Sell me the Glazers: Positive Arguments for Glazer ownership

Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by Lentwood, May 14, 2019.

  1. May 14, 2019
    #41

    el3mel Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2016
    Messages:
    27,335
    Location:
    Egypt
    Seriously, there are still people here who can bring themselves defend the board? You will think being that crap for 6 years is due to reasons more just having a crap manager or crap players, but in those who actually appoint these managers and keep these players.
  2. May 14, 2019
    #42

    mojo Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Messages:
    1,955
    £1bn+ made in debt repayments, still £400m in debt.
  3. May 14, 2019
    #43

    FreakyJim Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    6,732
    Location:
    Glazers Out
    what's next, sell me jack the ripper: positive arguments?
  4. May 14, 2019
    #44

    MUFC OK Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    2,219
    There are next to none. They have invested in the last 5 years but mainly on players with commercial value. They will be happy to run us down for another 5 years but you have to question whether they even care that our profitability will go down.
  5. May 14, 2019
    #45

    Sterling Archer Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Messages:
    3,713
    @Lentwood I don't know why you went to lengths to reason this out. As you noted, at 29 years you've had plenty of time to see they're no good. Theyve been defended for a decade and now look where we are.
  6. May 14, 2019
    #46

    Harry190 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,221
    Location:
    Canada
    They ain't the one doing the running on the pitch.
  7. May 14, 2019
    #47

    FreakyJim Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    6,732
    Location:
    Glazers Out
    But they are the ones creating the rotten atmosphere. It all starts from them - the hands off approach. They don't care and have other things to do, they trust their lackey Woodward who is clueless. In turn he makes all the wrong decisions, which results in players not caring about anything but their ridiculously high wages.
    The way they run this club creates an environment of no accountability. As long as we're making money - everything's fine.
    They've turned us into the dream club for every mercenary out there. If you're average and don't want any pressure - come to United. High wages, low expectations, no sweat.

    The only way this club will be successful under them is if Woodward hires the next Fergie by accident.
  8. May 14, 2019
    #48

    Lentwood Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,599
    Location:
    West Didsbury, Manchester
    I did it because from time to time a poster will put forward such passionate defences of the owners that I have genuinely started to question whether I am missing something. This thread isn't about defending them per se', I've created it to hear solid, logical arguments from pro-Glazer posters so that I can at least understand their viewpoint
  9. May 14, 2019
    #49

    Rory 7 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    7,295
    Location:
    A car park in Saipan
    I said I'd give it an hour or so to see if anyone comes up with a genuinely positive argument for the Glazers. As I suspected no-one can.

    There is no credible argument in favour of these people owning a football club, they have been of no material benefit to a club that could and should be the biggest by far in the world.
  10. May 14, 2019
    #50

    Josep Dowling Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    3,250
    Excellent post and backed up with facts. The Glazers have milked the club dry and haven't done anything special to our commercial side. The organic growth alone has made them look they like have done something.
  11. May 14, 2019
    #51

    BlueHaze Full Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,893
    @Lentwood

    I wish there was any positive arguments to have but there is not a single positive thing to say about them. Literally the only thing to sum these people up is the dirty way they bought the club and the worst part is the man behind the whole process is now our CEO...
  12. May 14, 2019
    #52

    passing-wind Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    964
    Supports:
    Pass & Move
    Glazers might be withholding some funds but money spent has never been the issue with the club it's who we are buying which is the issue.

    Our attacking line consist of £145+ million (Mata, Martial, Lukaku)

    Midfield £205 million
    (Pogba, Herrera, Matic, Fred)

    Think the defence amounts to around £100 million (Shaw, Lindlelof, Bailly,)

    That's almost 500 million with our most recent squad obviously excluding the likes of Depay, Di Maria, Schneiderlin etc.
  13. May 14, 2019
    #53

    wub1234 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2018
    Messages:
    485
    Supports:
    Don't support a team
    It's not possible to do this. Because no matter what your perspective may be, everyone who is old enough to understand ultimately knows that they only own the club as an investment vehicle. It's exactly the same as Kroenke at Arsenal. Not only do neither of them care about the football results of the clubs that they own, they don't even care about football! Why would they? They're billionaires from the United States, who didn't even grow up in a culture in which football / soccer was popular.

    If the Glazers and Kroenke thought (a) that they would lose money from owning United and Arsenal, or (b) that they could make more money, more easily elsewhere, then they never would have invested in the first place. The problem is that football has become so big commercially nowadays that any clubs with an ownership model will have to be owned by people like this.

    Liverpool are no different really, the fact that Fenway Sports Group has 'sport' in their name makes them seem less threatening, but Liverpool are just part of what Forbes described as "the most sophisticated, synergistic player in the coming age of international sports conglomerates". Fenway Sports Group are hardly invested in Liverpool because they love the club! Or even because they want anything else other than commercial success. They understand that commercial and sporting success tend to be conjoined, but the former is more important to them than the latter. If Liverpool were enjoying success on the field, and also haemorrhaging money, then there is no way that FSG would deem this to be success.

    City have basically got to the top because they have owners who are so wealthy and powerful, whose financial position is so secured and ensured (if you read into the background of the UAE and how it operates then you'll understand why), that they don't need to make a profit from City, and they are instead using it as a promotional vehicle and mechanism.

    I still follow football to some degree, but because of this it has lost much of its magic for me now, and I just view it as a rather grubby spectacle. Unfortunately, this merely reflects the way that we've allowed the world to be.
  14. May 14, 2019
    #54

    Rory 7 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    7,295
    Location:
    A car park in Saipan
    There is a difference. A very significant difference. Fenway have a plan, a long term vision for the club and a track record of innovation in sports science with the Red Sox that they are now transferring to Liverpool. Their spanking new stand at Anfield is testament to their long term vision for that club. The Glazers, by contrast, have demonstrated zero strategic planning or investment in either sports science or bricks and mortar. As I said previously, I await in keen anticipation for someone to put forward a positive argument in favour of them as owners.
  15. May 14, 2019
    #55

    Nytram Shakes Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,871
    Location:
    Normally dark rooms
    I guess the the biggest praise I can give them is they have spent alot of money but have never overspent putting the club in danger.

    I know that's hardly glowing endorsement but when you look what has happened to so many other clubs, Leeds, Portsmouth, Bolton, QPR, Sunderland.... we could have had a lot worse.

    Especially when you consider, the amount of fans who put pressure on the ownership, to basically bankrupt the club in one summer. People complain when we don't spend 200 + million every year, that's just crazy.

    So yeah I think they have spent a lot, without ever spending too much, its not their fault its been spent badly.
  16. May 14, 2019
    #56

    lewwoo Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,448
    Location:
    Bridgwater
    The argument that they spend enough doesn't stack up. They underinvested in the squad for years and allowed us to fall far below standard. We simply spend enough to maintain that level now. If we weren't burdened by the debt we could of spent enough to keep up with City. Yes we may match them now but they were already miles ahead.
  17. May 14, 2019
    #57

    Sterling Archer Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2016
    Messages:
    3,713
    Their ownership of the Tampa Bay Bucs has been better than average. Prior to the Glazers, they were a mostly losing franchise. Post Glazer they improved and became an average team, with one standout Superbowl win. I can't take much stock in that, however, as the American sports system is ironically designed with socialist principles despite their/our vitriol for even the word.

    Skills makes a point worth digging into below:

    Are they actually hands off? Let's go back to Sir Alex's days. Was there ever any confirmation that it was in fact the Glazers that tied our hands with transfers? Are they why we went with, as mentioned, Valencia, Owen and Obertan instead of Ribery or Torres or Robben?

    Or was it Sir Alex making a point about agents and ridiculous transfers? Was it Gill?

    Because we did still splash money on the likes of Berbatov and then an older Van Persie for a swansong. They also funded crock Hargreaves , Anderson and Nani. Expensive punts in honesty.

    If it was the Glazers as expected, they certainly weren't hands off. In contrast, in the LVG and Mourinho years there was a considerable amount of spending. Was this to make amends for earlier years? Or were the Glazers just continuing to be a bit hands off and leaving the manager with the funds? If we go back to Jose's meltdown over his transfers not materializing, it had nothing to do with money from what's been said. It was that Ed Woodward didn't fancy the players. Again a case of Glazers letting the heads of football work it out amongst themselves ?

    Leaves me with one last point:

    Why hire David Moyes? Maybe it was, once again, Glazers giving authority and respect to Sir Alex.

    It's almost a Catch 22. On the one hand, Glazers being hands off and empowering their football structure to act of it's own accord so long as the commercial side is smooth, should be a fantastic thing.

    But on the flip, allowing Sir Alex (and Sir Bobby's?) favoritism decide our next manager, letting Sir Alex's moral high ground and ego bring in mediocre talents over quality while City were ominously spending big ...that didn't work out either. And now, letting the likes of Woodward hire, fire and sign managers and players at will...that's no good either.

    Glazers are accountable. But not in the way I see most folks going on about here with just transfers. Unless we know for a fact they curtailed Sir Alex's spending, there's some blame to spread.
  18. May 14, 2019
    #58

    Saffron New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2018
    Messages:
    618
    They’re not though. Woodward is their puppet. Do you also believe that Sergei Lavrov’s foreign policy is independent of Putin?
  19. May 14, 2019
    #59

    wub1234 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2018
    Messages:
    485
    Supports:
    Don't support a team
    Fenway are an investment vehicle, the Glazers are investors. There is no difference in what they want, they may go about it in different ways. It is not that long ago that Liverpool fans were far from enamoured with them.
  20. May 14, 2019
    #60

    Rory 7 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    7,295
    Location:
    A car park in Saipan
    If you can't see the difference between how Fenway and The Glazers have approached both of their respective clubs, there is no point continuing to post in this thread.
  21. May 14, 2019
    #61

    Tincanalley Turns player names into a crappy conversation

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    6,345
    Location:
    Ireland
    'Perfect'. That's the word I was looking for! The on-field stuff is entirely unrelated to the management structure of the club, the policy of the club, the way the club is run, no?
  22. May 14, 2019
    #62

    Will Singh Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,321
    Location:
    Theatre of dreams
    In the state the football club is in (on the pitch as that's what we are about) do you really think this is the right time to ask for a positive response from the fans?
  23. May 14, 2019
    #63

    Fluctuation0161 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,500
    Location:
    Manchester
    Look at spend from 2005 - 2013. This was a key time for us to continue building from a position of power, at the top. Then factor in the transfer inflation that has occurred since they did start spending after 2013.
  24. May 14, 2019
    #64

    Red Dreams Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2003
    Messages:
    51,164
    Location:
    Across the Universe....from Old Trafford.
    Sounds like the Glazzers PR people are posting in this thread.
  25. May 14, 2019
    #65

    Red Dreams Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2003
    Messages:
    51,164
    Location:
    Across the Universe....from Old Trafford.
    That will be happening soon enough.
  26. May 14, 2019
    #66

    wub1234 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2018
    Messages:
    485
    Supports:
    Don't support a team
    There seems a massive difference because Liverpool have a good team at the moment, so it completely skews the perception. Read this article:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbym...iverpools-record-profit-of-160m/#56f80bab4114

    I'm in total agreement that the Glazers are bad for United, that cannot be contested. What I would say with Liverpool is that Klopp (and arguably selling Coutinho for an inflated fee) has disguised deeper issues at Liverpool, which are not dissimilar from the situation at United.

    If United had been managed better, and had a winning team, there (wrongly) wouldn't be any complaint about the Glazers, just as there was very little complaint when Ferguson was still winning the league and going close in the Champions League.
  27. May 14, 2019
    #67

    Moriarty Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,961
    Location:
    Reichenbach Falls
    Supports:
    A wife and a cat.
    That'll be fun if it happens. Stuck between a homicidal dictatorship and the poor man's Gordon Gekko. What a bloody choice.
  28. May 14, 2019
    #68

    Red Dreams Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2003
    Messages:
    51,164
    Location:
    Across the Universe....from Old Trafford.
    fun as in having barbed wires through the ass.
  29. May 14, 2019
    #69

    Big Ben Foster Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Messages:
    6,205
    Location:
    Brasileiro in Chicago
    Supports:
    Also support Vasco da Gama
    I have to say, they did well to not get involved when Fergie was in charge - they stood back and let him run the show. How often do we see a new owner come in and sweep away the previous regime? This seems obvious in hindsight, but around 2005-2006 there were many people who thought Fergie was past it and would never win major titles again.
  30. May 14, 2019
    #70

    Coops73 Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,496
    Some people pay good money for that type of shit.
  31. May 14, 2019
    #71

    Coops73 Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    1,496
    Why do you think this? I saw recently that there where reports of the “Saudis” walking away from a deal as the Glazers were looking to get more “involved” or is that sort of talk just the start of the negotiations?
  32. May 14, 2019
    #72

    sullydnl Ross Kemp's caf ID

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    19,632
    Unlike the owners of other clubs, they're not using us to sportswash the image of a country guilty of repeated human rights violations.

    Pretty grim that I'm defending them on that level though.
  33. May 14, 2019
    #73

    Rory 7 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    7,295
    Location:
    A car park in Saipan
    The investment in infrastructure at Anfield alone differs the two owners for me.
  34. May 14, 2019
    #74

    MackRobinson Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,328
    Location:
    Terminal D
    Supports:
    Football
    Everyone likes to willfully ignore how hated the FSG was during the Comoli/Daglish/Carroll era. Of course all was forgotten once they got their managerial appointments correct.
  35. May 14, 2019
    #75

    MoskvaRed Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Messages:
    3,516
    They don’t chop people’s heads off. They are not fraudsters. Beyond those “it could be worse” arguments, there isn’t much to say for them.
  36. May 14, 2019
    #76

    Nytram Shakes Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,871
    Location:
    Normally dark rooms
    That’s a fair criticism, and opinion I share, personally this the mess the club is in now started a a decade ago.

    My argument was more they could have been worse owners rather then arn't they great.
  37. May 14, 2019
    #77

    RMD83 Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    Messages:
    743
    As businessmen I almost admire them. Taking a massive loan against a proven commodity that pays off the loan without issue whilst handing them out massive dividends in the meantime. It’s almost like printing money.

    Just a shame that commodity happens to be our football club that they don’t give a toss about. The only way we will see the back of them is when they sell up for an eye watering profit. A day I very much look forward to.
  38. May 14, 2019
    #78

    Champ Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2017
    Messages:
    766
    There's nothing positive about the Glazers.
    Nothing.
    Look at the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, rotten to the core, lack of interest in the team, manager after manager fired, yet the value of the club has grown.
    Look at Glazers shopping centre business ventures, in tatters, lack of long term vision cost them dear and they remortgaged most of what they owned.
    Their main source of income is now United, of which they take money freely, it's in their contracts!!
    The Glazers have put in the minimal amount of their own money into this club, heck the loans they took out had United as collateral,
    They even wanted to lease the club its own training ground....
  39. May 15, 2019
    #79

    Che Guevara New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2018
    Messages:
    193
    Location:
    Wolverhampton
    Supports:
    Celtic
    Joel Glazer has just said Martial is United's Pele. OMG!
  40. May 15, 2019
    #80

    beergod Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,733
    Location:
    ga, usa
    They aren't as bad as some of the other American owners. That's as far as I'll go.