#GlazersOut

Lebowski

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
707
Location
Collyhurst
Ok one more post and then really I'm done. Please can someone take over the mantle of this as this is just wasting my time.



This is just... what can I say? Selling shares will raise capital. But it clearly says in that 2012 prospectus, the net proceeds are going to pay off debt, debt that was originally accrued as part of the acquisition of the club. You are selling a stake in the club to essentially finance the takeover of the club via debt. How can anyone not understand why fans would have a problem with that? It's a loss for the club, it's money down the drain on interest, the club essentially being forced to buy itself back. I don't give a flying feck what you think any accountant would make of that.



Again you seem to be missing the point that debt was saddled onto the club, in order to buy the club in the first place. This is definitely 'unnecessary debt', unless and only unless you are the parasites who need that debt in order to gain control of the asset. So yes the club is poorer, because the club revenues, including selling equity, have to service that debt. This is actually making me pissed off now, having to spell this out time and time again, it is not difficult.



It's actually not common for a football club to be bought with PIK loans, or leveraged to the extent that the Man Utd takeover was, hence the pages and pages of articles about it at the time and the uproar from the fanbase. With better rules from FIFA or the premier league it simply shouldn't have been allowed as the Glazers wouldn't pass the fit and proper owner test. Hedge funds and private equity might get away with it in the corporate sector where their customers only care about their experience with that brand, when it's a football club it is a totally different scenario. You can do it sure, it's legal, but don't think for a fecking minute there won't and shouldn't be huge protests from the fanbase.



Oh wowwww, they used a teeny bit of the debt for a transfer or two. High fives everybody! Aren't we lucky, we got a new player as part of the debt! That is some patronising sh*t right there so wd for that.

The fact remains no matter how you try and spin it. The club was saddled with the debt of its own takeover which made it comparatively poorer than it would have been without the takeover. It is being used in the same way hedge funds use assets, to be sweated for all it is worth, as a cash cow. Nothing you say will change this. Saying we should be glad it's the Glazers and not other owners is the same as saying "well it sure sucks to have HIV, but I'm sure as sh*t glad it ain't meningitis!".

With that I'm really done. I don't like being offensive, but you are either a) dumb b) a shill or c) some kind of odd cheerleader for 'casino capitalism'. Whatever it is this is my last post replying to you. Life is really too short.
This is very well put.

I will probably get round to replying in more detail to the original poster's response to this, but what you've said is spot on and doesn't really need much expanding on.

The club was saddled with debt for the first time in almost a hundred years. Debt which was completely uneeded which was used to fund a completely unwanted hostile takeover. Debt which threatened the club's very survival at some stages and a takeover which has sewn animosity and division amongst our fanbase and has led us to the awful state that the football club finds itself in today.

Yet we still have some apologists who support this model of ownership and expect us to be grateful when the owners turn some of the debt into equity via a stock market offering and allow the club to spend some of the money it is making (from fans) on transfers and wages.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,419
Location
London
United's ticket prices have been frozen for 8 years in a row.

Meanwhile, in the last 8 years if you remove the Oil doped clubs from the occasion, only Barcelona have spent more. We also have the highest wage bill in the league.
That doesn't support the anti-Glazer agenda, so you should go to RAWK.
 

MancunianAngels

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
2,415
Location
Manchester
Supports
FC United
That doesn't support the anti-Glazer agenda, so you should go to RAWK.
The main issue with the Glazers shouldn’t be transfer spend.

The fact that these current protests focus on that means they’ll ultimately fail.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
I'm hardly pro Glazer myself, but you have to ask how our huge wage bill fits in with the idea of the owners having zero ambition on the football side.

Handing out silly money contracts left right and centre doesn't seem like something you'd do if you aren't bothered about having a team capable of challenging.

It's not something you'd do if you're penny pinching either. The Glazers supposedly milk the club for all its worth, yet they happily agree to fund Sanchez' ludicrous contract. Why? They don't care about winning the league, so it can't be that. Is it some kind of marketing strategy? Overpay in the extreme for players who are far off being worth it in order to...save money?
 

Massive Spanner

Give Mason Mount a chance!
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
27,891
Location
Tool shed
I'm hardly pro Glazer myself, but you have to ask how our huge wage bill fits in with the idea of the owners having zero ambition on the football side.

Handing out silly money contracts left right and centre doesn't seem like something you'd do if you aren't bothered about having a team capable of challenging.

It's not something you'd do if you're penny pinching either. The Glazers supposedly milk the club for all its worth, yet they happily agree to fund Sanchez' ludicrous contract. Why? They don't care about winning the league, so it can't be that. Is it some kind of marketing strategy? Overpay in the extreme for players who are far off being worth it in order to...save money?
They more than likely realize that we won't continue to be so profitable if we keep failing so badly. We're still hanging off of our success under Sir Alex but it won't be long at this rate before that fades away, and they know it. So I'd say they do want to spend so we challenge and win trophies, but for financial reasons, not because they actually give 2 shits about the club. If they did they'd actually invest in Old Trafford, the training facilities etc.
 

Bojan11

Full Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
33,113
United's ticket prices have been frozen for 8 years in a row.

Meanwhile, in the last 8 years if you remove the Oil doped clubs from the occasion, only Barcelona have spent more. We also have the highest wage bill in the league.
And in the last 8 years we lost Rooney, Rio, Carrick, RVP, Evra, Vidic, Scholes, Giggs, VDS and the list goes on. We barely got anything for those players. We under invested during the latter years of Fergies reign and now the Glazers have panicked in the last few years by letting Woodward the clown run football side of stuff. The issue also isn’t about just the spending. It’s the structure of the club too.
 

Token Sheet

Full Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
1,641
Location
"No 6 bus to Old Trafford 6p, Admission to re
United's ticket prices have been frozen for 8 years in a row.

Meanwhile, in the last 8 years if you remove the Oil doped clubs from the occasion, only Barcelona have spent more. We also have the highest wage bill in the league.
You fail to mention the Glazer's first 6 years of ticket prices continually going up each year, on average 11% per season.
This meant season tickets were 50/60% more expensive than before they took over.

The same increase by most other clubs would probably be over a 10/15 year period.

You've not mentioned the acs though which Utd are the only club still imposing on season ticket holders. This dependant on how many cup matches we play in a season can add a further 25/30% onto what a season ticket holder pays.

But hey you're right they really care about the fans......
 

Saffron

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
688
With the exception of Spurs, we have the lowest wages to revenue ratio of any top club in Europe.
Excellent point. And a quick Google search shows we only have a higher wages to turnover ratio than Spurs in the entire Premier League. So we’re 19th out of 20.

 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,994
When I think about the Glazers are good owners, I just think about how more or less 1 billions pounds have been spent on the unecessary debt they put us in to fund their takeover. If SAF had spent 1/3 of that on transfers we would dominated even more and not be playing catch up. But yeah since SAF retired we've spent loads and still been shit. but alot of this is the undervestment under Fergie which meant we started buying big when the transfer market became massively inflated. Now it seems like our Squad needs at least 300 mill in investment to challenge for the league.

I just think we can all say that we would have been way better off if the Glazer's didn't make us the most indebted football club in world. Now sticking with OGS and giving him a transfer kittie of 100 mill seems like suicide. Look at what Real are doing with Zidane. We are going to spender another 2 seasons finishing out of the top 4. Forget about challinging for the league. I hope we go all out for Poch if he becomes available.
 

Tincanalley

Turns player names into a crappy conversation
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
10,087
Location
Ireland
Did anyone listen to the Forum podcast?
At 46.45 they tackle the subject of #GlazersOut.

It was one of his old favourite subjects ten years ago... He (at that time) "spent far too much time debating and arguing about these kinds of things..."

On the #Glazersout Twitter campaign... "quite powerful and interesting". But... People have got "a little bit ahead of themselves". "I am no great fan of the Glazers, but it's nowhere near as bad as 'anyone but the Glazers'" ... "who would replace them... what is the alternative option?"

What can fans do? "Nothing". But ... "There is a lot to be unhappy about ... but in terms of a fan movement causing the owners to change I can't see it happening".

As for the Saudis as owners (They go straight from the protest to the potential replacements)... xx is "done". The Saudis in charge would be the "moral tipping point". "It would be more of the same bullshit (galactico signings, no youth policy, by the Glazers) that hasn't worked". "Only the Saudis are worse than the Glazers".

"#Glazersout is not a realistic standard to have" ... But they agree that Woodward's role needs looking at and "there definitely needs to be someone else coming in". But things at the club are changing. "If Woodward has a working relationship with OGS, then we are seeing a coherent strategy... We are doing things in our own time, in our own way..."

"I think there is definitely a clear strategy now..."

"Fair enough. people can keep going on with their #glazersout stuff. Feel free to keep it going..."
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,419
Location
London
The main issue with the Glazers shouldn’t be transfer spend.

The fact that these current protests focus on that means they’ll ultimately fail.
Absolutely agree. I am fed up with them and Ed, but that is because of long term planning (or better, the lack of it) rather than the money spent.
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
13,354
Location
manchester
United's ticket prices have been frozen for 8 years in a row.

Meanwhile, in the last 8 years if you remove the Oil doped clubs from the occasion, only Barcelona have spent more. We also have the highest wage bill in the league.
i read on here only a few days ago memberships supposedly went up £5 out of the blue. Lets not forget the automatic cup scheme aswell, delightful chaps really aint they
 

VanGaalyTime

Full Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
2,121
Excellent point. And a quick Google search shows we only have a higher wages to turnover ratio than Spurs in the entire Premier League. So we’re 19th out of 20.


This cannot be highlighted enough. Look at the amount of money United generates, and look how much we spend. It's ridiculously low. Yes, you can say United have spent a lot in recent years, comparatively more than other teams. But we generate lots MORE than other teams. So why are we not able to outspend them? Compared to almost any other team across the globe, we also barely spend anything in terms of revenue percentage on transfers. This is critical to understanding the mess we're in.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,994
This cannot be highlighted enough. Look at the amount of money United generates, and look how much we spend. It's ridiculously low. Yes, you can say United have spent a lot in recent years, comparatively more than other teams. But we generate lots MORE than other teams. So why are we not able to outspend them? Compared to almost any other team across the globe, we also barely spend anything in terms of revenue percentage on transfers. This is critical to understanding the mess we're in.
Almost all our big signings have been flops on way or another. Fellaini wasn't cheap at the time and was complete dross for his first season and became the talisman of our shit gameplan. Mata was a chelsea reject at the time and never came close to hitting the heights he did before for chelsea when he was player of the season 2 times in a row. Depay was a wonderkid who looked like sunday league footballer for us. Sweini was crooked and past it. Di Maria was a Real Madrid reject who didn't want to be here, bought for PL record fee. Paul Pogba was a wonderkid who we lost on a free and bought back for a world record fee. Brilliant at his best, but so wildly inconsistent he's hardly been a succes for us. Lukkaku bought for 75-90 mil? A proven goal scorer with no technical abilty and no first touch, had a decent first season in terms of goals and abysmal in his 2nd season.

Then Matic who was good his 1st season, then completely past it his 2nd season. Then we signed Sanchez on record wages and he's been our worst player on the pitch.

And then we bought Fred for 50 million and only god knows why.

That's a lot of money spent and for what?
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
13,354
Location
manchester
Almost all our big signings have been flops on way or another. Fellaini wasn't cheap at the time and was complete dross for his first season and became the talisman of our shit gameplan. Mata was a chelsea reject at the time and never came close to hitting the heights he did before for chelsea when he was player of the season 2 times in a row. Depay was a wonderkid who looked like sunday league footballer for us. Sweini was crooked and past it. Di Maria was a Real Madrid reject who didn't want to be here, bought for PL record fee. Paul Pogba was a wonderkid who we lost on a free and bought back for a world record fee. Brilliant at his best, but so wildly inconsistent he's hardly been a succes for us. Lukkaku bought for 75-90 mil? A proven goal scorer with no technical abilty and no first touch, had a decent first season in terms of goals and abysmal in his 2nd season.

Then Matic who was good his 1st season, then completely past it his 2nd season. Then we signed Sanchez on record wages and he's been our worst player on the pitch.

And then we bought Fred for 50 million and only god knows why.

That's a lot of money spent and for what?
it almost sounds like the club needs direction, but like, the owners refuse to actually bother helping the football club
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
13,871
Location
Sunny Manc
This cannot be highlighted enough. Look at the amount of money United generates, and look how much we spend. It's ridiculously low. Yes, you can say United have spent a lot in recent years, comparatively more than other teams. But we generate lots MORE than other teams. So why are we not able to outspend them? Compared to almost any other team across the globe, we also barely spend anything in terms of revenue percentage on transfers. This is critical to understanding the mess we're in.
We’ve spent lots of money, so that’s not the reason the reason we are where we are, rather how we have spent the money.
 

0161_UNITED

Full Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
1,769
This cannot be highlighted enough. Look at the amount of money United generates, and look how much we spend. It's ridiculously low. Yes, you can say United have spent a lot in recent years, comparatively more than other teams. But we generate lots MORE than other teams. So why are we not able to outspend them? Compared to almost any other team across the globe, we also barely spend anything in terms of revenue percentage on transfers. This is critical to understanding the mess we're in.
That is wages as a percent of turnover, not total transfer spend.

You know all those posts on here, like:
Why are we paying Smalling and Jones £120,000 a week?
Why did we decide to pay Rashford £200,000 a week?
Why can’t we get rid of Rojo and Darmian? Oh because they’re on £100,000 a week and no other club will pay that!!!
WTF are we going to do with Alexis Sanchez on £400,000 a week?

That’s wages. That’s what you’re implying we should increase.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
With the exception of Spurs, we have the lowest wages to revenue ratio of any top club in Europe.
Yes, but so what? We're the biggest cash cow in Europe, for any owner looking to make a profit.

Nobody presumably expects them to spend as much as they can, as if they were fans, or a charity.

Do they think it's necessary to have the biggest wage bill in world football (pretty much, over a number of seasons), whilst having no ambition to actually challenge for the biggest prizes?

Are they just plain stupid? Don't they realize that "doing an Arsenal" can be done without pissing away a lot of money?

You'd think the whole point of doing an Arsenal is that you don't piss away a lot of money, you just put in a minimum in order to stay there or thereabouts.
 

Rusholme Ruffian

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2017
Messages
3,121
Location
Cooking MCs like a pound of bacon
Yes, but so what? We're the biggest cash cow in Europe, for any owner looking to make a profit.

Nobody presumably expects them to spend as much as they can, as if they were fans, or a charity.

Do they think it's necessary to have the biggest wage bill in world football (pretty much, over a number of seasons), whilst having no ambition to actually challenge for the biggest prizes?

Are they just plain stupid? Don't they realize that "doing an Arsenal" can be done without pissing away a lot of money?

You'd think the whole point of doing an Arsenal is that you don't piss away a lot of money, you just put in a minimum in order to stay there or thereabouts.
Have you looked at who we've signed since the season we finished 2nd? Does that level of investment and quality of signing strike you as that of a club that are aiming to overhaul City, Madrid, Barcelona and Liverpool?
 

Saffron

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
688
Have you looked at who we've signed since the season we finished 2nd? Does that level of investment and quality of signing strike you as that of a club that are aiming to overhaul City, Madrid, Barcelona and Liverpool?
Strikes me as a club deliberately letting off the gas because 2nd was ”good enough”. Didn’t want Maguire when Mourinho wanted to push on for 1st. Now wants Maguire when we need him to get top 4.
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
13,871
Location
Sunny Manc
Strikes me as a club deliberately letting off the gas because 2nd was ”good enough”. Didn’t want Maguire when Mourinho wanted to push on for 1st. Now wants Maguire when we need him to get top 4.
You’re right, we should have carried on giving Mourinho £150m each summer until things worked out. That would have been the smart and ambitious move.
 

Saffron

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
688
You’re right, we should have carried on giving Mourinho £150m each summer until things worked out. That would have been the smart and ambitious move.
You know there’s a third option, right? Sack him. Or at least don’t extend him 18 months before his contract was set to expire.

I don’t even believe Mourinho would have closed the gap. But what’s damning for the Glazers is that they didn’t think so either but were happy to keep him on because they thought he could scrape a top 4 finish again. There’s no real ambition to actually be the best in England.
 
Last edited:

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,994
it almost sounds like the club needs direction, but like, the owners refuse to actually bother helping the football club
Maybe it's just pure scouting or just bad luck. But it's unreal to see how many expensive signings we've made and how few if any have truly paid off. Even someone like Chicharito for 6 million pounds was more influential for us than most of these players.
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
13,871
Location
Sunny Manc
You know there’s a third option, right? Sack him. Or at least don’t extend him 18 months before his contract was set to expire.

I don’t even believe Mourinho would have closed the gap. But what’s damning for the Glazers is that they didn’t think so either but were happy to keep him on because they thought he could scrape a top 4 finish again. There’s no real ambition to actually be the best in England.
You’re just inventing your own narrative now, but hey, that’s what this thread is all about isn’t it.

They gave him a new contract because we finished 2nd and PSG were seemingly looking at him at the time. They didn’t back him how he wanted because he’d already spent a s**t ton of money on the players he wanted, and the board presumably expected him to make progress with the team that he had built. They fired him because he dropped us to midtable, fell out with the squad, and started taking consistent pops at the club.

There’s nothing damning there, no great conspiracy. You don’t sign off on 2 players for a combined £160m if you’re aiming to scrape 4th place.
 

Saffron

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
688
You’re just inventing your own narrative now
I am interpreting these events to the best of my ability just like you. Your interpretation isn’t any more proven just because it happens to align with your love for the Glazers.

They didn’t back him how he wanted because he’d already spent a s**t ton of money on the players he wanted, and the board presumably expected him to make progress with the team that he had built.
Nice narrative there. How is barely reinforcing a squad that finished 19 points behind 1st ”expecting him to make progress”? That doesn’t make any sense and you know it.

You don’t sign off on 2 players for a combined £160m if you’re aiming to scrape 4th place.

This was a squad that had just finished 5th and 6th when those transfers were made. Which makes fiscal sense even if they were just aiming for CL spots. As soon as we got 2nd, they couldn’t be arsed getting Maguire even though they want him now that we need him for top 4 again.
 
Last edited:

Rhyme Animal

Thinks Di Zerbi is better than Pep.
Joined
Sep 3, 2015
Messages
11,193
Location
Nonchalantly scoring the winner...
Strikes me as a club deliberately letting off the gas because 2nd was ”good enough”. Didn’t want Maguire when Mourinho wanted to push on for 1st. Now wants Maguire when we need him to get top 4.
Exactly.

This exact point is being overlooked, I'm guessing willfully, by almost everyone. But the irony is hilarious...

And it's very revealing - actively vetoed him when he finished 2nd, now desperately wants him to get back into the Top 4...!
 

robinrooney

Full Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
1,325
Location
W3106/Slough
Maguire is not a £70m footballer. There are better players available that we should be looking at. Maguire is just a better Jones
 

dwd

Saturday Night Spies
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
16,293
Location
Under soil heating.
Exactly.

This exact point is being overlooked, I'm guessing willfully, by almost everyone. But the irony is hilarious...

And it's very revealing - actively vetoed him when he finished 2nd, now desperately wants him to get back into the Top 4...!
I think it also had more to do with Jose not getting the best out of signings so it was a pointless investment then. How many of his signings did he actually treat well and play often?
 

Im red2

Prophet of Doom
Joined
Aug 5, 2001
Messages
7,227
Location
In the begining(time), God created the Heavens(spa
I'm hardly pro Glazer myself, but you have to ask how our huge wage bill fits in with the idea of the owners having zero ambition on the football side.

Handing out silly money contracts left right and centre doesn't seem like something you'd do if you aren't bothered about having a team capable of challenging.

It's not something you'd do if you're penny pinching either. The Glazers supposedly milk the club for all its worth, yet they happily agree to fund Sanchez' ludicrous contract. Why? They don't care about winning the league, so it can't be that. Is it some kind of marketing strategy? Overpay in the extreme for players who are far off being worth it in order to...save money?
The facts are that they have no clue.. and they still have ED at the wheel. that is the problem.
 

Rhyme Animal

Thinks Di Zerbi is better than Pep.
Joined
Sep 3, 2015
Messages
11,193
Location
Nonchalantly scoring the winner...
I think it also had more to do with Jose not getting the best out of signings so it was a pointless investment then. How many of his signings did he actually treat well and play often?
Rom
Matic
Zlatan

I don't think he can be viewed as treating Bailly or Dalot badly.

It doesn't really matter now, but at the end of the day, the guy had just guided us to our highest PL finish since SAF, and he wanted Maguire and was vetoed...

And now the same people are actively going after Maguire. Whether you loathe Mourinho or not - it's utterly laughable from the board.

And I say that as someone who wants Maguire at Utd.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
Have you looked at who we've signed since the season we finished 2nd? Does that level of investment and quality of signing strike you as that of a club that are aiming to overhaul City, Madrid, Barcelona and Liverpool?
Liverpool, eh? Let's talk about them for a moment:

How did Liverpool manage to catch up to City? They very nearly won the double this season.

Would our owners have vetoed any of the moves Liverpool have made lately? Is there evidence which suggests that they would not have bankrolled similar moves?

Remember, we're talking about money here, willingness to spend - not competence, not having the right people in charge on the football side. Again - look at wages. Look at transfer spend in the Post-SAF era. How do United and Liverpool compare?

Is the spending of the one indicative of a willingness to finance a proper contender - and the spending of the other indicative of a lack of ambition beyond securing CL football?
 

Rusholme Ruffian

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2017
Messages
3,121
Location
Cooking MCs like a pound of bacon
Liverpool, eh? Let's talk about them for a moment:

How did Liverpool manage to catch up to City? They very nearly won the double this season.

Would our owners have vetoed any of the moves Liverpool have made lately? Is there evidence which suggests that they would not have bankrolled similar moves?

Remember, we're talking about money here, willingness to spend - not competence, not having the right people in charge on the football side. Again - look at wages. Look at transfer spend in the Post-SAF era. How do United and Liverpool compare?

Is the spending of the one indicative of a willingness to finance a proper contender - and the spending of the other indicative of a lack of ambition beyond securing CL football?
Way to swerve the question! I asked a pretty simple question which you have answered with a series of other questions. I'll ask again: since coming 2nd in the league has the club shown the kind of ambition and investment that indicates it is interested in becoming the best again?
 

Shaidabdullah Hussain

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
340
Location
A pretty Sikh United fan
So we have been fed this big rebuilding operation by the club , however, despite the fact that we’ve signed Daniel James and AWB, we haven’t shifted any of the deadwood despite all of olés talk that “some of them won’t be here.”

Everyone is still going on the pre season tour :wenger:
 

VanGaalyTime

Full Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
2,121
Rom
Matic
Zlatan

I don't think he can be viewed as treating Bailly or Dalot badly.

It doesn't really matter now, but at the end of the day, the guy had just guided us to our highest PL finish since SAF, and he wanted Maguire and was vetoed...

And now the same people are actively going after Maguire. Whether you loathe Mourinho or not - it's utterly laughable from the board.

And I say that as someone who wants Maguire at Utd.
Completely agree. Why did we not spend anything last summer after we finished 20 points behind City? City then outspent us again. And will do so this summer. We need a window in which we outspend City by 200m otherwise we're never going to make up the difference. Can't compare us to Liverpool because they've got a different structure. We have the most problems in the top 6. And we need to use our wealth now more than ever.
 

dwd

Saturday Night Spies
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
16,293
Location
Under soil heating.
Rom
Matic
Zlatan

I don't think he can be viewed as treating Bailly or Dalot badly.

It doesn't really matter now, but at the end of the day, the guy had just guided us to our highest PL finish since SAF, and he wanted Maguire and was vetoed...

And now the same people are actively going after Maguire. Whether you loathe Mourinho or not - it's utterly laughable from the board.

And I say that as someone who wants Maguire at Utd.
I'm not defending the board but Jose bought Mkhi, Fred, Bailly, Lindelof all for big sums and barely played them.