Rewarding mediocrity - Why do the Glazers do it?

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
56,361
The answer to that is very simple. Brand names takes time to build but once its built they become a gold mine in terms of attracting sponsorships and plastic fans. Real Madrid were able to pay Beckham's and Ronaldo's entire fee in few months because their brand name was so huge that they could make a profit out of them in record time. The likes of Pogba, Mother Theresa and Beans generate a lot of revenue for Manchester United. They certainly generate more then the typical excellent but bland players such as Carrick, Van De Beek or Scholes.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
52,678
Location
France
That’s just patently false.

Going to market is always a much more expensive option than renewing or hiring internally or what have you. It’d be the same in football.
It's not though. We are talking about poor performers, selling them early and replacing them adequately can lead to one or both outcomes, you either get a cheaper player or you get a better performing player. The first option is literally cheaper while the second option is meant to elevate your level and allow you to bring more money, typically with higher prize money.

Extending underperformers or even sticking with them too long is the most expensive option and it's also the option that is guaranteed to cost you more than it should.


The answer to that is very simple. Brand names takes time to build but once its built they become a gold mine in terms of attracting sponsorships and plastic fans. Real Madrid were able to pay Beckham's and Ronaldo's entire fee in few months because their brand name was so huge that they could make a profit out of them in record time. The likes of Pogba, Mother Theresa and Beans generate a lot of revenue for Manchester United. They certainly generate more then the typical excellent but bland players such as Carrick, Van De Beek or Scholes.
:lol:
 
Last edited:

Raees

Legal Guardian of the Football forums
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
29,081
That’s just patently false.

Going to market is always a much more expensive option than renewing or hiring internally or what have you. It’d be the same in football.
I don’t buy this and not sure why so many United fans have brought into this way of thinking.

Clubs like Red Bull have sold and brought players like mad as have likes of Dortmund and the clubs have become more profitable. As long as your buying well and selling at the right time and results on pitch pick up - you’re going to make way more money and return on your investment than spending enormous amounts on non performing assets.
 

thegregster

Harbinger of new information
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
11,973
Malcolm Glazer was a brilliant businessman. A self made man.

His children aren't.
 

Schmiznurf

Caf Representative in Mafia Championship
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
10,774
Location
The Lazy Craig Show
But if it is at the expense of your business being maximised and ultimately becoming even more profitable - why do it?

Fair enough if you tried that approach in the beginning but if it is not working you surely have to adapt? Furthermore we seem to be losing a lot of transfer value on assets by holding on to them long after their resale value has gone.
Because they're not smart enough to look at how it will affect the bottom line in regards to football. If they were true football men they'd see the performances as a detriment to the profits of the club. They think the club will be profitable no matter what and that because we're still the biggest and most supported team in the world we will always make enough money for them to stay rich. but if they genuinely looked at all of it as a whole, they would see that having the best team and winning as much as possible will lead to more fans, more income, more profit. But they won't, because the only football they know about is hand egg.
 

#07

makes new threads with tweets in the OP
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
20,470
The simple answer, I feel, is that the Glazers don't care about what happens at Man Utd provided their dividends get paid.

I think, for the most part, they're not paying much attention to what happens at the club. It feels like they basically allow for an envelope in which spending can happen e.g., no investment in the stadium or Carrington for a decade, while the squad becomes bloated. Then they let the executive team get on with it with no questions asked unless the dividend payments are under threat or there's a significant impact on commercial revenue.

As other posters have said, these kids didn't buy the club their Dad did. It was their Dad who was the real businessman. They just inherited the stuff their Dad left behind. Its no surprise United is so badly run.

Honestly, I thought what we'd see from the Glazers was an attempt to squeeze squad costs over time. I thought they'd be keen to be as cheap as possible. But their approach has been far more disinterested. They don't seem to care how big the wage bill gets as long as the dividend gets paid. They're like 18th century landowners who couldn't give a cak how their estate manager is running the business, as long as the expected amount of rent turns up. Even if they could be earning more money with more careful stewardship.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
56,361
It's not though. We are talking about poor performers, selling them early and replacing them adequately can lead to one or both outcomes, you either get a cheaper player or you get a better performing player. The first option is literally cheaper while the second option is meant to elevate your level and allow you to bring more money, typically with higher prize money.

Extending underperformers or even sticking with them too long is the most expensive option and it's also the option that is guaranteed to cost you more than it should.



:lol:
VDB is a good player
 

Lord of Blackhaven

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
19
Because a lot of rich people are very stupid. They inherited Utd and it's making them a profit. Beyond that they couldn't care less.
 

Eckers99

Michael Corleone says hello
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
5,459
This is where the owners' business interests overtake effectively running a football club. They're loath to let an asset disappear off the books, even if it's only an asset on paper and is no longer of value from a football perspective.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
52,678
Location
France
VDB is a good player
He could be but he hasn't shown any of it for United and he has no business being used as an example let alone being packaged with Carrick and Scholes.
 

glazed

Eats diamonds to beat thermodynamics
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
4,796
The connection between winning stuff and making money isn't that strong and therefore they aren't that bothered beyond a certain point. That threshold is qualification for the Champions League.
 

jasT1981

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 2, 2014
Messages
599
Location
Northern Ireland
Because it makes them money.

Getting those players to stay, even on higher contracts will attract bigger sponsorship/endorsement deals for them. Short term financial loss for long term gain. Money is the bottom line to them. They don't give a damn about football or performances on the pitch. It's the stock market and $$$ they care about. They only act in "the interests of the club" on a footballing level when it looks like it will affect their income.
 

GDaly95

Sexist Pig
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
4,787
Location
Wicklow, Ireland
It stengthens the balance sheet.
 

Relfy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
656
It is all rather odd, as most successful business people would seek out 'best in class' top executives to assume the senior positions of any business they have a controlling stake in. That being said, the old man Malcom was the brains of the operation, and now we are left with his kids in charge, who evidently don't really appear to be up to much. If they gave a solitary feck about the club, then they would involve themselves more, and ensure that they appoint the right people and stop throwing money around where it is not needed - I do not mean reduce investment, but don't renew squad players contracts on £100k + p/w when there is no chance of them ever playing. It would take little else but intent and time.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
56,361
He could be but he hasn't shown any of it for United and he has no business being used as an example let alone being packaged with Carrick and Scholes.
I gave examples of excellent but bland players. That doesn't mean that each player I mentioned is at the same level. Else I wouldnt have mentioned Carrick alongside Scholes either
 

ManchesterManchester

Full Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2021
Messages
206
We spend a maximum. This club spend around 95% of its revenue on Football operations. people really struggle with the simple answer. Most clubs aren't well managed and United is one of them.

Also it's not cheaper, if anything it's more expensive to renew and upgrade contracts then sell players after 3 years and bring players on similar contracts.
The club don’t spend 95% of its revenue on football operations, we spend far far less than that. Debt repayments and dividend payments are at least 80m before you even take into account other expenses. You are literally making up numbers out of thin air to suit your argument.

Also how is it more expensive to renew contracts than buy new players? We are not talking about renewing Mbappe here. The players we are talking about have very little resale value.
 

Abraxas

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
1,604
Because the economics of actually winning aren't that significant to the Glazers. Sure, they would like that extra pot from the CL, the extra PL prize money, the extra kudos that brings commercial potential. But we are already a juggernaut of a money making machine so the allure isn't that strong. Simply put, the difference isn't big enough to have them really concerned.

The way some of these Americans seem to see it is they want steady, solid funds coming in and the competition isn't that important. That was the whole ethos of the breakaway.

So if you've got the option to renew the contract of a man that played a part in bringing access to these revenues, they would see it as a no brainer. All they have to do is commit some future revenue in wages, pay an agent a nominal fee, and thus completely avoid paying huge transfers.

To bring some balance to things they do of course invest some club revenue into transfers. But I think the rewarding of what we see as mediocrity, whether it be players or staff is actually because they don't see our performance as mediocre to them. It's achieving something they have shown they're happy with.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
52,678
Location
France
The club don’t spend 95% of its revenue on football operations, we spend far far less than that. Debt repayments and dividend payments are at least 80m before you even take into account other expenses. You are literally making up numbers out of thin air to suit your argument.

Also how is it more expensive to renew contracts than buy new players? We are not talking about renewing Mbappe here. The players we are talking about have very little resale value.
No the club spends around 95% on operating expenses which doesn't include financial costs. And renewing contracts is more expensive because you only find yourself in that situation when you don't move the players soon enough, if you plan on renewals you still pay underperforming players, you pay them over their market value and because you cemented their lower value by not selling them soon enough you also reduced their appeal.

And it's precisely because we are not talking about Mbappé, Mbappé is typically the kind of player that you would extend because it's cheaper, in terms of value he is at the top of the market. But when you are talking about someone like Henderson, what is cheaper sell him for 15m and bring a backup goalkeeper at back up goalkeeper rate or extend him as if he was a top 5 starting goalkeeper?
 

Adisa

likes to take afvanadva wothowi doubt
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
43,890
Location
Birmingham
It's a penny wise pound foolish approach. At the end of the day, you are forced to sell the chronic underperformers for next to nothing, replace them with expensive players and there is the opportunity cost of missing out on a competitive team and the money that would have brought.
The simple answer is we are awfully run. Efficient clubs make quick decisions on whether a player is worthwhile or not and get rid as soon as possible for the maximum price. We let it linger until there is no market for the player at that wage, then we renew for fear of the player running down the contract.
 
Last edited:

Revaulx

Full Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
3,115
Location
Saddleworth
Its not fantasy, if something likes look a duck, walks like a duck and quacks, then... Our scouting and recruitment is a joke. Woodward had no contacts amognst top clubs and some of the foreign journos used to comment on what a joke he was seen as, dollar signs light up when he appoaches. Just look at the Ole saga, no plans or soundings at all until suddenly he goes. Then lurch to something else. Discussionn on VDB last night on radio, was he properly scouted, given huge difference of Dutch league to premier, or we saw the SPanish clubs supposedly interest and jump in. Just like Ronnie, no way Pep ever signing him. Sanchez, Arsenal fans saying legs are gone and he gives the ball away. We play a King's ransom for him. Why? What about building a squad of committed players. But with Ronnie Utd panick, its a dream for Ed and shirt sales and social media, even Fergie getting involved. After the Moyes debacle we seem not to learn.

The club is a joke and its stems from owners who dont care and a CEO who is utterly inept. Why do people seem so reluctant to accept this? We have a 3 year hunt for a DOF and land on Fletcher. WTF!!!!
Lots to agree with here, but I don’t think it’s quite that simple.

SAF was a brilliant one-man band, and on his retirement didn’t bequeath the club with much in the way of a backroom organisation (scouting etc.). I don’t blame him for this AT ALL; what mattered is that what he had worked for him. The club’s upper management was clearly utterly oblivious to any of this; both Moyes and LvG were appalled by the lack of footballing structure and to the credit of both made their views clear to the club.

The club didn’t merely respond by sitting on their hands though. They recruited the highly regarded (not by @devilish ;)) John Murtough and later (in LvG’s time) beefed up the scouting with Marcel Bout and others.

So it isn’t as if the club hasn’t recognised the need to have qualified and experienced people in place. Why then have our signings been so poor? Have the football people have been overruled by Ed? It looks to me as though they have been.
 

Josep Dowling

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
6,197
It stengthens the balance sheet.
It doesn’t. A player is treated as an intangible asset, amortised over the life of their contract. Once their first contract is amortised, if they renew their contract the balance sheet value is already zero.
 

Bebestation

Full Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
7,744
Well we have also signed players like Sanchez and Pogba on Extreme contracts.

Then players like De gea and the old version of Ronaldo who are on very very high contracts.

Then it kind of intensified the likelihood of average players getting bigger contracts too.
 

flameinthesun

Full Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
100
Location
London
Question for all, do the Glazers make the decisions on whether to offer a new contract? I can see that they would have final say, but I would imagine that would be decided between the manager and Woody (now arnold). Not sure for example if Ole said he doesn't want Mata that the glazers said tough luck we are giving him a new contract anyway.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
56,361
Lots to agree with here, but I don’t think it’s quite that simple.

SAF was a brilliant one-man band, and on his retirement didn’t bequeath the club with much in the way of a backroom organisation (scouting etc.). I don’t blame him for this AT ALL; what mattered is that what he had worked for him. The club’s upper management was clearly utterly oblivious to any of this; both Moyes and LvG were appalled by the lack of footballing structure and to the credit of both made their views clear to the club.

The club didn’t merely respond by sitting on their hands though. They recruited the highly regarded (not by @devilish ;)) John Murtough and later (in LvG’s time) beefed up the scouting with Marcel Bout and others.

So it isn’t as if the club hasn’t recognised the need to have qualified and experienced people in place. Why then have our signings been so poor? Have the football people have been overruled by Ed? It looks to me as though they have been.
Jon Murtough was hired by Moyes in 2013. He was promoted to DOF despite being part of this mess basically from day 1 and had no experience whatsoever in the job. Bout is a remnant of another failed administration ie the LVG one. Not only we kept him despite the horrible signings made at the time but he was promoted to head of global scouting.

That's not a first. Mckenna and Ramsey were given first team roles following experiences with kids. Carrick was immediately promoted to first team coach despite having zero experience in coaching as well. However Fletcher is probably the guy who takes the biscuit. Darren joined the U16 around mid October 2020, he was then promoted to the first team on January 2021 and was promoted again as Technical director in March 2021. 3 promotions in 6 months. The guy is either a football genius at par to Sir Alex or else....

Our structure is weak and we've been underperforming for nearly a decade yet for some strange reason we insist in promoting from within and to people who barely have any experience in their new role. No wonder why all hell went loose when we finally decide to add experience and professionalism to the mix (aka Rangnick)
 

Fluctuation0161

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
6,110
Location
Manchester
With recent rumours of a contract extension for Rashford, Pogba circling the rounds despite the arrival of Rangnick - who was meant to put an end to the bloating of the squad filled with poor performers it does beg the question...

If the Glazers are meant to be penny pinching businessmen who care about their bottom line before everything, why on earth has a culture of rewarding failure been allowed to develop at United?

This is a club which ruthlessly got rid of Hughes, Ince, Kanchelskis in one summer... Stam, Ruud - and yes you can argue it is because Fergie is no longer here but all other elite football clubs seem to have that ability to get rid of players/managers when they don’t perform anymore but we offer new contracts to people who are clearly out of their depth - we even do it with Woodward himself and look at how long it takes us to sack managers.

Forget about tactics, this is the real root cause of all our evils. But I can’t fathom why... anyone who knows more about their modus operandi feel free to fill us in...
Giving contacts to high value assets (players) maintains the financial value of the club.
 

Ali Dia

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
10,648
Location
Souness's Super Sub/George Weahs Talented Cousin
I think what happens is the glazers are more hands on than fans seem to think. There’s too many of them to move forward in an efficient and effective way. Too many bosses. The glazers, the rest of the board, the dof, the ceo, the manager, the players. It’s convoluted. The whole idea is to set a budget and give autonomy to people who know what they are doing. They don’t and they people they hire usually don’t know what they are doing either. It’s just a big mess.

I think the contract thing comes from the top. Easier to keep beating a dead horse than spend money on a new one especially if you’re not ambitious
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
16,986
I gave examples of excellent but bland players. That doesn't mean that each player I mentioned is at the same level. Else I wouldnt have mentioned Carrick alongside Scholes either
Rather misleading example then. If Scholes is "excellent" then DVB sure as hell isn't.

Alternatively, if DVB is "excellent" then Scholes is nothing short of historically great.

There is no possible "excellent" category broad enough to contain both of them.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
16,986
I thought he was a rugby fan.
Yes, that too.

He is supposedly - also - a fan of his hometown football club, though. Or at least that has been claimed (probably a rumour spread by his own PR people to make him seem more like a man of the people).
 

The Urban Goose

Full Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
647
Are the Glazers particularly clever and/or ruthless businessmen (and a woman)?

Their dad was, we know that. But what have his offspring actually done beyond inheriting a shitload of money (and Manchester United)?
I expect the offspring are a Florida hillbilly version of the offspring in Succession.
 

Maticmaker

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
2,899
If the Glazers are meant to be penny pinching businessmen who care about their bottom line before everything, why on earth has a culture of rewarding failure been allowed to develop at United?
Perhaps because as far as running a football club .... its the old song.... "you don't know what you're doing"

Running a 'cash cow' is what they are good at!
 

ManchesterManchester

Full Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2021
Messages
206
I think what happens is the glazers are more hands on than fans seem to think. There’s too many of them to move forward in an efficient and effective way. Too many bosses. The glazers, the rest of the board, the dof, the ceo, the manager, the players. It’s convoluted. The whole idea is to set a budget and give autonomy to people who know what they are doing. They don’t and they people they hire usually don’t know what they are doing either. It’s just a big mess.

I think the contract thing comes from the top. Easier to keep beating a dead horse than spend money on a new one especially if you’re not ambitious
This. I am so fed up of hearing that the Glazers aren’t involved just because they live in America and don’t go to games. People have been working remotely long before COVID, especially in big business like this.

There is no way they are not hiring managers and signing off on these huge transfers/contract extensions. As you said, every decision we make is terrible no matter who is in charge. The only constant staff that never changes is the glazers which means these decisions have to be coming from them.
 

Revaulx

Full Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
3,115
Location
Saddleworth
Jon Murtough was hired by Moyes in 2013. He was promoted to DOF despite being part of this mess basically from day 1 and had no experience whatsoever in the job. Bout is a remnant of another failed administration ie the LVG one. Not only we kept him despite the horrible signings made at the time but he was promoted to head of global scouting.

That's not a first. Mckenna and Ramsey were given first team roles following experiences with kids. Carrick was immediately promoted to first team coach despite having zero experience in coaching as well. However Fletcher is probably the guy who takes the biscuit. Darren joined the U16 around mid October 2020, he was then promoted to the first team on January 2021 and was promoted again as Technical director in March 2021. 3 promotions in 6 months. The guy is either a football genius at par to Sir Alex or else....

Our structure is weak and we've been underperforming for nearly a decade yet for some strange reason we insist in promoting from within and to people who barely have any experience in their new role. No wonder why all hell went loose when we finally decide to add experience and professionalism to the mix (aka Rangnick)
Yeah.

We don't know to what extent the likes of Murtough and Bout are undermined by being ignored or overruled by Woodward and his mates. If that is happening, and I'm convinced that it is, and they are actually good at their jobs, then one would imagine that they'd get far greater job satisfaction by moving on to places where they wouldn't be ignored or overruled. It's all very odd, unless United pay so far in excess of market rates that they'd rather have the shekels than an enjoyable and fulfilling job.

The rapidly evolving role of Fletcher is indeed interesting. I take a more optimistic view than you though; however unsatisfacory the "process" that got him the job in the first place might have been, he's clearly trusted and listened to by Ralf. If Ralf wasn't happy with him, surely he'd ensure that he was moved to a Phelan-style backstage or ceremonial role. So maybe he's a capable guy after all, and is rated as such by an objective professional?
 

ManchesterManchester

Full Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2021
Messages
206
No the club spends around 95% on operating expenses which doesn't include financial costs. And renewing contracts is more expensive because you only find yourself in that situation when you don't move the players soon enough, if you plan on renewals you still pay underperforming players, you pay them over their market value and because you cemented their lower value by not selling them soon enough you also reduced their appeal.

And it's precisely because we are not talking about Mbappé, Mbappé is typically the kind of player that you would extend because it's cheaper, in terms of value he is at the top of the market. But when you are talking about someone like Henderson, what is cheaper sell him for 15m and bring a backup goalkeeper at back up goalkeeper rate or extend him as if he was a top 5 starting goalkeeper?
You said 95% of revenue which is a very different thing. Not sure what you are referring to if I’m honest but understand and agree with your point that a lot of money is wasted.

I really do disagree that renewals are more expensive than signing players. Maybe in the past but nowadays there are very few situations where this could be true due to how expensive transfer/agent fees are. We extend the contracts of average/past it players specifically because it is a cheap strategy for the Glazers.

You make a really good point about how useless we are at selling players and keep waiting until there is no value left. Either way im pleased we both agree about the fundamental thing that the board is completely inefficient and should sack themselves!
 

Beans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
1,322
Location
Midwest, USA
The answer to that is very simple. Brand names takes time to build but once its built they become a gold mine in terms of attracting sponsorships and plastic fans. Real Madrid were able to pay Beckham's and Ronaldo's entire fee in few months because their brand name was so huge that they could make a profit out of them in record time. The likes of Pogba, Mother Theresa and Beans generate a lot of revenue for Manchester United. They certainly generate more then the typical excellent but bland players such as Carrick, Van De Beek or Scholes.
I do my part, thanks for the recognition!
 

Teja

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
2,480
More than the players' contracts, I wonder what made the owners listen to the current management (woody and co) for this long. Even if they only care about the valuation of the business and not the results on the pitch, there was so much money we lost out on because of lack of success on the pitch. City and Pool have built businesses valued the same / almost the same as United from a much lower starting point over the last 10 yrs.

We've went on endlessly about appointing sporting directors and many many clubs have done well with that sort of appointment and yet they chose to trust Woody for 10+ years and he hasn't delivered anything at all.

I guess the Rangnick appointment is a change in direction but I don't think he was appointed by the owners, it was just Murtough realizing we needed some external help in running the sporting side of this club.