Better the devil you know?

[Pogue Mahone]

Interesting to hear if anyone out there thinks that the Glazers staying in charge might be the best option?

They seem to have finally stumbled on a decent manager and - for all their sins - have tended to back their managers in the transfer market. With the rumours of Avram Glazer being keen to hold onto the club, what happens if they raise a couple of hundred million through selling some equity in the club to give ETH a war chest for the summer?

We’ve a lot of fans (including me) who are uncomfortable with being owned by a nation state. And any private owner is going to have to raise 5 or 6 billion quid to buy the club. That’s a brutal outlay and it’s hard to see how that won’t involve more debt on the club and put us on the back foot in the transfer market.

So yeah, what are the thoughts on business as usual next season?

 

[Joseunited]

If these idiots stay in charge we'll end up Billions in debt, not millions.

 

[Rado_N]

Absolutely not.

Significant investment is required in the squad and the stadium and the club is verging on skint, they’d have to take on masses of additional debt.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

Avram Grant in charge of the club would be an unmitigated disaster

 

[Jev]

Yeah, certainly better than Qatar for me. I'm in the minority who thinks they've been decent owners. Haven't meddled in sporting affairs and have put up plenty of transfer funds.

Of course there's the debt and the apparant lack of investment in infrastructure, though I don't know enough to judge whether this is an actual problem. Nobody's perfect. But it's certainly not a given that whatever comes next will be better.

 

[predator]

Nah. Carrington and OT need a major redevelopment. Under the Glazers I just can't see that level of finanical commitment to the club.

 

[HookedOnAPhelan]

Rather them than becoming a sportswashing project.

 

[Mickeza]

We can’t afford to pay dividends, service their debt, continue to match the spending that’s coming from at least Newcastle, City and Chelsea AND undertake the huge infrastructure projects required - all at a time when our commercial revenues have stagnated. Yes, we’ve spent loads on transfers this last decade but the opportunity cost of that has been the 1.5bn now required on infrastructure which has been neglected for 15 years.

 

[redshaw]

With the rumours of Avram Grant being keen to hold onto the club, what happens if they raise a couple of hundred million

Avram Glazer, not Grant.

Better the devil you don't know.

 

[RedC]

I'd prefer them to Qatar, yes.

 

[Greck]

There's no such thing as business as usual from here on out. This whole thing came to be because the Glazers are in a chronic liquidity crunch. The only whey they stay on as owners is through an even more onerous loan that brings about the same crunch several years later but on an even bigger scale. We're reaching a point where the debt as to be serviced sooner because later isn't an option. It's not like they want to leave either.

 

[Pexbo]

@Pogue Mahone
You seem to be missing the entire point. It’s not that their ownership is not to our preference. It’s that their ownership has bled the club dry to the point where we are virtually insolvent.

It’s been sustainable when debt is so cheap but that’s no longer the case.

 

[Marcelinho87]

I would rather the club fold than stay in the hands of the Glazers.

 

[krazyrobus]

Never, how much debt have they saddled us with, how much reinvestment have they put in to the club infrastructure. They have been doing business for decades, they know that if you are not improving your company infrastructure constantly trying to seek a competitive advantage then you are falling behind. That's strategic management 101, if they are failing at such basic principles, then they need to go, yesterday.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

@Pogue Mahone
You seem to be missing the entire point. It’s not that their ownership is not to our preference. It’s that their ownership has bled the club dry to the point where we are virtually insolvent.

It’s been sustainable when debt is so cheap but that’s no longer the case.

Come on. Give me some fecking credit. I’m well aware of the damage they’ve done and why they need to sell. You mention that debt is no longer cheap. Well the price being put on the club means that if a private investor buys it off them there’s a very good chance the debt that needs to be eventually paid off will be considerably bigger than it is right now.

 

[Jeppers7]

I honestly couldn’t think of worse owners than the Glazers. They have bled the club dry, took over a billion out and spent money reactively. Their intention has never been for United to be the best, it has been for united to get into the CL and when we have achieved this, they haven’t spent. They have panic spent over and over with no forward planning or joined up thinking. They would have spent a lot less had we managed to get top four regardless. The stadium and infrastructure of the club is the real indictment of their ownership. Let it rot, where’s the return on that investment?

Seriously if we remain owned by these parasites then it will take absolute miracles from ETH to win us a league title, when money now does need spending on stadium and training grounds.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Absolutely not.

Significant investment is required in the squad and the stadium and the club is verging on skint, they’d have to take on masses of additional debt.

The whole point is that they can generate funds without additional debt by selling off some equity in the club. An option not a available to new owners.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

The whole point is that they can generate funds without additional debt by selling off some equity in the club. An option not a available to new owners.

To be fair they've consistently shown that the sale of equity will go into their pockets and not be spent on the club.

They've not been meddlesome and generally support the manager with players but they want their cut and that's been detrimental.

 

[Rado_N]

The whole point is that they can generate funds without additional debt by selling off some equity in the club. An option not a available to new owners.

You think they’re going to sell a load of shares to generate billions and then put that all into the club?

The siblings who want out want their cash.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

To be fair they've consistently shown that the sale of equity will go into their pockets and not be spent on the club.

They've not been meddlesome and generally support the manager with players but they want their cut and that's been detrimental.

True. Although always at a time when the club was in fairly robust financial health. Which seems to not be the case much longer.

 

[HarryP]

I think the issue is if a stadium gets built under the Glazers, it's hard to see how the money for it doesn't come from club revenues, which will inevitably hurt our squad budget.

I would prefer to be owned by a nation state who will look after us rather than parasitic owners like the Glazers.

 

[032Devil]

The Glazers are the worst thing to happen to United. The faster they go, the better. They are the best example of a greedy business family who were out to rape a beloved club of its wealth a and spread misery on millions worldwide who love, treasure and worship this footballing institution. They need to be wiped from the history of United (if that were possible).

 

[Ibi Dreams]

Sadly there just aren't any good options. There aren't even any ok options, really. They seem to range from bad to horrible. I genuinely don't know what I want. Well, I do - a debt free, well run club with the investment it needs. But seemingly the one option that will provide that is also the worst ethically. I can't really get behind any of the possibilities

 

[Herman Toothrot]

I'm sad about every single option on the table. Whaddayagonnado?

 

[032Devil]

Sadly there just aren't any good options. There aren't even any ok options, really. They seem to range from bad to horrible. I genuinely don't know what I want. Well, I do - a debt free, well run club with the investment it needs. But seemingly the one option that will provide that is also the worst ethically. I can't really get behind any of the possibilities

What do you mean?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

You think they’re going to sell a load of shares to generate billions and then put that all into the club?

The siblings who want out want their cash.

Dunno about billions but enough to keep investing in transfers at the same rate they have in the past. If the prices being talked about are accurate that’s not a lot of equity.

If the siblings are completely inflexible then they’re gone regardless. So this is all a moot point.

 

[Who's Kissing Cameras?]

Absolutely not. They have invested £0 into the club. The huge amounts of money we’ve spent since SAF has all been generated by the club - nothing to do with them.

They are all leeches. If they stay after all of this then the club will be at breaking point. Multiple home games will be called off, and it would certainly derail our season on the pitch.

 

[Who's Kissing Cameras?]

They’ve funded feck all of our outrageous spending. Zero. Nothing.

 

[Camilo]

I'd prefer the glazer's to Qatar. No owner, apart from disgustingly rich ones who inevitably earned their money through dodgy means, is going to actually spend money.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

No, if there was any justice they'd have had the club taken from them by now, not be deciding over whether £5 billion is enough for them or not.

Sooner they're gone the better.

 

[londonredmaniac]

No.

cnuts. Utter stain on the club.

 

[The Cat]

Just get them out. Deal with whatever comes next after.

 

[Chief123]

Interesting to hear if anyone out there thinks that the Glazers staying in charge might be the best option?

They seem to have finally stumbled on a decent manager and - for all their sins - have tended to back their managers in the transfer market. With the rumours of Avram Glazer being keen to hold onto the club, what happens if they raise a couple of hundred million through selling some equity in the club to give ETH a war chest for the summer?

We’ve a lot of fans (including me) who are uncomfortable with being owned by a nation state. And any private owner is going to have to raise 5 or 6 billion quid to buy the club. That’s a brutal outlay and it’s hard to see how that won’t involve more debt on the club and put us on the back foot in the transfer market.

So yeah, what are the thoughts on business as usual next season?

There is no “successful” future with Glazers. We’ll just end up more debt and always be struggling to compete wasting the opportunity to back a manager like ETH.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

True. Although always at a time when the club was in fairly robust financial health. Which seems to not be the case much longer.

Possibly, but I don't expect them to change. Maybe if Avram bought everyone else out he might be different but I'm not holding out hope.

Any sale of equity would need to buy out his siblings and pay off most or all of the debt to allow the club to move forward. I think that's a big ask based on what we know.

 

[Chief123]

I would rather the club fold than stay in the hands of the Glazers.

The Glazers may just execute that themselves.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

They’ve funded feck all of our outrageous spending. Zero. Nothing.

We all know this, surely?

 

[mu4c_20le]

Yep, with outside investment. They already won the lottery with ETH, they can just let him do his thing.

We continue doing it the right way

 

[j65454]

It's not like we're not spending money, we have the highest wage bill in the league and by some distance:

1. Manchester United – £222,984,000
2. Chelsea – £169,720,000
3. Manchester City – £163,060,000
4. Liverpool – £141,782,000
5. Tottenham – £101,344,000
6. Arsenal – £85,490,000
7. Leicester City – 78,780,000
8. Aston Villa – £75,232,000
9. West Ham – £70,160,000
10. Newcastle United – £62,610,000
11. Crystal Palace – £59,180,000
12. Everton – £43,120,000
13. Wolves – £38,310,000
14. Fulham – £37,610,000
15. Southampton – £35,380,000
16. Bournemouth – £32,044,000
17. Nottingham Forest – £28,590,000
18. Brighton – £28,340,000
19. Leeds United – £17,300,000
20. Brentford – £15,240,000

 

[Shakesy]

They’ve funded feck all of our outrageous spending. Zero. Nothing.

Feckin hell. Didn't know it was this bad...

 

[ArbeitervonWien]

In my book it's definitely better than the Qatari-option.
It would rob the heart and soul of this football club. Every success would be hollow, we'd play the game in cheat-mode.

I wouldn't be consistent enough to stop watching, so most likely I would follow the club while beeing ashamed of it.

I'd mutch rather leave it as it is and enjoy the coming golden years under EtH.