If the Glazers put the club up for sale...

[GBBQ]

The money simply wasn't there as a huge % of the clubs revenues was spent on servicing the debt. Fergie was towing the line. Fergie had never been afraid to go out and spend big when he access to it.

SAF has gone on record multiple times to say he was never denied money. We had big debt debt when we bought the likes of Carrick and Berbatov. We had the Ronaldo money sitting as cash in the bank account. Within 7/8 months of SAF leaving we had spent £68 million on 2 players for the midfield. Until I hear otherwise I'll believe that the lack of investment was down to SAF.

Not all of the Glazer siblings share the same opinion, another share issue as we've seen previously keeps them happy. They take £2.5m each from the year in dividends, not exactly the greatest return is it? Its less than 1% each on what their individual share is probably worth.

Jesus how much do you earn? They take £2.5 million each in dividends on an asset that keeps growing in value.

 

[Jaxdan]

The money simply wasn't there as a huge % of the clubs revenues was spent on servicing the debt. Fergie was towing the line. Fergie had never been afraid to go out and spend big when he access to it.

Not all of the Glazer siblings share the same opinion, another share issue as we've seen previously keeps them happy. They take £2.5m each from the year in dividends, not exactly the greatest return is it? Its less than 1% each on what their individual share is probably worth.

They also own an NFL team worth now about 1 Billion Dollars, a team they bought for about $195 Million in 1995. They aren't exactly searching the couch cushions for change to eat.

 

[The_Order]

The Trump factor.

Looks and acts a cnut, but is a great businessman.

Go do some research.

 

[DanClancy]

Those poor souls who believe everything Fergie said, plenty of times down the years he went back on his word.

If was a Glazer sibling I wouldn't sell either but there are 6 of them and who knows whats the circumstances surrounding them are.

 

[Oyibo]

Go do some research.

So it was a generalisation to make a point, mardyarse.

Successful then.

 

[Stactix]

I think they've turned out to be very good owners. If they were to sell, what sort of owner would replace them?

An owner that would change the name of the stadium / Club to increase income?
An owner that would sack a whack any manager that puts a single foot wrong?
An owner that will do anything to Maximise profit and is a tight fecker when it comes to buying players.
A fan owner that doesn't give the manager space and wants to design the team his way, despite being completely and utterly clueless about football. Gets rid of the players he doesn't like, forces manager to play the players he likes etcetc.

So I'd rather they didn't sell as there are certainly worse owners out there.
As long as they don't do any of the above, I'm more than happy with them!

 

[DanClancy]

Just shows the ignorance amongst our support that thinks the Glazers have been very good owners; They've been competent owners.

 

[Champagne Football]

The way they've increased revenues has been nothing short of brilliant. Without that big spike in revenues that they brought then the club may not have survived 3 years of woeful transfers and managers. They've turned out to be much better than anyone expected although obviously they are still far from ideal. But when you look at what's happened at Chelsea with a manager getting fired every 5 mins or Arsenal where they are only investing enough to aim for 3rd or 4th place every season then you'd have to think we haven't had it nearly as bad as we all expected.

 

[Mr Anderson]

Better the devil you know

 

[RamblingRebel]

The simple fact is that the sport has become an industry these days and quite a large one at that. The owners are business people, and they are there to make profit. Which they have been doing and all the while keeping the team competative.

Its understandable fans get pissed that a small portion of funds goes into the Glaziers pockets, and it baffles me how they 'bought' the club without stumping up the brass...but gotta admit, as a business they have been fantastic for the club.

The Club is in a very good position business wise, they aint going nowhere.

 

[wolvored]

The money simply wasn't there as a huge % of the clubs revenues was spent on servicing the debt. Fergie was towing the line. Fergie had never been afraid to go out and spend big when he access to it.

Not all of the Glazer siblings share the same opinion, another share issue as we've seen previously keeps them happy. They take £2.5m each from the year in dividends, not exactly the greatest return is it? Its less than 1% each on what their individual share is probably worth.

In reality they could take out everything we earn each year as they own it, so I suppose we have to be grateful they know enough about football now to realise we need to spend heavily on players, and extend and make better the youth and scouting setup. If they do go ahead and expand and modernise the ground then that would be the icing on the cake. I was a member of the green and gold brigade so am slowly warming to them over the seasons.

 

[wolvored]

Those poor souls who believe everything Fergie said, plenty of times down the years he went back on his word.

If was a Glazer sibling I wouldn't sell either but there are 6 of them and who knows whats the circumstances surrounding them are.

It was reported a few seasons ago 2-3 maybe that 3 of them wanted to sell but Joel (who reckoned he was a Utd fan before they bought in) and the other 2 brothers that come with him when they do come talked the other 3 down.

 

[stevoc]

But there never has been5-10 years of that in the first place let alone 'another 5-10 years'

One throw away comment by Fergie constantly misrepresented by people who try and pretend we haven't spent money like a perv at a strip club for the last 7 years.

Come one mate you don't really believe that do you?

The last 3 years we've spent yes but not 7 years. In 2009 and 2010 we only spent £20m each summer on Valencia, Obertan, Diouf, Hernandez, Bebe and Smalling. That was more Granny in a thrift shop than Perv in a strip club.

When the Glazers took over the belt was tightened, even more so around 2009-2010. We never spent more than £30m on a player between 05-13 and even then we only spent that once on Berbatov. We reached that level of spending in 2001 with Veron. Yet we went from signing a £30m player most summers (Veron/ferdinand/Rooney) to never spending more than £10-16m on new signings (bar Berba).

Now i don't blame that entirely on the Glazers some of it was probably Ferguson choosing to be more frugal at times. But he did that because over those 8 years the club were in a few tight spots with servicing debts. He had no problems spending huge amounts and breaking transfer records every other year under the PLC but that all changed under the Glazers. So obviously there were financial constraints.

We've spent a shit load since Ferguson retired granted but the club has been in much stronger financial shape the last few years with record sponsorship deals being agreed and the increase in TV money.

 

[DanClancy]

In reality they could take out everything we earn each year as they own it, so I suppose we have to be grateful they know enough about football now to realise we need to spend heavily on players, and extend and make better the youth and scouting setup. If they do go ahead and expand and modernise the ground then that would be the icing on the cake. I was a member of the green and gold brigade so am slowly warming to them over the seasons.

Where to start with this, there's no point as you're either on a wum or you won't understand it.

 

[wolvored]

Where to start with this, there's no point as you're either on a wum or you won't understand it.

What you on about? I understand more than you obviously.

 

[DanClancy]

Come one mate you don't really believe that do you?

The last 3 years we've spent yes but not 7 years. In 2009 and 2010 we only spent £20m each summer on Valencia, Obertan, Diouf, Hernandez, Bebe and Smalling. That was more Granny in a thrift shop than Perv in a strip club.

When the Glazers took over the belt was tightened, even more so around 2009-2010. We never spent more than £30m on a player between 05-13 and even then we only spent that once on Berbatov. We reached that level of spending in 2001 with Veron. Yet we went from signing a £30m player most summers (Veron/ferdinand/Rooney) to never spending more than £10-16m on new signings (bar Berba).

Now i don't blame that entirely on the Glazers some of it was probably Ferguson choosing to be more frugal at times. But he did that because over those 8 years the club were in a few tight spots with servicing debts. He had no problems spending huge amounts and breaking transfer records every other year under the PLC but that all changed under the Glazers. So obviously there were financial constraints.

We've spent a shit load since Ferguson retired granted but the club has been in much stronger financial shape the last few years with record sponsorship deals being agreed and the increase in TV money.

I agree apart from you're bit on Fergie been frugal, from day one he was prepared to spent big and go out and break transfer records, as soon as the Glazers arrived that stopped, its no coincidence as the money wasn't there. Its clear to see from the accounts given what was been spent on servicing the debt that there was limited funds for Fergie during those years. Think it worked out he was break even on transfers from about 2005 to 2011, thats some going given the success we had, unfortunately we've suffered the knock on affect from this in the 3 years since his retirement.

 

[stevoc]

I agree apart from you're bit on Fergie been frugal, from day one he was prepared to spent big and go out and break transfer records, as soon as the Glazers arrived that stopped, its no coincidence as the money wasn't there. Its clear to see from the accounts given what was been spent on servicing the debt that there was limited funds for Fergie during those years. Think it worked out he was break even on transfers from about 2005 to 2011, thats some going given the success we had, unfortunately we've suffered the knock on affect from this in the 3 years since his retirement.

I'm not saying that was definitely the case mate, i was just speculating that maybe Ferguson was being a bit frugal towards the end. I mean he never spent more than £50m in a summer and once he retired we started spending £150m (apparently thats what Moyes had to spend in 2013) so who knows.

His net spend over that period is amazing considering his success. And yes i agree we have suffered recently because the lack of investment in the first team for a few years prior to Ferguson's retirement.

The likes of Chelsea and City were regularly spending £100-150m in a single window from 2003 onwards yet we didn't reach that level until 2014. Makes you wonder what Ferguson could have achieved with that type of money.

 

[DanClancy]

I'm not saying that was definitely the case mate, i was just speculating that maybe Ferguson was being a bit frugal towards the end. I mean he never spent more than £50m in a summer and once he retired we started spending £150m (apparently thats what Moyes had to spend in 2013) so who knows.

His net spend over that period is amazing considering his success. And yes i agree we have suffered recently because the lack of investment in the first team for a few years prior to Ferguson's retirement.

The likes of Chelsea and City were regularly spending £100-150m in a single window from 2003 onwards yet we didn't reach that level until 2014. Makes you wonder what Ferguson could have achieved with that type of money.

United's revenue increased by nearly £70m the season Moyes was here. and the clubs net finance costs reduced greatly too. United spent about £370m on finance costs in the previous 5 years on a lot smaller turnover so Fergie's hands were tied and money simply wasn't available whilst the season he retired the club only spent £27m on finance costs, a huge reduction. In one season United nearly spent 40% of the clubs turnover on finance costs in comparison to the 4-5% it is now.

 

[stevoc]

United's revenue increased by nearly £70m the season Moyes was here. and the clubs net finance costs reduced greatly too. United spent about £370m on finance costs in the previous 5 years on a lot smaller turnover so Fergie's hands were tied and money simply wasn't available whilst the season he retired the club only spent £27m on finance costs, a huge reduction. In one season United nearly spent 40% of the clubs turnover on finance costs in comparison to the 4-5% it is now.

Fair enough then mate most likely it was just all down to a lack of funds then. I dread to think where we would have been during that period without Ferguson.

 

[DanClancy]

Fair enough then mate most likely it was just all down to a lack of funds then. I dread to think where we would have been during that period without Ferguson.

Agreed, to win 5 championships and reach 3 CL finals in that period was a phenomenal achievement given he was restricted. If he was backed in the transfer market i'm convinced we'd have won another CL, probably in 2010 and i doubt we'd have had such a poor time of it the last 3 years.

 

[Larseno]

I'd be very displeased. I think the glazers have been brilliant for the club in the recent years. The massive income is largely due to them and they don't get involved in the football side of the club. At the moment they're perfect owners.

Im no expert in economics and I dont claim to have any answers. But I have some believes. I believe that United as a brand would grow even if Glazer was not the owners. Seemed like football had a lot of untapped potential something that a lot of clubs has taken advantage of. I also think that we have gotten a lot for free due to our great success in the 90's.

The question is, would United not have gotten the huge increase in income if not for Glazer? I think we give them to much credit. They benefited a lot from having SAF as manager who could compete with the likes of Chelsea and City not spending nearly as much as them. This gave them the chance to pay down on a loan that they are still paying on today. I know every club have loans but how much income have United lost since Glazer took over because of this loan?

Like I said, I know little of the economy in this world, but to me it seems like from where I stand that some people are giving them way to much credit.

 

[JohnnyKills]

The question is, would United not have gotten the huge increase in income if not for Glazer? I think we give them to much credit.

They worked out what noone else has been able to work out: how to 'sweat the brand' and maximise its earning potential.

No one company was able to pay what the United brand was really worth. So they sliced it and diced it, by country and by industry, so you've got dozens of companies each paying for a small slice of the brand.

It sounds like a simple idea but no football club had come up with it before them, so they definitely deserve credit.

I hated them back in the 2009-11 period and believe their frugality during that time has been a major contributor to our recent slump. But their commercial acumen will enable us to compete with the lottery winners long-term without a sugar daddy of our own, so perhaps we should be thankful.

 

[Larseno]

They worked out what noone else has been able to work out: how to 'sweat the brand' and maximise its earning potential.

No one company was able to pay what the United brand was really worth. So they sliced it and diced it, by country and by industry, so you've got dozens of companies each paying for a small slice of the brand.

It sounds like a simple idea but no football club had come up with it before them, so they definitely deserve credit.

I hated them back in the 2009-11 period and believe their frugality during that time has been a major contributor to our recent slump. But their commercial acumen will enable us to compete with the lottery winners long-term without a sugar daddy of our own, so perhaps we should be thankful.

You may be right. But I think United commercially was one of the strongest in the business even before Glazer. They have def done some right things. But how long before the other big clubs catch up to us? How big did we really benefit from this compared to oppositions? We been big commercially for a long time. And I point this out again. What if SAF couldnt keep up the fight with the other big clubs? They have used a lot of United money to pay this loan down. They where lucky to have the worlds greatest manager. I think no one could have done what SAF did with the squad he had.

BTW, I dont claim this to be facts. I just have some doubts about how much credit to give them. No doubt they have United best interest in mind. But they also have them self in mind. They want to benefit from this too and it means taking a lot of money out of the club. So lets say United would have earned maybe 20% more under Glazer then with another owner. How much of this goes to shareholders/paying down dept they put on us?

This is question I would have liked to have answers too. Longterm I think we would benefit from this, but the lack of success and need to buy BIG stars come from lack of rebuilding before SAF retired. Mou have to rebuild squad.