Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by Rhyme Animal, Aug 29, 2019.
God, your posts are patronising.
They're easy targets, yet Fred the Red never gets a mention, it's no coincidence that our fortunes went downhill rapidly when he got far too big for his boots circa 2012, signing autographs, special guest appearances, throwing shapes on Strictly come Dancing...... .....
The plan for Ole will be long term. This can be seen by the profile of player we are now buying. If he had gone on a spending spree & bought the 6 players we need he'd likely be under more pressure. As it is we've made some good signings & shipped out some deadwood. We will have identified targets for next Summer. It was imperative we moved on the high earning deadwood to free up the next round of buying.
Moyes had a minimum target: to get into the Champions League (and when he didn't, he was sacked), LvG had the same, as did Jose. What makes you think OGS's contract will be any different? Especially as in a similar way to with David Moyes, that clause protects the money men from having to make a big pay-off if they let him go before his contracted end-date and also gives them some security when they are employing a manager without the experience of working at a club as big as MUFC.
Why are you so certain that Ole's is a long-term appointment - perhaps his focus on youth is just an attempt to recreate the spirit of the 'class of '92' because of his past history with Manchester United.
Moyes was clearly out of his depth & made imbecilic decisions. In wanting to be his own man he fired the backroom staff & refused advice from SAF. It was no surprise when he was jettisoned & he derserved it. LVG & Mourinho were experienced managers with distinguished careers. They were employed & given decent transfer budgets. They signed poor players & served up an even poorer standard of football. LVG & Mourinho were has been charlatans living off past glories & had to go.
Ole is Utd through & through & will be given time to implement his vision. If we fail to qualify for next seasons CL & sack him where would we go from there. We've tried everything else already.
It is very easy to type "And wrong" it is a lot more difficult to counter my arguments in detail - go on, have a try, be as patronising as you like.
I am going to try to answer this one without sounding frustrated, but it is getting difficult, people are not reading my previous posts before they answer the later ones. You talk about Moyes being "jettisoned" and that "he deserved it", as if it was a footballing decision, it was not. Have you seen the Brad Pitt film 'Moneyball' where a baseball team became more successful through the use of data and spreadsheets and stats and targets. That is what is going on at Utd. (the nationality of the owners is no coincidence in this). Moyes was sacked immediately it became mathematically impossible for Utd. to get into the CL. The same thing will happen to OGS (although he may last longer, if MUFC can get to the final of the Europa Cup). But read what I type: the owners of this club are running it as a business, not as a football team and I am sorry, but even though Ole is Utd. through and through, he will not be given any "time to implement his vision" if they don't get into the 2020-2021 European CL.
That says it all. The problem is that they are throwing good money after average players. I'm glad the club is offloading these players, because quite frankly, none of them deserve the wages they are on.
So why did they buy Fred then? Which statistic(s) did the American owners jump on and say "we don't care what everyone else think, he's worth it. We've done the math"?
(PS. The reason they waited re Moyes was because it reduced the payout. Contract clause).
You need to stop this, have you literally just joined this forum to spout this nonsense?
I think you're wrong regards Ole getting the sack if/when qualifying for the CL becomes mathematically impossible. The board appears to be in full support of what Ole is trying to achieve with the club and they won't sack him unless his position becomes untenable; like flirting with relegation or he starts mouthing on in the press like his predecessor for example. So long as he keeps the club within the top 6 or 7, his job will be safe.
We're stuck with Ole for better or worse.
Yeah, our wage bill is in a shambolic state even with all of the recent departures, which is just another negative facet to Ed Woodward's running of the club.
How the man remains chairman to this day is a complete mystery to me. His skills in the commercial department be damned.
I am judging by your online name (and location txt!) you are an older football fan, as am I, however, it doesn’t excuse your online activity towards me yesterday.* You criticised my post and used bold to highlight a specific point I made in relation to SAF, with the condescending comment that my contribution was both “patronising” and “wrong”.
So I asked you to explain where I was “wrong” (about the horse, the Glazers and the whole under-funding of Utd. in the closing period of SAF’s reign). Did you do that? No, you did not, you switched right up to almost the present day, with stuff about Fred, whom only joined the club last year and stuff about the Moyes contract, which I had already commented on.
So have another go: please explain why I am wrong to express my belief that the current state of Manchester United Football Club can (sadly) be traced right back to actions and decisions made by their most famous and successful manager & I don’t just mean the appointment of David Moyes either.
*Apologies for not replying more rapidly, I am still only allowed 3 posts a day in the main forums. For some reason I am struggling to get ‘likes’ in here - I think it might be because I speak a truth which some Man Utd. fans just don’t want to accept.
To conclude: I am guessing you have been a supporter through all the ‘good times’. But put yourself in the shoes of someone born in say 2003 who really wants to be a Man Utd. fan but has only vague memories of the ‘golden age’. Now ask yourself this: you might be happy sitting in the SAF stand reminiscing about the 90’s and 2000’s - but in 20 years time, when that is ancient history, will they be quite so happy? Or will they want to know “…where did it all go wrong”. (A famous Man Utd quote, as I am sure you know) and who was to blame.
Man United isn't struggling because Ferguson fell out over a horse. I think that's wrong, my opinion, and the football equivalent of a butterfly changing direction in S America and being the reason for a storm in UK. It's the type of thing someone with an agenda would say and take "cause and effect" to silly degrees
Most people use bold, to highlight something specific they're referring to. Get used to it.
Lots of posters on here will disagree with others, get used to it.
I couldn't care if someone born in 03 is not sure about being a United fan .... don't be one then. I'm not one because of any golden age (they were relegated when I was a kid) and I don't reminisce about the 90s and 00s (it'd be the 80s if anything, mainly because of the away days).
To conclude, I don't care "where it all went wrong" (and I don't look at United's performances as right or wrong, I'm in it regardless of trophies) but I'm pretty sure the Glazers would have got into United at some point - they had a plan and stuck to it.
(PS. I've got no idea why you haven't had likes. Keep explaining to United fans why they're wrong... I'm sure the likes will follow.... but don't waste them on me).
PPS. I'm not a fan of the Glazers.
Anyone know how much they take out of the club per year (in dividends and interest repayments for the debt)?
Thats how a forum works tbh. You seriously expect people to read your previous posts to get a grasp on what you're saying? Like you're centre of the universe and we should all listen?
I stopped reading as soon as you said Read what I type. condescending tbh
There are only 2 clubs who have achieved long term domination of the league, Liverpool & Utd. Liverpool have not won a title for decades. There will be many fans in the stands who have never seen them win a title. They will have been regaled with stories from the older generation of Shankly & Paisley. As the saying goes ''nothing lasts forever''. Liverpool fans will be lamenting why they can't find another Shankly, Paisley rather than why they started to decline in the 90's.
It may have taken a few years but like Liverpool fans, Utd fans realized that decline would set in. The fact is managers like Shankly, Paisley & SAF are anomlies & we could never see their like again. As fans we thank our lucky stars that we had these managers at our clubs. We look back with fondness at what we had rather than what we've lost. The realization set's in that SAF couldn't stick around forever & our domination had to end.
The truth is that it's highly unlikely any team will ever achieve long term domination of the league again. Managers no longer build dynasties & players are always looking for the next big pay day.
Couple of comments based on various posts above
1) SAF is far more responsible for our current decline than Moyes, Jose, LvG or Ed. Unpopular opinion I know, but it was the “no value in the market” years which really hurt us. Also, don’t forget it was SAF who advocated the disastrous appointment of Moyes. As for the facts about the horse and Coolmore, SAF got greedy. Coolmore gave SAF a stake in a horse for free. It was a gentlemen’s agreement and he would receive a share of prize money. The debate was over stud rights, SAF wanted a cut and Coolmore claimed this was never part of the deal. Either way, seems morally dubious by SAF, the acclaimed Socialist Union leader, to be given something for nothing and then demand an additional pound of flesh from people who were supposed to be friends.
2) Ole will be given this season at least as a free pass, regardless of top four (which we’ve not a cat in hells chance of getting)
Agree with point 1) Not so sure about number 2) I suppose only time will tell, but my thinking is this: if they had allowed OGS to go right to the end of last season as a caretaker manager (and assuming the decent results continued) I think he may have been given a 'free pass' to build for the future. However, because of the amazing run he went on after getting the temporary job, the hierarchy felt compelled to give him the permanent role early - I bet in doing so they gave themselves some insurance by putting into his contract that usual clause, minimum target: qualification for the CL & as you say, I think that is highly unlikely, especially via the league. Perhaps they will do a Chelsea and win the Europa Cup.
In hindsight we should have spent more in the latter part of SAF's era. I don't think anyone predicted how football would change though. SAF didn't want to be a part of £100 Mill + transfer windows & paying huge agent fees. It is bad for the game. It would have also given the impression that he was buying the league. He had overcome Blackburn & Chelsea & thought he could do the same with City. The problem was that Blackburn & Chelsea had the backing of individuals whereas City were backed by a state. Blackburn & Chelsea gave us a chance to catch up by reigning in their spending. There was no let up from City with £100 Mill + transfer windows becoming the norm for them. By the time we realized how the landscape had changed SAF was on the brink of retirement.
It was a mistake from SAF to appoint Moyes. There was a lack of viable candidates though. Pep was 1st choice but refused. There will have likely been other options. It's very likely some of these refused as following SAF was a poisoned chalice. Taking this into account it wasn't too left field to appoint a stable PL manager. It proved to be a bad gamble. to rectify this we appointed big name managers with glittering CV's. These too have also failed.
The Coolmore saga was poor from all concerned. The horse was generating 10's of Millions per year. It was crazy not having legal papers drawn up stating who was entitled to what.
Well that's wrong, it is widely reported that SAF was invited to BUY a share in the horse, £120000 has been banded about, the dispute is to whether that extended to stud fees after the horse was retired, which in the absence of some of contract to say it doesn't is a fair thing to ask.
I think it's hard to see that period as anything other than lacking ambition with regards to recruitment and squad building. It was no grand moral stance, it was toeing the party line there, clear and simple. We played in two CL finals against Barca and he said after the second loss that they represented the benchmark which we should strive for. And we didn't. We had no serious ambition in Europe after that (looking at recruitment). Our midfield was way below what an elite club should field but we had a great centre back pairing, GK and left back. Then of course we had Rooney up front. But Ronnie leaving marks a turning point of a serious lack of ambition. Our squad depth was poor and once the stalwarts were starting to fade the players supposed to take up the mantle were proven to be nowhere near the required quality. This is about the time the club makes the terrible decision to hire David Moyes. This could only really end up badly.
@Lentwood is pretty on the money here.
I have not been a member here long enough to 'like' posts yet, but if I could, I would like this one x10. Very insightful and it says everything about the current situation with maximum brevity, which makes it all the more effective.
We have spent a fortune since SAF left. I don't think there would have been a problem if SAF had asked the Glazers for a couple of hundred Million to spend. I don't think he wanted to build another squad & he really didn't need to. He won the league in his last season. We would have won the CL too but for an horrendous Ref's decision against RM at OT. He couldn't stop Ronaldo leaving & he was virtually irreplaceable. With a half decent manager & a couple of additions the squad he left should have challenged for the title. We ended up with the inept Moyes who signed Fellaini & Mata.
Cheers. I think likes are only used as a route for promotion. I'm only really agreeing with what Lentwood has been saying.
That's a huge hypothetical. If SAF was serious about chasing Barca and winning another CL then of course he would have wanted to improve that midfield, at the very least. I think that's a much much much smaller leap of imagination than assuming he had hundreds of millions of pounds if he wanted but chose to go without. And even if that astronomically unlikely scenario was true, then it would have been a stupid decision.
Also, who can really say we would have won the CL had we knocked out Real Madrid. IIRC there were still the quarters, semis and finals to go! In terms of evaluation the past it's more obvious to see that we seriously lacked quality in the first team and had very little quality in depth.
I know Ronnie was off, but we could have shown ambition. We didn't. The owners were happy to have SAF squeeze everything he could from that squad until it was dry.
Its 20m yearly and has been the last four years. In dividends that is. Before that nothing. Zip. Nada.
The interest of our debt is pretty much at the same level; if you want to count that as "taking out money from the club" (which is stupid in so many ways) the Glazers are "bleeding the club " of 40m or so yearly. 20m in dividends and 20m in interest payments. Per year.
Thats about Maguire´s left leg or something.
The club is valued at 4bn something. Do the math and realize that the Glazers are not bleeding the club of anything.
And hey, why not just go to the source if you feel the need to ask that type of questions: https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/Governance Document/manchester-united-plc-3q19-interim-report.pdf
Should answer any questions that you have.
16 years ago and yes it is silly to blame his dispute with the former owners for United's current condition. I mean it's not like he didn't still win loads after the dispute. Also there is no indication the Magnier would have invested heavily so the entire point you're trying to make is a bit mute.
And the last bit isn't a "truth", its a rumor.
A racing car leading a race by miles develops a fault on the final bend, it can coast to the flag and might even still win the race. However, if the next race starts immediately and no repairs are made, its got no chance, especially if they change the driver from Jackie Stewart to Mr Bean.
It would have been a problem between 2005-2010 because the club were leveraged with a different kind of debt - payment in kind (PIK) loans that were high-interest based on the high-risk the banks perceived they were taking.
It wasn’t until the Glazers restructured the debt to make it more manageable that we started to spend again. This is not “just” a theory, it’s there to see in black and white
SAF was perfectly happy with the squad he had at his disposal. Why would you want to spend Millions repairing something that isn't broken. We won the league 1n 12/13 at a canter. He would have been highly confident of winning the CL had we got past RM. Our path to the trophy would have been Galatasary, Dortmund, Bayern. These were easier games than RM.
It wasn't a problem though because we were still winning.
That’s like me saying I don’t need to worry about my roof leaking because it hasn’t collapsed yet or my tires wearing thin because they haven’t blown yet
City won the league by 20-odd points in 2017/18 and since then they have spent over £200m
This analogy makes no sense whatsoever in regards to your original point.
You are trying to say that Utd were struggling towards the end of SAF's reign. As i've pointed out in previous posts this clearly isn't correct. Winning the league at a canter & missing out on a CL due to incompetent officiating is not struggling.
Moyes was given a perfectly acceptable squad & dragged it into the gutter. LVG & Mourinho were given lots of money. The more they were given the more they declined. It's not SAF's fault these people didn't have half the talent he did.
You don't replace a whole roof when a couple of slates have cracked. The squad SAF left didn't need major surgery. The problem has been crap managers buying crap players. It's pointless comparing us to City as they have a bottomless pit of cash.
If the squad didn’t need major surgery, which outfield players do you believe where good enough/capable of playing for Manchester Utd by the time Jose arrived?
You’ve only got to look at the clubs the players who left joined and their career trajectory since to release there were not many at all!
That is not quite what I am saying. I think that towards the end of the Ferguson era cracks were appearing, but his total genius as a manager* papered over those cracks (and the 20th win at a 'canter' was helped very much by RvP being on fire). However, as soon as he stepped away, the cracks became visible for all to see and are still very much effecting the club now. For example, Luke Shaw gets an injury early on this season and who do Utd. turn to but Ashley Young - a player from the SAF period, why?
*An old-school manager by the way - things are different now and as Roy Keane has been saying recently not a very forgiving man (thoughts probably echoed by Jaap Stam, David Beckham and Brian Kidd).
£40m yearly isn’t an insignificant figure especially when for the likes of Chelsea, Liverpool and City it’s just a few million or even zero.
I agree with you that the problems we have now stem from not investing enough during SAFs last decade in charge but not entirely the reasons why.
The Glazer take-over generated huge debts for the club with insane interest rates, 20% interest rates for the initial 7 years, resulting in most of the clubs finances diverted to servicing the loans. At the time of the Glazer take-over we already had the 2008 CL winning team in place, we had already bought the core of our super-stars, Rio, Rooney, Ronaldo etc.. None of theese players joined post Glazers. SAF had no problems breaking transfer records prior to the Glazer take-over, we all know that. But that stopped the second they took over.
With the Glazers take-over we went from a net spend of 45M/season to 19M/season and it would have been even less without the sale of Ronaldo. There is a clear pattern, we spent much less when the Glazers took over. Now if SAF spent less because he had a bonus for doing so, I can't tell but if that's the case it makes the Glazers even worse owners for putting that in a contract = Money is more important than success.
During this period we were outspent by more than 500M by both City and Chelsea and this is during a period when players like Ronaldo were sold for 90M, 500M in that market is a lot and no wonder they caught up with us. Hell even Liverpool outspent us by more than 100M from 2005-2013. During this period world-class talent went left and right but never to us.
What we do know is that we didn't spend money until Moyes finished 7th. What this tells me is that the men in charge didn't open their pockets until we were in trouble. Why invest when it's working right? 8 years of Glazer neglect brought us here imo. Not SAF.
Neither of those clubs are PLCs though. We are.
Its not a coincidence that the club starting giving dividends at the same time as we went public again. Those 20ms in dividends does not just go to the Glazers, it goes to all of the shareholders, divided equally towards respective holdings. A shareholder with restricted shares (voting-wise) gets the same dividend per share as the Glazers. Thats been the case so far at least. I dont have the current exact figure but I believe that the Glazers only hold 75-80 percent of the total shares in United today.
You cant be a PLC without allocating a fair amount of the profit in dividends to the shareholders. At least not in most European countries. Not being an expert in Cayman Island company law and New York state stock exchange rules I would hazard a guess that is the case for us as well. If the company does not go in the red; then withholding any type of dividends would be acceptable.
20-25m in dividends (divided on all shareholders) is a pretty petty yield for the investors in United. Its probably one of the worst yields on the NYSE. Its nothing when you consider the total estimated share value of the company and the profit that we make.
You cant compare it to a privately held company as Liverpool and the FSG holdings of it. There is no incentive for FSG to take dividends out from the club when they own 100 percent of the company; it would not make sense from a tax perspective to begin with.
And dont get me started on City. The club and its owners should have been thrown out of the PL and the CL years ago.
That doesn't make a lick of sense. That dispute is not to blame for what's going on now. It's an ludicrous connection to make.
Why do you say it is stupid on so many levels to see the interest payments as a form of money being taken out of the club? This money would not be leaving the club had the glazers not mortgaged it to the hilt, right? Or am I missing something?
Your argument is very valid and I agree with it but maybe not the last part, I do not believe that the lack of investment from 05 to 13 is the cause of our current problems, what difference would investing big money in 05/06/07/08 and even 09 make to us now? Any players bought for big money back then would be well finished by now. Also, had we brought in a proper manager in 2013 and spent the 400m(or whatever amount it is) that we have spent since on other players such as Van dyke, Salah, De bryune, B Silva, Modric, Kroos (the list is endless) rather than Fellaini & co we would not be in any kind of a mess now and so its decisions made over the last 6 years rather than lack of investment between 05 and 13 that have us in the current state in my view.
Separate names with a comma.