I think you're missing the point.
I'm not debating what an owner of a football club can or can't do with that football club. I'm debating whether the Glazers have been good owners for Manchester United. I am looking at this purely from a Manchester United perspective.
We've certainly had our ups and downs with them alright, can't say otherwise. When we were successful under Fergie folks didn't mind too much. The gravy train rolled on.
You seem to imply that I am surprised that the Glazers are taking out dividends or that the Glazers are looking for a return on 'their investment'. I'm not. As owners of the club they are free to do as they please. If they want they could pocket all the profits each and every summer, however this still doesn't mean it is good for the club given the current debt levels.
Agreed and folks often forget this and think we'll get some wonderful owner who will put themselves on the street for us.
The fact remains that the Glazer debt has so far cost the club £1.1 billion and that debt still stands at £487 million. The debt is not going away and will have to be paid off one day. The longer we sit on the debt the more the debt is going to cost the club as interest builds up. With that in mind, to fully clear the debt, it will probably cost the club somewhere between £1.6 billion to £2 billion - an absolute ridiculous amount of dead money. We might as well of just thrown £2 billion into the Manchester Ship Canal!
Well this is the problem many of our supporters don't understand. If new owners are to be found, if they leverage the buy out it could increase the debt already on the club. If the club is bought out in one lump sum would funds also then be available immediately to the manager? You'll be hard pressed to find an owner willing to part with $4b for the buyout and then quickly lump hundreds of millions investing in the team as well.
So the likelihood is an increase in debt.
An important question to ask is whether it has been worthwhile for the club to have the Glazers as owners given the costs associated with their ownership? What have the Glazers brought to the table that other owners couldn't? Business intelligence? Commercial acumen? Yes, the value of the club has increased, as has the club revenues, but this would of happened with or without the Glazers! United were already the most valuable football club with the biggest revenues way before the Glazers arrived. Every club in the Premier League has seen their revenues/club value increase due to sponsorship inflation and the rise in TV money. United are not some unique case.
That's a half truth your posting here. Whilst we were still the most marketable and profitable, Woodward has put Gills efforts at generating revenue to shame. So you are wrong to say this would of happened with or without the Glazers. Woodward is the golden boy for the Glazer family and his work on the business side is nothing short of mind boggling in reality.
His ability to find new revenue streams has helped in turn to improve the training facilities, fund youth set ups and of course the aforementioned huge transfer fees and ever increasing wage bill at the club. Without Woodward doing this none of the above would of been possible to do all at once as we have done.
So again, what have the Glazers provided to the club? Yes, we won some trophies during the SAF years of their ownership. However our success was despite the Glazers not because of them - I give SAF full credit for our success during those years. The Glazer debt made it incredibly hard for us to compete at the highest level during Fergie's last few years especially against clubs who had owners pumping money into that club.
Anyone remember the summer of 2009 when we lost Ronaldo and Tevez? Rather than reinvest the world record Ronaldo fee, that large sum was used to pay the ridiculously large debt repayments at the time. How brilliant! We lose the best player in the world and a world class player like Tevez, and end up with Valencia, Owen and Obertan! What about the days of 'no value in the transfer market?' - this Glazer approach resulted in us losing out on Hazard because we wouldn't pay £5 million to his agent!
Some truth here but also mitigating factors to consider also.
The Glazers took majority ownership in May 05, at that point Ferguson had a very strong group of players, young players in fact that could dominate domestically and in Europe for years to come. If you go back to the Glazer family original investment in 03, it was a few months after Ferguson broke a record on Rio at the time. From there he added Ronaldo for a reasonable fee for a teen of approx 18-19m? Rooney quickly followed for another record fee for a teenager. Our scouting found us 2 absolute gems in Vidic & Evra then and in the following 2 years we added 3 more additions in Carrick, Nani & Anderson who were again not exactly cheap. Berbatov also followed for a considerable lump some of approx 34m I think? RVP was a record for a 29yo at the time as well and I recall there being a lot of reservations about his fee vs injuries and longevity.
Truth is, Ferguson had a very good squad through those early years of the Glazer ownership and we were either winning or challenging for league titles consistently and performed better each year in the Champions league also, why was there a need for huge investment at this point?
You pin pointed the 09 transfer market and I do agree that was some woeful business. Was it all on the Glazer family? Not a chance.
What about Fergusons refusal to deal with certain agents? Raiola the obvious one, it cost us Pogba who was at the club already. We missed out on Hazard, Kompany and Aguero to name but a few. It's no coincidence that once Fergie retired did the club start becoming more involved with agents and trying to sign top quality players.
I also believe Ferguson's ability to judge a player was seriously on the wane as well. Remember his judgement of Phil Jones? He stated he could be better than Duncan Edwards! Incredible statement really! He opted for square pegs in round holes quite often in those latter years when there was no need, Pogba the obvious example where he was left on a bench whilst he opted for a midfield of Neville and Fabio I think it was vs Blackburn!
You also mention that all club owners are only there for the money. I agree with you to an extent. However, give me an example in the world of football where an owner of a football club has taken so much money out of that club like the Glazers and placed so much debt on that club? The reality is that the Glazers were never rich enough to buy United outright which is why they are getting the club to pay for their own takeover.
In my opinion, a good owner can chase a return on their investment and at the same time put the long term interests of the club first. When John W Henry purchased Liverpool he bought the club with his own money, and cleared the outstanding debt in the process. Since then, Liverpool have expanded/modernised Anfield and are in the process of completely upgrading their training ground. This is a proper long term investment which will benefit Liverpool even when Henry is no longer at that club. This is just one example of many in the Premier League where the owners have put that club first. Unlike the Glazers.
Leeds is the obvious answer isn't it?
You're right they didn't have the funds, but below you then mention John W Henry. Thing is, Henry got Liverpool on the cheap after Hicks & Gillett made a loss on the sale and I think it cost less than 300m for ownership. United on the other hand were already close to $1b to buy out in 2005 even! The Glazers paid more than Double what Henry did 5 years earlier (factoring in inflation).
Yes they've used the club to leverage their ownership but that's common in business practices and the thing is as mentioned, we won't find owners who will buy us out in a lump sum, clearing the debt AND... then pumping money into the club for youth, facilities, transfers and wages all at once due to the clubs valuation now. It'd take a top 10 richest person in the world type to now take ownership of United and meet all those requests you'd imagine.
You also state that the Glazers have put well over £1 billion into the club. Have they really? If by investing, you mean letting the club spend it's own profits, then fair enough.
Well you agreed above that they can take the profits for themselves if they so wish. They don't have to put this money back into the club do they? They have though and they've invested in facilities, youth, transfers and wage bill
How has this money been invested? Have we invested this money wisely? Half has probably gone on the worthless debt and half on transfers/wages. When we buy a player, it is normally for commercial rather than sporting reasons. The Glazers will love Pogba (even when failing on the pitch) because he attracts sponsors/sell shirts which ultimately benefits them as the value of their asset will increase. However, is this a solid investment which will guarantee returns over the long term for the club?
We've invested in plenty of players that don't fit this "Galactico" tag like Bailly? Lindelof? Lukaku? Matic? Mata? These are not anything close to Galacticos.
The reality is Ferguson papered over a lot of cracks in those latter years (09-13 in particular). He let the team rot and fall apart and his refusal to deal with agents hurt the club. His and Gills choice of successor was a farce and Gill ran the minute his golden ticket expired and how exactly did he help with the transition of the club post Fergie? It's amazing the amount of abuse for Woodward / Glazers but you oft read Gill is a genius and bring him back. I reckon Gill largely got lucky with Ferguson and coasted by. No coincidence he tucked tail an ran when Fergie did is it? He still takes his fair share of dividends too though, yet no one complains either. As mentioned above, Woodward is making a joke out of him on the business side of things.
Have the Glazers invested heavily in infrastructure? They haven't spent a penny on Old Trafford since the takeover apart from painting the tunnel walls red! They even got Kohler to fund the new dressing rooms! The only money spent on infrastructure was a £15 million expansion of the Aon Training Ground Complex. Hardly a massive investment considering Leicester City are about to spend £100 million on a new training ground.
Yes they have, remember LVG talking about the huge upgrades he asked for on the training ground? Camera's and all sorts put in and tonnes of new equipment to help with injuries. Jose also said the training facilities were upgraded during his stint a few months after his arrival. They've also heavily invested in the youth set up as well in recent years, hence the huge up turn in performances / results for the youth team last year and this.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/jose-mourinho-reveals-extensive-changes-10055590
Old Trafford is large but very dated. It needs a massive overhaul and probably a £500 million investment. Are the Glazers going to fund this?
As for OT, I've genuinely no idea. As you state its a huge project that is extremely costly even for a club as profitable as ours. It's no small task to do this, however the Glazer family own land around OT and it seems its an option?
It does look dated in parts alright, but its hardly falling apart and one of the largest stadiums still in the country. I doubt they expected the post Ferguson era would be so costly, nearly 1b in transfers alone and now an annual wage bill of some 300m!
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-uniteds-owners-been-buying-11520814
They are not perfect by any means but a club of this size and the mismanagement from so many avenues has hurt the club every which was the last 10 years approximately. Everyone has their part in the blame from Ferguson, Gill, Woodward and the Glazers to all the managers.
All we can hope is that the penny has now dropped and these next 6 months are vital in that we get in a DoF, lower the wage bill by offloading a lot of unnecessary players and build back our identity as a team and plan for years ahead.
