Woodward, Glazers....

[UnitedFan93]

If you're the Glazers why would you sell?

They've taken £1 billion out of the club, pay themselves £20 million dividends each year, shown zero interest in developing Old Trafford, yet despite all this, season tickets sell out in record time each year, and revenues/profits continue to grow. They must think the fans love them, even when they treat the club like their personal ATM machine.

Ultimately the fans hold all the power here, however a large chunk aren't prepared to do whatever it takes to force positive change. A couple of years of staying away from OT will benefit the club much more long term and bring change much quicker compared to rushing to renew each year.

 

[Adisa]

We will never win another titie under these cnuts. Not a chance.

 

[Paxi]

Is this thread getting a bump because people are genuinely concerned about their ownership or is it because Sancho hasn’t arrived yet?

This kicked off last season and then Bruno arrived and everyone went quiet.

That’s our fans in a nutshell. No one has the energy for a prolonged, sustained campaign against the glazers.

 

[Devil may care]

That’s our fans in a nutshell. No one has the energy for a prolonged, sustained campaign against the glazers.

Especially not now in a covid world where people have bigger issues, this pandemic is a great thing for the Glazers, hiding behind it as Aston villa and Newcastle invest more in their teams.

 

[Paxi]

Especially not now in a covid world where people have bigger issues, this pandemic is a great thing for the Glazers, hiding behind it as Aston villa and Newcastle invest more in their teams.

Yeah it’s so transparent. I bet they won’t forfeit their dividends though.

 

[passing-wind]

The incapacities for us to excel over the years has largely been down to Woodward's inadequacy to perform his role successfully. The problem with the Glazers has not really amounted to us spending amounts it's the infrastructure of who and how the finances are being spent.

It's Woodward responsibility to negotiate the acquisition of players, the liked of Ed / useless judge have shown to be some of the worst in the sport. Even if we get Sancho over the line can anyone name a recent summer whereby we had the team ready primarily by pre season ? Look at the difference between our hierarchy and that of Chelsea given this summer. Lampard has had enough time to train and embed his players.

 

[MancunianAngels]

This thread again...

Ultimately, we're stuck with the Glazers. Unless we have get relegated there's no chance they'll even consider selling up.

I've said a million times on here but the time for action was 2005 and briefly for a moment in 2010. Not enough people cared then and too many only care now because we've not signed Sancho.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

Yeah it would be nice if that money went into the club, it would be great to have owners who only did it for the love of the club and didn't take a profit. But considering the just incredible amounts of money, the club has spent over the past 5+ years we can hardly point towards that and go that's the problem. It clearly isn't we are top or near the top of every expenditure list for football clubs.

It's simply that the money has been generally wasted.

Why 5+ years though? They've owned the club much longer than that.

 

[laughtersassassin]

Manager comes third and now not backed one bit. Fanfeckingtastic. This club will be the death of me.

 

[MancunianAngels]

That’s our fans in a nutshell. No one has the energy for a prolonged, sustained campaign against the glazers.

Our fans did once. We had meetings. We had fans marching outside the ground. We had fans disrupting reserve games on MUTV. We had fanzine issuing rallying calls. We had fans singing nasty songs. We had targeted campaigns against sponsors. That was in 2005.

Then we had 2010 and the green and gold. An idea born on the Red Issue forum as a way of uniting the fanbase. But what happened? Swag men saw it as a fashion aaccessory and a way of making profit. We had fans wearing green and gold scarves whilst spending hundreds in the Megastore. The message was diluted but the anger was still there. Even that quickly disappeared. Not enough direction and MUST being spineless.

Then in 2015, the final nail in the coffin for any kind of protest movement. The only group of people willing to call out the bull sh** stopped. Red Issue is still missed as a printed publication.

So what do we have now? We have thousands screaming on social media and on forums (almost ironic that I'm posting this on a forum). We have MUST organising end of season dos at Old Trafford. We have fancams that don't really lead on anything constructive and just scream random nonsense for social media engagement. We have an overly reactionary fanbase that wants the Glazers out twice a season when the transfer window starts going badly. We have a fanbase that forgets how bad the Glazers are when we win football matches.

Here's a question for you all to ponder. How many thought the Glazers were ok in the Summer of 2008?

 

[Devil may care]

Yeah it’s so transparent. I bet they won’t forfeit their dividends though.

Oh yeah they'll still collect their cut no matter what else happens.

 

[Paxi]

Our fans did once. We had meetings. We had fans marching outside the ground. We had fans disrupting reserve games on MUTV. We had fanzine issuing rallying calls. We had fans singing nasty songs. We had targeted campaigns against sponsors. That was in 2005.

Then we had 2010 and the green and gold. An idea born on the Red Issue forum as a way of uniting the fanbase. But what happened? Swag men saw it as a fashion aaccessory and a way of making profit. We had fans wearing green and gold scarves whilst spending hundreds in the Megastore. The message was diluted but the anger was still there. Even that quickly disappeared. Not enough direction and MUST being spineless.

Then in 2015, the final nail in the coffin for any kind of protest movement. The only group of people willing to call out the bull sh** stopped. Red Issue is still missed as a printed publication.

So what do we have now? We have thousands screaming on social media and on forums (almost ironic that I'm posting this on a forum). We have MUST organising end of season dos at Old Trafford. We have fancams that don't really lead on anything constructive and just scream random nonsense for social media engagement. We have an overly reactionary fanbase that wants the Glazers out twice a season when the transfer window starts going badly. We have a fanbase that forgets how bad the Glazers are when we win football matches.

Here's a question for you all to ponder. How many thought the Glazers were ok in the Summer of 2008?

I remember all those campaigns. In 2010 we should have kept going but it fizzled out eventually of course. Personally, I’ve hated the glazers since the takeover. It’s hard to be angry about owners when the team is doing well as we’re still football fans and our emotions are driven by success on the pitch. So I can forgive people being quiet towards the owners during arguably our most successful period as a club.

 

[SER19]

If we add Reguilon, our additions are actually quite good and the transfer strategy since last summer has been very positive.

However, it could still be far better and we are still paying the price of terrible players on huge contracts. The damage they have done is stifling progress even when we are making decent signings.

Soldkjaer is being badly failed by them because of how woefully inept they were when 'backing' other managers

 

[Bastian]

Here's a question for you all to ponder. How many thought the Glazers were ok in the Summer of 2008?

I thought they were subhuman scum from the moment they came in, and nothing has changed that. I think a lot of supporters feel the same. Probably different if you were to survey fleeting fans.

 

[clarkydaz]

Our fans did once. We had meetings. We had fans marching outside the ground. We had fans disrupting reserve games on MUTV. We had fanzine issuing rallying calls. We had fans singing nasty songs. We had targeted campaigns against sponsors. That was in 2005.

Then we had 2010 and the green and gold. An idea born on the Red Issue forum as a way of uniting the fanbase. But what happened? Swag men saw it as a fashion aaccessory and a way of making profit. We had fans wearing green and gold scarves whilst spending hundreds in the Megastore. The message was diluted but the anger was still there. Even that quickly disappeared. Not enough direction and MUST being spineless.

Then in 2015, the final nail in the coffin for any kind of protest movement. The only group of people willing to call out the bull sh** stopped. Red Issue is still missed as a printed publication.

So what do we have now? We have thousands screaming on social media and on forums (almost ironic that I'm posting this on a forum). We have MUST organising end of season dos at Old Trafford. We have fancams that don't really lead on anything constructive and just scream random nonsense for social media engagement. We have an overly reactionary fanbase that wants the Glazers out twice a season when the transfer window starts going badly. We have a fanbase that forgets how bad the Glazers are when we win football matches.

Here's a question for you all to ponder. How many thought the Glazers were ok in the Summer of 2008?

it was soul destroying when for a few weeks Woodward was getting uncomfortable with the crowd chants, they signed Bruno and it vanished immediately. Just throw them a fish to shut them up

 

[Kostov]

We will never win another titie under these cnuts. Not a chance.

This.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

Why 5+ years though? They've owned the club much longer than that.

5 years is just an easy benchmark, but yeah they have owned us a lot longer. And while I there was periods were thier was a lot of spending, the summer we signed Hargreaves, Nani, Tevez, Anderson(and I think a few others) comes to mind, but yeah, there were definitely periods in the Fergie era were our activity in market place was shocking, the replacing and Ronaldo and Tevez with Owen and Valencia is still a sore spot, the fact that the squad Fergie left about 1/2 of it retired in the following 2/3 years shows the mess the glazers and to an extent, fergie got us into. And the fact we didn't sign a first-team centre midfielder SIX YEARS still makes me angry

So in no way am I Glazer fan, I just think if we are going to criticise them it should be for the right reasons, NOT because they are seemingly unwilling to break the British transfer record in the middle of a global economic meltdown and pandemic when fans probably won't be allowed probably all season.

But beyond that in the post Fergie era, we have spent and spent and spent, our spending is top or near the top of every wage and transfer list going. All i'm saying are the days were we lambast the glazers for not spending have been over for a number of years, they one 100% deserve criticism for how the money has been spent, but the amount that has been spent has not been the issue for a long time.

 

[pocco]

Is this thread getting a bump because people are genuinely concerned about their ownership or is it because Sancho hasn’t arrived yet?

This kicked off last season and then Bruno arrived and everyone went quiet.

It's diabolical. Either most people are thick as treacle or have really short memories. Can tell the club have realised this though with their DoF briefings. They treat our fans like lemmings. Honestly, each and every one of us are being mugged off big time. Seeing people defend Woodward boils my piss no end, these are the worst of the lot.

It's hard loving a football team so much but absolutely hating our owners/Woodward and what they have turned us into. The problem is, they know most wouldn't harm something they love so much on a small chance it'll make a difference.

They've got us by the balls.

 

[Rolaholic]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Sums it up plainly really

 

[Revan]

So Utd paid 838 + 89 = £927m for the Glazers

I'm no financial expert so my question is hypothetically if the Glazers didn't take over, could we use that money to invest into the club or not ?

89M is included in the 838M. 838M is the entire sum of money that has been sent out of the club.

Of course, if we didn't have the massive debt (especially on the early stages when we were operating at a loss because of the debt payment), a lot of money would have gone in the taxes instead. Someone who care more about it would know better, but I think that Arsenal was paying around 25m in taxes while we were practically paying close to 0 (I think we paid something like 9m in 5 years). We had significantly higher revenue than Arsenal, so we would have paid somewhere in the region of 30-40m or so per year. Multiply it by 15years or so, and we are talking 400-500m in taxes. Which would still mean that they drained 400m or so.

Of course, it depends if you give them any credit whatsoever for the increase in the money coming from the advertisement. While it is pretty easy to say that United are big and we would have got that money anyway, the truth might have been different. For example, before Glazers, our commercial growth had totally stagnated and Chelsea was almost surpassing us. Our entire commercial department had 2 people, now it has a few hundred to be able to get all the Mr. Potatoes of the world, which brings a lot of money. Of course, some other investor, might have done the same, and even better, might have put his own money. Additionally, the PLC might have opened their eyes, get enlightened and increase the commercial department, in turn bringing more money. Or they might have continue the 'vodafone + Nike strategy' and sack Fergie as the two main owners wanted. Who knows.

I'll stay with what I have been saying for years. Money-wise, except in 2008-2010 when we were really struggling for money, the Glazers have been quite good (to not say very good) for the club, and they have certainly been better owners than the previous ones. I'll stay with also what have been saying for years, that since SAF left, the club has had no clear direction and the management has been utter shambles.

So, like always, I criticize the Glazers for how they have been ruling the club, not for (the lack) of money spent. Cause since SAF retired, we have outspent every club not called Barcelona or Manchester City, the first having had a higher revenue than us, and the second having unlimited funds.

 

[Revan]

I've said it before (everything has been said before in this debate), but yeah - that's possible too.

The standard pro-Glazer argument is that the old plc was fecked up (and increasingly at odds with Fergie, not least). But if we're playing around with hypothetical scenarios, there really isn't any compelling reason to think nothing would have changed (in terms of the board and its policy) if Malcolm Glazer hadn't made his move the way he did.

It's all - well - hypothetical. The idea that a leveraged takeover was the only way to save United from gradually becoming irrelevant is certainly rather ridiculous. Unless one thinks Uncle Malc was the only man in the world capable of coming in and capitalizing on United's already established status (as probably the most popular football club in the world).

I believe that there would have been other owners who would have done near as good job (or maybe even as good), without necessarily putting the club on the debt (though again, half of the debt-money would have gone in taxes instead). But it is very unlikely that the PLC would have done that, it was clear that they were 20th-century owners somehow still owning a club in the 21st century. Entirely clueless, even without the SAF fight.

So going from PLC to Glazers was a good thing. Of course, if instead would have gone to Abramovich, it would have been much better and probably we would have had another couple UCLs and a few other league titles. Maybe would have done to EPL what Bayern does to Bundesliga (at least until City arrived).

 

[Nori-]

It was so disheartening today reading that our owners have pumped the least amount of ££ into the club than ANY other of the other 19 clubs.

The problem is the United brand is SO big and global that a few 100 people outside the stadium protesting or a very small % refusing to by tickets/merch will not dent their profits. They will just sell more in some other part of the world or sign another sponsorship deal.

They have us by the balls.

 

[murali_red]

If you're the Glazers why would you sell?

They've taken £1 billion out of the club, pay themselves £20 million dividends each year, shown zero interest in developing Old Trafford, yet despite all this, season tickets sell out in record time each year, and revenues/profits continue to grow. They must think the fans love them, even when they treat the club like their personal ATM machine.

Ultimately the fans hold all the power here, however a large chunk aren't prepared to do whatever it takes to force positive change. A couple of years of staying away from OT will benefit the club much more long term and bring change much quicker compared to rushing to renew each year.

At 4 billion our club is too big to buy for most to the great returns, anyone will get good returns but almost all clubs will great return.
I think at the present rate the debt will be done in 20 years comfortably, can someone confirm? However there is major stadium renovation to be done, so debt may spiral for another 10 years to 30 years. With more money coming into football and depending on decent success, I think debt would be out by 20 years.

Glazers know this and are in no hurry to chase trophies, only way is for fans to put pressure every season on social media but they have thick skin.

So hope is the only way that few guys like Ole can navigate us success by managing all this. Sadly we are no longer the Real Madrids of football to buy a Glacatio and win, we should build a team like klopp does, buy players with potential, make them superstars, one or two big signings may happen but that's about it.

 

[Strelok]

89M is included in the 838M. 838M is the entire sum of money that has been sent out of the club.

Of course, if we didn't have the massive debt (especially on the early stages when we were operating at a loss because of the debt payment), a lot of money would have gone in the taxes instead. Someone who care more about it would know better, but I think that Arsenal was paying around 25m in taxes while we were practically paying close to 0 (I think we paid something like 9m in 5 years). We had significantly higher revenue than Arsenal, so we would have paid somewhere in the region of 30-40m or so per year. Multiply it by 15years or so, and we are talking 400-500m in taxes. Which would still mean that they drained 400m or so.

Of course, it depends if you give them any credit whatsoever for the increase in the money coming from the advertisement. While it is pretty easy to say that United are big and we would have got that money anyway, the truth might have been different. For example, before Glazers, our commercial growth had totally stagnated and Chelsea was almost surpassing us. Our entire commercial department had 2 people, now it has a few hundred to be able to get all the Mr. Potatoes of the world, which brings a lot of money. Of course, some other investor, might have done the same, and even better, might have put his own money. Additionally, the PLC might have opened their eyes, get enlightened and increase the commercial department, in turn bringing more money. Or they might have continue the 'vodafone + Nike strategy' and sack Fergie as the two main owners wanted. Who knows.

I'll stay with what I have been saying for years. Money-wise, except in 2008-2010 when we were really struggling for money, the Glazers have been quite good (to not say very good) for the club, and they have certainly been better owners than the previous ones. I'll stay with also what have been saying for years, that since SAF left, the club has had no clear direction and the management has been utter shambles.

So, like always, I criticize the Glazers for how they have been ruling the club, not for (the lack) of money spent. Cause since SAF retired, we have outspent every club not called Barcelona or Manchester City, the first having had a higher revenue than us, and the second having unlimited funds.

If we used that 400-500m to buy players or invest into our infrastructures would we still get taxed?

And yeah, now you mention it that 838m is for the last 10 year. For the last 15 years it would be 838/10x15 = 1257m or around that I think ? That's the same amount those oil guys pumped into City.

 

[The Man Himself]

I had a dream yesterday night that Woodward resigned. I was very happy. Everyone was very happy. Then I woke up

 

[Revan]

If we used that 400-500m to buy players or invest into our infrastructures would we still get taxed?

And yeah, now you mention it that 838m is for the last 10 year. For the last 15 years it would be 838/10x15 = 1257m or around that I think ? That's the same amount those oil guys pumped into City.

Honestly, I don’t know how the transfers get taxed. I think that a couple of years someone did a best guesstimate of what would have been and it was a very large number but nowhere near the 1 billion mentioned number. Still it was several hundred millions which definitely could have been invested better, especially under SAF.

 

[Revan]

At 4 billion our club is too big to buy for most to the great returns, anyone will get good returns but almost all clubs will great return.
I think at the present rate the debt will be done in 20 years comfortably, can someone confirm? However there is major stadium renovation to be done, so debt may spiral for another 10 years to 30 years. With more money coming into football and depending on decent success, I think debt would be out by 20 years.

Glazers know this and are in no hurry to chase trophies, only way is for fans to put pressure every season on social media but they have thick skin.

So hope is the only way that few guys like Ole can navigate us success by managing all this. Sadly we are no longer the Real Madrids of football to buy a Glacatio and win, we should build a team like klopp does, buy players with potential, make them superstars, one or two big signings may happen but that's about it.

There is no intention on removing the debt, there never was. This was always the plan, bring the debt to a manageable number and then restructure it so we pay circa 20m in interest payment but the debt remains. The financial analysts in the thread can tell why that makes financial sense.

We also just got an 150m fresh debt to cover operational costs and the losses we will get from covid. So the debt it is actually increasing (it may go down to the same number we have in the future). And yes, if we want to invest in the stadium, it will likely be from a new debt.

Debt is actually not bad and makes financial sense. If it was that bad and wouldn’t have made sense, they would have paid it long time ago by selling only 10% of the stocks. But yet they are perfectly comfortable on keeping it (despite that the interest payments for 20 years are as big as just paying the debt in one go, and well, the debt still remains), and those feckers might be clueless at the football side, but they know how to run a business.

The debt really has not been a problem for a long time.

 

[Strelok]

Honestly, I don’t know how the transfers get taxed. I think that a couple of years someone did a best guesstimate of what would have been and it was a very large number but nowhere near the 1 billion mentioned number. Still it was several hundred millions which definitely could have been invested better, especially under SAF.

I had a look on google and it seems no.
https://www.quora.com/Do-Premier-Le...sfers, yes..,services related to the business.

Agreed on the investment under SAF, we could buy like 10 world class players back then for that money. Even under Moyes or LVG the players prices were still pretty normal if my memory serves me right.

 

[Eplel]

For a measly £160M we could have Sancho, Haaland and Bellingham in our squad, IF the Glazers and Ed were not incompetent.

 

[Bilbo]

A measly £160m

 

[Fluctuation0161]

5 years is just an easy benchmark, but yeah they have owned us a lot longer. And while I there was periods were thier was a lot of spending, the summer we signed Hargreaves, Nani, Tevez, Anderson(and I think a few others) comes to mind, but yeah, there were definitely periods in the Fergie era were our activity in market place was shocking, the replacing and Ronaldo and Tevez with Owen and Valencia is still a sore spot, the fact that the squad Fergie left about 1/2 of it retired in the following 2/3 years shows the mess the glazers and to an extent, fergie got us into. And the fact we didn't sign a first-team centre midfielder SIX YEARS still makes me angry

So in no way am I Glazer fan, I just think if we are going to criticise them it should be for the right reasons, NOT because they are seemingly unwilling to break the British transfer record in the middle of a global economic meltdown and pandemic when fans probably won't be allowed probably all season.

But beyond that in the post Fergie era, we have spent and spent and spent, our spending is top or near the top of every wage and transfer list going. All i'm saying are the days were we lambast the glazers for not spending have been over for a number of years, they one 100% deserve criticism for how the money has been spent, but the amount that has been spent has not been the issue for a long time.

The key criticisms are that they have spent over £1bn of the clubs money on clearing their debt, we are the only top 6 club that have paid out dividends in the last 5 years (£90 million) and Woodwards clusterfecks since 2013 have led to a massive decline with no consequences as he is still in a job.

 

[arthurka]

89M is included in the 838M. 838M is the entire sum of money that has been sent out of the club.

Of course, if we didn't have the massive debt (especially on the early stages when we were operating at a loss because of the debt payment), a lot of money would have gone in the taxes instead. Someone who care more about it would know better, but I think that Arsenal was paying around 25m in taxes while we were practically paying close to 0 (I think we paid something like 9m in 5 years). We had significantly higher revenue than Arsenal, so we would have paid somewhere in the region of 30-40m or so per year. Multiply it by 15years or so, and we are talking 400-500m in taxes. Which would still mean that they drained 400m or so.

Of course, it depends if you give them any credit whatsoever for the increase in the money coming from the advertisement. While it is pretty easy to say that United are big and we would have got that money anyway, the truth might have been different. For example, before Glazers, our commercial growth had totally stagnated and Chelsea was almost surpassing us. Our entire commercial department had 2 people, now it has a few hundred to be able to get all the Mr. Potatoes of the world, which brings a lot of money. Of course, some other investor, might have done the same, and even better, might have put his own money. Additionally, the PLC might have opened their eyes, get enlightened and increase the commercial department, in turn bringing more money. Or they might have continue the 'vodafone + Nike strategy' and sack Fergie as the two main owners wanted. Who knows.

I'll stay with what I have been saying for years. Money-wise, except in 2008-2010 when we were really struggling for money, the Glazers have been quite good (to not say very good) for the club, and they have certainly been better owners than the previous ones. I'll stay with also what have been saying for years, that since SAF left, the club has had no clear direction and the management has been utter shambles.

So, like always, I criticize the Glazers for how they have been ruling the club, not for (the lack) of money spent. Cause since SAF retired, we have outspent every club not called Barcelona or Manchester City, the first having had a higher revenue than us, and the second having unlimited funds.

No that is last 10 years, Glazers bought Utd in 2005 and have taken over 1bn out of the club since. This is an article from 2018.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2018/oct/04/glazers-manchester-united

Since then they have added to that bill.

 

[Squeaky Bumtime]

This is the window in which we must show we mean business. Sadly it will show just that as a club we're satisfied with a top 4 finish.

 

[Water Melon]

The new bloody Arsenal we have turned into. Used to rule the football kingdom, now seeing top 4 as an achievement while having one of the highest wage bills in both the Prem and the world. Fecking Glazers and their puppets have fecked up whatever had been built by SAF for 25 years. We need massive massive protests.

 

[MrSingh2002]

Who is worse?

The Glazers or the Federal Reserve?

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

For a measly £160M we could have Sancho, Haaland and Bellingham in our squad, IF the Glazers and Ed were not incompetent.

Did we lose out on Haaland and Bellingham because of their incompetence?

Haaland's reps seemed to insist on a relatively low buy-out clause in his contract, which insists he's not there for the long haul (as does his choice of agent). It seems that Bellingham's dad was encouraged by Sancho's career path at Dortmund. I think we were right to not bow to Haaland's demands. It appears we were willing to pay what it took to get Bellingham, but he went another way.

I'm not defending the Ed or the Glazers, between them they've dropped plentiful clangers in the last several years, and I'd rather none of them were here, but I don't think the club was at fault for losing out on those two.

 

[Tom Cato]

If you're the Glazers why would you sell?

They've taken £1 billion out of the club, pay themselves £20 million dividends each year, shown zero interest in developing Old Trafford, yet despite all this, season tickets sell out in record time each year, and revenues/profits continue to grow. They must think the fans love them, even when they treat the club like their personal ATM machine.

Ultimately the fans hold all the power here, however a large chunk aren't prepared to do whatever it takes to force positive change. A couple of years of staying away from OT will benefit the club much more long term and bring change much quicker compared to rushing to renew each year.

The value of a full sale will outweigh the value of dividends in their lifetime.

Of course there is also value in actually owning a massive franchise in Europe from a purely commercial perspective.

But the money we're talking about here is cash that typically goes to fund corporate ventures, not lining their own pocket, its more money than a human being can spend on himself.

So the only reason why the Glazers WOULD sell is to enter another project that will be funded by the sale of MUFC shares. The Glazer family is known for primarily 2 things, Real Estate and ownership of sport teams. It's hugely unlikely that they would use that vast a cash reserve to purchase new real estate projects, so the key venture is another sports team. Until that comes along, the Glazer Family is staying, unless some country or Jezz Bezos decides to throw a few billion £ chump change at them to take control.

 

[MancunianAngels]

I believe that there would have been other owners who would have done near as good job (or maybe even as good), without necessarily putting the club on the debt (though again, half of the debt-money would have gone in taxes instead). But it is very unlikely that the PLC would have done that, it was clear that they were 20th-century owners somehow still owning a club in the 21st century. Entirely clueless, even without the SAF fight.

So going from PLC to Glazers was a good thing. Of course, if instead would have gone to Abramovich, it would have been much better and probably we would have had another couple UCLs and a few other league titles. Maybe would have done to EPL what Bayern does to Bundesliga (at least until City arrived).

A few points here.

The PLC were an issue. However, we largely got away with it because of the class of 92. Between signing Keane in the Summer of 1993 and the Summer of 1996. We made two major signings. Andy Cole and David May. Madness when you think about,

I dispute the argument that things would have been better under Abramovich. Maybe, at times on the pitch but would he have allowed Fergie an opportunity to rebuild between 2003 and 2006?

 

[Eplel]

Did we lose out on Haaland and Bellingham because of their incompetence?

Haaland's reps seemed to insist on a relatively low buy-out clause in his contract, which insists he's not there for the long haul (as does his choice of agent). It seems that Bellingham's dad was encouraged by Sancho's career path at Dortmund. I think we were right to not bow to Haaland's demands. It appears we were willing to pay what it took to get Bellingham, but he went another way.

I'm not defending the Ed or the Glazers, between them they've dropped plentiful clangers in the last several years, and I'd rather none of them were here, but I don't think the club was at fault for losing out on those two.

For Haaland, I get that we didn't want the clause (I will assume it's the same amount as it is in Dortmund), but worst case scenario we'd make at least 30-40 million, potentially even more, out of him, which would be a good bonus on it's own, able to fund his replacement. Same for Reguillon, if Madrid wants a 60 mil buy back, then that's an easy 30 mil to make there.

For Bellingham, the Glazers simply refused to pay the amount, it's my impression that the player did want to come to United, and that Solskjaer was ready to make him a first team player.

 

[JPRouve]

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.

Mourinho got Lukaku, Matic, Sanchez and Lindelof during his second season. The investment in Sanchez isn't accounted for in those net spend arguments, nor is the increase of the wage bill by +100m. So even when people talk about the third season where we signed Fred and Dalot people ignore the fact that Sanchez signing bonus and wages impacted that summer and that the club didn't had a lot more money since it was allocated to wages.