General Glazer Discussion | To receive the majority of £11m stakeholder dividend today

[Chesterlestreet]

Yup. We signed Fellaini over Thiago who Moyes rejected and Schneiderlin/Schweinsteiger over Kroos who LVG rejected. Before later moaning he failed due to the club being too commercial and not signing him fecking Neymar.

He may have done that but it's also a part of the story that Thiago himself was set on Bayern at the time: there was no realistic chance of signing him (he has confirmed this himself in no uncertain terms).

Bottom line: the whole Thiago "saga" was essentially just a muppet thing driven by journos. United didn't seriously approach him/his people - and the player himself wouldn't have come anyway.

 

[Yakuza_devils]

I definitely think we do, that's why I previously said the below



The difference between us and city is not financial, it's owner's intent. If the Glazers kept everything else the same, but hired the best people they can find, and let them know that they would pay with their jobs if the team wasn't successful, we would see a very rapid improvement.

No, it's financial too. We should be much better than City if our owners willing to put back all the club generated income into the club or better still invest their own money into the club. We are talking about an additional up to 2 billions pounds for youth development, club infrastructure, signing players, invest in proper football structure, medicine, scouting and whatnot. City is not only far ahead of us in term of their first team football, everything from their youth to infrastructure are also world class.

 

[Mickeza]

He may have done that but it's also a part of the story that Thiago himself was set on Bayern at the time: there was no realistic chance of signing him (he has confirmed this himself in no uncertain terms).

Bottom line: the whole Thiago "saga" was essentially just a muppet thing driven by journos. United didn't seriously approach him/his people - and the player himself wouldn't have come anyway.

Source for that? I’ve always thought Moyes rejected Thiago due to not knowing enough about him and the club thinking Fabregas was available. In fact Ferdinand was talking a few months ago about him and Thiago being in contact that summer.

 

[Jeppers7]

I’ve always felt the takeover has harmed the club in different ways from start to finish, while the commercial aspect has improved but has been copied across the board.

Yes they have spent lots of money but their objective is top four. Had they pushed on when we got top four and completed the side and not left it with deficiencies then overall they might have spent less. They have been rather reactive in their spending and balked at top four.

We will struggle for much beyond top four when the objectives of the owners don’t go beyond that.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Source for that? I’ve always thought Moyes rejected Thiago due to not knowing enough about him and the club thinking Fabregas was available. In fact Ferdinand was talking a few months ago about him and Thiago being in contact that summer.

There was never any firm proposal. David de Gea wanted me to join. He wrote a message on my match ball after we'd beaten Italy in the final. But I'd have done the same with him. He is one of the greatest goalkeepers in the world. You always want to play with the best. But it was always going to be Munich.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ited-david-de-gea-bayern-munich-a6775136.html

ETA The article is behind a paywall - but I'm sure you can find the same thing elsewhere.

Anyway - it makes perfect sense that his mind was set on Bayern. The Pep factor was - obviously - huge. *

* This isn't gospel, of course. But it was rumoured that Pep advised him on where to go (and as we know, the man himself ended up at Bayern soon after).

Moyes rejected Thiago due to not knowing enough about him and the club thinking Fabregas was available.

Like I said initially, that part may very well be true. The point is that the transfer was very unrealistic to begin with (since Thiago had already made up his mind).

 

[Mickeza]

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ited-david-de-gea-bayern-munich-a6775136.html

ETA The article is behind a paywall - but I'm sure you can find the same thing elsewhere.

Anyway - it makes perfect sense that his mind was set on Bayern. The Pep factor was - obviously - huge. *

* This isn't gospel, of course. But it was rumoured that Pep advised him on where to go (and as we know, the man himself ended up at Bayern soon after).



Like I said initially, that part may very well be true. The point is that the transfer was very unrealistic to begin with (since Thiago had already made up his mind).

I wouldn’t take that article as gospel. Thiago is hardly going to say whilst at Munich I wanted to join Manchester United is he? Maybe it is true but the story I’ve heard which is often repeated by very good journalists with United connections is we’d been working on the deal and it was there for Moyes but he dallied and chose Fabregas.

 

[Bubz27]

In simplistic terms, think of it like a mortgage. You are buying a house, the bank pays the previous owners, and you pay the bank in installments, with the house itself as collateral. Pretty much what they did.

But didn't they pick up money on us to pay the 'deposit', as it were?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I wouldn’t take that article as gospel. Thiago is hardly going to say whilst at Munich I wanted to join Manchester United is he? Maybe it is true but the story I’ve heard which is often repeated by very good journalists with United connections is we’d been working on the deal and it was there for Moyes but he dallied and chose Fabregas.

Well, it's a direct quote from the player himself.

It wouldn't have been a grand insult to Bayern if he'd confirmed that there was serious interest from United but that he ultimately went for Bayern (or something along those lines).

As for Fabregas, that was obviously real - and Fabregas himself has confirmed that he talked to United (Moyes personally, IIRC) about a possible move.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

I have no issues with the amount the Glazers have spent on transfers/wages. Maybe there could be an argument in the last years of Fergies reign but since we have pretty much the biggest net spend in English football history over a decade, if anything you could argue we have spent too much.

It's the overseeing of the club has been a massive issue, it was clear as early as Woodwards first season he didn't know how to run the football side of the business, the club needed someone else to run that side of the business. Some fans will say that has finally happened with the Murtough appointment a year or so ago, personally i'm beyond skeptical as he is a guy who has been here for 9 years and from the outside appears just to be a yes man appointment. But whatever the situation the Glazers needed to step in, probably in 2014 at the absolute latest, and bring some own with proven experience of managing the football aspects of the club. They didn't. For me in terms of footballing decisions that is their biggest failure to the club.

In terms of money like I said no issues at all with the transfer fees and wage fund made available to the club the funding each manager has had at their disposal has been exceptional. The same does not go for the funding of the club's stadium, which is now at a crisis point. It should never have got this bad.

But in terms of spending money on players, Avram is being 100% honest.

 

[Spark]

What sane businessman would put their OWN Money into a business like it's nothing. To run a successful business you use the profit money that the business makes. It's how business works.

We (as in the CAF) slate the Glazers for NOT doing this but at the same time criticise Chelsea for 'buying' their way to the top through the owners money buying players. We can't have it both ways.

You either want them or don't want them to do it.

That being said, now Chelsea, if I'm reading reports correctly are BILLIONS in debt to Roman. Not a measly 4-500M. BILLIONS.

So what is it you want? Owners aren't going to put their own money into the business for FREE are they.

You speak like it's a binary choice between financial doping and saddling a club with debt in order to fleece an asset for personal gain. There's normal debt through financial institutions that need to be paid back and there's personal loans from massively rich benefactors that are structured as such to circumvent a myriad of rules (and mainly tax). City technically received countless loans from Abu Dhabi, likewise PSG from Qatar and I'm sure Newcastle will from the Saudis (how else are they going to miraculously spend £300m in a transfer window when their club is skint).

No one is denying that football clubs aren't run as businesses for the most part, although there are non-profit examples. Liverpool are a good example of a club with a solid football-first business structure, thanks to Fenway Group. They can't spend as much as United due to years of being run absolutely atrociously, but in time they probably will.

It's honestly down to how you want to go about making money through a football club. The Glazers have used it as a personal cash point, enriched themselves further, while doing absolutely nothing for the long term health of the club. Old Trafford, Carrington, etc all crumbling is a damning indictment of their ownership and - again - a clear example of where their priorities lie. They are objectively shite owners.

 

[lex talionis]

The Glazers have spent heavily enough on players in and their wages to allow us to compete with top clubs, but their management decisions have been atrocious. They left it all up to Woodward and we got Moyes and Van Gaal, which were insane appointments who demanded dross like Fellaini. José was already in a tailspin as a manager. Ole was an inspired choice as interim manager, but we should never have extended his contract last June.

The Glazers trusted a banker to do the job of a football executive and look at us now. Not exactly genius.

 

[Stacks]

Wow. You believe whatever you want to believe, but don’t peddle it to me.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...d-fans-glazer-family-club-debt-premier-league



But.. but, they only take £20m a year out. To pay the bills and for food. It’s a struggle, don’t you know?

Why are some folk having a hard time understanding how much money the club should have to spend (or waste) as opposed to how much money the club actually has to spend (waste) under the Glazers?

You have been saying they have put 1 billion + into their pockets which is false. Yes the money has been taken out that could have been used on the club but we have also been the biggest spenders in the world bar one team in spite of this. 5th world problems. Sounding a bit like them spoilt fans out there "yes we have spend 1.3 billion but it should have been 2.1 billion "
relax, we have spent enough. don't want to receieve the "moneybags united buying their way to the top" monika

 

[Tom Van Persie]

He may have done that but it's also a part of the story that Thiago himself was set on Bayern at the time: there was no realistic chance of signing him (he has confirmed this himself in no uncertain terms).

Bottom line: the whole Thiago "saga" was essentially just a muppet thing driven by journos. United didn't seriously approach him/his people - and the player himself wouldn't have come anyway.

According to Daniel Taylor, Fergie had scouted Thiago for years and Martin Ferguson was spotted at a few Barca games. We would've signed Thiago before Bayern could swoop in. The deal was basically done, all United needed was for Moyes to sign off on it.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Gehrman]

Valencia was Ronaldo's replacement, not Owen and/or Obertan.

Not really much better tbh.

 

[Loon]

You have been saying they have put 1 billion + into their pockets which is false. Yes the money has been taken out that could have been used on the club but we have also been the biggest spenders in the world bar one team in spite of this. 5th world problems. Sounding a bit like them spoilt fans out there "yes we have spend 1.3 billion but it should have been 2.1 billion "
relax, we have spent enough. don't want to receieve the "moneybags united buying their way to the top" monika

I said nothing about 1 billion. I said it was more than the £20m a season you were falsely claiming. The information is there. United would have more money to develop the stadium, etc had they been allowed to spend their earnings. It’s not just about players.

 

[Kellyiom]

Still did nothing while Woody and Judge hired crap managers, handed out ridiculous contracts and generally pissed money up the wall eh Avram?

I'm fan of theirs but I've seen leveraged corporate transactions and they can always be controversial whether they're football clubs or railways.

But I don't think it was Grant's 'job' to get involved in that way, he's an owner and that's delegated to the executives.

Provided he kept receiving the expected cash flows he'd have no real reason to get involved because that's the point when shareholders and managers start falling out and it gets messy.

I do think however this format isn't suitable for a football club given the unique aspects of fans.

 

[Gordon Godot]

I said nothing about 1 billion. I said it was more than the £20m a season you we’re claiming. The information is there. United would have more money to develop the stadium, etc had they been allowed to spend their earnings. It’s not just about players.

Not sure what the point is that Stacks is making. Glazer ownership has cost United a billion in costs that are purely down to them and their ownership. Plus the fact is the debt is a dead weight, Spurs raised debt to build the stadium, we cannot do that. Contrast with City and their owners have put in a similar amount, by a variety of channels. Spurs just got £150m from their main shareholders to spend. I agree we had plenty of money to spend, and it has been wasted, but that is also down to the owners. The billion lost on interest costs, transaction fees, dividends and management fees could have rebuilt OT, delivered a world class training venue and a great match day experience around OT. Instead we have a leaking roof, second rate training and limited stuff around OT. Thats the difference.

 

[Stacks]

I said nothing about 1 billion. I said it was more than the £20m a season you were falsely claiming. The information is there. United would have more money to develop the stadium, etc had they been allowed to spend their earnings. It’s not just about players.

they are taking 20m a year in dividends. That is what is currently lining their pockets. The rest is paying debts. Not the same as "lining ones pockets" which is akin to profit

 

[Loon]

Not sure what the point is that Stacks is making. Glazer ownership has cost United a billion in costs that are purely down to them and their ownership. Plus the fact is the debt is a dead weight, Spurs raised debt to build the stadium, we cannot do that. Contrast with City and their owners have put in a similar amount, by a variety of channels. Spurs just got £150m from their main shareholders to spend. I agree we had plenty of money to spend, and it has been wasted, but that is also down to the owners. The billion lost on interest costs, transaction fees, dividends and management fees could have rebuilt OT, delivered a world class training venue and a great match day experience around OT. Instead we have a leaking roof, second rate training and limited stuff around OT. Thats the difference.

Exactly. I don’t know where Stacks is going either. It seems his/her point now is the Glazers taking money prevents us having a “moneybags” reputation, which I don’t get either.

 

[Loon]

they are taking 20m a year in dividends. That is what is currently lining their pockets. The rest is paying debts. Not the same as "lining ones pockets" which is akin to profit

You should read more and post less if you think the Glazers only earn £20m a year out of United.

 

[Stacks]

Not sure what the point is that Stacks is making. Glazer ownership has cost United a billion in costs that are purely down to them and their ownership. Plus the fact is the debt is a dead weight, Spurs raised debt to build the stadium, we cannot do that. Contrast with City and their owners have put in a similar amount, by a variety of channels. Spurs just got £150m from their main shareholders to spend. I agree we had plenty of money to spend, and it has been wasted, but that is also down to the owners. The billion lost on interest costs, transaction fees, dividends and management fees could have rebuilt OT, delivered a world class training venue and a great match day experience around OT. Instead we have a leaking roof, second rate training and limited stuff around OT. Thats the difference.

I agree but the likehood of this ever happening was what? United have rarely been the biggest spenders except during this era so who would be the owner to facilitate this rebuild? Camp Nou hasn;t been touched for over 15 years. Its not as common as you think. Stamford Bridge is still the same despite having an Oligarch owner. Think you are dreaming abit.

 

[redcucumber]

Not really much better tbh.

I know you're being facetious, but that's really not accurate. Valencia was an excellent player for Man Utd in the main, especially under Sir Alex.

 

[Gehrman]

I know you're being facetious, but that's really not accurate. Valencia was an excellent player for Man Utd in the main, especially under Sir Alex.

He had a fair few seasons where he was absolute crap once defenders figured out how to obstruct his one trick and he would kick his cross into their shins. Both him and Nani managed to become crap at the same time. But as a replacement for Ronaldo it wasnt a good transfer at all. Robben was available the same summer and would have been much much better. Valencia became a decent right back though.

 

[Stacks]

You should read more and post less if you think the Glazers only earn £20m a year out of United.

literally said in the guardian article you posted though........

 

[Stacks]

Exactly. I don’t know where Stacks is going either. It seems his/her point now is the Glazers taking money prevents us having a “moneybags” reputation, which I don’t get either.

No I'm saying we have spent enough so it seems a bit 'rich' to keep complaining about money. When Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Real, Barcelona, Bayern, Spurs, Juve, Inter, Athletico, and so on, all spend less than us so hearing our fans lament about "but we should have had MORE money" just comes across a bit..........

 

[Loon]

literally said in the guardian article you posted though........

I honestly don’t know where you’re going with this now. Surely you can see that the club would have more to spend on every aspect of the organisation if the Glazers were not in ownership?

 

[Loon]

No I'm saying we have spent enough so it seems a bit 'rich' to keep complaining about money. When Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Real, Barcelona, Bayern, Spurs, Juve, Inter, Athletico, and so on, all spend less than us so hearing our fans lament about "but we should have had MORE money" just comes across a bit..........

Seriously, Stacks? You’re not taking the piss now? OT has a leaking roof, mate.

 

[redcucumber]

He had a fair few seasons where he was absolute crap once defenders figured out how to obstruct his one trick and he would kick his cross into their shins. Both him and Nani managed to become crap at the same time. But as a replacement for Ronaldo it wasnt a good transfer at all. Robben was available the same summer and would have been much much better. Valencia became a decent right back though.

Absolute nonsense. 20 goals and assists in his first season, fans and players player of the year in his 3rd season, had a difficult spell when he was given the number 7 but revitalised himself when deployed deeper and had a period as the best right back in the league. Obviously he was never a Robben tier talent, but to disregard him like you have done is wrong and unfair.

 

[Gehrman]

Absolute nonsense. 20 goals and assists in his first season, fans and players player of the year in his 3rd season, had a difficult spell when he was given the number 7 but revitalised himself when deployed deeper and had a period as the best right back in the league. Obviously he was never a Robben tier talent, but to disregard him like you have done is wrong and unfair.

I don't disregard him. He was just simply terrible for a while and never a replacement for Ronaldo. I know that apart from Messi, no could replace Ronaldo, but you can do a lot better than Valencia. Like Robben as I mentioned earlier or someone like Hazard. Valencia was a very 1 dimensional winger.

 

[Gordon Godot]

Seriously, Stacks? You’re not taking the piss now? OT has a leaking roof, mate.

Agreed, really not sure what his point is. Beyond the big signings and throwing stupid money at players, everything else has been neglected

 

[KikiDaKats]

If you buy a Big Mac for 30 pounds when you’re not hungry, it’s nothing to shout about. They’ve spent money on players, but they’ve spent it badly. Their decision making is atrocious. They need to understand that the fans’ problem is not related to the amount of money they spend.

Then the fans/papers are not communicating it right.
Their hands off approach works for me. It always seem to get to the extremes for us to make changes. It’s more about their judgement here, where they task an incompetent individual to take care of their concerns but the guy was completely clueless about football.
He managed the club like a bank, it all became about having a market presence (without proper achievements). He was supposed to have learnt from the guys before him but no. Due to his lack of football knowledge he led us up an alley. No one is convincing me he wasn’t fired. 0.5b could have built us a very competitive squad and leftover moneys for other projects within.
It tells you all about his arrogance. Hopefully, this new guy doesn’t come out trying to brag his way into peoples heart. Football fans are about the success on the pitch. Do you expect a guy(Glazer) that has no interest in football to understand what truly makes a club a success.

Fans better start talking about the real issue of leadership and stop blabbering about money. As far as it stand it can’t be denied the club is not hamstrung in spending. It’s just been wasted on the wrong tools. Buying players for their name/popular demand, foolishness. The only club with any success with such approach always had to bring in a nobody to make it all gel (makelele/casimeiro). A list of Bastian, Sanchez, Zlatan, Cavani and Ronaldo at their age and where we wanna get to none of these signing were/are acceptable. If you want famous buddies to come to your dinner party send them an invitation don’t pay them salary to be there.

The debt was an issue for me when they took over but they’ve manage it in a near perfect way that has next to no impact on what we could have achieved on the pitch if the right person was in charge. Their expertise we’ve seen is how to make money and in that they did not fail.

 

[Neil_Buchanan]

Always spent the money. Watch the likes of spurs, chelsea and arsenal all out outspend us this summer.

 

[KikiDaKats]

According to Daniel Taylor, Fergie had scouted Thiago for years and Martin Ferguson was spotted at a few Barca games. We would've signed Thiago before Bayern could swoop in. The deal was basically done, all United needed was for Moyes to sign off on it.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Ok the journalist is right. Moyes was also right not to sign a player he doesn’t know much about. We’ve loads of signings since then to justify the decision.
None of our club buys have been a success, though the managers have made some underwhelming ones too. It doesn’t negate the fact Maguire, Di Maria, Pogba were bad decisions. Ronaldo is up in the air considering all the question makes when talking long term.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

According to Daniel Taylor, Fergie had scouted Thiago for years and Martin Ferguson was spotted at a few Barca games. We would've signed Thiago before Bayern could swoop in. The deal was basically done, all United needed was for Moyes to sign off on it.

Fair enough.

Again, I can only repeat that the player himself is on record denying that there was any serious interest from United (and saying that he was dead set on Bayern anyway).

 

[tenpoless]

Seppuku!

Oops

 

[DevilRed]

moyes is an absolute cnut. Set us back years with his decisions and shit transfers.

Imagine if we had Thiago and Kroos in our midfield ffs.

The Glazers are horrible owners who are leeches. But you can't say we haven't spent money in the market. The amount we've spent on fees and wages we SHOULD be challenging at the top.

Its through the gross incompetence of the managers, backroom staff and board that we are in this situation.

Im glad we finally seem to have a structure in place and are getting rid of the underachievers from ALL ACROSS the club. Not just playing staff.

 

[Tiber]

I see boycott team viewer is trending on twitter. I winder if anyone tweeting has ever actually used it?

 

[Nytram Shakes]

The Glazers have spent heavily enough on players in and their wages to allow us to compete with top clubs, but their management decisions have been atrocious. They left it all up to Woodward and we got Moyes and Van Gaal, which were insane appointments who demanded dross like Fellaini. José was already in a tailspin as a manager. Ole was an inspired choice as interim manager, but we should never have extended his contract last June.

The Glazers trusted a banker to do the job of a football executive and look at us now. Not exactly genius.

100% agree this is the issue with the Glazers, people can scream about them using united as a cash cow, and there are SOME elements of truth in that, but this has been the number 1 issue since Fergie and Gill left. The fact it wasn't addressed for 9 years, and I'm not convinced it's been addressed now, is the Glazers biggest crime against the club by a country mile.

 

[Stacks]

I honestly don’t know where you’re going with this now. Surely you can see that the club would have more to spend on every aspect of the organisation if the Glazers were not in ownership?

I literally have no idea. depends who was running things.

 

[DanClancy]

Q3 results out, that wage bill is going to look ridiculous when full results are out. Wage bill is at £288m so far so won't be too far off £400m for the season, suspect Ronaldo is on more then the £500,000 a week that has been reported.

I see reports of handing De Gea a new contract, will they ever learn. Lets see how he does under Ten Hag first before giving him another ridiiclous contract which makes it difficult to move him on.