For the sake of good PR, could the Glazers spend big in this summers transfer window?

[BusbyMalone]

Probably the most naive question asked on the internet, but with the recent backlash against the Super League and the anti-glazer protests we’ve seen the past few weeks, could this be a summer in which the Glazers actually go all out in the transfer window?

Not because of any newfound respect or appreciation for the club and its fanbase, of course. This would purely be a PR exercise. A sort of “here you go, here’s your big transfer splurge, now stop that protesting and be quiet” type of thing.


There’s no surer way of placating a fanbase than to go all out in the transfer window and buy a Kane (or an equivalent) whilst also solidifying the midfield and the RW position. This would mean spending in excess of £200M (easily) and making us title contenders.

If there’s any summer they would go big, it’s this one...Right?

Edit: For the sake of clarity, I know they won't be dipping into their own pockets here. More them allowing the club to spend its own money

 

[BFernandes]

When have they ever given a toss about good PR?

 

[Cast5]

The Glazers don’t care about their PR, if they did they’d have sold the club years ago.

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

I don’t think the Glazers care about good PR.

 

[Red_toad]

They shalt not spend. They shall simply increase the debt, they do not invest! So PR disaster all round.

 

[crossy1686]

They've already sanctioned spending a feck tonne of money. The problem lies with the fact we've spent it on shit or average players like Fred, VDB, Di Maria, Schniderlin, Depay, Bailly, Sanchez, James, Schwienstiger, Lukaku etc.

Just sign the right players instead.

 

[Van Piorsing]

For the sake of PR and their safety they don't come close Old Trafford from some time.

They can of course prove they're bigger men, but then again they know toss about football, even when supporters are willing to sacrifice game vs biggest rivals to get their time and time again ignored message out.

Educated guess is the whole interest in Kane is the exact PR stunt without any legit outcome other than - 'Look we can do what others can only dream about on the market'.

Watch this space, episode 5342.

 

[BusbyMalone]

When have they ever given a toss about good PR?

The Glazers don’t care about their PR, if they did they’d have sold the club years ago.

I don’t think the Glazers care about good PR.

Your right - they never have. Hence the "naive" part. BUT, with the context of what has happened lately, maybe they change tack. I'm aware I'm being overly optimistic here.

 

[BFernandes]

Very optimistic.

Did you seen the utter distain Avram showed United fans when Sky News suddenly popped up and asked him a few very simple questions?

Bunch of cnuts.

 

[Cast5]

Your right - they never have. Hence the "naive" part. BUT, with the context of what has happened lately, maybe they change tack. I'm aware I'm being overly optimistic here.

What they spend won’t affect what the majority of local United fans think of the Glazers anyway.

 

[Lynty]

We'll get what we usually get - in the region of £80m net and sell it as a huge sign of intent after a financially turbulent year.

 

[Stack]

So will spending big fix everything and make it all magically lovely and sweet?

 

[Rightnr]

Nope, they'll try to lie their way out of this the scumbags, just like before.

All the 'rumours' already coming out before the window we only have money for one marquee signing, the new Bailly contract and OGS saying he doesn't expect too many departures should be enough for anyone with two brain cells to realise these thieves won't go until the money situation changes.

 

[Abraxas]

I don't think they'd go in for a gesture like this, especially in the financial situation we are in with reduced income. They've been nothing if not extremely pragmatic in their business decisions, it doesn't seem very Glazer like to worry about PR above cold, hard financial decisions and analysis of that would suggest massive spending is not warranted. I don't think emotion or placating fans in monetary terms is part of the Glazer psyche, it's a lot easier to negotiate via fans forums with empty platitudes than spend hundreds of millions.

Also it's not a thing that should be encouraged. Ultimately, it is all the club's money, we need to spend within our means and according to what we bring in. The last thing we need is more debt piled on just to get shiny new toys. That isn't responsible thinking from the fans. We have often heard the motto "well it's not our money" in relation to exorbitant transfer fees - but the fact is, it is our club's money and it is all coming out of that pot, or another pot provided to us by a financial institution.

We'd all love to have access to more of our clubs funds for the squad and for the stadium/training facilities than is available under this ownership but the cruel reality is we do not and therefore we must take account of this within budgets.

 

[Lynty]

So will spending big fix everything and make it all magically lovely and sweet?

Haaland
Varane
Camavinga
Grealish

We'd all crawl back into our holes. So only the £400m

 

[Tom Cato]

When have they ever given a toss about good PR?

Personal PR, of course not. But club PR relates to things like sponsorship and stock value. Having a positive buzz sekund the club itself is absolutely important

 

[Judas]

We'll get what we usually get - in the region of £80m net and sell it as a huge sign of intent after a financially turbulent year.

This is what I'm expecting if I'm being realistic.

 

[Stack]

Haaland
Varane
Camavinga
Grealish

We'd all crawl back into our holes. So only the £400m

How superficial of us.
Everything fixed by a big spend.
I think our fan base is better than that.

 

[crossy1686]

How superficial of us.
Everything fixed by a big spend.
I think our fan base is better than that.

It's really not, you'll see this summer

 

[BFernandes]

Personal PR, of course not. But club PR relates to things like sponsorship and stock value. Having a positive buzz sekund the club itself is absolutely important

Ah yes, stock value and share holders.

I imagine they'd be over the moon to see the club spunk £200 million..not

 

[Lynty]

How superficial of us.
Everything fixed by a big spend.
I think our fan base is better than that.

It's not.

 

[Bilbo]

They will care about PR to the point where they wish to avoid any further protests but they will also not be completely oblivious (far from it in fact) to what the fanbase are asking for. We have all been pretty clear on the fact that it will take more than a couple of shiny new toys to silence us so it would be hypocritical of our fanbase to expect this IMO.

We have an opportunity to communicate with them now and that is small progress but still progress. With regards to transfer spend I doubt things will be any different to what it would have been anyway.

 

[Flying high]

Haaland
Varane
Camavinga
Grealish

We'd all crawl back into our holes. So only the £400m

If those transfers were funded by the Glazers, not with additional debt loaded onto the club, then they would certainly dampen the protests for a good while.

I'm fairly sure they will spend more than they planned to, as a result of the protests. But it won't be much, and will have to be financed by the club.

 

[crossy1686]

So are we just ignoring the £930m NET spend on transfers since 2012 because people want to paddy again?

 

[Infra-red]

No.

 

[RORY65]

We have spent a hell of a lot over the years since Ferguson left, just their underinvestment in other areas and the fact that they've put cronies in charge of key roles have meant that those signings have been largely ineffective but it's clear that they don't care what fans think but I do think it will bother them the reputational damage that was done by the protests and having a game called off but you would hope that our transfer plans were a bit further along than being dramatically altered by the owners needing a PR boost.

I'm not sure they were planning to spend too much, maybe similar to last year in net terms, due to the impact of the pandemic and the deterioration of cash resources and the increase in debt and if that was the plan I would hope they stick to it. Essentially your transfer policy shouldn't be dictated by whether or not fans have a banner alleging that one of the owners went to Epstein Island but we know how reactionary they and the club have been over the years so maybe that is their plan.

 

[sullydnl]

I would think they will spend what they were already planning to spend.

But if you made me pick which was more likely between them either a) spending more for the sake of good PR or b) spending less off the back of COVID's impact and the ESL falling through.....

Well, it wouldn't be the one that sees them part with more money.

 

[Kaos]

So are we just ignoring the £930m NET spend on transfers since 2012 because people want to paddy again?

Context being a fine thing - look at the windows the Glazers had decided to open the chequebook, spoiler: it was mostly when we finished outside the top 4. Whenever we secured Champions league football (and hence secured another profitable season for the club - you know, the only thing the Glazers care about), the parasites seldom allowed the manager to invest into pushing ahead for a title challenge.

 

[Nori-]

I'm hoping this is the case and they spend big. £150m+ after sales.

Realistically, they will view a big signing like Sancho during a global pandemic as good PR and won't need to do much more.

 

[El Zoido]

So are we just ignoring the £930m NET spend on transfers since 2012 because people want to paddy again?

Yes, because it’s all club revenue and not out of their pockets. In fact, we’d have had a bigger budget if they weren’t siphoning it away.

Secondly, part of the grievance is that they don’t know how to run a football club so the off-field mismanagement is their fault, including failures in the market. They’re spending club-generated revenue badly because they don’t know how to effectively run a football club. So we should be more annoyed that they’ve spent nearly a billion net and we’re not in a much better place. They deserve no credit for simply spending club revenue, we should have a paddy because they’ve wasted it by having Ed clown around every summer.

Thirdly, there’s a very clear pattern of them opening the chequebook only when we slip out of top four. Generally, managers have not been backed once securing a CL position.

 

[TheReligion]

I think we will spend and a few people will be surprised. Ole has made comments about needing to invest in the summer and improve the squad. He's not daft

 

[VP89]

The only thing bringing positive PR back for them is if they brought both Kane & Sancho. I don't think anyone will be fooled by smokes and mirrors if it's only one, given how they underfunded us last year, and in 2018.

The biggest heat they got in recent memory was when Jose finished 2nd and failed to get sufficient backing to kick on. Now Ole is in the exact same place, and I don't think they can get away with the same mistake. They are fortunate a marquee signing in Sancho awaits in background at what is a sensible fee.

 

[georgipep]

Yes, because it’s all club revenue and not out of their pockets. In fact, we’d have had a bigger budget if they weren’t siphoning it away.

Most owners do not sink their own money in clubs. Why would they? They own them to make money, not lose money.

Also, assuming different owners would mean bigger budget is speculation based on nothing. Different owners might decide to invest in completely different areas or just take out more money from the club via dividends or siphoning by shady expenditures/investments.

Secondly, part of the grievance is that they don’t know how to run a football club so the off-field mismanagement is their fault, including failures in the market. They’re spending club-generated revenue badly because they don’t know how to effectively run a football club. So we should be more annoyed that they’ve spent nearly a billion net and we’re not in a much better place. They deserve no credit for simply spending club revenue, we should have a paddy because they’ve wasted it by having Ed clown around every summer.

So, you know definitively that the players we bought were chosen by the owners, not the managers? Or they are to blame for appointing the managers and then backing them?

Also, having Ed around is widely acknowledged to have led to increase in revenues through commercial deals. So, how is that a bad thing?

Thirdly, there’s a very clear pattern of them opening the chequebook only when we slip out of top four. Generally, managers have not been backed once securing a CL position.

So, let me get this straight. If you were the owner, you'd pump your own money into the club year in, year out, regardless of results, with no return expectations?

If yes, can you explain why?

 

[Cast5]

Most owners do not sink their own money in clubs. Why would they? They own them to make money, not lose money.

Also, assuming different owners would mean bigger budget is speculation based on nothing. Different owners might decide to invest in completely different areas or just take out more money from the club via dividends or siphoning by shady expenditures/investments.

So, you know definitively that the players we bought were chosen by the owners, not the managers? Or they are to blame for appointing the managers and then backing them?

Also, having Ed around is widely acknowledged to have led to increase in revenues through commercial deals. So, how is that a bad thing?

So, let me get this straight. If you were the owner, you'd pump your own money into the club year in, year out, regardless of results, with no return expectations?

If yes, can you explain why?

Are you a fan of the Glazers, if yes can you explain why?

 

[El Zoido]

Most owners do not sink their own money in clubs. Why would they? They own them to make money, not lose money.

Also, assuming different owners would mean bigger budget is speculation based on nothing. Different owners might decide to invest in completely different areas or just take out more money from the club via dividends or siphoning by shady expenditures/investments.

So, you know definitively that the players we bought were chosen by the owners, not the managers? Or they are to blame for appointing the managers and then backing them?

Also, having Ed around is widely acknowledged to have led to increase in revenues through commercial deals. So, how is that a bad thing?

So, let me get this straight. If you were the owner, you'd pump your own money into the club year in, year out, regardless of results, with no return expectations?

If yes, can you explain why?

Yes, billionaire owners typically invest their own money in to the club as a means of protecting their investment. And nearly a billion spent poorly is the fault of the owners and their mismanagement. Fans are right to be mad about this. City’s owners have spent probably £5bn+ when you account for everything they’ve done to develop the club and the infrastructure. That’s out of club profits, is it?

Yet United fans are supposed to be happy (or have no right to complain) because the Glazers have pissed away club profits due to pure incompetence, while taking just as much out to line their own pockets.

 

[stw2022]

Are you a fan of the Glazers, if yes can you explain why?

These needs to stop being the reply to people who challenge everything illogical that’s said.

 

[stw2022]

Yes, billionaire owners typically invest their own money in to the club as a means of protecting their investment. And nearly a billion spent poorly is the fault of the owners and their mismanagement. Fans are right to be mad about this. City’s owners have spent probably £5bn+ when you account for everything they’ve done to develop the club and the infrastructure. That’s out of club profits, is it?

Yet United fans are supposed to be happy (or have no right to complain) because the Glazers have pissed away club profits due to pure incompetence, while taking just as much out to line their own pockets.

What would our profits be used for now suddenly the goal posts are that it’s an outrage if they’re spent on the club ?

 

[El Zoido]

What would our profits be used for now suddenly the goal posts are that it’s an outrage if they’re spent on the club ?

Something towards the stadium and infrastructure/facilities would be welcome. As well as establishing a hierarchy structure of football people who can better manage the long term future of the club, rather than letting an investment banker have a crack at it just because he’s mates with the Glazers. On the second point, it does at least seem we’re swinging back that way.

 

[Cast5]

These needs to stop being the reply to people who challenge everything illogical that’s said.

Well can you answer the question then?

 

[georgipep]

Yes, billionaire owners typically invest their own money in to the club as a means of protecting their investment. And nearly a billion spent poorly is the fault of the owners and their mismanagement. Fans are right to be mad about this. City’s owners have spent probably £5bn+ when you account for everything they’ve done to develop the club and the infrastructure. That’s out of club profits, is it?

Yet United fans are supposed to be happy (or have no right to complain) because the Glazers have pissed away club profits due to pure incompetence, while taking just as much out to line their own pockets.

How is investing your own money a means of protecting your investment? If you mean the amount spent on BUYING the club, then I'd agree, that gives the owners the actual ownership of the club, which can lead to appreciation in value for when they want to sell. That appreciation could be realised also by selling shares (by dilution or not) too.

But if you mean that owners are actually putting money into a club for transfers and other operational expenses, how is that protecting their investment?

City's owners are spending money for completely non-sporting achievements related reasons. I thought that was obvious by now.