Why has nothing happened yet? | Things are now happening

Fosu-Mens

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
4,101
Location
Fred | 2019/20 Performances
Or it could be the fact that the short term football goals of the club are irrelevant to the investors. United being an attractive brand is as much built into out history and global reach. Liverpool proved you can go many years without winning a league and still remain a globally supported club and so remain an attractive investment opportunity.
I mean communicated elsewhere. Not on the investor relations site. Then, of course, if we had performed well on the pitch (won EPL/CL) in recent times this would have been mentioned there as well.
 

TRUERED89

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
2,366
Location
England
Really ignorant post to be honest. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't make them wrong, nor does it reflect their support of the club.

There's a lot of discussion to be had and valid points from both sides of the fence. The truth and root of the problems will likely sit somewhere in between and we won't get to understanding that or having a better understanding without considering both sides of the arguments.

Hounding people or shutting them down because they have points of view that oppose yours get nobody anywhere. It isn't constructive at all and given we're discussing things that we generally have very little idea about and likely zero experience in dealing with, considering all factors is a worthwhile exercise.
Very valid point, I think we're all a bit guilty of over-reacting when people's opinions differ to ours.
 

Moriarty

Full Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
18,993
Location
Reichenbach Falls
Google FUD and concern trolling.

You want us to actively fight to keep a bad owner because hypothetically there could be a worse one. For all we know you may only think so because it would impact your shares negatively.

Well I’m not content with such low ambitions for United. Not challenging for the next 20 years until the Glazers have finally sucked us dry and decide to sell anyway. When they get to a point where we’re comfortably midtable and they want one last payday.

Don’t think for a second they actually care about United.
Good old Malcolm Glazer. Flew in every week from Florida to watch the lads in action. Really 'got' United did Malcolm.
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,936
Or it could be the fact that the short term football goals of the club are irrelevant to the investors. United being an attractive brand is as much built into out history and global reach. Liverpool proved you can go many years without winning a league and still remain a globally supported club and so remain an attractive investment opportunity.
Liverpool went very close to bankruptcy just 10 years ago, mind you.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Glazers are happy with us just making top-4 or dont caring about the performance footballing-wise. That is such a myth.
If anything their investment in transfers and costs for wages over the last 3-4 years suggests the opposite. That the money has not been optimally spent is something different.
If anything the Glazers original business plan was based on to leverage the brand recognition of United to what it could be. Since we kept on winning under Sir Alex they could do that without any particular investment.
The Glazers main purpose with United is to make money. Dont anyone think differently. As all owners. Except the sportwashing state owned clubs.
Its a myth and a false narrative that the Glazers are just looking to bleed the club for money in cashflow though. To take out dividends is not where the money is for them. Or to get income from the CL.
The money is in keeping increasing the value of United as a club and a company and thus increase the value of their shareholding until they finally sell. Which will not be anytime soon, there is still so much potential in Asia, the Middle East and the US. As well is in Africa in the future.
The money they can take out in dividends are peanuts in comparison. Even the money from participation in the CL is peanuts. Its all about share value for them.
And they will not increase the share value of United that with United performing as we have done the last couple of years. Not at the pace that they want at least.
Of course, we will do OK with our current brand value but they are missing out on the upside of us fighting for the CL every year and claiming PL-titles and increasing our brand recognition plentifold every year. Which will increase sponsorhips, partnerships.
Its not enough to be top-4 for what they want from a value-perspective longterm. It demands success.
Anyone thinking that they dont understand this is naive.
And its supported by the investment that has been made into transfer fees and wages the last couple of years. If you say that the Glazers has not spent enough the last 4 years to enable us to be somewhere else than we are today you dont know what you are talking about.
Our problem really is not the Glazers and our financials. Its to spend the money more effectively. There is more than enough of it being supplied.
 

Rusholme Ruffian

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2017
Messages
3,121
Location
Cooking MCs like a pound of bacon
Liverpool went very close to bankruptcy just 10 years ago, mind you.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Glazers are happy with us just making top-4 or dont caring about the performance footballing-wise. That is such a myth.
If anything their investment in transfers and costs for wages over the last 3-4 years suggests the opposite. That the money has not been optimally spent is something different.
If anything the Glazers original business plan was based on to leverage the brand recognition of United to what it could be. Since we kept on winning under Sir Alex they could do that without any particular investment.
The Glazers main purpose with United is to make money. Dont anyone think differently. As all owners. Except the sportwashing state owned clubs.
Its a myth and a false narrative that the Glazers are just looking to bleed the club for money in cashflow though. To take out dividends is not where the money is for them. Or to get income from the CL.
The money is in keeping increasing the value of United as a club and a company and thus increase the value of their shareholding until they finally sell. Which will not be anytime soon, there is still so much potential in Asia, the Middle East and the US. As well is in Africa in the future.
The money they can take out in dividends are peanuts in comparison. Even the money from participation in the CL is peanuts. Its all about share value for them.
And they will not increase the share value of United that with United performing as we have done the last couple of years. Not at the pace that they want at least.
Of course, we will do OK with our current brand value but they are missing out on the upside of us fighting for the CL every year and claiming PL-titles and increasing our brand recognition plentifold every year. Which will increase sponsorhips, partnerships.
Its not enough to be top-4 for what they want from a value-perspective longterm. It demands success.
Anyone thinking that they dont understand this is naive.
And its supported by the investment that has been made into transfer fees and wages the last couple of years. If you say that the Glazers has not spent enough the last 4 years to enable us to be somewhere else than we are today you dont know what you are talking about.
Our problem really is not the Glazers and our financials. Its to spend the money more effectively. There is more than enough of it being supplied.
What about the evidence of their Tampa Bay Bucc ownership?

Sorry dude, but you are a shill and I claim my reward.
 

GBBQ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
4,806
Location
Ireland
Liverpool went very close to bankruptcy just 10 years ago, mind you.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Glazers are happy with us just making top-4 or dont caring about the performance footballing-wise. That is such a myth.
I agree with you on this. I just meant that the prospective investors don't specifically care about our plan for the 2019/2020 season. Someone who is going to buy into the club wants a return on investment and that is what is reflected in the investors website the long term commercial growth.

I am (in general) a supporter of the Glazers as owners as I believe its a lot more transparent than a Saudi take over for example. And part of that is that i also believe they want/need us to be successful and actually take an interest in footballing matters. If they didn't then LVG or Mourinho would still be in charge.
 
Last edited:

TRUERED89

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
2,366
Location
England
I agree with you on this. I just meant that the prospective investors don't specifically care about our plan for the 2019/2020 season. Someone who is going to buy into the club wants a return on investment and that is what is reflected in the investors website the long term commercial growth.

I am (in general) a supporter of the Glazers as owners as I believe its a lot more transparent than a Saudi take over for example. And part of that is that i also believe they want/need us to be successful and actually take an interest in footballing matters. If they didn't then LVG or Mouriho would still be in charge.
One could argue that point, you could even go as far as to say; Moyes would still be here if the Glazers truly didn't care about the football being played and the results on the pitch. Their approach to getting things back on track has been extremely lackadaisical hence why the fans are melting down and I cant blame them.
 

DSG

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2014
Messages
2,300
Location
A Whale’s Vagina
Its difficult to say exactly, since the financials always are released a year late. But the last reported turnover was 590m and has been reported by many outlets that our wage budget now is at or at least very close to 300m.
I would not be surprised to see us go to 55 percent next year, even if the turnover is projected to rise to 610m for the next financial year. Depends on what effect the absence of CL has and how much this is countered by the 25 percent wage reduction that many players have in their contracts.
You cant say exactly until after the financials are closed for the year, but yeah, we will prob be around 50-55 percent already going into the year so we need to get rid before we buy - someone major at least - I think is fair to say.
Wage bill is a factor for sure. But transfer costs are also a factor.

Transfers are a one-time fee, which is cash out of pocket. It limits / affects your ability to purchase multiple players (overpay for one, it potentially affects what you can pay for another). These fees, however, can be depreciated over time, similar to a capital outlay.

Wages are paid throughout the contract, so forward looking revenues cover wages. Contracts are a liability because they are guaranteed.

I would say both are factors in determining P&L for football operations.

The “invisible line” of 50% of revenue dedicated to wages is not really a factor. If your revenue is high enough, then that ratio changes. If, for example, the club made £10 billion in revenues, does that mean we should spend 5 billion on wages? Alternatively, having 5 billion in free cash flow from revenues is a huge amount and would allow us to pay huge sums for any player we wanted.

This is why wages and transfer fees have gone up so dramatically. Your support staff fees, stadium operating costs, marketing, etc. are increasing at maybe 3-5% per year. But your TV revenue, advertising revenue, sponsorship deals are increasing 20-30% yoy.

I guess my point is, I doubt management feels financial pressure to cut payroll to save money. On the other hand, having your highest paid player playing like shite does cause a lot of drama in the locker room.
 

Rhyme Animal

Thinks Di Zerbi is better than Pep.
Joined
Sep 3, 2015
Messages
11,193
Location
Nonchalantly scoring the winner...
This, United fans trash Liverpool fans but at least they put up a fight for their club where as a majority of our fans seem to be as what Roy Keane once infamously described them as.
But the two situations are completely incomparable. Gillett and Hicks put Liverpool on the brink of insolvency and bankruptcy. Their takeover threatened the very existance of the club. Its not even close to the Glazers, not at the time of the leveraged buyout, and absolutely not now with United being in excellent financial health.
One thing for sure is that Liverpool fans with their, at (most) times, ridiculous overemotional state would've hounded the Glazers out at this point.

In fact, to elaborate on that point, I don't any of the following clubs would've accepted the Glazers, and certainly not with the utter complacency that Utd fans have...

Real Madrid
City
Barca
Bayern
Chelsea
Liverpool
Juventus
PSG

None of these fanbases (and no doubt more) would accept their pathetic methods of 'running' a club, they'd be rejected through bad press via protests etc.
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,936
What about the evidence of their Tampa Bay Bucc ownership?

Sorry dude, but you are a shill and I claim my reward.
Sorry, dude, but if you think you can compare the heavy regulated NFL-market with their draft system and wagecap system with European football, you dont know what you are talking about.
Its not even close. To take another sport in the US; New York Rangers is pretty much the richest franchise in the NHL and the most popular, etc. They have not won a Stanley Cup in forever and missed the playoffs this year. Similar draft system and wage cap-system in the NHL and the NFL.
Those leagues are structured to make money for the owners and keep the winners spread out over the years to make the leagues competative regardless of the owners. With a couple of first round draft picks the Buccs will come good sooner or later.
That you even are trying to compare the two sports shows your level of intelligence I guess.
EDIT
Since you brought up the NFL I should add that the Dallas Cowboys, being the highest valued sports franchise in the world have not won the Superbowl since 1996 and have practically sucked since then. Just to point out how off your comparison is.
 
Last edited:

I Am Zlatan

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
557
Just read somewhere pre-season training starts in three weeks, and we all know how serious ole is about pre-season... if something major is happening, it has to happen within the next three weeks... keeping my fingers crossed, I really hope we won’t waste another season like last one..
 

TRUERED89

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
2,366
Location
England
Sorry, dude, but if you think you can compare the heavy regulated NFL-market with their draft system and wagecap system with European football, you dont know what you are talking about.
Its not even close. To take another sport in the US; New York Rangers is pretty much the richest franchise in the NHL and the most popular, etc. They have not won a Stanley Cup in forever and missed the playoffs this year. Similar draft system and wage cap-system in the NHL and the NFL.
Those leagues are structured to make money for the owners and keep the winners spread out over the years to make the leagues competative regardless of the owners. With a couple of first round draft picks the Buccs will come good sooner or later.
That you even are trying to compare the two sports shows your level of intelligence I guess.
:lol: OUCH! Harsh but true I guess....
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,936
One thing for sure is that Liverpool fans with their, at (most) times, ridiculous overemotional state would've hounded the Glazers out at this point.

In fact, to elaborate on that point, I don't any of the following clubs would've accepted the Glazers, and certainly not with the utter complacency that Utd fans have...

Real Madrid
City
Barca
Bayern
Chelsea
Liverpool
Juventus
PSG

None of these fanbases (and no doubt more) would accept their pathetic methods of 'running' a club, they'd be rejected through bad press via protests etc.
You think so? FSG took over Liverpool 2010. How much did they win during their ownership before Klopp compared to even what we have won under the last 4 years after Sir Alex. So I dont really agree to be honest. Should they not have gotten rid of their owners by 2014 by that logic?
 

P-Nut

fan of well-known French footballer Fabinho
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
21,602
Location
Oldham, Greater Manchester
When the internationals end, we've then got the players going on holidays to deal with. I'm not surprised we only expect one more through the door before July 1st. I'd expect a couple more in the first weeks of July though.
 

Rhyme Animal

Thinks Di Zerbi is better than Pep.
Joined
Sep 3, 2015
Messages
11,193
Location
Nonchalantly scoring the winner...
You think so? FSG took over Liverpool 2010. How much did they win during their ownership before Klopp compared to even what we have won under the last 4 years after Sir Alex. So I dont really agree to be honest. Should they not have gotten rid of their owners by 2014 by that logic?
They're in a very, very different position to that which we were in...

If Liverpool were in that position of dominance and the Glazers came in and did what they've done at Utd - can you imagine the emotion and hysteria that the dippers would aim at them...?

They'd hound them out - or at least make it very difficult for them to stay.

We've done nothing - due to our weird mindset since Fergie retired, which we still haven't gotten over.

The Glazers have benefited massively from that.
 

Catt

Ole's at the wheel!
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
27,531
Location
Norway
You think so? FSG took over Liverpool 2010. How much did they win during their ownership before Klopp compared to even what we have won under the last 4 years after Sir Alex. So I dont really agree to be honest. Should they not have gotten rid of their owners by 2014 by that logic?
iirc the Liverpool owners recieved a lot of criticism up until fairly recently. It's about hiring the right man to manage the team.
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,936
They're in a very, very different position to that which we were in...

If Liverpool were in that position of dominance and the Glazers came in and did what they've done at Utd - can you imagine the emotion and hysteria that the dippers would aim at them...?

They'd hound them out - or at least make it very difficult for them to stay.

We've done nothing - due to our weird mindset since Fergie retired, which we still haven't gotten over.

The Glazers have benefited massively from that.
I am sorry. How have they benefitted exactly?
We have been forced to increase our wagebill with almost EDIT 125 procent since Sir Alex left. Its the largest in the PL; at a wage/turnover ratio around 50 percent which we have never been close to before; not under the plc and not under Sir Alex
We have invested 500m in transfers.
How does these investments benefit them exactly?
The last four years has been the most expensive years for the Glazers since they took over the club. By far.
So how is this doing nothing?
I would really like if posters would at least try to back it up with facts when they make statements like this.
 
Last edited:

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,936
iirc the Liverpool owners recieved a lot of criticism up until fairly recently. It's about hiring the right man to manage the team.
Yeah, I know. That is easily forgotten. FSG were not worth very much under the Hodgson years or when they sold Suarez or even Coutinho. The original poster quietly forgot that part of their history. But they hit the jackpot with Klopp and sometimes that is all that is needed and now FSG are regarded even on the Caf as the ultimate example of how to own a football club.
We will come good sooner rather than later also as long as the Glazers keep on investing in the club at the rate they have been doing lately. Its just a matter of time.
 

Shaidabdullah Hussain

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
340
Location
A pretty Sikh United fan
If We manage to get Bruno Fernandes and AWB done before the end of June I will be proper chuffed.

Both will improve us greatly in positions we we we are lacking and will give us time to address other issues (CB.)
 

Rusholme Ruffian

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2017
Messages
3,121
Location
Cooking MCs like a pound of bacon
Sorry, dude, but if you think you can compare the heavy regulated NFL-market with their draft system and wagecap system with European football, you dont know what you are talking about.
Its not even close. To take another sport in the US; New York Rangers is pretty much the richest franchise in the NHL and the most popular, etc. They have not won a Stanley Cup in forever and missed the playoffs this year. Similar draft system and wage cap-system in the NHL and the NFL.
Those leagues are structured to make money for the owners and keep the winners spread out over the years to make the leagues competative regardless of the owners. With a couple of first round draft picks the Buccs will come good sooner or later.
That you even are trying to compare the two sports shows your level of intelligence I guess.
EDIT
Since you brought up the NFL I should add that the Dallas Cowboys, being the highest valued sports franchise in the world have not won the Superbowl since 1996 and have practically sucked since then. Just to point out how off your comparison is.
Nice!

I'm not comparing the two sports in any way whatsoever. I'm asking whether the Glazers care that the Buccs attendances are the lowest in the league and their team is shite - or whether they just shrug their shoulders and carry on watching their investment grow? And the reason for me asking that question is in response to your original statement that: 'There is no evidence whatsoever that the Glazers are happy with us just making top-4 or dont caring about the performance footballing-wise.' What I'm suggesting is that their attitude towards their other 'franchise' might well offer evidence as to their attitude towards United.

Do you understand? Or do you just want to continue making aggressive and ill-thought out replies?

Definite shill.
 
Last edited:

Saffron

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
688
Just checked the Buccaneer’s forum. Here’s a recent post. Just replace Licht with Woodward.

The Glazers should get out the business of building a football team. Licht is their Yes Man and is basically their Meat Puppet.

Logic states that if a GM that has screwed up as much as he has, would have walked the plank already. But since he’s doing the Glazers’ bidding and willingly takes all the blow back when things go sideways, he keeps his job.
Sound familiar?
 

Gasolin

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
6,106
Location
NYC
Sorry, dude, but if you think you can compare the heavy regulated NFL-market with their draft system and wagecap system with European football, you dont know what you are talking about.
Its not even close. To take another sport in the US; New York Rangers is pretty much the richest franchise in the NHL and the most popular, etc. They have not won a Stanley Cup in forever and missed the playoffs this year. Similar draft system and wage cap-system in the NHL and the NFL.
Those leagues are structured to make money for the owners and keep the winners spread out over the years to make the leagues competative regardless of the owners. With a couple of first round draft picks the Buccs will come good sooner or later.
That you even are trying to compare the two sports shows your level of intelligence I guess.
EDIT
Since you brought up the NFL I should add that the Dallas Cowboys, being the highest valued sports franchise in the world have not won the Superbowl since 1996 and have practically sucked since then. Just to point out how off your comparison is.
That one was not necessary buddy! Of course, US sports are different but still.. anyway, the LBO was the biggest mistake of United recent history. The league should have forbidden such actions at all cost.
 

Saffron

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
688
Sorry, dude, but if you think you can compare the heavy regulated NFL-market with their draft system and wagecap system with European football, you dont know what you are talking about.
Its not even close. To take another sport in the US; New York Rangers is pretty much the richest franchise in the NHL and the most popular, etc. They have not won a Stanley Cup in forever and missed the playoffs this year. Similar draft system and wage cap-system in the NHL and the NFL.
Those leagues are structured to make money for the owners and keep the winners spread out over the years to make the leagues competative regardless of the owners. With a couple of first round draft picks the Buccs will come good sooner or later.
That you even are trying to compare the two sports shows your level of intelligence I guess.
EDIT
Since you brought up the NFL I should add that the Dallas Cowboys, being the highest valued sports franchise in the world have not won the Superbowl since 1996 and have practically sucked since then. Just to point out how off your comparison is.
Nice insult there, buddy.

Doesn’t surprise me one bit that you have in-depth knowledge of American football. Did you type ”soccer” yet?
 

sp_107

New Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
2,367
Location
Yorkshire

----------------Rashford/Greenwood-----------------

Bale(Loan)/Martial James Rodriguez(30M)/Lingard Bergwijn(40M)/James(15M)

------------------------ Tielesman(40M)/Fred Ndombele(60M)/SMT&AP

Shaw/Young Minalos(30M)/Smalling VL/Tanzube Meunier(25)/Dalot

-------------------- Oblak(40M)/Romero--------------------------


Just 265M spending

Pogba(140)/Lukaku(60)/DDG(40)/Darmian(10)/Rojo(20)/Jones(10)/Baily(20) /Matic(10)/Fellaini(10M from Jan)/=+320M

-265+320=+55M Profit....Ed would love me if he sees this.

What do you think of the above Team? Better than our current team ?
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,936
Nice!

I'm not comparing the two sports in any way whatsoever. I'm asking whether the Glazers care that the Buccs attendances are the lowest in the league and their team is shite - or whether they just shrug their shoulders and carry on watching their investment grow? And the reason for me asking that question is in response to your original statement that: 'There is no evidence whatsoever that the Glazers are happy with us just making top-4 or dont caring about the performance footballing-wise.' What I'm suggesting is that their attitude towards their other 'franchise' might well offer evidence as to their attitude towards United.

Do you understand? Or do you just want to continue making aggressive and ill-thought out replies?

Definite shill.
I dont know the Glazers personally, but I would guess that they do care about the Bucs. If for no other reasons it does not really help them financially to have low attendences and a bad team. That would be completely illogical, but you are not much of a logic kinda guy are you?
Problem is that you cant to that much about it if anything in the NFL. There is a wagecap and thats that.
Its not like that they just can try to buy themselves to more success (which you essentially can do in European football)
Btw, the Bucs won the Superbowl 2002 under the ownership of the Glazers, Thats a better current winning record than the Dallas Cowboys have. The NFL is that way.
It says nothing about the Glazers handling of United which is something completely different.
They obviously understand that United needs to invest and spend money to get us back to where we should be. This is evident from the investment and wagebill increase they have provided under the last 5-year period.
If you want to argue in this thread argue that this fact is not true or that it is irrelevant. Otherwise you are just spewing out words like shill because you cant make a decent argument for yourself. And you are making yourself look stupid.
Sure we have not been doing well the last five seasons.
I would be critical if Glazers had done nothing moneywise. But facts are that there have been plenty of money being made available under this period. On an unprecedented level for the club. Up there right on the level with City. Ltb less investment in transfer, larger wagebill = I would say pretty even in that regard.
That the money has not been spent better is not mainly an ownership issue for me. As long as they keep the money flowing as they have the last couple of years I am completely satisfied. Thats not where this club´s problem lies. Its how the money has been spent, and thats really not on the Glazers.
And for the umpteenth time: I am not taking anyone seriously on this subject before they can explain to me where there is a better alternative out there. I can see a helluva lot worse, but no one has so faer being able to provide one a decent example who would be certain to do better.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
52,710
I dont know the Glazers personally, but I would guess that they do care about the Bucs. If for no other reasons it does not really help them financially to have low attendences and a bad team. That would be completely illogical, but you are not much of a logic kinda guy are you?
Problem is that you cant to that much about it if anything in the NFL. There is a wagecap and thats that.
Its not like that they just can try to buy themselves to more success (which you essentially can do in European football)
Btw, the Bucs won the Superbowl 2002 under the ownership of the Glazers, Thats a better current winning record than the Dallas Cowboys have. The NFL is that way.
It says nothing about the Glazers handling of United which is something completely different.
They obviously understand that United needs to invest and spend money to get us back to where we should be. This is evident from the investment and wagebill increase they have provided under the last 5-year period.
If you want to argue in this thread argue that this fact is not true or that it is irrelevant. Otherwise you are just spewing out words like shill because you cant make a decent argument for yourself. And you are making yourself look stupid.
Sure we have not been doing well the last five seasons.
I would be critical if Glazers had done nothing moneywise. But facts are that there have been plenty of money being made available under this period. On an unprecedented level for the club. Up there right on the level with City. Ltb less investment in transfer, larger wagebill = I would say pretty even in that regard.
That the money has not been spent better is not mainly an ownership issue for me. As long as they keep the money flowing as they have the last couple of years I am completely satisfied. Thats not where this club´s problem lies. Its how the money has been spent, and thats really not on the Glazers.
And for the umpteenth time: I am not taking anyone seriously on this subject before they can explain to me where there is a better alternative out there. I can see a helluva lot worse, but no one has so faer being able to provide one a decent example who would be certain to do better.
Well as long as you're satisfied johan then it's all good:wenger:
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,936
Nice insult there, buddy.

Doesn’t surprise me one bit that you have in-depth knowledge of American football. Did you type ”soccer” yet?
I usually dont retort to personal insults on here, but after have being called a "shill" by the same poster twice I thought it was warranted. And I am not American if that matters to you. It says something about you that you seem to think so, I will admit though.
 

Rusholme Ruffian

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2017
Messages
3,121
Location
Cooking MCs like a pound of bacon
I usually dont retort to personal insults on here, but after have being called a "shill" by the same poster twice I thought it was warranted. And I am not American if that matters to you. It says something about you that you seem to think so, I will admit though.
Ha ha, your entire posting style is aggressive and pompous - so don't be surprised if that elicits a response from others.
 

Jericholyte2

Full Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
3,536

----------------Rashford/Greenwood-----------------

Bale(Loan)/Martial James Rodriguez(30M)/Lingard Bergwijn(40M)/James(15M)

------------------------ Tielesman(40M)/Fred Ndombele(60M)/SMT&AP

Shaw/Young Minalos(30M)/Smalling VL/Tanzube Meunier(25)/Dalot

-------------------- Oblak(40M)/Romero--------------------------


Just 265M spending

Pogba(140)/Lukaku(60)/DDG(40)/Darmian(10)/Rojo(20)/Jones(10)/Baily(20) /Matic(10)/Fellaini(10M from Jan)/=+320M

-265+320=+55M Profit....Ed would love me if he sees this.

What do you think of the above Team? Better than our current team ?
I’m sorry but thinking well get Oblak for £40m is laughable, this isn’t 2010. His release clause is €120m and I highly doubt Atletico would even contemplate less than €100m.
 

Josep Dowling

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
7,622
Of course not. Did I even suggest something similar? And my symbolic purchase of shares in United is not to stage a coup against the Glazers. Its to in theory protect the club from another leveraged takeover. Today Baron Capital owns 25 percent of the United stock listed on NYSE. Thats 5,8 percent of the club. Google them if you want to. If you think thats a good idea that they increase their holdings more you are not thinking clearly. Its got leveraged takeover written all over it.
EDIT
I correct myself. Today Baron Capital owns almost 40 percent of the stock listed on NYSE. Thats 10 percent of the club. If anything that is the threat against the club we should be discussing.
But it isn’t. The Glazers hold all the B shares that has better voting rights. They have structured the share holding in such a ways that no one can take over the club. The Glazers always have majority control.
 

Crashoutcassius

Full Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2013
Messages
10,295
Location
playa del carmen
Liverpool went very close to bankruptcy just 10 years ago, mind you.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Glazers are happy with us just making top-4 or dont caring about the performance footballing-wise. That is such a myth.
If anything their investment in transfers and costs for wages over the last 3-4 years suggests the opposite. That the money has not been optimally spent is something different.
If anything the Glazers original business plan was based on to leverage the brand recognition of United to what it could be. Since we kept on winning under Sir Alex they could do that without any particular investment.
The Glazers main purpose with United is to make money. Dont anyone think differently. As all owners. Except the sportwashing state owned clubs.
Its a myth and a false narrative that the Glazers are just looking to bleed the club for money in cashflow though. To take out dividends is not where the money is for them. Or to get income from the CL.
The money is in keeping increasing the value of United as a club and a company and thus increase the value of their shareholding until they finally sell. Which will not be anytime soon, there is still so much potential in Asia, the Middle East and the US. As well is in Africa in the future.
The money they can take out in dividends are peanuts in comparison. Even the money from participation in the CL is peanuts. Its all about share value for them.
And they will not increase the share value of United that with United performing as we have done the last couple of years. Not at the pace that they want at least.
Of course, we will do OK with our current brand value but they are missing out on the upside of us fighting for the CL every year and claiming PL-titles and increasing our brand recognition plentifold every year. Which will increase sponsorhips, partnerships.
Its not enough to be top-4 for what they want from a value-perspective longterm. It demands success.
Anyone thinking that they dont understand this is naive.
And its supported by the investment that has been made into transfer fees and wages the last couple of years. If you say that the Glazers has not spent enough the last 4 years to enable us to be somewhere else than we are today you dont know what you are talking about.
Our problem really is not the Glazers and our financials. Its to spend the money more effectively. There is more than enough of it being supplied.
Everything you say is correct lad. Our issue is how poorly the cash has been spent but it is very hard to say the cash hasn't been spent. The wrong people in charge of the club
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,936
That one was not necessary buddy! Of course, US sports are different but still.. anyway, the LBO was the biggest mistake of United recent history. The league should have forbidden such actions at all cost.
I was not happy about the LBO either when it happened. It endangered not the club itself but at least its prospects of success at the time.
But thats 15 years ago now and we did pretty damn well during the first 10 years in spite of that.
The fact is that a risk of a new LBO is why I am argumenting so much in this thread. I am trying to get people to see that another LBO is the worst fecking thing that can happen to the club, and right now with what United is valued at and with risk capital firms owning 10 percent and more of the club already: its a real risk. There is no other realistic buyer of United today at 6bn or whatever the Glazers would want. The other alternative is a sportswashing buyout by some dictatorship and thats a no for me too.
And if the league could prohibit a LBO they would have done so by now. Its just not legally possible. Look at Gillett and Hicks when they bought Liverpool. They bought the shares with short term loans, promised that this was nothing like the United LBO since they were not saddling Liverpool with debt. And six months later they had borrowed upwards to 300m towards the clubs assets and almost bankrupted Liverpool in the process. That was not a theoretical LBO but a good example of how you cant stop a dishonest owner or two. Look at Shinawatra at City.
If you want to have new owners of the club: fine. Just consider what the alternatives would be.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
52,710
Everything you say is correct lad. Our issue is how poorly the cash has been spent but it is very hard to say the cash hasn't been spent. The wrong people in charge of the club
I just had a look at the transfers in and out the last few years.

What is still shocking, is that we sold Nani, Van Persie, Hernandez and Evans for around 20m in total!
And I'm not sure that we didn't make this even worse by buying Rojo into the Nani deal.
 

Crashoutcassius

Full Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2013
Messages
10,295
Location
playa del carmen
I just had a look at the transfers in and out the last few years.

What is still shocking, is that we sold Nani, Van Persie, Hernandez and Evans for around 20m in total!
And I'm not sure that we didn't make this even worse by buying Rojo into the Nani deal.
Fans were very positive on those moves at the time, they were all considered dead wood bar maybe chicharito who people accepted didn't fit with lvg. The Evans transfer would be like if we sold smalling for 5m today people would rejoice
 

sp_107

New Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
2,367
Location
Yorkshire
I’m sorry but thinking well get Oblak for £40m is laughable, this isn’t 2010. His release clause is €120m and I highly doubt Atletico would even contemplate less than €100m.
OK.In that case Jasper cillessen for 25M, so another 15M savings for Ed
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
52,710
Fans were very positive on those moves at the time, they were all considered dead wood bar maybe chicharito who people accepted didn't fit with lvg. The Evans transfer would be like if we sold smalling for 5m today people would rejoice
I'd be horrified if we sold Smalling for that. But I was pleased Evans was shipped. Never got him, and he had a terrible last season. For me, he was Lindelöf without the passing.
Say what you like about Smalling, but every manager has had a crack at leaving him out, but he always wins back in and stays in
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,936
But it isn’t. The Glazers hold all the B shares that has better voting rights. They have structured the share holding in such a ways that no one can take over the club. The Glazers always have majority control.
Look, I will have to refer to my original post. I am perfectly aware of the difference between the A and B shares, both in voting rights and when it comes to dividends.
But I am, not talking about a hostile takeover, which you seem to be doing.
I am talking about a LBO.
Its perfectly normal for a risk capital player like Baron Capital to buy up the listed shares on the market if they are considering a takeover.
What does it do? Less investors. Less liquidity in the share. Less fluctuation of the share price. This very simplistic by me and not always true.
But it basically keeps the value of the shares down. Thus it makes the starting point of negotiations for the shares of the majority owner less. I dont see why you would buy up that amount of shares if you are not looking at the whole club as an endgame.
I really dont want to be back in this thread in two years saying I told you so.