Bravo Sir!
I personally don't feel so strongly but my leanings are definitely towards 'Feck off Glazers'. Sure as hell don't feel we are lucky to have 'em..
Can I just say, how lucky are we...
- Thread starter TheBiggest
- Start date
I personally don't feel so strongly but my leanings are definitely towards 'Feck off Glazers'. Sure as hell don't feel we are lucky to have 'em..
Perez is a canny businessman and built up a strong brand quickly with the Galaticos project. He picked up Beckham who commercial value is invaluable for dirt cheap & turned the table. No shame losing to that level of competence given how we pulled our leg selling Beckham to them.
It took plenty of time to revert that terrible deal, and credit where it's due: despite the 3 poor years after SAF's retirement (our performance has been dropped in SAF's latter years, mind), we still be able to climb back up in commercial performance. Let's remember Real Madrid won 2 CL in last 3 years while Barcelona has been dominated with various trophies in the last decade.
If anything, with hindsight, I have my doubt the old set up could keep us up commercial wise given it's them that always expect book balancing using transfer (net spend, sell to buy). The infamous penny picking negotiations Kenyon did which saw us missed out on Ronaldinho (tried to pay less than initial agreement), Robben, Essien..., was a result of this policy. Beckham sale was supposed to use to fund Ronaldinho. I don't think we would be as stupid right to penny picking on top player just because we can't get too much selling our outcast super star, who arguably shouldn't be sold when he still holds as much commercial value & contribution on the pitch.
Saying that doesn't mean Glazers is the best owner or taking full credit. SAF played huge role, who again as stated several times approved Glazers more than the old board.
Last edited:
We can't say we're lucky to have this owner or that owner. Business people like the Glazers do what they do because they feel there's money to be made. In this case, they called it correctly when the moved in to buy the club. They took a bit of a gamble (at our expense), but thankfully the gamble paid off.
The success of this gamble (IMO), can be attributed to 1) Fergie who amazingly continued to bring success on the field despite relatively modest investment in players; 2) successful monetizing of the club's assets and brand through aggressive marketing activities; 3) owners having the good sense not to interfere in the footballing side of things.
Thankful for the Glazers? I wouldn't go that far. But we can be thankful that so far their gamble has paid off and we're now in a strong position financially. It could have been disastrous, had those 3 things not worked in our favour.
The success of this gamble (IMO), can be attributed to 1) Fergie who amazingly continued to bring success on the field despite relatively modest investment in players; 2) successful monetizing of the club's assets and brand through aggressive marketing activities; 3) owners having the good sense not to interfere in the footballing side of things.
Thankful for the Glazers? I wouldn't go that far. But we can be thankful that so far their gamble has paid off and we're now in a strong position financially. It could have been disastrous, had those 3 things not worked in our favour.
They aren't perfect I agree, but these days we can hardly complaib, we are spending our own money on word class players, we are growing as a force and clearly aiming to return to the top of world football where we belong.
They also stay the hell out of the football side of our club, unlike Roman at Chelsea and here the manager is given full control over everything.
I beieve they have invtested heavily in the up keep of Manchester United, look around and you'll see we have probably the best owners in the league
I'm still anti-Glazer.
Let's remember that under their watch we saw the last years of SAFs reign where things were undoubtedly left to slide a bit, plus the Moyes debacle, i.e. David Moyes having anything to do with Manchester United.
While I understand the half-full view, personally, I think the Glazers held us back from doing more since 2005. Plus, yes they let things carry on under SAF, but I don't think the club did enough to move/change/update things during that time, therefore when Moyes came in there was massive change.
Not just because of SAF going, there was a lot of change within the club as well. The Club, or those running/owning the club should have done more to prepare for the inevitable retirement of Sir Alex. As I repeatedly said, otherwise we were doomed to repeat what we did when Sir Matt retired, which was also accompanied by a lot of change within the club (Jimmy Murphy, Joe Armstrong etc.. all stepping aside).
Any blatantly pro-Glazer folk are looking at what's happened to the club since their takeover through rose-tinted glasses.
No doubt the answer to my comments will be that they have done really well to position United as such a successful business, to which my response would be that any decent owner would/should have done that. If you can mess up doing that with United, then you really should give up! We're in at least the top few sports franchises (urggh!) in the world!
Let's remember that under their watch we saw the last years of SAFs reign where things were undoubtedly left to slide a bit, plus the Moyes debacle, i.e. David Moyes having anything to do with Manchester United.
While I understand the half-full view, personally, I think the Glazers held us back from doing more since 2005. Plus, yes they let things carry on under SAF, but I don't think the club did enough to move/change/update things during that time, therefore when Moyes came in there was massive change.
Not just because of SAF going, there was a lot of change within the club as well. The Club, or those running/owning the club should have done more to prepare for the inevitable retirement of Sir Alex. As I repeatedly said, otherwise we were doomed to repeat what we did when Sir Matt retired, which was also accompanied by a lot of change within the club (Jimmy Murphy, Joe Armstrong etc.. all stepping aside).
Any blatantly pro-Glazer folk are looking at what's happened to the club since their takeover through rose-tinted glasses.
No doubt the answer to my comments will be that they have done really well to position United as such a successful business, to which my response would be that any decent owner would/should have done that. If you can mess up doing that with United, then you really should give up! We're in at least the top few sports franchises (urggh!) in the world!
What I struggle with is this idea that in the last few season of Ferguson we were 'on the slide' when it coincided with the most successful period in our club's history. This is where the rhetoric is at odds with the reality but bizarrely the reality has faded and the rhetoric has remained and now serves as the official biography of the time.
In the last 3 years we won the title twice and on the one occasion we didn't we lost it on goal difference in the final few seconds of the season. Despite everything else it's really quite extraordinary how that's described as a "decline".
The anti-Glazer argument seems to hinge entirely on hoping that people either forget what actually happened or on insisting Ferguson was a magician; that is when you're not insisting he was an unprincipled corporate bitch who sold the fans out to defend the Glazers. Another straw that the anti-Glazer brigade tried to tug at at one point in their desperation to say anything to get fans on side, even if it conflicts with reality.
Now that doesn't mean it's right or dignified to be sycophantic towards the owners but surely the lesson that you cannot invent your own reality has sunk in by now? People are actually able to see what's invested, when it was invested, who we bought and what we won and when. The MUST/Green and Gold argument seemed to have been premised on the idea that Manchester United fans yet had access to the internet so they could just invent a reality and not expect anyone to be able to research or investigate their claims and be able to challenge them. All while saying "We know you don't know who the RKs are, what their intentions are or what will happen if they buy the club - but we support it anyway!"
It was Trump-esque before Trump.
In the last 3 years we won the title twice and on the one occasion we didn't we lost it on goal difference in the final few seconds of the season. Despite everything else it's really quite extraordinary how that's described as a "decline".
The anti-Glazer argument seems to hinge entirely on hoping that people either forget what actually happened or on insisting Ferguson was a magician; that is when you're not insisting he was an unprincipled corporate bitch who sold the fans out to defend the Glazers. Another straw that the anti-Glazer brigade tried to tug at at one point in their desperation to say anything to get fans on side, even if it conflicts with reality.
Now that doesn't mean it's right or dignified to be sycophantic towards the owners but surely the lesson that you cannot invent your own reality has sunk in by now? People are actually able to see what's invested, when it was invested, who we bought and what we won and when. The MUST/Green and Gold argument seemed to have been premised on the idea that Manchester United fans yet had access to the internet so they could just invent a reality and not expect anyone to be able to research or investigate their claims and be able to challenge them. All while saying "We know you don't know who the RKs are, what their intentions are or what will happen if they buy the club - but we support it anyway!"
It was Trump-esque before Trump.
Last edited:
I fully agree with this post.
People saying we were in decline for Fergie's last years. FFS. Hilarious. We were in decline during our most successful period in 140-years.
The brainwashing of MUST worked with a number of fans, who still seem to think the Glazers are penny-pinching the football club. However, I'm glad to see through this thread that most United fans understand the true value of our owners.
Some of the anti-Glazer posts on this thread are just delusional.
All you've done in this thread is spout shite and insult anyone who disagrees with you.
You keep claiming you're posting facts and all the anti-Glazer's are only posting hyperbole and speculation yet I haven't seen anything factual from you at all. I have seen plenty of bullshit though, like saying SAF only ever signed Average Joe's.
Maybe you should quit calling other posters delusional and low IQ idiots and actually make comments to back up your high and fecking mighty pro-Glazer view.
We've been hugely successful under the Glazers and they've not been holding us back in terms of investment, so it's hard to put an argument against them.
How do we know this, though? I've seen it said multiple times, but what's the reason then for Fergie's sudden "value" policy and lack of big spending compared to before they took over here? Is it pure coincidence?
We only started spending big money under them when things started to go completely up the shitter and we were out of the CL and in danger of becoming a non-entity in the football world, which would've been a disaster for them financially.
Oh lovely.
We win a few matches and the "Glazers are great" type posts arrive again. I remember these as far back as 2008.
Speak to anyone at the forefront of the protests from 94 onwards (original protests were aimed at the creeping over commercialisation of the club and the decision to put exec seats in the Stretford End) and years later included protests against Murdoch, Magnier and McManus etc. Very few were that bothered about "net spend".
People were annoyed that their football club (ok, was never truly "theirs") was slowly being taken away from them from even more. High ticket prices, ott stewarding, cup scheme, 0 engagement with matchgoing fans. Ok whilst that is not all the Glazers fault, many saw their takeover as the end of their United.
Some posts above are correct, the Glazers aren't the only ones doing it but that doesn't make it any less wrong. Look at Germany, for the most part fan owned clubs, safe standing and a thriving fan culture. What do we have here?
We win a few matches and the "Glazers are great" type posts arrive again. I remember these as far back as 2008.
Speak to anyone at the forefront of the protests from 94 onwards (original protests were aimed at the creeping over commercialisation of the club and the decision to put exec seats in the Stretford End) and years later included protests against Murdoch, Magnier and McManus etc. Very few were that bothered about "net spend".
People were annoyed that their football club (ok, was never truly "theirs") was slowly being taken away from them from even more. High ticket prices, ott stewarding, cup scheme, 0 engagement with matchgoing fans. Ok whilst that is not all the Glazers fault, many saw their takeover as the end of their United.
Some posts above are correct, the Glazers aren't the only ones doing it but that doesn't make it any less wrong. Look at Germany, for the most part fan owned clubs, safe standing and a thriving fan culture. What do we have here?
I think it's safe to say Fergie knows a little bit more, possibly a lot more about football than you'll ever know.
Fergie always said the money was there if he wanted it but he knew how to build a balanced squad and win everything, not every player needs to be the big money "superstars" the more simple fans demand.
I think Ferguson would have refused Di Maria even with Mendes whoring him out to the highest bidder. It was obvious Di Maria didn't want to come here other than for the huge signing on bonus and wages. He had the talent but not the attitude that once made our club great.
If anything the Glazer's may have gone too far the other way from what Fergie showed us and we're throwing around scary amounts of money. Give me the hungry, talented player over the money hungry, "big name" player any day.
It's hilarious that you think the most successful period in our club's entire history wasn't good enough because Ferguson didn't spend enough on transfers.
MUST really infiltrated you.
Anyway, as you can see, your worries were futile all those years. We now have owners who stay out of any football decisions and release whatever money the manager(s) wish to spend on wages and transfers whilst growing the club's revenue to record-breaking amounts.
This is such a pointless comment to make. I'd say everyone in the football business from managers to players to pundits know more than the vast majority of posters do on here about football, if we were throwing that around then what would be the point of this forum exactly? We are individuals with similar levels of knowledge on football (i.e. amateur) debating this stuff. If everytime someone made a point the response was the above then this would be a very dreary and boring place.
Fergie did always say the money was there, you are correct, but he's hardly going to say it wasn't, is he? Are we saying it's pure coincidence that before the Glazer's took over we were the biggest spending team in the country and regularly broke the British transfer record on players, and after they took over he became far more cautious about his purchases?
Sure, that's good common sense on their part but doing nothing is hardly difficult.
This 'how lucky we are to have the Glazers' thing is like celebrating a Roman occupation.
Excuse me? When did I say that you nutter? Don't put words in my mouth. I never once said that period wasn't good enough, I believe my own statement re. that period was that Fergie might have been able to win another CL if he got better investment from the Glazer's.It's hilarious that you think the most successful period in our club's entire history wasn't good enough because Ferguson didn't spend enough on transfers.
MUST really infiltrated you.
Anyway, as you can see, your worries were futile all those years. We now have owners who stay out of any football decisions and release whatever money the manager(s) wish to spend on wages and transfers whilst growing the club's revenue to record-breaking amounts.
I am very grateful for that period, it was amazing, but I am grateful towards Fergie, not the fecking Glazer's, and it's an insult to Fergie for you and others in here to claim the Glazer's had some hand in it, a load of utter tosh. The only 'good' thing they did was stay the feck out of footballing matters, but any non-idiotic owner would do the same when you have the greatest manager of all time winning you trophies season after season despite spending bugger all compared to your biggest rivals.
Can somebody get MassiveSpanner a cold glass of water?
I'll take that as an admission of defeat from you as you have no response other than that.
Are there any good owners left?
If this was a football match, i would be Pro-Glazers 10-0 Anti-Glazers. With the antiGlazers taking countless shots on goal but missing the target by a hundred yards each and every time.
C'mon; let's make this a debate.
Are there any anti-Glazerites out there who can raise a good argument?
C'mon; let's make this a debate.
Are there any anti-Glazerites out there who can raise a good argument?
You sound like a child.
Well, this is a good point. You can be Steve Gibson at Middlesbrough all day long. But unfortunately passion and devotion will only get you so far.
In the grand scheme of billionaires who own the big clubs in England, we are very fortunate. Imagine getting owners like Liverpool who now can't put their hand in their pocket to compete? Shocking. We did well. The thoughts of a sugar daddy haunt me...still.
But yeah, your point's a good one in that it's difficult to find an owner of a major club who can be considered perfect.
Depends what you mean. If you look at mere stats, it looks great. In reality there is a difference between United pre and post Ronaldo. In his last couple of seasons we were there or thereabouts in terms of being Europe’s best team. After he left we were clearly some paces behind the best. To what extent the Glazers are directly relevant in that regard may be debated, but the idea many still entertain is that the club (whether it was Fergie or the Glazers, or a combination) were too stingy: We should have splashed the cash and boosted the XI after Ronaldo left - and we did not.It's hilarious that you think the most successful period in our club's entire history wasn't good enough because Ferguson didn't spend enough on transfers.
The squad was fine, not least since it was managed by Fergie - but our best XI lacked punch. We were completely outclassed by Barcelona in '11, which says something about them (obviously) but also something about the state of our own team. We have pretty high standards as United fans, having had some truly first rate teams throughout history. The vintage post Ronaldo and up to Fergie's retirement was not a first rate team in light of those standards.
You've a high opinion of yourself don't you?
Do you think Fergie was really the type to hold back if he wasn't getting the support he needed as manager of the richest club in the country? Especially at that stage of his legendary career when he wanted to go out on top?
The right player is the right player, I think Ferguson earned the right to pick his own players and it worked brilliantly on the whole, I've no idea why you're trying to look back on it with criticism?
Personally I've no time for bidding huge figures for Bale, Muller, Neymar, cRonaldo, Ramos as we've done lately, it's just for show and to appease the transfer muppets.
No, I have a low opinion of myself and the majority of this forum
I'm not looking back on that period with criticism, and I'm not sure why people seem to think that criticism of the Glazer's during that period = criticism of our club & what we won, the two don't have to be related. If anything I'm even more grateful towards Fergie because of what he managed to achieve during those years, it was absolutely remarkable, but as Chester said above, we were a noticeably weaker squad in 2012/2013 than we were in 08/09 and I don't believe that was simply because Fergie himself wasn't interested in spending big money.
What have the Romans ever done for us?
Exactly, there's some of our fans who have no concept of bad owners and have no idea how lucky we are. It's over 10 years since Liverpool's first American owners arrived and promised the World, yet here they are with no new stadium, barely any European football since, only spending what they make from selling best players (Torres, Alonso, Macherano, Suarez, Sterling)
That spanner guys sums it up well, he wanted Fergie to win everything "better" than he won it. Football is a lot more complex than making money and spending said money on the "best" players (ie the players most money is chasing).
Ferguson often spoke out about how the confines of the PLC hindered his ability to invest in the squad and attract big name players.
Reality: Ferguson is a liar and he always had money
Ferguson always said under the Glazers that the money was always there if he wanted it and he was never refused backing to go after a player he identified for the first team
Reality: Ferguson is a lair and we never had any money.
Bullshit aside that's pretty much the MUST/Anti-Glazer argument. That and 'If you say 5 titles in 7 years (3 in 2, take your pick) isn't a decline you need facts to back that statement up', which I've not quite got my head around yet.
Reality: Ferguson is a liar and he always had money
Ferguson always said under the Glazers that the money was always there if he wanted it and he was never refused backing to go after a player he identified for the first team
Reality: Ferguson is a lair and we never had any money.
Bullshit aside that's pretty much the MUST/Anti-Glazer argument. That and 'If you say 5 titles in 7 years (3 in 2, take your pick) isn't a decline you need facts to back that statement up', which I've not quite got my head around yet.
I think you need to to actually read people's posts.No doubt. But spending money seems to be part and parcel of running a successful football club these days. Fergie did precisely what you describe on several - crucial - occasions: Keane, Rio, Rooney - all examples of United paying huge-to-record (given age/position) amounts for players that weren’t hidden gems or punts in any way, but rather talents of the sort everyone wanted, and who ended up at United because we were willing to pay more than anyone for their services.
Of course “success” is relative. Fergie nearly ended his career with three leagues on the trot - you’d be mad to call that anything but success. But we were not a force in Europe - and that has been the benchmark for United fans for many years.
Anyway, what is it we’re actually discussing here? Was Fergie’s success dependent on the Glazers’ financial support? I don’t think anyone would claim that. From an outside perspective it looks like what they did, mainly, was not to interfere with how he ran the club. Which worked out well enough, but it hardly seems like something you’d hail or feel lucky to have witnessed.
I'd rather we didn't have any owners, but if modern football dictates that owners are the norm then the Glazers would be my top choice. Because of the way they marketed the brand, we generate our own revenue and that means FFP doesn't really catch us out even if we spend hundreds of millions.
People can argue that they have not put a single cent of their own money into the club, well, its simply because they never had to. They took a big brand and made it colossal.
People can argue that they have not put a single cent of their own money into the club, well, its simply because they never had to. They took a big brand and made it colossal.
Some people seem to forget the good old days. A time when we had to beg George Graham to send us his contract because Edwards needed some convincing in giving SAF his payrise or when we agreed a fee for Batistuta only to back off because we couldn't even afford his salary at Fiorentina. Not to forget the ridiculously haggling made for Stam (which we successfully concluded because the Dutchman renounced to his bonus), a sign of loyalty which we repaid by forcing SAF to sell him up.
Good post.
While I would rather we were debt free I see the reality of the modern game and how clubs are run. With this model (the model we have) we can't argue against the financial performance that we have under the Glazers and those they have chosen to run things on that side of the club. We are now "the richest" club in world football which does not seem to be coherent with the core arguments against the Glazers and how well the club is doing under them. We are also as a result of that able to fend off Real Madrid and other clubs for both our current players and players we want to join us. This was unthinkable in the past and even as early as a few months ago people were laughing at the idea of us beating RM and other clubs for the signature of Pogba.
I don't want the sugar daddy type owner because that brings its own issues. I think that the model we have is clearly workable and one day we will be debt free while making, even more, money than we are now.
I would like to see a feasible and lucid alternative to the current trend of corporations to run our Club. I have not seen a single one. Good luck trying to find a benevolent multi billionaire who will buy us outright and not service or leverage any debt...
Nonsense.
You need to stop with this assumption that you are the be all and end all of knowledge on this. It's tedious and the reason there's a lack of debate is probably due to your attitude throughout this thread.
Which owner would you rather have then?
Who else is offering alternative arguments though? It's fine to say someone is arrogant but to be fair the arrogance is actually grounded in reality vs "it's what Andy Green told me". It's hard to think of a single anti-Glazer argument (risk about debt in early days aside) that stands up. Not a single one. Which is why we get:
'They're a cancer' and 'anyone who disagrees with me is stupid'. Because that's literally all that's left. You don't have to love the owners or think they're perfect to see most of the arguments against them have simply failed to stand up to reality over the years and the arguments among the fans now are about the fact a section of us cannot accept that we held views for years that were based on untruths and lies and we (maybe understandably) have a hard time accepting that. It's why we're clinging on to the idea that the most successful period in our history was the 'decline'. With respect that's literally the remnants of the anti-Glazer, Green and Gold, MUST/Drasdo, Andy Green argument. Accept that Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, and in reality he never was. We were just duped. Myself included. I even bought a Green and Gold t-shirt ffs
Last edited: