Genuine question: Why don’t they actually do any interviews? I mean they get pounded by everyone. They’re regarded as total money obsessed leaches who give no fecks about the club. All they’d need to do is name a single United player outside of Ronaldo, not burn a hundred dollar bill in front a homeless guy and avoid murdering any pets on air and they’d go up in most people’s estimation. Seems like such an easy win. Instead they do no media. It’s really bizarre to me. Putting aside the fact they very likely are money obsessed leaches who ultimately don’t give a feck they do zero PR to change that image.
General Glazer Discussion | To receive the majority of £11m stakeholder dividend today
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
It’s a broken record but the money has been wasted by incompetence by the muppets hired to run the club. More money could be available if the owners didn’t take their dividends. However, they are perfectly entitled to do that. We are just a cash cow for them and it may occur to them that if we won the PL or CL, they would make even more money. Let’s hope the board let Ten Hag run the footy side and not dabble in fantasy football with real money.
"We've always spent the money necessary to buy new players."
Absolute nonsense
Most players have been bought for commercial gains, or worse, because the rumour of their transfer created lots social media noise, which again, appeased the sponsor and commercial aspect off the club.
Even Ronaldo was bought to appease Adidas.
To those outside the club and those that take every opportunity to bash the club can easily point to the money spent on the players. However that only tells a small portion of the story.
Woodward was allowed to use the club as his own personal "fantastic football league" but even worse was allowed to plaster over every mistake (managerial and playing staff) by buying or hiring the next big name.
Absolute nonsense
Most players have been bought for commercial gains, or worse, because the rumour of their transfer created lots social media noise, which again, appeased the sponsor and commercial aspect off the club.
Even Ronaldo was bought to appease Adidas.
To those outside the club and those that take every opportunity to bash the club can easily point to the money spent on the players. However that only tells a small portion of the story.
Woodward was allowed to use the club as his own personal "fantastic football league" but even worse was allowed to plaster over every mistake (managerial and playing staff) by buying or hiring the next big name.
Last edited:
I see zero upside for them doing interviews. People will always find things to complain about after any media activity. Look at the comments about ETH's first press conference, for reference.
United is not their main source of income. Why would they even bother?
How many club owners have you seen giving interviews? How many interviews did Abramovich do?
Love how people keep talking about the dividends. Like it's less than £20m or one Diogo Dalot per year. It is not holding us back from buying players ffs.
Yes the financial structure of the club, interest payments etc isn't good but Christ alive, who have we missed out on?
I'm glad we haven't spent more tbh, with the shower of a backroom staff, we'd be even more derided for spending £2bn and probably be still in the exact same position.
Yes the financial structure of the club, interest payments etc isn't good but Christ alive, who have we missed out on?
I'm glad we haven't spent more tbh, with the shower of a backroom staff, we'd be even more derided for spending £2bn and probably be still in the exact same position.
How many other club owners have their reputation? As I said - they’d have nothing to lose. Their reputation can’t get any worse.
They’ve allowed a certain percentage of United‘s profits to go back into the team because they are businessmen. A more successful United means greater sales, more revenue and bigger profits. Speculate to accumulate. No wonder they want change on every front because the speculation is not accumulating.
That’s why they want United to do well.
They would leave 88mph flaming skid marks out the door if they were offered £6bn.
That’s why they want United to do well.
They would leave 88mph flaming skid marks out the door if they were offered £6bn.
How would they have nothing to lose? Privacy, time, further scrutiny.
And many other club owners have bad reputation, you just don't follow other clubs as closely. Even Liverpool fans with FSG.
"We've always spent the money necessary to buy new players."
MCFRED
MCFRED
It's not just players we need though, what about training ground and stadium improvements they've neglected? all the money paying off there debts should be going back into the club instead
What other clubs have had their fans storm the stadium stopping a game in the last 12 months? What other fans have started boycotting the first 17 minutes of games!? What other fans have caused a 200m sponsorship deal to be withdrawn?
And Privacy? Time? I’m suggesting a few interviews every year - not keeping up with the fecking Glazers
Well yes they have. We’ve spend a billion post SAF for nothing on the pitch, our growth has slowed and Liverpool have spent considerably less while creeping very close to us on the revenue front. It doesn’t make business sense at all to spend a billion pounds and miss out on the CL 4 times in 9 years, that is objectively money wasted in both a football and a business sense.
They've spent a truck load of money on the team. That has not been the problem. How it's spent on the other hand...
To be fair, they have made money available for new players.
But most of that money has been scandalously wasted on the wrong players. Or, most of the players have gone backwards since signing.
Some may say that is not the owners fault.
But of course it is. Any competent person would want to ensure that their money gave good value.
But most of that money has been scandalously wasted on the wrong players. Or, most of the players have gone backwards since signing.
Some may say that is not the owners fault.
But of course it is. Any competent person would want to ensure that their money gave good value.
Yes same mate
They have shown a willingness to surrender money the club generates and give it to shit players and cnut agents before they take their slice, be fair.
Thanks Glazers!
Thanks Glazers!
It's not their personal money they're spending though, it's the club's. From their point of view, Man Utd is a fattened cash cow to be milked, hence they've been able to make shit loads from dividends.
The football side of the business is money poorly spent, but it hasn't hurt the underlying value of the asset. If anything, all they've done is engineer a situation where they can take millions each year in dividends, pay off zero debt, top up the interest with the rest of the revenue and simply coast along ad infinitum. All the while the underlying value of the club has absolutely sky rocketed since their takeover, because the whole club is geared towards maximising the brand globally and decoupling the football and business (something that was their main aim very early on).
Honestly, I reckon billionaires everywhere are jealous of the Glazers in their purchase of United and their ability to rinse it. The original cnut never stepped foot in the actual stadium apart from maybe the day he bought the club, which shows how few fecks he actually gave.
Long term it's pretty unsustainable, although I actually thought they'd have sold by now about 10 years ago. Whenever they do eventually decide to feck off, they'll make a hefty profit on their original outlay (£790m). Decent business, all things considered. The fans have just been fecked in the process.
. Mr Edwards was an Oligarch who wiped out United's debt, put all his personal money in to see United rise to the top of European football.I blame Woodward more than the glazers but that doesn’t mean they aren’t parasites. They’ve allowed us to spend our own money, that’s all. It’s not theirs, and if it weren’t for them we could probably spend more, but they do spend.
In fact I’m not sure how much blame the glazers deserve for our recent failings given that they couldn’t give less of a feck about football anyway. How often are they even in England? They left Fergie to it and we were successful, then they left Woodward to it and we weren’t. They let their man get on with it, and that man used to be Woodward. Now let’s see if we can do a better job with his successor while continuing to spend our own money.
In fact I’m not sure how much blame the glazers deserve for our recent failings given that they couldn’t give less of a feck about football anyway. How often are they even in England? They left Fergie to it and we were successful, then they left Woodward to it and we weren’t. They let their man get on with it, and that man used to be Woodward. Now let’s see if we can do a better job with his successor while continuing to spend our own money.
Jose wanted Maguire and turns out he isn't worth the moneu
sorry but haven't United always spent the clubs commercial revenue to buy players? Why are you expecting them to put in their own money to buy players? Who buys players for Real Madrid?
2 billion nor 1 billion has gone into their pockets. they take out 20 million per annum in dividends. paying off a loan is not lining ones pockets
the club has always paid for its own transfer fees.
Thank goodness not too much intelligence is required to understand that yes, both the Glazers and Edwards were/are business people, and professional football was, is and always will be a business, but there is a stark difference in how the two ran the club.
I see we're back to some people with 'business sense' (i.e. too full of themselves) explaining to us how overleveraging the club with it as a security is 'good business'.
I can bet these same people do not run up their credit cards and pay it back with crazy interest. And yes, it is an oversimplification but it's comparable. The Glazers provide no value to this club, they take dividends from an asset they never actually invested sufficiently to own upfront and it's costing us more than just the £20m a year.
If they used the proceeds of these loans to actually invest in our facilities, stadium and others, it would be less of a problem. But these people are vultures and the fact no other owner in the leagues drains their club like ours and that Chelsea have a Glazer clause should tell you all you need to know about these scumbags.
Meanwhile, Conte got the Spuds owner to cough up £150m. I can see why they thought Conte was not the manager for United.
I can bet these same people do not run up their credit cards and pay it back with crazy interest. And yes, it is an oversimplification but it's comparable. The Glazers provide no value to this club, they take dividends from an asset they never actually invested sufficiently to own upfront and it's costing us more than just the £20m a year.
If they used the proceeds of these loans to actually invest in our facilities, stadium and others, it would be less of a problem. But these people are vultures and the fact no other owner in the leagues drains their club like ours and that Chelsea have a Glazer clause should tell you all you need to know about these scumbags.
Meanwhile, Conte got the Spuds owner to cough up £150m. I can see why they thought Conte was not the manager for United.
Last edited:
They have backed managers and spent money but it's about recruitment and that falls on that side of things. Recruitment of players has been brutal.
Glazers invested zero of their own dollar to buy Man Utd with 790mil pounds debts.
Using Man Utd money to pay billions in loans interests/payment and dividends.
Selling shares worth hundreds of millions profits.
Total neglect of the football side of the club. Showing no interest at all in football. And as far as I know never been to watch any of our games.
Stand to make big profits with billions of dollars if they decided to sell the club in future.
The estimated 2 billions Glazers taken out of the club could be reinvested back to the club and football in the community.
How can the UK government allowed this kind of ownership model for a football club? The owners saddled the clubs with debts, take huge amount of money out of the club and ruined the club with their incompetent football management. After all these, the owners still stand to make probably 10 billions if they sold the club. The fans are the ones that get fecked the most with this ownership.
Using Man Utd money to pay billions in loans interests/payment and dividends.
Selling shares worth hundreds of millions profits.
Total neglect of the football side of the club. Showing no interest at all in football. And as far as I know never been to watch any of our games.
Stand to make big profits with billions of dollars if they decided to sell the club in future.
The estimated 2 billions Glazers taken out of the club could be reinvested back to the club and football in the community.
How can the UK government allowed this kind of ownership model for a football club? The owners saddled the clubs with debts, take huge amount of money out of the club and ruined the club with their incompetent football management. After all these, the owners still stand to make probably 10 billions if they sold the club. The fans are the ones that get fecked the most with this ownership.
They did the bare minimum by allowing us to spend some of our own money instead of completely sucking us dry. Could be worse owners out there I guess, but they did so because we needed to stay in the top 4 to stay relevant commercially.
I'm not just talking about buying players though. There are other things to spend money on.
I also asked even in buying us, did they put in any of their own money?
Banned in the NFL tells you all you need to know. As usual the UK and it's merry band of Etonian career politicians about 20 years behind on everything.
I am almost certain that they did yes, but it was dwarfed in comparison to the loans and PIKs. I have had a search and cannot find anything easily to hand with the figures.
Pulling it back to the takeover masks so many issues. There are things wrong with how the club is run now that need to be the focus but all the anti-Glazer crowd ironically give them a pass by constantly banging on about fifteen years ago.
Whenever the Glazer’s come up as an issue people just rehash their greatest hits arguments. That’s why they’ve got away with non engagement because we don’t want them to engage we just want to remind people of what we said in 2006
Whenever the Glazer’s come up as an issue people just rehash their greatest hits arguments. That’s why they’ve got away with non engagement because we don’t want them to engage we just want to remind people of what we said in 2006
He is rocking the sickly skullet look
They have spent money. It just hasnt been spent wisely.
Above all else you need a top manager or else the signings will be redundant.
Above all else you need a top manager or else the signings will be redundant.
Can we state with authority that United have spent ONE BILLION BP in transfer fees since Ferguson left the club?
I have a slight suspicion that they're shy or just hate media appointments.
Or as you said it could be that they just don't give feck as apparently Joel does a lot of interviews for they're NFL team(Tampa i think).
Wow. You believe whatever you want to believe, but don’t peddle it to me.https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...d-fans-glazer-family-club-debt-premier-league
But.. but, they only take £20m a year out. To pay the bills and for food. It’s a struggle, don’t you know?
But.. but, they only take £20m a year out. To pay the bills and for food. It’s a struggle, don’t you know?
There's your answer:
They don't care about what the consumers (or fans) say because they know that sport (especially European football) involves deep, irrational emotions which prevent you from supporting other 'big' clubs (say City, Liverpool). They are here to only make money, they have no ties to the city, they have no 'love' for the club. If they had any of this, it would pain them to be hated as United owners, they would live in Manchester part time, they would not use their 'distance' to avoid facing fan backlash.
I know it sounds controversial but only a local person living full time in the city should be allowed to own institutions like United, Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal, etc. If a local owner was running United right now, can you imagine how bad the lives of his family would be: regular confrontations with fans in restaurants, grandkids being told by other kids everyday that Grandpa is hated by the city, plumbers/electricians reminding them of their shoddy work when they come to repair things, etc. That would immediately motivate him to change things.
The football business is run on emotions. Owners & players can't be accepting of these emotions when they earn big $$$ but then consider it a threat when fans confront them. They need to remember: Life would not change if football and footballers disappeared off the face of the earth, unlike if doctors and delivery drivers disappeared.
i think they successfully avoid questions they do not wish to answer. They only time they manned the pumps was when the gravy train was threatened.
Let's work it out (excluding youth/free transfers), googled for fees
2013/14
Fellaini - £27.5m
Mata - £37.1M
Running total - £64.6m
2014/15
Shaw - £30m
Herrera - ~£30m
Rojo - £16m
Di Maria - £59.7m
Blind - £14m
RT - £214.3m
2015/16
Depay - £25m
Darmian - £10.8m
Schweinsteiger - £9m
Schneiderlin - £31.5m
Martial - £36m (base)
RT - £326.6m
2016/17
Bailly - £34.2m
Mkhitaryan - £26.3m
Pogba - £89m
RT - £476.1m
2017/18
Lindelof - £31m
Lukaku - £75m
Matic - £40m
Sanchez - £30.6m
RT - £652.7m
2018/19
Dalot - £19m
Fred - £52m
Grant - £1.5m
RT - £725.2m
2019/20
James - £16m
Wan-Bissaka - £50m
Maguire - £80m
Bruno - £47m (base)
RT - £918.2m
2020/21
VdB - £35m
Telles - £15.4m
Pellistri - £9m
Amad - £37.2m
RT - £1.104b
2021/22
Sancho - £73m
Varane - £34m
Ronaldo - £13m (base)
RT - £1.1348b
So, yeah...
Plus signing on fees and wages
What sane businessman would put their OWN Money into a business like it's nothing. To run a successful business you use the profit money that the business makes. It's how business works.
We (as in the CAF) slate the Glazers for NOT doing this but at the same time criticise Chelsea for 'buying' their way to the top through the owners money buying players. We can't have it both ways.
You either want them or don't want them to do it.
That being said, now Chelsea, if I'm reading reports correctly are BILLIONS in debt to Roman. Not a measly 4-500M. BILLIONS.
So what is it you want? Owners aren't going to put their own money into the business for FREE are they.
Thanks.
I can not comprehend how they bought us. Leveraged a loan against us to buy us.