappy...it really is unacceptable from the manager.

 

[POF]

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.

Of course. But this is Jose's third summer window. He has signed centre backs in both of the last 2 summers. If they need one, why didn't the club go for the experienced centre back last summer? Has the rest of the defence become less experienced in 12 months?

Look at the targets United were linked with. Less than a year previously, two of them (Maguire and Mina) were transferred for significantly lower fees than they were touted for this summer. Why are they suddenly good enough now but weren't last summer?

It's the short term planning that is my issue. If Maguire is good enough, sign him from Hull. Or at least go for him before the world cup. If you want an experienced centre back, don't go for Lindelof. Identify your target(s) and stick with him/them even if it takes 12-18 months of tapping him/them up.

With United it seems that every window there's a new plan, signing players at the peak of their reputation (and cost) which just leaves a squad of expensive average players.

 

[POF]

I disagree. Our market share may decrease, in that we'd attract 'slightly' less new fans. But our massive number of global fans will stay high - and that is what makes us so financially rewarding for the Glazers. We are a global marketing machine.

Also you're not factoring the financial risk of investing heavily in an attempt to win the league this season. Easier just to keep ticking along top 4, hopefully win a few cups and watch the money roll in while balancing the books.

How do you think Liverpool have afforded their transfer outlay recently? Top 4 for over 10 years with a few cups. They are slightly smaller scale than us but the same principle imo.

How have Liverpool afforded it? Same way as Everton, Leicester, West Ham and other EPL clubs are throwing massive money around. The TV deal.

If you think the club stagnating as an average top 4 club won't impact the United brand, I have nothing further to add. Successful global brands are successful because they are market leaders. It's like saying Nokia weren't bothered by the iPhone.

 

[Silver]

Of course. But this is Jose's third summer window. He has signed centre backs in both of the last 2 summers. If they need one, why didn't the club go for the experienced centre back last summer? Has the rest of the defence become less experienced in 12 months?

Look at the targets United were linked with. Less than a year previously, two of them (Maguire and Mina) were transferred for significantly lower fees than they were touted for this summer. Why are they suddenly good enough now but weren't last summer?

It's the short term planning that is my issue. If Maguire is good enough, sign him from Hull. Or at least go for him before the world cup. If you want an experienced centre back, don't go for Lindelof. Identify your target(s) and stick with him/them even if it takes 12-18 months of tapping him/them up.

With United it seems that every window there's a new plan, signing players at the peak of their reputation (and cost) which just leaves a squad of expensive average players.

Well clearly last summer they didn't think they needed an experienced centre back because they thought Smalling, Rojo, Jones would fill that need and obviously all three fell short in terms of performance and constant injuries.

And regarding Maguire and Mina... firstly I highly doubt we were in for Mina at all - it just seems like yet another phantom transfer that the media link to us at every chance.

Why are they suddenly good enough now but weren't last summer?

Well players do improve over time. And clearly Maguire did and proved that he could step his game up to a higher level. Wanting a more experienced and proven defender isn't really short term planning when we already have two young centre backs.

And of course there can be a new plan every window cause the needs change over time. I mean Jose wanted Perisic last summer and considering his performance last season and in the WC the price quoted wasn't really high.

 

[POF]

Well clearly last summer they didn't think they needed an experienced centre back because they thought Smalling, Rojo, Jones would fill that need and obviously all three fell short in terms of performance and constant injuries.

And regarding Maguire and Mina... firstly I highly doubt we were in for Mina at all - it just seems like yet another phantom transfer that the media link to us at every chance.



Well players do improve over time. And clearly Maguire did and proved that he could step his game up to a higher level. Wanting a more experienced and proven defender isn't really short term planning when we already have two young centre backs.

And of course there can be a new plan every window cause the needs change over time. I mean Jose wanted Perisic last summer and considering his performance last season and in the WC the price quoted wasn't really high.

Don't get me wrong. I completely agree that the club needs an experienced defensive leader and has done for the last 3 summers. My issue is the links with the latest flavour of the month. Michael Keane was linked for huge money when the club signed Lindelof, a player that grew up at the club and was allowed to leave. Neither was the right option.

I agree players can step up and improve, but the point is a club like United should identify that potential to step up before it happens. That is what talent recruitment and development is all about.

Hopefully the new Director of Football/Technical Director role can remedy that. The club has spent an absolute fortune on a squad rebuild over the last 4 years and there are still massive holes in the squad. It's been a shambolic process.

 

[Silver]

Don't get me wrong. I completely agree that the club needs an experienced defensive leader and has done for the last 3 summers. My issue is the links with the latest flavour of the month. Michael Keane was linked for huge money when the club signed Lindelof, a player that grew up at the club and was allowed to leave. Neither was the right option.

I agree players can step up and improve, but the point is a club like United should identify that potential to step up before it happens. That is what talent recruitment and development is all about.

Hopefully the new Director of Football/Technical Director role can remedy that. The club has spent an absolute fortune on a squad rebuild over the last 4 years and there are still massive holes in the squad. It's been a shambolic process.

A lot of these links are conjured up by the press or players' agents to get better deals or facilitate moves to other clubs. Prime example - Fabinho.

I agree players can step up and improve, but the point is a club like United should identify that potential to step up before it happens. That is what talent recruitment and development is all about.

Yeah and we certainly do that. Bailly and Lindelof are both examples. We can see the potential there. And the same for Shaw and Martial. So it's not like we've been slacking in that department.And that doesn't mean we can't also look for established or experienced players like Toby. I mean SAF bought many players for that same reason - Blanc, Saha, Larsson, RVP.

And yeah we definitely need a DOF with Woodward around for sure but they'll have to do more than just identify potential to remedy this situation. At the end of the day if we want to start winning championships immediately then we're going to need some immediate solutions because our weakest positions are those that are currently occupied by young players who need time to reach their potential.

 

[Esquire]

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.

Since you are the are the assumption man I can only assume you are assuming the 150m net spend budget. Though I will concede I have not I have not come across any articles on this nor parsed through the financials. Further, we don’t know the names on that list provided by Mou on RW. Hindsight ins perfect but, at the time, everyone including myself drooled at Sanchez coming in and playing in either flank.

 

[AllezLesDiables]

He has worked with the club for around 15 years to be fair. Before he became vice-executive officer, he was essentially Gill's deputy. Yet he suddenly knows nothing about football, but some guys here know cause they played FM a lot, and made some posts in redcafe.

Do not make the mistake of confusing experience for knowledge and ability.

There are plenty of people who have been doing a job for a long time and still suck at their job.

The fact that a DoF was not sought before hiring Moyes is proof of incompetence, which is been continually proven as there still isn’t A DoF

 

[Foxbatt]

I agree that Jose should have identified the right players and no club is going to throw money around to replace players bought in the past season. Why do we need another CB when Jose just bought two last season? If he thinks they are not good enough then he should not have bought them. The club has supported him to buy players. He has basically messed the whole thing. It is not the fault of the club that the players Jose wanted turned out to be duds.

 

[whatwha]

It's not so much about the Glazers (parasites that they are) as Woodward right now.

He's made himself, Mourinho and the club look stupid by giving him a contract extension and then refusing to properly back him this transfer window.

This has then left us effectively in limbo with an a deeply unhappy manager who doesn't have the team he feels he needs to deliver, while also completely undermining him in the eyes of the players and the footballing world.

To make the situation worse Woodward has briefed the media that he refused Mou's targets based on his superior long term thinking from a football perspective (the ego on the man...) without seeming to realise the absurd irony of saying a manager is incapable of making sound decisions for the team while keeping him on at the club.

There are no half measures with a man like Mourinho, you either back him and let him build the team for success (even it is for the short term and at the expense of attractive football) or you get rid. You don't give him a contract extension and then throw him under the bus after the window closes.

It's also fair to seriously question the wisdom of hiring a man like Van Gaal without any real commitment to a complete change in footballing style (evidenced by replacing him with Mourinho, a manager with a totally different approach). I truly believe it was an appointment based purely on LVG's past achievements as opposed to any understanding of what would change on the pitch and the implications for the medium-term future of the club.

In short, I don't think the guy knows what he's doing when it comes to running a football club and he would also appear to be a bit of an egotistical knob.

Klopp also suggested that he put him off joining United by trying to sell him this 'Disneyland' idea of the club which I think says a lot about the guy in charge of our club right now.

Mourinho should have made himself more feasible to back, by picking better transfer targets rather than a 30 y.o. Willian, around 30 y.o. Alderweireld and a £75m Maguire.

 

[Sky1981]

Ed is a fine ceo.

Spend when we needs to (pogba, martial, di maria, etc). Giving manager time until proven otherwise in lvg. Fixing the error of Moyes swiftly. Marketing wise he's ace.

I dont know what we're complaining for.

 

[King Kana]

I agree that Jose should have identified the right players and no club is going to throw money around to replace players bought in the past season. Why do we need another CB when Jose just bought two last season? If he thinks they are not good enough then he should not have bought them. The club has supported him to buy players. He has basically messed the whole thing. It is not the fault of the club that the players Jose wanted turned out to be duds.

Mate, it happens all the time. Managers buy players that end up being utter shit for one reason to the next. Read: Bebe, Veron, Falcao, Forlan, Mikhi, ADM... Bravo, Karius, Nolito, some would argue even John “money can’t buy you” Stones.

Guess what happened when Pep’s signings embarrassed him in his first season? You guessed right. He spent another 300m+ the following season. It’s happened even at Totenham “we only bring through youth and coach potential players” Spurs.

Apologies for the quotations. Not trying to be funny.

 

[Scholsey2004]

I've been more than a little disillusioned by mourinho lately but Woodward is the realy bigl problem. Having a total amateur playing Football Manager with the club's future is hurting us badly. We need a director of football in place who knows what he's actually doing who managers, players and agents recognise as such and we need to get Woodward out of the playing side of things altogether.

 

[POF]

A lot of these links are conjured up by the press or players' agents to get better deals or facilitate moves to other clubs. Prime example - Fabinho.

Yeah and we certainly do that. Bailly and Lindelof are both examples. We can see the potential there. And the same for Shaw and Martial. So it's not like we've been slacking in that department.And that doesn't mean we can't also look for established or experienced players like Toby. I mean SAF bought many players for that same reason - Blanc, Saha, Larsson, RVP.

And yeah we definitely need a DOF with Woodward around for sure but they'll have to do more than just identify potential to remedy this situation. At the end of the day if we want to start winning championships immediately then we're going to need some immediate solutions because our weakest positions are those that are currently occupied by young players who need time to reach their potential.

I agree. Since Vidic left, the club has been crying out for a defensive leader. They have lots of options at centre back but not that one elite player to hold it all together. There was also Tuanzebe coming through at underage level and the club plays a back 4. Why then does the club need 2 young up and coming centre backs and an experienced defensive leader while there are 2 converted wingers at full back? That is where the lack of planning is really evident.

I agree with you on signing experienced players. They can have a huge impact like Ibra had in Jose's first season. That worked out brilliantly. United got him on a free because he had a great relationship with Jose.

A Director of Football should have many more of those relationships in the game with players, agents and senior management at all of the major clubs. The role is there to make those deals happen and at a reasonable price, to be able to identify players coming off contract, with lower release clauses or basically just tap them up.

 

[Rory 7]

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.

Thanks for that. So what’s the Glazers’ plan or vision for the football club?

 

[liamp]

- 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).

He was in M&A at PWC until 2005 and led commercial/media operations at the club starting in 2007. He didn't become a director-level individual until 2012. Nobody without inside knowledge of the club can be sure how long he's been working on the football operations side of the house, but I don't think that number's close to 15 years.

I mean, he knows much more than any of us (probably combined) and yet he has tangibly less experience either in the position or in the industry than many of his contemporaries in big clubs around the world. That's a disadvantage no matter how you spin it. If he was a coach and relative experience wasn't as important, that would be one thing, but so much of a football director's job seems to be steeped in relationships with other directors, coaches, agents, players etc. over the course of a career. He's naturally working from a disadvantage there.

 

[SpyLuke10]

Has anyone considered that maybe the main reason and real reason we actually started spending a lot around 2014 was because Malcolm Glazer, the head/leader of the Glazer family, died. And perhaps his children, namely Avram Glazer, are actually a lot less parasitic and stingy than their father Malcolm, and actually have been willing to spend as long as the spending is within the club's financial constraints (ie: spending is capped at an amount where the club can pay back whatever debt they are required to for that year + still have a net overall profit). Is it possible that the children of Malcolm actually care more about United on the pitch and barrack for the team, instead of just not really being a United fan and seeing the whole thing as a business investment and only as a way to make money. I think there are a lot of similarities with how United was run with transfers 2005-2014, with how Stan Kroenke, that scumbag at Arsenal, runs the money at that club.

Is it dropping out of the champions league that caused us to start spending serious money, or is it the death of Malcolm Glazer? Or is it a combination of both? How much so then? Or is the point I've brought up probably irrelevant?

tldr: What do people make of the fact that we actually started spending serious money at about the same time as when the head of the Glazer family passed away in 2014? Coincidence?

 

[JPRouve]

Since you are the are the assumption man I can only assume you are assuming the 150m net spend budget. Though I will concede I have not I have not come across any articles on this nor parsed through the financials. Further, we don’t know the names on that list provided by Mou on RW. Hindsight ins perfect but, at the time, everyone including myself drooled at Sanchez coming in and playing in either flank.

For the first part it's a deduction based on the financial reports. I don't really understand the context of the second part, I didn't criticize the purchase of Sanchez nor did I question the content of a potential list.

 

[M Bison]

We laugh at the scousers boom/bust cycle but we have our own cycle, the blame game.

It’s goes:

Manager - Woodie - Glazers

I don’t get the point about Woodie not understanding the game and the footballing side of things. I think he was right not to sign Maguire or Toby.

Maguire’s never worth 75m, had a decent World Cup against some poor sides, but is he really that much of an upgrade? For me, no.

Toby, great player on his day but has struggled for injuries and at 29, those injuries are going to increase. The last thing we need is another crocked centre half and add to that, his contract expires in 12 months, why would we pay 60m+ for him?

To me that shows Woodie has a good understanding of the game and takes a more hollistic view than the fans, as he does consider the commercials and financial impact of such signings. Reading some of these posts make me wonder if the fans would just rather spend money for the sake of it.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

We laugh at the scousers boom/bust cycle but we have our own cycle, the blame game.

It’s goes:

Manager - Woodie - Glazers

I don’t get the point about Woodie not understanding the game and the footballing side of things. I think he was right not to sign Maguire or Toby.

Maguire’s never worth 75m, had a decent World Cup against some poor sides, but is he really that much of an upgrade? For me, no.

Toby, great player on his day but has struggled for injuries and at 29, those injuries are going to increase. The last thing we need is another crocked centre half and add to that, his contract expires in 12 months, why would we pay 60m+ for him?

To me that shows Woodie has a good understanding of the game and takes a more hollistic view than the fans, as he does consider the commercials and financial impact of such signings. Reading some of these posts make me wonder if the fans would just rather spend money for the sake of it.

I agree with everything you have posted here.

Unfortunately, there are too many emotional/ one-dimensional posters on here.

This should be an interesting debate, but is not because too many people don’t listen to others. It’s good to have different opinions, but there is such a big culture of blame, and knee jerk, and over analysis on the forum.

Woodward doesn’t know what he’s doing - and this comes from people who don’t even know what executives do, and what their responsibilities are.

 

[Carl S Bridge]

This is just pure speculation. Stupid thread no one knows what Woodward did or didn't do in the transfer window whether he backed mourinho or not. For all anyone knows he did and players didn't want to join for one reason or another or clubs refused to sell. We have no God given right to sign players.

 

[Revan]

Thanks for that. So what’s the Glazers’ plan or vision for the football club?

I think that I replied to you about it a couple days ago. Tldr: do as well as possible on the pitch, cause that increases sponsors, revenue and eventually stock value, which is what they care most.

He was in M&A at PWC until 2005 and led commercial/media operations at the club starting in 2007. He didn't become a director-level individual until 2012. Nobody without inside knowledge of the club can be sure how long he's been working on the football operations side of the house, but I don't think that number's close to 15 years.

I mean, he knows much more than any of us (probably combined) and yet he has tangibly less experience either in the position or in the industry than many of his contemporaries in big clubs around the world. That's a disadvantage no matter how you spin it. If he was a coach and relative experience wasn't as important, that would be one thing, but so much of a football director's job seems to be steeped in relationships with other directors, coaches, agents, players etc. over the course of a career. He's naturally working from a disadvantage there.

Absolutely. Never said that he is a Perez, or a Galliani or a Rummenige. Likely there are much better CEOs there, people who know much more about football than Woody. What I found hilarious is the idea that an average Caftard might know more about football than Woody, and that Woody knows 'nothing' about football.

I definitely think that we need more people with football knowledge on the club, in order to complement and help the manager and Ed.

Has anyone considered that maybe the main reason and real reason we actually started spending a lot around 2014 was because Malcolm Glazer, the head/leader of the Glazer family, died. And perhaps his children, namely Avram Glazer, are actually a lot less parasitic and stingy than their father Malcolm, and actually have been willing to spend as long as the spending is within the club's financial constraints (ie: spending is capped at an amount where the club can pay back whatever debt they are required to for that year + still have a net overall profit). Is it possible that the children of Malcolm actually care more about United on the pitch and barrack for the team, instead of just not really being a United fan and seeing the whole thing as a business investment and only as a way to make money. I think there are a lot of similarities with how United was run with transfers 2005-2014, with how Stan Kroenke, that scumbag at Arsenal, runs the money at that club.

Is it dropping out of the champions league that caused us to start spending serious money, or is it the death of Malcolm Glazer? Or is it a combination of both? How much so then? Or is the point I've brought up probably irrelevant?

tldr: What do people make of the fact that we actually started spending serious money at about the same time as when the head of the Glazer family passed away in 2014? Coincidence?

Might be, never thought about it. I think that Avram and Joel were always the people in charge of United, but Malcom as their father and head of the family, likely had the final decision. Considering that he was a million years old, I don't know how much he was involved on actually running their businesses though.

It also need to be said that we made a world record bid for Bale in 2013, though at that stage Malcolm might have been quite sick and so not involved on anything. But it is a possibility that his two sons have a different vision about the club than he had. However, I think that the end goal is the same: make as much money as possible.

 

[Sultan]

Maguire confirmed yesterday in a post-match interview with Linekar there was interest from United but the Leicester board refused to sell at any price. This nonsense that United, Woodward were not prepared to buy a centre-half or support the manager can be put to bed.

 

[goin4glory]

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.

I know we have higher revenue than Barca/Bayern, which is why we should be competing with them for the best players in the world but haven't been throughout the Glazer ownership. From the takeover to when SAF left we had a lower net spend than Stoke due to the incredible debt put on the club. Rio/Scholes/Ronaldo got replaced with Smalling/Cleverly/Young, it's no wonder the entire squad needed an overhaul. The glazers have only allowed us to spend when we've been outside the top 4, as soon as we got back into the top 4 with Mourinho they once again shut up shop rather than look to make the next step and build a team capable of winning the premier league and champions league.

Rummenige can call for whatever he wants, point is Bayern isn't owned by an individual family who can decide how ambitious they wanna be.

Chelsea owe Abramovich approx £1b, they may be self sustaining but so are Crystal Palace. There's a big difference between self sustaining and challenging for titles, without Abramovich they were nothing.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Maguire confirmed yesterday in a post-match interview with Linekar there was interest from United but the Leicester board refused to sell at any price. This nonsense that United, Woodward were not prepared to buy a centre-half or support the manager can be put to bed.

What about Alderwiereld?

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

What about Alderwiereld?

What about him?

The general public know such a small amount about what’s actually happens. We might have bid for him, we might not have done so. Was he even on Jose’s list? Who knows. I don’t, no one on here does.

 

[Random Task]

Maguire confirmed yesterday in a post-match interview with Linekar there was interest from United but the Leicester board refused to sell at any price. This nonsense that United, Woodward were not prepared to buy a centre-half or support the manager can be put to bed.

Showing interest in a player and actively pursuing your target are two different things entirely. Football clubs consistently state that their players are unavailable to buy, only to see them sold at a later date for an exorbitant amount of money. It's all part of an ongoing process.

Is there any evidence suggesting that United placed a concrete bid for Maguire at any point over the summer, rather than a typically generic enquiry?

 

[M Bison]

What about Alderwiereld?

Would you have been happy with us paying £60m+ for him, considering his recent injury record and being in the last year of his contract? I wouldn’t.

 

[M Bison]

Showing interest in a player and actively pursuing your target are two different things entirely. Football clubs consistently state that their players are unavailable to buy, only to see them sold at a later date for an exorbitant amount of money. It's all part of an ongoing process.

Is there any evidence suggesting that United placed a concrete bid for Maguire at any point over the summer, rather than a typically generic enquiry?

I don’t think anyone will ever truly know whether a concrete bid was made but what Maguire stated says a lot and should draw a line under it, unless you’ve already made up your mind to the contrary and choose to believe the reports which suit.

 

[Random Task]

I don’t think anyone will ever truly know whether a concrete bid was made but what Maguire stated says a lot and should draw a line under it, unless you’ve already made up your mind to the contrary and choose to believe the reports which suit.

All it tells me is that United's interest in Maguire did not extend beyond a mere enquiry.

What does it tell you?

 

[M Bison]

All it tells me is that United's interest in Maguire did not extend beyond a mere enquiry.

What does it tell you?

You’re splitting hairs and jumping to conclusions.

What it tells me is exactly what he said, we were interested but were told he’s not for sale. Neither of us know whether there was any more it in so I don’t see the point in trying to read any more into it.

To your other point, maybe it was a tactic by Leicester to drive up the price by saying that he’s not for sale and for me I’m glad we didn’t pursue any further, especially if there was any truth in the £75m reported, but again, it’s all speculation and neither of us know.

 

[Rory 7]

All it tells me is that United's interest in Maguire did not extend beyond a mere enquiry.

What does it tell you?

It tells me we made a balls of the transfer window. Again. I genuinely think the shorter window fecked up Ed. He’s been terrible on transfer strategy. He can ‘do things with transfers other clubs can only dream of’