Why has nothing happened yet? | Things are now happening

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,496
People like to quote big figures whilst conveniently ignoring sales but in that period we've had nearly an entire squad to replenish ffs. It's been no where near enough and left us often resorting to 3rd or 4th choices.
 

the chameleon

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
916
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.
All your posts seem to defending Glazers and Woodward. For someone who claims to be a United fan, you have a very strong desire to defend the glazers family and Woodward.

Are you employed by their PR and Reputation Management firm?
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,936
All your posts seem to defending Glazers and Woodward. For someone who claims to be a United fan, you have a very strong desire to defend the glazers family and Woodward.

Are you employed by their PR and Reputation Management firm?
Sigh,
I explained multiple times in this thread that I am not defending anyone but the club. I am not repeating why again. I just did it 10 minutes ago.
I will ask you these two things and ask you to really consider it:
i) Who do you want to replace the Glazers?
ii) Do you think that there is any realistic option right now that is willing to pay what the Glazers would want except a) an risk management/investment fund via another LBO saddling the club with maybe 1-2bn in new debt; or b) an Arab state that wants to use United as a sportswashing instrument.
Take a serious minute and consider this. If you can.
 

MyOnlySolskjaer

Creator of Player Performance threads
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Messages
26,844
Location
Player Performance Threads
i think the problem with that is, you buy less players per window.

So if we bring in two superstars instead of 5-6 players who are good with potential and then we lose pogba, de gea.. then we are back to having just the 2 superstars we bought in the window and an unstable team. if we bring in a core of players who will add stability to the team, and slowly improve them over time, we will probably be better off in the long run (and not taken advantage of for high wages).
The issue with buying 5 or 6 players constantly is half of them won't cut it and you'll keep seeing "We need a Rebuild" threads here. Even if it's gradual I'd like to know for sure that we are going in the right direction.
 

Kidders

Full Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
1,283
Location
1 Hour 40 Minutes away

----------------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 ?
Apart from being an underwhelming team, Manolas ? Bergwin ? Rashford leading the attack and a crock (Bale) on the wing with Jamés auditioning as the new Mata, your sums don't add up mate, Oblak would cost £100m, PSG will suddenly slap an extra £10m on Meunier, Manolas would be around £45m but no better than we have, Monaco & Lyon would want a ' United premium' so add another £20m - £40m on those figures, and god knows what Real Madrid would want for Bale & Jamés ? Bergwign & Daniel James ? They both play mostly on the left wing and while I wish DJ the best of luck, I have serious doubts he has what it takes (hope I'm wrong), so what do I think ?
A/ That 'team' is average/no improvement
B/ it will cost a lot more than you suggest
 

Rusholme Ruffian

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2017
Messages
3,121
Location
Cooking MCs like a pound of bacon
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.
I seriously doubt that anybody has the time or inclination to work their way through that vomitous spew of pro-Glazer spin, so I'll just deal with the first couple of lines (as that is the section that is relevant to the question that I had asked you). The Glazers paid around $200 million dollars for the Buccs, they are now valued at around $2 billion. In the last decade they have only won around 60 games, their ticket prices have continued to increase, and they have not made it to the play-offs once. They operate well below the NFL salary cap. The stadium is tax-payer funded after the Glazers threatened to move the franchise elsewhere, and is now half empty most of the time. The Glazers don't care for the Buccs, they care about their investment, and they like to do the bare minimum to keep it increasing in value.

Woodward has boasted on several occasions that United don't need to be winning championships in order for the financial results to remain strong. At the same time the stadium is falling behind our competitors, City are winning the hearts and minds of locals through their regeneration of the areas and their community schemes, and - again completely unlike City - we don't have a footballing structure in place to manage the football side of the business (which should be the fecking important bit!). As long as the sponsors keep being brought on board then who cares whether we finish 4th or 1st?

You'd have to be seriously in denial - or a shill - to see it any other way.
 

Gasolin

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
6,106
Location
NYC
I think Woodward was wrong with his now famous statement, he didn't think the prices would go up that high. We cannot keep having financially strong results now since the sporting competition is too strong, we have to go back and win again.

But I do get @Johan07 point as well, it's impossible to imagine a new owner that would not require a LBO and is not an Arab petro-state magnat to own United. The only thing we can hope for would be to have Ed delegating all the sporting matters to people who know football. And he needs to convince the Glazers that United dying would result in financial performance going down hill. The only way to not die = to keep winning titles, domestically and in Europe, because that's what people pay for.

As long as the above message is not clearly defined to the Glazers, we are going to struggle. US sports are different, the Bucks etc... don't need to win because you don't need to win to have good financial results in their league.
 

Rusholme Ruffian

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2017
Messages
3,121
Location
Cooking MCs like a pound of bacon
US sports are different, the Bucks etc... don't need to win because you don't need to win to have good financial results in their league.
But this is exactly what Woodward has been telling the investors for years!

If, indeed, he is now wrong about that (as you suggest) then I presume we'll start to hear a different message from him in his forthcoming Investor updates (or whatever the feck they're called)?
 

kirk buttercup

Full Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2016
Messages
2,483
Location
wickla!
I seriously doubt that anybody has the time or inclination to work their way through that vomitous spew of pro-Glazer spin, so I'll just deal with the first couple of lines (as that is the section that is relevant to the question that I had asked you). The Glazers paid around $200 million dollars for the Buccs, they are now valued at around $2 billion. In the last decade they have only won around 60 games, their ticket prices have continued to increase, and they have not made it to the play-offs once. They operate well below the NFL salary cap. The stadium is tax-payer funded after the Glazers threatened to move the franchise elsewhere, and is now half empty most of the time. The Glazers don't care for the Buccs, they care about their investment, and they like to do the bare minimum to keep it increasing in value.

Woodward has boasted on several occasions that United don't need to be winning championships in order for the financial results to remain strong. At the same time the stadium is falling behind our competitors, City are winning the hearts and minds of locals through their regeneration of the areas and their community schemes, and - again completely unlike City - we don't have a footballing structure in place to manage the football side of the business (which should be the fecking important bit!). As long as the sponsors keep being brought on board then who cares whether we finish 4th or 1st?

You'd have to be seriously in denial - or a shill - to see it any other way.
Great post
 

charlenefan

Far less insightful than the other Charley
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
33,052
I seriously doubt that anybody has the time or inclination to work their way through that vomitous spew of pro-Glazer spin, so I'll just deal with the first couple of lines (as that is the section that is relevant to the question that I had asked you). The Glazers paid around $200 million dollars for the Buccs, they are now valued at around $2 billion. In the last decade they have only won around 60 games, their ticket prices have continued to increase, and they have not made it to the play-offs once. They operate well below the NFL salary cap. The stadium is tax-payer funded after the Glazers threatened to move the franchise elsewhere, and is now half empty most of the time. The Glazers don't care for the Buccs, they care about their investment, and they like to do the bare minimum to keep it increasing in value.

Woodward has boasted on several occasions that United don't need to be winning championships in order for the financial results to remain strong. At the same time the stadium is falling behind our competitors, City are winning the hearts and minds of locals through their regeneration of the areas and their community schemes, and - again completely unlike City - we don't have a footballing structure in place to manage the football side of the business (which should be the fecking important bit!). As long as the sponsors keep being brought on board then who cares whether we finish 4th or 1st?

You'd have to be seriously in denial - or a shill - to see it any other way.
Fecking hell thats depressing to read :(
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,936
But this is exactly what Woodward has been telling the investors for years!

If, indeed, he is now wrong about that (as you suggest) then I presume we'll start to hear a different message from him in his forthcoming Investor updates (or whatever the feck they're called)?
I was going to take time out from this thread for a while but I just have to respond to this. Its such a classic example of taking something out of context, then reading it e contrario and coming to a conclusion that you pretty much made up yourself.
Woodward has said at investor briefings that our results are not dependent on success on the pitch every year. The club is financially stable. This is a completely correct statement and something that you would say to investors/shareholders to assure them that their investment is safe even if we are going to have some or many down years on the pitch. Status quo more or less. Share value wont go down.
What you are doing is reading this e contrario and interpreting that as meaning that Woodward and the Glazers would be happy with that.
That is where you go logically wrong to start with.
United today is valued at over 4bn USD. The Glazers has taken out 20-25m in dividends from the club the last three years. I might be wrong here, but I think its the first three years they have taken dividends from the club even.
What does this tell you? An asset worth 4bn with almost no debt (in relation) that generates dividends of 25m per year. Not really a cash cow is it?
What does that tell you further? Well, its a fair assumption that the Glazers dont care that much about how much dividends they can take out of the club.
So what do they care about? Because I am under no illusion that they care about anything else but the mighty dollar. That I think we can all agree on. I just believe that this actually aligns their interests with us fans. Not the other way around,
The Glazers wont make any serious money by taking out 25m from United every year. They could place that 4bn elsewhere and make much more money just on interest alone. So why? Easy answer, their real profit lies in increasing the total share value of United. To maybe 6bn over the next couple of years, maybe even more. Thats profit, 2bn, not 25m in dividends per year.
So how to do that? Go to 6bn? INCREASE income to DRIVE share value. From prize money, from sponsorships, from TV-money, from partnerships. How do you do that with a club that is already top-three in the world financially. You dont do it by finishing 4th-5th or being happy with a CL-spots. You do it by constantly challenging for the PL and the CL to drive brand recognition and to push share value.
You are not doing it by playing status quo what is what Woodward was discussing.
That is why the Glazers have put so much money into the club for transfers and wages when it started to be needed after Sir Alex left. You might not like them but they are not fecking idiots financially. And thats why I am pretty confident that they will keep on doing it until they get the share value to where they want it. And then they will sell.
You can think that they are morally corrupt for being capitalists but fact is that that capitalism actually aligns their interest with us as fans. For the reasons I stated above. For now at least.
Now I am out of this thread for awhile.
 
Last edited:

soaphroniscuss

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
388
I was going to take time out from this thread for a while but I just have to respond to this. Its such a classic example of taking something out of context, then reading it e contrario and coming to a conclusion that you pretty much made up yourself.
Woodward has said at investor briefings that our results are not dependent on success on the pitch every year. The club is financially stable. This is a completely correct statement and something that you would say to investors/shareholders to assure them that their investment is safe even if we are going to have some or many down years on the pitch. Status quo more or less. Share value wont go down.
What you are doing is reading this e contrario and interpreting that as meaning that Woodward and the Glazers would be happy with that.
That is where you go logically wrong to start with.
United today is valued at over 4bn USD. The Glazers has taken out 20-25m in dividends from the club the last three years. I might be wrong here, but I think its the first three years they have taken dividends from the club even.
What does this tell you? An asset worth 4bn with almost no debt (in relation) that generates dividends of 25m per year. Not really a cash cow is it?
What does that tell you further? Well, its a fair assumption that the Glazers dont care that much about how much dividends they can take out of the club.
So what do they care about? Because I am under no illusion that they care about anything else but the mighty dollar. That I think we can all agree on. I just believe that this actually aligns their interests with us fans. Not the other way around,
The Glazers wont make any serious money by taking out 25m from United every year. They could place that 4bn elsewhere and make much more money just on interest alone. So why? Easy answer, their real profit lies in increasing the total share value of United. To maybe 6bn over the next couple of years, maybe even more. Thats profit, 2bn, not 25m in dividends per year.
So how to do that? Go to 6bn? INCREASE income to DRIVE share value. From prize money, from sponsorships, from TV-money, from partnerships. How do you do that with a club that is already top-three in the world financially. You dont do it by finishing 4th-5th or being happy with a CL-spots. You do it by constantly challenging for the PL and the CL to drive brand recognition and to push share value.
You are not doing it by playing status quo what is what Woodward was discussing.
That is why the Glazers have put so much money into the club for transfers and wages when it started to be needed after Sir Alex left. You might not like them but they are not fecking idiots financially. And thats why I am pretty confident that they will keep on doing it until they get the share value to where they want it. And then they will sell.
You can think that they are morally corrupt for being capitalists but fact is that that capitalism actually aligns their interest with us as fans. For the reasons I stated above. For now at least.
Now I am out of this thread for awhile.
Or you do it by increasing sponsorships while cutting cuts costs (player fees, wages etc) and qualifying for top 4. That's not a model for long term success but it could inflate earnings and profitS in the short term.

Apparently that 25m is what they use to live on.
http://www.redcafe.net/threads/why-...the-club-so-badly.447316/page-8#post-24246414
 

Denis79

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
7,752
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.
They have bled United for over a billion pounds in dividends, taxes (caused by their business model) and loan re-payments (caused by them) since they took over and we still have massive debts left. You do know we had no debt before they took over, right?

These are club generated funds that could have gone in infrastructure and other aspects of the club. Please stop talking bullshit on how they are good for the club.

Enjoy this read. But I'm guessing you won't.
http://priceoffootball.com/manchester-united-2018-finances-made-of-stone/
 
Last edited:

Foxbatt

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
14,297
Because Woodward is not going to spend any money now to buy anyone decent. He wants to buy one big name instead of many world class players. I am sure we would not get any great players this season. Then in desperation he would pay an an ridiculous amount for one player.
 

TRUERED89

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
2,366
Location
England
Not the sharpest tool in the box are ya?
Why? I agreed with the OP so what exactly are you on about? You cant be the sharpest tool either with that reply. OP said you're not very intelligent for comparing NFL to Football in terms of the business side of it, I laughed and agreed big deal, get over it!
 
Last edited:

Gasolin

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
6,106
Location
NYC
But this is exactly what Woodward has been telling the investors for years!

If, indeed, he is now wrong about that (as you suggest) then I presume we'll start to hear a different message from him in his forthcoming Investor updates (or whatever the feck they're called)?
Investors messages are just BS, Ed is forced to say things like that to make sure investments don't go away. Surely in private things are different. Does that translate into actionable items? I don't know for that, but the PR for investors is not that relevant, you can craft any kind of messages in those meetings to pitch that you're fine and still a valuable investment.
 

TRUERED89

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
2,366
Location
England
Apart from being an underwhelming team, Manolas ? Bergwin ? Rashford leading the attack and a crock (Bale) on the wing with Jamés auditioning as the new Mata, your sums don't add up mate, Oblak would cost £100m, PSG will suddenly slap an extra £10m on Meunier, Manolas would be around £45m but no better than we have, Monaco & Lyon would want a ' United premium' so add another £20m - £40m on those figures, and god knows what Real Madrid would want for Bale & Jamés ? Bergwign & Daniel James ? They both play mostly on the left wing and while I wish DJ the best of luck, I have serious doubts he has what it takes (hope I'm wrong), so what do I think ?
A/ That 'team' is average/no improvement
B/ it will cost a lot more than you suggest
Mostly agree, plus Athletico board would have to be drugged to sell Oblak for €40m in this current climate, must be dreaming!
 

JJ12

Predicted Portugal, Italy to win Euro 2016, 2020
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
10,841
Location
Wales
There's enough links to players such as de Ligt, AWB, Maguire, Bruno and others that satisfy me.

What is really worrying is the lack of links with players leaving - there's so many that need shipping for feck sake. The only one that's being vaguely linked is Mata and imo is low on the list.
 

Gasolin

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
6,106
Location
NYC
There's enough links to players such as de Ligt, AWB, Maguire, Bruno and others that satisfy me.

What is really worrying is the lack of links with players leaving - there's so many that need shipping for feck sake. The only one that's being vaguely linked is Mata and imo is low on the list.
And Lukaku. Great player I am sure but doesn't fit the way and the intensity we want to have in our games. I suppose Matic will stay, we may use his experience from time to time.
 

sunama

Baghdad Bob
Joined
Apr 26, 2014
Messages
16,830
Johan07 has taken it upon himself to single handedly defend the Glazer family and Woodward.
I don't agree with what he is saying, but I must admire his conviction in defending them so rigorously.

While Woodward is in charge of running the club (ie making money for the Glazers), the footballing side of the club will fall by the way-side. The proof? That's in our results during the last 6 years (and counting).
 

Saffron

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
688
Johan07 has taken it upon himself to single handedly defend the Glazer family and Woodward.
I don't agree with what he is saying, but I must admire his conviction in defending them so rigorously.
He should get your tagline.

While Woodward is in charge of running the club (ie making money for the Glazers), the footballing side of the club will fall by the way-side. The proof? That's in our results during the last 6 years (and counting).
Agreed. You can play devil’s advocate (some people really can) and try to deflect as much blame away from him as possible, but at the end of the day he’s responsible.

Hiring his old drinking buddy from university as chief negotiatior just stinks of incompetent nepotism. And I think we have enough of that with the Glazers already.
 

matt10000

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2018
Messages
1,326
Location
Salford UK
Why has nothing happened yet?

Because it isn't like just nipping to the sweetie shop and choosing what you want (unless you are City and cheat)
 

Rusholme Ruffian

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2017
Messages
3,121
Location
Cooking MCs like a pound of bacon
Why? I agreed with the OP so what exactly are you on about? You cant be the sharpest tool either with that reply. OP said you're not very intelligent for comparing NFL to Football in terms of the business side of it, I laughed and agreed big deal, get over it!
Because if you'd bothered to read the posts properly you would have understood that I wasn't comparing the two sports at all. I was comparing the Glazer's attitude towards their 2 sporting 'franchises'. They don't give a feck about either - apart from the value of their investment.
 

fergiesarmy1

New Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
3,595
Why has nothing happened yet?

Because it isn't like just nipping to the sweetie shop and choosing what you want (unless you are City and cheat)
Whoever we want there’s a possibility city would want, no deal will be done quickly under these circumstances

Yet city claim their money hasn’t disrupted football
 

TRUERED89

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
2,366
Location
England
Because if you'd bothered to read the posts properly you would have understood that I wasn't comparing the two sports at all. I was comparing the Glazer's attitude towards their 2 sporting 'franchises'. They don't give a feck about either - apart from the value of their investment.
Alright fair enough, I’ve actually had some decent debates with you previously, so no beef it’s all good :). Have a nice evening!
 

Gator Nate

Full Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
2,140
Location
Orlando, FL
I seriously doubt that anybody has the time or inclination to work their way through that vomitous spew of pro-Glazer spin, so I'll just deal with the first couple of lines (as that is the section that is relevant to the question that I had asked you). The Glazers paid around $200 million dollars for the Buccs, they are now valued at around $2 billion. In the last decade they have only won around 60 games, their ticket prices have continued to increase, and they have not made it to the play-offs once. They operate well below the NFL salary cap. The stadium is tax-payer funded after the Glazers threatened to move the franchise elsewhere, and is now half empty most of the time. The Glazers don't care for the Buccs, they care about their investment, and they like to do the bare minimum to keep it increasing in value.

Woodward has boasted on several occasions that United don't need to be winning championships in order for the financial results to remain strong. At the same time the stadium is falling behind our competitors, City are winning the hearts and minds of locals through their regeneration of the areas and their community schemes, and - again completely unlike City - we don't have a footballing structure in place to manage the football side of the business (which should be the fecking important bit!). As long as the sponsors keep being brought on board then who cares whether we finish 4th or 1st?

You'd have to be seriously in denial - or a shill - to see it any other way.
I can only disagree with one part... The Bucs don't operate well below the salary cap. No team does. They've already had to release players to make space to sign this year's draft picks.

But it's all about the TV money. Malcolm cared about the team. His children only care about the investment.
 

Moriarty

Full Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
18,995
Location
Reichenbach Falls
I can only disagree with one part... The Bucs don't operate well below the salary cap. No team does. They've already had to release players to make space to sign this year's draft picks.

But it's all about the TV money. Malcolm cared about the team. His children only care about the investment.
You only have to look at that pic with him holding the Lombardi trophy to see that. His enthusiasm for United, however, was practically nil, at least as a sports team. We were nothing more than an investment to him.
 

MrBest

Full Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
2,799
It is so frustrating, middle or June and no signing except James. We are going to Australia in 2 weeks so it would have been amazing to have 90% of our next season squad ready by then.
 

Striker10

"Ronaldo and trophies > Manchester United football
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
18,857
Because if we sell before we buy the price goes up. Because we want to sell, people try to buy on the cheap and the players don't feel an incentive to play for a smaller team or get paid less. The markets fecked. If we sign 4/5 players? it will be a miracle. As it is we signed one player thus far for what? 15million? What year are we in? Let's wait and see
 

shiranaiotoko

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
54
Is something going to happen anyway? I can't see major transfers, but at least Bisaka and Vardy would be nice.
 

Smores

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
25,496
Preseason training next week and the only new addition is a backup winger. Ole must be concerned.
 

dove

New Member
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
7,899
I feel this summer is going to be disastrous. Our best players want to leave and we seem to have gone "young British players" route. We will end up panicking and paying something like £50m + £10m addons for AWB and £80m for Maguire, failing to replace Lukaku as we will hope Rashy will step up.
 

Jacob

Full Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
25,574
For all the talk about us planning moves and signings for the summer as early as January. We have no fecking excuse to not do what Real has done.

It's as if the Glazers/Woodward is doing this to spite us after all the hate and negativitiy in media.
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
9,871
Well we have 2 weeks left to get this new spine in, if we are to hit Ole's request of having it all done by 1 July. Im getting less and less confident by the day. I am thinking more and more that the fact we resigned Jones and Young, plus we are still trying to resign Mata, is an indication that nothing big is going to happen. It wouldnt surprise me to end up signing a maximum of 2 more players, probably towards the end of next month, which wont be near enough good enough.
 

Keefy18

Full Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
2,653

----------------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 ?
Ed would love me? :lol::lol:

Standard "supporter" of football these days, thinks its FIFA UT or Football manager!

Bale is crocked pal and has been for a couple of season's now. Wouldn't take him if Real paid us to! James isn't much better.

Selling Pogba our best Outfield player as well?