Not sold to balance the books/keep net spend low because CL was achieved. It's a bizarre point.
Woodward, Glazers....
- Thread starter Dans
- Start date
The trend is very clear over 7 seasons to anyone capable of recognising trends.
The Di Maria point holds no influence over the conclusion made. Even if it did, a trend is not a rule. One outlier would not take away from that.
As things stand, it's very likely that we could also add this window to that trend. Hardly a coincidence.
Fine, it's a trend. The trend being the club has a lower net spend once CL status is achieved. The inference that it's because the club doesn't want to back the manager is absolutely wrong. The only manager not backed was Mourinho in his second season.
We're going round in circles here. The club are not backing the manager each time one gets to the CL, and therefore they never take the club forward beyind scraping a top four (or in Mourinho's case, a 2nd but miles off the title). If you want an even more accurate description, the club only back the manager when we are out of the CL and therefore not profitable. Once we get there they have no ambition to take us any further. That is NOT backing a manager in the way that a manager of a club of our stature should be backed.
Let's see. I hope there are no parallels and we do make some more important signings. Although it has to be concerning that we seem to be moving very slow on incomings and outgoings.
It's not easy to get transfers done this summer with the uncertainty of fans coming back to the stadium. But, in the worst case, normalcy does not return this season. We can model that in, if the Glazers agree no dividends. We will have significant commerical revenue to sustain profits.
For me its more of an indication that our club strategy is to finish top 4. Not to try to win the league.
In fact, if you look at the finances, the money earnt from finishing top 4 isn't much worse than finishing 1st. So from a commercial standpoint it makes sense. But for me it contradicts everything Manchester United has historically stood for.
Good thread on Swiss Ramble today comparing what owners of different clubs have invested/taken out of clubs:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Agreed.
If we don't sign anyone than VDB this season imo it's safe to say we've become the top 4 Arsenal we used to laugh at.
Green and gold til we die or fold. LUHG
This is incredibly depressing. Really makes me sad to be honest.
Horrible numbers show how much Glazers are milking United and there lads telling about covid-19 climate shit
It is still hearbreaking as it was on the das they got the club
Good job on the local fans!
The club is finished as a serious title winning and CL winning club until they sell up. Without Fergie holding it all together, and to a lesser extent Gill, it's been a total shambles.
Although Fergie isn't 100% innocent in all this either as his falling out with the Irish horse owners helped lead to the Glazer takeover. Although there's no saying they definitely wouldn't have acquired those shares anyway. I guess we'll never know.
Although Fergie isn't 100% innocent in all this either as his falling out with the Irish horse owners helped lead to the Glazer takeover. Although there's no saying they definitely wouldn't have acquired those shares anyway. I guess we'll never know.
Hopefully this will stop those who have been blasting the USA USA chant here on this forum. Absolutely shocking numbers this.
I get that the Glazers took ownership years ago. But, if someone tried to buy a team the same way again right now, would they be allowed? Almost a billion in 10 years going to financing the purchase.
And the debt is still over 400m 15 years on. There's no end in sight to it either. They have no intention of ever paying it off.
If we can't force the parasites out I think we seriously need to contemplate pimping out the Stadium for a sponsor as soon as fans are allowed back again to clear this debt as it's seriously harming us. £80 to 100m a year sponsorhip for the naming rights to Old Trafford. Debt cleared in no time. Nike Arena @ Old Trafford for example. I know a lot of the purists won't like the idea but how do you like 400m debt hanging over us constantly either?
This is why the argument that the Glazers have put money into the club does not wash with me. They are leveraging the club to fund themselves and spend on the club.
Leveraging the club to spend on the club....
Leveraging the club to spend on the club....
I wouldn't want us selling out like that if we're still owned by those parasites. Paying off the debt will only mean they'll pay themselves off with more dividends, not actually investing further to propel us to more success. We'd just be a bigger laughing stock, and as plastic as City without the success nor ambition to show for it.
Even arsenal owners are better than glazers. Saw a picture today about owner financing in EPL, as usual utd at the bottom with 89m taken out from the club.
I get that. I'd prefer they pissed off and we kept the name. But that doesn't seem likely either. Club is finished anyway on the big stage until they go or until they sack Woodward and realise the mistake they made.
I think the argument against the glazers has become a bit redundant in recent years, the amount the club is spending on players and wages since Fergie left has been extreme.
We have the highest (or second-highest to City depending on which source you believe) and in the top 3 or 4 in world football (again depending on the source). Our net spend on transfers over the past 5 years is second only to city in the premier league who are funded by a country! Our spending has been fine, more than fine. we havn't needed to spend more we have needed to spend better!
Of course, the Glazers are taking money out of the club, but it's a business they own its something owners of sports teams do across the world, I'm not sure that should be considering it the crime that many seem to think it is. It's just that fans have become used to billionaire owners pumping money into clubs so that they can run at a huge loss and the fact United don't do that and it massively frustrates the fan base who want us to do things like break the British transfer record when there is a global economic crisis the likes of which probably has no equivalent, and when the club doesn't do that they kick their toys out of the pram and have a paddy.
I'm not saying the Glazers are good owners, how they have spent all the money they have has been frankly shocking, for the amount of money we have spent and the wage bill we have we should have a world-beating squad, instead of a squad that is just about making it into the top 4. Not to mention the lack of investment in old Trafford, leaking roof area's that look like they haven't had a lick of paint in 20 years it's quite depressing. They also clearly should have insisted that some come in to help run the football side of the business for Woodward, since he was proposed to take over, and certainly since that utter disaster of his first window. Since then while it has become clear the guy is a genius in the commercial world, he is clearly way out of his area of expertise when it comes to football and should have no say in signings, managers or contracts.
But the whole argument over how much the club is spending is nonsense these days, the amount we are spending is fine. How we have spent it isn't.
We have the highest (or second-highest to City depending on which source you believe) and in the top 3 or 4 in world football (again depending on the source). Our net spend on transfers over the past 5 years is second only to city in the premier league who are funded by a country! Our spending has been fine, more than fine. we havn't needed to spend more we have needed to spend better!
Of course, the Glazers are taking money out of the club, but it's a business they own its something owners of sports teams do across the world, I'm not sure that should be considering it the crime that many seem to think it is. It's just that fans have become used to billionaire owners pumping money into clubs so that they can run at a huge loss and the fact United don't do that and it massively frustrates the fan base who want us to do things like break the British transfer record when there is a global economic crisis the likes of which probably has no equivalent, and when the club doesn't do that they kick their toys out of the pram and have a paddy.
I'm not saying the Glazers are good owners, how they have spent all the money they have has been frankly shocking, for the amount of money we have spent and the wage bill we have we should have a world-beating squad, instead of a squad that is just about making it into the top 4. Not to mention the lack of investment in old Trafford, leaking roof area's that look like they haven't had a lick of paint in 20 years it's quite depressing. They also clearly should have insisted that some come in to help run the football side of the business for Woodward, since he was proposed to take over, and certainly since that utter disaster of his first window. Since then while it has become clear the guy is a genius in the commercial world, he is clearly way out of his area of expertise when it comes to football and should have no say in signings, managers or contracts.
But the whole argument over how much the club is spending is nonsense these days, the amount we are spending is fine. How we have spent it isn't.
You can't simply conclude by looking at the total money we spent, you also have to consider the context. When we are one or two players away from title challenge, the board is satisfied with a top four finish and refuses to invest. Then we have no choice but to chase inferior targets and the team starts to decline. After a year or two the board is finally willing to invest when we struggle to get into the top four, but it's already too late as many more problems emerge and we become three to four players away from title challenge again. Of course we haven't spent the money particularly well, yet the Glazers are also responsible to a certain extent.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yet some people will get on fans for being appalled over how the club is ran and look to defend those leeches
Instead of putting money back into the club for improving the team, they have the cheek to claim dividends for themselves even as the team would struggle
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
How can anyone still defend glazers is beyond me! They have not put anything from their own pocket to strengthen the club, in fact the club has put into their pockets. Glazers apologists are the worst.
It´s shocking that allowing the the club to fund couple of decent signings it seems that some fans see the Glazers as good owners. That is shocking, these owners are the worst in the league by far and no end in sight. Problem is that the club of this size will only get more valuable and the pool of potential buyers is ridiculously small. We are going to be stuck with these parasites for years to come.
I have read where people have said they have taken risks? What risks? A risk is when you leverage yourself to put money into the club.
Instead they are putting the risk of this club.
If mark Zuckerberg paid a meal on his credit card. It means he owns the bank money. Doesnt mean he's broke.
Loans and operating loans are normal.
Utter shambles.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yet some people will get on fans for being appalled over how the club is ran and look to defend those leeches
Instead of putting money back into the club for improving the team, they have the cheek to claim dividends for themselves even as the team would struggle
And as if taking money out wasn't bad enough, their running of the club has been awful. From hiring incompetent managers, splurging insane amounts of money on players without an actual plan in place, giving away contracts to all and sundry and letting the stadium go to ruin. Utter shambles.
I have heard and read more absurd things than that while them defending glazers and woodward. And the strange part is they don't have the same patience while defending the manager.
It's not just about buying players. They are doing the bare minimum to keep the club in the Champions League. Like you said about OT needing investment. The youth and reserve setups need continuous investing, as do the training facilities. They are a cancer on our club. Before these leeches turned up we were leading in every aspect, now we are one of the pack, and the bottom half of the pack at that.
Sure, but if the argument is that the owners only care about qualifying for the CL season in, season out - having no ambitions beyond that - the numbers don't exactly back this up, do they?
Neither the minimum amount any club will make from the CL group stages (which is around £15 mill, I think), nor any realistic run for a half-decent team (say, crash out at the QF stage - which would be another £10 mill, perhaps), would seem to jibe with the kind of money United have spent on transfers and wages in recent years.
You don't keep making record signings (most recently, we broke the world transfer record for a defender (on a player most agree was "pretty good" at best) - and you don't maintain a total wage bill that is right up there with anyone - if your only ambition is to make sure you rake in somewhere between 15 and 25 mill annually on just being in the CL. That really makes no sense at all.
ETA Put it like this: whatever it is we're doing, it isn't "doing an Arsenal". It's something else. Arsenal never broke transfer records. They never offered huge contracts to established players. At one point, their strategy (under Wenger) was to offer relatively huge contracts to young players (in order to attract talents that would otherwise go elsewhere) - but United offer relatively huge contracts to pretty much everyone we sign. And we routinely upgrade contracts for players nobody would say have "deserved" it in any meaningful sense. None of this indicates a basic unwillingness to spend money beyond what is absolutely necessary.
Last edited:
The numbers exactly back this up, as I have said in #197.
Our spending has been pretty high ever since Moyes was fired, arguably before, the 35mllion paid for Mata, may not seem like a lot of money now but it was then. Of course there are going to be summers were clubs spend less because it hasn't invested heavily the previous years, every club in the world has that you can' break transfer records every summer. But over the past 5 years, we have paid 3 of the top 5 fees ever paid by a British club and gave the biggest contract in premier league history to Sanchez and a net spend that is up near the top of any list you care to look at. We spend spend spend spend, and still, fans say it isn't enough and try to find reasons why we needed to spend more as if that has been the issue.
I would also argue I don't think we have ever been 1 or two players away from winning the title, all of the managers have been given an absolute sh*t storm of money that has been more than enough to build an awesome squad. It has just been squandered, so fans demand more. Like this summer people are going crazy for Sancho, do we really think we will win the league if we get Sancho? No, we still have very clear problems at centre back despite the fact we have 7 central defenders, none of the midfielders we have to seem comfortable in the holding role apart from Matic, who while had a great second half of the season a year ago we all thought he was over the hill do we really expect him to keep that form up for a full year (never mind the 3 years of the contract we mentally gave him). So what are fans suggesting we do pay 120million for Sancho, another 40 mil + for a quality holding midfielder and sign an 8th first-team centre back? United literally doesn't have enough money in the bank to do that, What should we do borrow more when our debt is rising, we are likely going to have no fans in the stadium possibly all year, and you can count on the fact that sponsorship money will be down at the next contract renewal stage due to the economic crisis. So we would be bonkers to do that! But fans don't want to hear about that they just want signings, and then more signings and then to complain that their hasn't been enough signings.
The Glazers and Woodward are 100% an issue, but not because of the lack of spending, its the incompetence of the spending.
Last edited:
Exactly this, i dont know why people argue against this. Other clubs have spent far lesser and are in a far better shape than us, despite starting from a lower point than us.
There is massive incompetence, but not a lack of spending of money or a will to do so, like @Chesterlestreet also said.
Sure, them taking money out of the club is also a problem. Before people start calling us out as glazer apologists.
No. It literally got made illegal after everyone saw what the Glazers did to us. Saves future teams but is obviously no help to us.
Bare minimum? Paying 3 of the top 5 fees ever paid by a British club over the past 5 years, giving the biggest contract in premier league history to Sanchez, a net transfer spend and wage bill that is up near the top of any list you care to look at. Is not a bare minimum in anyway way you want to look at it. With this kind of expenditure, we should be challenging for every trophy every year. The fact we are not is nothing to do with finances or lack of signings and everything to do with a lack of knowledge of squad building and long term team planning.