Err selling good players and buying crap ones so they could service the debt on the club. Only investing when they absolutely had to. Not having a plan. Is that enough?
If the Glazers put the club up for sale...
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
Only when they had to. And only after spending years trying to do it on the cheap to service their debt.
But none of that is true. It's like the last of the mohicans, a dwindling band of people who can't accept that everything they were ever told by people they trusted about the Glazers, never happened so the response is to just pretend that it did.
Somewhere there's probably a man with "Debt is the road to ruin" tattooed on his face, convinced that the club went under in 2007, clutching transcripts of Andy Green's articles in the Guardian from the time insisting that anyone who says differently is a lying.
no cant stand them c*nts
things are not going right at united lets f*** off and set up our own club but piggy back on the club we hate and have left behind.
the glazers are doing a good job in terms of maximising our income over the short term, but their appointments on the football side of things are not working up to now. Hoping jose is the answer, but not quite convinced
I can fathom a few years or even decades without success, what I cant fathom is the lowering of the ambition of the club and the fans
the work on the quadrants started about 30 days after the glazers took control of the club, it was planned before they took control.
The academy is not solved, recent investment does not make up for years of underinvestment. Its a good start and hopefully will carry on. Where do united players take their kids? the academy at City.
As for the last paragraph they do get praise for sticking and backing Fergie and are responsible for possibly the most successful period in our history. Full respect to them for that.
I'd much rather we were run as a business, self-sufficient, generating our own revenue through our own sources rather than being propped up by the whim and generosity of a billionaire. As much as the purists, who think players should be paid a fiver a week and a half-time pie and cup of hot bovril should cost no more than 2 shillings and sixpence, won't like to admit it but being run as a business is the best thing for the club. For any club.
Yes owners take a cut/dividends but that happened under the PLC too. It's better than the club having to whore itself out, lift up our skirt and show a bit of leg in the hope that our sugar daddy stuffs a few quid down our panty-hoes so we can go out and buy ourselves something to look nice at right back. That way seems almost undignified and unedifyingly often seems to make celebrities out of the owners themselves. I'm happy that you see the Glazers once in a blue moon at Old Trafford and not like what happens at Chelsea where the camera cuts to Abramovich after every goal, red card, free-kick or throw in to gage his reaction.
"Roman is smiling - the manager is safe!"
"Roman is grimacing - the manager is in trouble!"
"Roman looks indifferent - is it gas?"
Would hate to become that club.
Yes owners take a cut/dividends but that happened under the PLC too. It's better than the club having to whore itself out, lift up our skirt and show a bit of leg in the hope that our sugar daddy stuffs a few quid down our panty-hoes so we can go out and buy ourselves something to look nice at right back. That way seems almost undignified and unedifyingly often seems to make celebrities out of the owners themselves. I'm happy that you see the Glazers once in a blue moon at Old Trafford and not like what happens at Chelsea where the camera cuts to Abramovich after every goal, red card, free-kick or throw in to gage his reaction.
"Roman is smiling - the manager is safe!"
"Roman is grimacing - the manager is in trouble!"
"Roman looks indifferent - is it gas?"
Would hate to become that club.
I don't understand why anyone would have any issue with the Glazers?? They've never meddled with team selections, fired managers at the drop of a hat, imposed rigid prohibitive wage structures, never baulked at transfer fees and overseen the rise of a commercial juggernaut. If it wasn't for our poor showings post Fergie in European competition, we would easily be the No. 1 richest football club in the world.
They've been great and the fact that we don't really hear anything about them says it all. I sometimes even forget that they own Manchester United. We can't complain really.
They've been great and the fact that we don't really hear anything about them says it all. I sometimes even forget that they own Manchester United. We can't complain really.
I did actually praise them at the time, but not on here cos I only joined here in 2012.
I also found and continue to find the level of debt worrying and the amount of money they they take out of the club worrying.
Its mainly what they have done post Fergies retirement and recent information becoming available showing a lack of planning even before Fergie left, that has pissed me off.
Its crazy to think that they were not responsible for the barren spending years following the Ronaldo sale
Its unquestionable that they were behind it.
But they have in recent years made up for that I think
Also the fact they do not interfere with the managers is a very good thing too IMO
Its unquestionable that they were behind it.
But they have in recent years made up for that I think
Also the fact they do not interfere with the managers is a very good thing too IMO
For all the doom and gloom that was predicted under the Glazer's, the exact opposite has happened. United's financial strength has never been stronger, but the most important thing of all, they have stayed out of the footballing side of things and have let the team be managed by the manager. I would hate to see a sugar daddy come in at this stage and make United his "play thing"
Probably the view of the more moderate "purist" these days.
As in, the moderate purist considers a straight-ass business model (where the owners' main goal is to make money for themselves through boosting the "brand" that is the football club) more "dignified" than being owned by some unsavoury twat or other whose motives are less clear cut.
It's a bit absurd to me, to be honest. Football in a "purist" sense and money have never been compatible, and if you bother to scrape a millimeter beyond the surface, the "pure" part has been less than so for decades.
What I have a problem with is the fact that someone can buy a football club - something which, whether it's absurd or not, means a great deal to millions of people - leveraged takeover style. Like the Glazers did. Or, for that matter, billionaire plaything style. Like Roman or the Sheik did. I don't like it. There's a potential there for fecking people over, people who are emotionally invested (as the phrase goes) in a "business" or a "brand" that the new owners have no connection to whatsoever. The football clubs we're talking about are old, they have been a part of people's lives for well over a century, both locally and globally - they carry a particular significance which is clearly different than that of a "normal" business, the takeover of which usually affects employees and their families (and the community as such, granted) but not millions of people who are, again, emotionally invested in the bloody thing.
You don't want an owner like at Chelsea who meddles in the day-to-day football workings of the club but I've been ticked off at how the Glazers don't seem to get involved enough. As time passed following SAF's stepping down, it became clear that the footballing side of things was being run in an 'as-you-go' style, with no real long-term planning. This is apparent from the 3 managerial appointments that were all very different from each other (and one, Moyes, being completely wrong), the roughshod state of our academy, and ridiculous situations like United having no full-time scouts, something that is hard to imagine for a club of our size. All of this only feeds my opinion that the Glazers don't care about the footballing side of United at all, just how much money can be made from it, sort of like a tit that you keep sucking until it's empty.
I'm still not going to welcome an ownership change just for the sake of it because it's entirely possible that you can get worse than them, as much as I can't stand them. Look around at clubs like Swansea and how poorly run they are. I don't think I'd want Real Madrid's clown show, either, despite what success they've had.
I'm still not going to welcome an ownership change just for the sake of it because it's entirely possible that you can get worse than them, as much as I can't stand them. Look around at clubs like Swansea and how poorly run they are. I don't think I'd want Real Madrid's clown show, either, despite what success they've had.
I get the reservations about how they bought the club but it was always inevitable at some point given that we were a public, floated company. People who proudly framed and mounted their shareholders certificate were never really in a position to complain when someone took the club over.
The Glazers:-
Bought the club with our money - David Gill actually putting 10k into fighting the takeover due to the huge amount of leveraged debt.
Replaced Ronaldo with Valencia (when we could have insisted on Arjen Robben in return)
Michael Owen - essentially replaced Carlos Tevez etc etc.
The crucial period when assessing them is 2008-2011, minimal investment and a real feeling that ,were it not for the Ronaldo money, we were on our uppers. Fergie, allegedly, receiving a kick back from any unspent transfer funds etc (dont ask for links etc, its a rumour nothing more). Its my belief that were it not for selling Ronaldo, that we would have been "up against it" in the same way the dippers were at the time with H+G.
Yes we bought some big names, but for that period of 8-11 we didnt shop at Harrods, we shopped at Lidl.
The last 4 years we have been run by Ed Woodward, thankfully.
Bought the club with our money - David Gill actually putting 10k into fighting the takeover due to the huge amount of leveraged debt.
Replaced Ronaldo with Valencia (when we could have insisted on Arjen Robben in return)
Michael Owen - essentially replaced Carlos Tevez etc etc.
The crucial period when assessing them is 2008-2011, minimal investment and a real feeling that ,were it not for the Ronaldo money, we were on our uppers. Fergie, allegedly, receiving a kick back from any unspent transfer funds etc (dont ask for links etc, its a rumour nothing more). Its my belief that were it not for selling Ronaldo, that we would have been "up against it" in the same way the dippers were at the time with H+G.
Yes we bought some big names, but for that period of 8-11 we didnt shop at Harrods, we shopped at Lidl.
The last 4 years we have been run by Ed Woodward, thankfully.
No it's completely made up is what it is. People were/are so desperate to be proved right about the Glazers that they come up with a conspiracy theory designed to take a dump on the man who puled the club up by its bootstraps in the 80s and made it what it is. All based on nothing but a churlish reluctance to accept that their 'sky is fallen down' narrative has demonstrably proven to be utter bunkum.
Worryingly you sometimes get the sense that the naysayers are almost disappointed not to be proved right. As if the club collapsing under the weight of the debt, going into administration and disappearing entirely would be preferable to their ego having to accept the fact that virtually nothing of what was spoon-fed to us during those years by supposed representatives of the fans, was true.
Last edited:
This basically. A good owner would have lined up the right replacement for SAF and bought loads of good players.
Last time I checked the debt was about £350m, which is insignificant for a business the size of Manchester United. With interest rates so low and profits soaring towards £200m yearly, debt repayments have little impact on our spending.
We should all be very concerned about a possible takeover though. There's no reason new owners couldn't do what the Glazers did and finance their purchase of United through borrowing, but this time the club could be saddled with a £2B debt instead of £700m.
We should all be very concerned about a possible takeover though. There's no reason new owners couldn't do what the Glazers did and finance their purchase of United through borrowing, but this time the club could be saddled with a £2B debt instead of £700m.
And who would the 'right replacement' and 'loads of good players' have been? Hind sight is always 20-20. Be thankful we have owners that don't meddle in every bit of Club business, hire people to do just that, and for the most part stay in the back ground.
To me who owns the club is irrelevant. Players, Manager and Chief Exec are whats important in that order. The Glazers leave Ed to run the club and back him with money when ever he wants to buy a player. I can't see a problem, with that. The owners are fine where they are Ed, Jose and the players time will tell.
So a good owner would have told the manager(s) who to buy?
Klopp and Hazard for starters
No just paid for them.
Don't really see any potential new owners on the horizon.
Emeratie zillionaires have already got Abu Dhabi Athletic...Qatari zillionaires have already got Al-Psg....Russian zillionaires have already got Chelski....American zillionaires have already got The Arse....
Which leaves only Chinese zillionaires ( not so many of them, so no chance ) or Saudi zillionaires ( plenty of them, but not much onto football ) who could replace the Glazers, so I reckon it ain't going to happen any time soon.
And which must be quite a worry for the Glazers - how could they cash in even if they wanted to.....
Emeratie zillionaires have already got Abu Dhabi Athletic...Qatari zillionaires have already got Al-Psg....Russian zillionaires have already got Chelski....American zillionaires have already got The Arse....
Which leaves only Chinese zillionaires ( not so many of them, so no chance ) or Saudi zillionaires ( plenty of them, but not much onto football ) who could replace the Glazers, so I reckon it ain't going to happen any time soon.
And which must be quite a worry for the Glazers - how could they cash in even if they wanted to.....
Stock market. They made a mint out of floating a small % of our shares the controlling shares would be worth a small fortune.
No owner will buy a club 700m and buy players. Also the Glazers aren't rich enough to do that, the people who are actually rich enough to do that are also smart enough to not do it.
Agreed....But which would be even worse for us than the first few years under the Glazers through having to make dividend payments to ordinary shareholders or interest payments to fixed rate bondholders.
I know that is why I want the Glazers to continue. I'm not saying that it's a good answer, (I remember life as a PLC) but I think it's the way they'd go if they did want to sell.
I'm surprised people remember the PLC that fondly to be honest in terms of spending given the often public battles Fergie had with them over their reluctance to spend or be flexible with the wage cap in the 90s that he felt limited our ability to compete in Europe, right through to the early 2000s where right after in response to us winning the third consecutive title in 2001, the board rewarded the manager by telling him he had to sell players before they'd think about signing any more players.
Never understood why people try to hold this period up as some kind of spending utopia. The purse strings may have loosened a bit towards the end but I'll never get the way people whitewash the virtual pitch-battles Ferguson had with the PLC structure for years to get them to back him in the market
Never understood why people try to hold this period up as some kind of spending utopia. The purse strings may have loosened a bit towards the end but I'll never get the way people whitewash the virtual pitch-battles Ferguson had with the PLC structure for years to get them to back him in the market
Sorry but where did I even mention the PLC?
Thread is about if the Glazers sell, not what happened when the PLC was subject to a hostile takeover. Stay on track....
I wasn't too pleased to see us taken over by them initially but in hindsight they've not been the worst owners. They've invested heavily in the team and kept away from footballing matters. I'm relatively happy with what they are doing and long may it continue.
Right. Out of all the owners of football club in the world, who do you rate better than the glazer? Do enlighten me
What money they take out?
The debt? We're close to debt free nowdays, we bought pogba for a record fee.
Besides they dont take divident during the debt takeover. They service the debt with their divident technically.
I can't see what new owners can offer us. Money isn't a limiting factor for the club, we can and do spend as much as anyone in transfer market.
And with the way they handle the off pitch business, we will continue to be one of the richest clubs around (including those that are financially doped).
And with the way they handle the off pitch business, we will continue to be one of the richest clubs around (including those that are financially doped).
The good thing about glazer is that they can feck off anytime and we're pretty much intact.
Can't say the same with roman, when he fecks off chelsea will be in grave danger.
Any other cash injecting sugar daddies would also pose the same problem, when they pull out the clubs can't sustain the wage bill
Can't say the same with roman, when he fecks off chelsea will be in grave danger.
Any other cash injecting sugar daddies would also pose the same problem, when they pull out the clubs can't sustain the wage bill
The two bolded bits kind of contradict... You say it's irrelevant who owns the club but then give credit to Glazers for being hands-off and backing Woodward.
I'd say who owns the club is relevant exactly for that reason; we could have owners who interfere with footballing matters and don't open the wallet for necessary purchases.
Let's not forget "the Beckham Dividend", his transfer saw profits rise up to £44m which added £5m to the £9m dividend of the previous year.
30% of out profits going to dividends every year while shareholders veto signings and moan about wage structure?
We are a well run club. Our financial problems due to not qualifying for CL are going to prove far bigger than paying interest on the said debt. We are self sustaining in terms of producing revenue and spending it on investing on the squad.
I've personally never heard about glazers interfering in functioning of the club. Could we be financially better? Sure. Would new owners have made any difference to our last 3 league finishes? I don't think so.
So for me, Glazers are doing okay but if we were to change owners I'd only want someone similar to glazers or someone who is willing to invest their own money to take us even another level up, which just seems unlikely.
I've personally never heard about glazers interfering in functioning of the club. Could we be financially better? Sure. Would new owners have made any difference to our last 3 league finishes? I don't think so.
So for me, Glazers are doing okay but if we were to change owners I'd only want someone similar to glazers or someone who is willing to invest their own money to take us even another level up, which just seems unlikely.
What?
100M profit means 50M tax Netting 50M
20 M debt repayment meant no profit = no tax.
Do the math