Yep should definitely have been rules in place, so how close did that SKY takeover in 1998 actually get then. Obviously Fergie is a living legend of this club but could he have avoided this happening if the row between Magnier, McManus and him got resolved.
Club ownership | Senior management team talk
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
Good post as usual. The important thing for me is that the direction of travel has changed. It has been steady decline since SAF left and was only going one way. Ineos coming in at least signifies an attempt to change things.
I think it was very close to happening before the Monopolies and Mergers commission said it wasn't allowed. Martin Edwards had accepted the bid anyway.
Re Magnier and McManus, I think had that not happened, the Glazers probably don't buy the club in 2005. We would have still been at risk of some kind of takeover but it would have allowed for a "better" option to get organised and buy the club when it was relatively affordable.
We are so far from that point it’s not even worth ever thinking about. It will never happen.
Yeah somebody said that earlier - bad signing and Ugarte. I thought at the time Zirkzee was good value at £35m but he's just nowhere near the standard. I'll reserve judgement at the end of the window but I'm hoping they are being more cautious with purchases rather than inactive.
Do you think that this is our strategy that something pops up? Just because you know feck all about the clubs negotiations atm doesnt mean we will make a signing out of the blue. Happened very quickly with Sesko and others too.
The assumption is that going into 4 competitions backing a new manager although on a 2 year extension, we need players and clubs know that. We bring players in eventually. Just because you f5 the transfer page and nothing pops up every 5 seconds, doesnt mean club is not working on deals.
whats your point?
From James Ducker....
- #MUFC have modernised their wage structure - but are also still feeling the impact of some costly legacy contracts in transfer dealings
- CL qualification previously automatically triggered a 25% salary uplift for seniors
- But that changed post 2023 summer so the uplift had to be earned by playing at least 60% of team minutes in a season
- Subsequent signings & contract renewals became subject to that - ie. rewards contribution while saving millions & provides greater flexibility around those without regular minutes
- But challenges of old system still persist
- Whereas before, United’s players would automatically benefit from that 25 per cent pay rise once Champions League football was secured, now those operating under the revamped policy have to earn it.
- Principally, that means players must have played in at least 60 per cent of the minutes in the season just passed to enjoy the hefty financial uplift.
- Joshua Zirkzee, for example, did not meet that quota last season and so the Netherlands forward’s salary has not increased this summer.
- By extension, that should make Zirkzee, who is attracting interest from Juventus in Italy and elsewhere, easier to sell should it come to that, in part because his wages are less of a stumbling block to potential suitors than they might have been under the old system.
Apparently Rashford and Onana got 25% salary uplift for us making the CL this season
Rashford and Onana the main beneficeries of the previous wage structure.
Still remember so many claiming giving Rashford a new contract was the right move by the club, yet the minority claiming it wasn't were told how wrong they were.
Why do we have to wait on one topic but not another?whats your point?
Those two are big reasons they so strongly prefer Prem proven players now
I'd say they've learned from it.Of course it was the right move at the time. He had twelve months left on his contract and was off the back of a 30 goal season. You could debate the merits in the amounts given but it was objectively the right decision to give him a new contract at the time.
I even found this guy agreeing with the need to get his contract sorted.
Keep lapping it up I guess
Hate murodch but not going to lie, being the dominant side in a 1 or 2 team league is a lot better than the current state of play. You would still probs have the Chelsea and city buyouts though so would still be competitive
Yep, Making Marcus Rashford one of the world's best paid players on the back of a 17 goal league season was insane. Some people tried saying that but were shot down in flames
I remember this too. When he was playing horribly No1 wanted to extend his contract, then he showed something playing for a contract and then everyone jumped on the bandwagon.
It's always the same with Luke Shaw and Rashford.
Been trying to think of a balanced reply to some of the recent comments on here across multiple threads.
With regards to transfer policy, I think everyone would acknowledge that our transfer policy since Fergie left has been a disaster. Whether that's the "galatico" era of Woodward or the signing of expensive unproven youngsters (Antony, Hoijlund etc)
Now whether this current policy is some kind of over correction is a debate to be had, but last year's business was relatively successful, and those leading the recruitment strategy outside of the ownership (Wilcox) deserve a bit of leeway, dare I say patience and the fan base not having a meltdown everytime we don't get a target.
I'd also add that these forums have lost any element of nuance in any debate.
With regards to wider ownership problems, I think the situation now is far from ideal but as I've said loads, this is better than the Glazers owning 100% of the club and probably better than being owned by a nation state at a time of international conflict and turmoil.
With regards to transfer policy, I think everyone would acknowledge that our transfer policy since Fergie left has been a disaster. Whether that's the "galatico" era of Woodward or the signing of expensive unproven youngsters (Antony, Hoijlund etc)
Now whether this current policy is some kind of over correction is a debate to be had, but last year's business was relatively successful, and those leading the recruitment strategy outside of the ownership (Wilcox) deserve a bit of leeway, dare I say patience and the fan base not having a meltdown everytime we don't get a target.
I'd also add that these forums have lost any element of nuance in any debate.
With regards to wider ownership problems, I think the situation now is far from ideal but as I've said loads, this is better than the Glazers owning 100% of the club and probably better than being owned by a nation state at a time of international conflict and turmoil.
If Murdoch buys the club, I'd imagine he would have had to withdraw from Sky meaning a massive reduction in TV money for clubs. It could have been an ITV Digital/EFL style disaster for half the league.
The likes of city and Chelsea are a less attractive proposition in that alternate reality.
You missed a few but don't worry, I'll help you out pal. There were plenty of others also but the threads were locked so I couldn't quote them.
Yes, I disregarded the ones from a year earlier to focus on the one relevant to the time he was actually given a contract.
It’s a decent tactic because if you hold every opinion you’ll always be right. On the flip side, you’ll always be wrong too.
Ah yes, you mean you moved the goalposts, well done.
@pascell
No. Your contention was that you envisaged that giving him the contract at the time it was given was the wrong decision and you implied that you were shouted down for holding that opinion. What I have shown is that off the back of his best season, not only did you want his contract sorted, you were adamant that if we didn’t he’d be off to PSG to replace Mbappe.
What you thought a year prior to that is irrelevant because you then changed your mind. You don’t get to do that and then act like you’re Nostradamus.
No. Your contention was that you envisaged that giving him the contract at the time it was given was the wrong decision and you implied that you were shouted down for holding that opinion. What I have shown is that off the back of his best season, not only did you want his contract sorted, you were adamant that if we didn’t he’d be off to PSG to replace Mbappe.
What you thought a year prior to that is irrelevant because you then changed your mind. You don’t get to do that and then act like you’re Nostradamus.
Last edited:
When people like myself hated the INEOS bid it wasn't about us wanting flashy toys but the realization of two things
a- we're sitting on a ticking time bomb. We're 1.3b in debt and we need to build a stadium that would cost 2b-3b, the club hasn't been profitable since 2018-2019 and we've paid over 800m in interest alone without being able to dent the debt that keeps growing. This situation doesn't allow us to invest heavily on infrastructure, it stops us from investing heavily on the squad year in year out and it forces the club to penny pinch on everything (transfers, employees etc) and to fleece the fans. Not only that but we're vulnerable to everything around us from debt interest skyrocketing to other clubs investing heavily on the squad thus leaving us behind.
b- this arrangement left the Glazers as the major shareholders. Sure SJR can play real FM by appointing people at the club and pretend that he owns the darn thing. However if the Glazers decide to tighten the purse strings then he'll have to make due. Soon enough they'll be entitled to dividends once more + if they find a buyer who meets their asking price and he can't meet it then they'll chuck him out of the club as well. This year is a classic example of that. We made it to CL qualification and guess what? The purse strings had been tightened and there's precious little, SJR, Wilcox and the other former City bellend can do about it. They'll take all the blame and the heat like the good sport they are
c- INEOS aren't bright. They are drowning in debt (18b) and their record in football is abysmal.
Manchester United are dying and as someone who had seen the likes of Milan and Juventus lose their status and fade away I assure you it ain't going to be pretty. Some prefer to hold its hand and let it die while upholding to their morals which is something I respect. Others would do anything to save it which is a viable option as well. There's no right answer to this question just two horrible takes to a tragic situation.
a- we're sitting on a ticking time bomb. We're 1.3b in debt and we need to build a stadium that would cost 2b-3b, the club hasn't been profitable since 2018-2019 and we've paid over 800m in interest alone without being able to dent the debt that keeps growing. This situation doesn't allow us to invest heavily on infrastructure, it stops us from investing heavily on the squad year in year out and it forces the club to penny pinch on everything (transfers, employees etc) and to fleece the fans. Not only that but we're vulnerable to everything around us from debt interest skyrocketing to other clubs investing heavily on the squad thus leaving us behind.
b- this arrangement left the Glazers as the major shareholders. Sure SJR can play real FM by appointing people at the club and pretend that he owns the darn thing. However if the Glazers decide to tighten the purse strings then he'll have to make due. Soon enough they'll be entitled to dividends once more + if they find a buyer who meets their asking price and he can't meet it then they'll chuck him out of the club as well. This year is a classic example of that. We made it to CL qualification and guess what? The purse strings had been tightened and there's precious little, SJR, Wilcox and the other former City bellend can do about it. They'll take all the blame and the heat like the good sport they are
c- INEOS aren't bright. They are drowning in debt (18b) and their record in football is abysmal.
Manchester United are dying and as someone who had seen the likes of Milan and Juventus lose their status and fade away I assure you it ain't going to be pretty. Some prefer to hold its hand and let it die while upholding to their morals which is something I respect. Others would do anything to save it which is a viable option as well. There's no right answer to this question just two horrible takes to a tragic situation.
Last edited:
this
We left it late which meant that if we didn't give him the contract he wanted then he would have probably sat down on his contract only to leave for free the year after. We messed again this summer by not accepting the 12m bid Barca was throwing at us. Rashford is on a monstrous salary that very few clubs can afford and that no one want to pay for him. The days of lazy players jogging around is over. We should have bit the bullet and allowed him to leave
I don't expect journalists to be numerate (most of them aren't), but is it a 25% wage increase when we're in the CL or a 25% wage reduction when we're not in the CL? I've heard both reported, and they are completely different things with different financial impacts.
Exactly. £200,000 less 25% is 150k, but 150k plus 25% is £187,500
Ineos are in £18 billion debt ?! Christ I wasnt aware of that.
Yeah I can remember thinking at the time well the competition laws stepped in over Murdoch one 7 years ago, so they will do that again but how wrong we all were.
Oh Fergie why couldn't you have resolved differences with those two, instead you opened door for them to sell their shares to these leeching scum
It's the absolute lack of ambition shown by this ownership cabal that is so frustrating. The club doesn't owe its fans, the media or anyone transparency into its transfer plans, so I am OK without knowing whom else they are looking at (if anyone) for this window...but the modest additions/subtractions to the squad simply don't suggest a title contending club. It's almost as if we'd rather receive kudos for "smart" transfers (e.g., activating a 35m buyout clause for an aging but good player) than solving problem positions for the long term and actually improving the current squad. At this point they seem to be looking for better deals than better players.
At this point, I'd rather keep Rashford and Zirkzee because, while flawed, I at least know their qualities. I don't trust the club to replace them with similar albeit cheaper talent.
At this point, I'd rather keep Rashford and Zirkzee because, while flawed, I at least know their qualities. I don't trust the club to replace them with similar albeit cheaper talent.
Unknown, essentially, since there's no official salaries announced and journos write it both ways. I had a quick check in the filings and stuff but they only seem to use the phrase step-up and step-down, without noting the baseline or % change. There's too much other stuff in the annual accounts to judge from total wage bill.
I would guess 25% up and 20% back down, rather than 25% down and 33% back up again, simply because the players will want the lower variance. That also seems to be the more common terms used in the press, but who knows.
My biggest issue with Fergie wasn't event that tbf. It was his criticism of protesting fans a few months later. "feck off and watch Chelsea."
I'd always argue though that the biggest reason why the Glazers are still here now is because he was able to turn a club almost in civil war mode to European champions within three seasons. The value ballooned when we started winning everything again and made it impossible for anyone other than a nation state linked buyer to launch a takeover.
I never realised he criticised protesting fans, in which case that was bang out of order. I remember the famous Utd Not For Sale flash mob in 2005. When you think of who we could have signed in that 09-12 if they never get through these doors
09 - Benzema
10 - Sneijder, Toure, Silva
11 - Aguero
12 - Modric maybe
Really does hit home just how dominant we could have been, couple more Champions Leagues I reckon. So would be only one adrift of scousers now
All other owners in PL clubs (except Mike Ashley) seems to be willing to put in a lot of their own money into their club to make the club success. I don't think the government or FA will interfere.
It's our extreme bad luck that we are bought over by Glazers whose focus is to milk the club.
As has been mentioned, the ambition is around where Arsenal were in the late wenger years while building the emerites. Trying to make smart signings to stay around the top 4 without threatening at the business end
Glazers lack of ambition have been a huge problem for us for many years since Fergie time. The infamous there is no value in the market period where we need to skimp to pay his debts and interests after the leveraged buyouts.
When we were able to spend we borrowed and saddled ourselves with even more debts. The problem was even worse because they didn't invest in proper football structure and system. They just let Ed Woodward spent like a drunken sailor.
When we were able to spend we borrowed and saddled ourselves with even more debts. The problem was even worse because they didn't invest in proper football structure and system. They just let Ed Woodward spent like a drunken sailor.
Not sure this post is 100% right is it? Ambition or not I don't know but money hasn't really been the issue? We have spent plenty, it's just been spent unwisely. The Glazers not only saddled us with debt, but completely miss managed the club putting Mr Disney in charge.
The lack of value in the market was during Fergie time, whilst saying that he wasted money on a player he'd never seen or heard of....
We never saddled ourselves with more debts when buying players. We just used the credit facility which would get paid off by the next summer (yeah ok I get its debt, but not a debt problem like the Glazer takeover). I don't think its that uncommon, especially for upfront payments.
Yeah they could have at least put proper football people in charge when Gill stepped down, however didn't the Toy Story puppet help them get the club. So explains why he got put in charge of football operations. Won't ever forgive him for that dumb adult Disneyland post to Klopp.