So, what needs to be spent on the stadium and hasn't been? And why?
Have you been to Old Trafford? Honestly, this doesn't need an answer if you've been but in case you haven't, the seats are absolutely knackered now, so much of the steel is rusted badly and various parts of the seating is under a leaking roof. There has been so much attention drawn to this by regular United journalists too, be it Ogden, Mitten or Whitwell.
And the club hasn't spent on the academy? Or not enough? Why?
It was outright ignored up until 2016 if I'm not mistaken, before a shakeup.
Has this not been happening already? If not, what makes you say that?
No, it hasn't. They employed Ed Woodward who was a banker and only involved on the commercials of the business as the CEO. Gary Neville said yesterday too, that before the Glazers came the business structure of the club wasn't even at Old Trafford, it was kept completely separate. Now though they've merged the whole thing and there's a huge disconnect on the footballing side of things. Not least because they gave a non-footballing CEO full remit of the footballing side, which you don't see at PSG, City, Spurs, Liverpool or even Arsenal.
What does "identity of how we want to play" even mean? We changed that identity numerous times under Sir Alex' years.
We have tweaked a lot under SAF but we were always a team that had top class grit and defence whilst being direct in our play, endorsing width and urging creative brilliance in the final third. SAF tweaked his tactics but some things never changed. Ed Woodward can be granted for Moyes failure because he was SAF's choice. But he misjudged the identity completely by going for LVG (who complained about a lack of support, by the way), then he
really misjudged what we're about by going for Mourinho. In that process Glazers refused to bring in a DoF for oversight on the football structure, and that's on them and no one else.
So, spending the second most out of all clubs in the world is not enough?
I'm sorry for being patronising but please
UNDERSTAND OUR CLUB.
We are NOT spending a lot of money because of the Glazers - we were able to spend the most before and if anything the Glazers have LIMITED our reach because of the debt they've laid on the club. They are taking a lot more OUT of the club than what they put IN to the club, so of course, it's not good enough.
"Without proper reason" being key. The Glazers bought the club with a leveraged buy-out. That's a very proper reason if you ask me.
No, it's not. Because it's a takeover that should not have passed the fit and proper test in the first place. And even if you agree it was, they have taken
more loans since taking over the club which has feck all to do with the initial financing.
Those "80% shit purchases" are managers' failings, no? What would a "proper hierarchy" do? Make the transfers without considering the managers? That doesn't sound like a great idea.
Now I'm sure you're not understanding the sport, I'm sorry. If you implement an infrastructure that ignores the footballing side of things and then end up wasting money, that's on you. Not on the managers. Managers not suitable for the club had the owner's blessing, and they take accountability for that. That's why you need a director of football, which the Glazers never endorsed. So quite obviously, the buck ends with them.
"Our money" means the club's money, right? If so, why wouldn't the club's owners take dividends out of the club's money? It's not like it stopped the club from spending insanely.
I don't think even you know what you're debating at this stage.
Can you tell me what is the footballing background of Granovskaia, Perez, Laporte, Nasser Al-Khelaifi (PSG President), Ferran Soriano (City CEO)?
Please google who actually influences the sporting decisions of your club examples and then come back. You need a strong revision of understanding infrastructure here - for example Soriano is the City CEO but their owners had ensured Tixi has the remit of the footballing side. PSG's footballing director is ex player/manager Leonardo. Liverpool have Michael Edwards. Barcelona are a good example of a badly run club, but when they were successful they had Tixi at the helm. Real Madrid is again not comparable, they are owned by socios who elect a President. If fans are not happy they have the power to overthrow the president. Maria is like Ed, and she's also not a glowing reference on how to spend well to be fair.
Can you give me an example of a club that communicates "better" to their fans?
There aren't a lot that communicate better to the fans outside of the fan owned ones, but that's the point - the general structure is dead wrong. This particular point wasn't something I was limiting to Manchester United but speaking on behalf of the top 6.