So, the Glazers. Are they parasites? Blame game topic.

[bosnian_red]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Sort of what I was trying to say earlier. We all know they were shit and we had problems, but these problems are almost gone and they have been providing money into the team. Of course in the end it is still a business for them but as long as the club isn't being held back then it shouldn't matter too much. It's what football has become these days. Nowadays I don't think it would be much different under a different owner. The thing that needs to change is how we go about transfers and all that. Probably bring in a director of football because whatever we've been doing hasn't been working.

 

[Sandikan]

City and Chelsea have owners who pile a sh!tload of money in.

We have a club so big we're making such figures anyway.
Our money mostly gets creamed off.

But we all know this, what can you do. We're way too big to buy these days.

 

[Oo0AahCantona]

If we miss out on top 4 again, the blame will shift over to the glazers, and rightly so, because Woodward cannot be this blundering idiot we all make him out to be. there has to be something else going on behind the scenes.

 

[itso 7]

Glazers' main objective is to make money off United's brand, they aren't in it for the love of the game or to look for a plaything. Bar the summers of 09&10 I think the amounts they have spent,whilst not jaw dropping,were reasonable. It's just that the investments we've made have majorly turned sour, think Anderson, Nani, Valencia, Hargreaves, Tosic, Kagawa, Fellaini and Berbatov. That's a lot of money that went down the drain and some of the signings we didn't make when the players who are now top players were not made because we still had hope that these would yield something for the first team. Last season it caught up with us because the players who were carrying these duds on their backs suddenly collapsed on us so we need to replace the stalwarts plus the shit ones too, Herrera wouldn't have been signed if Anderson had turned out well but in the year we need to replace Evra we also need to replace Scholes .
The question is, why did it take so long to write off the Anderson investment ? Just as we waited for Hargreaves and Fletcher, not saying we should have got shot of them but we definitely should have taken measures to ensure that their absence wasn't felt like Bayern are doing to mitigate the loss of Martinez.

 

[Oo0AahCantona]

I was pretty young at the time and dont remember all the details but, Could somebody briefly explain how the sale of the club was allowed to the glazers? seems absolutely mental it was pushed through. surely there were better offers on the table.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

I don't for once think the Glazers have withheld money for transfers. Fergie used to throw bigger fits at the board and complained that he had to argue with the directors to sanction transfer money every summer. He was mighty pleased we didn't have to do that once Glazers came along and never made an indication to suggest otherwise.

The transfers for Berbatov, when we already had 3 strikers + Ronaldo, the Nani + Anderson + Hargreaves summer and the salaries being offered to players like Young firmly suggests that they are willing to put money in to extract revenue. Its the fault of our football people that we haven't been able to fill the holes in our squad and failed to form a proper contingency plan for Ferguson's departure. The money's been there, always but you can't spend it unless you know who and what you want.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

If we miss out on top 4 again, the blame will shift over to the glazers, and rightly so, because Woodward cannot be this blundering idiot we all make him out to be. there has to be something else going on behind the scenes.

He's clearly not an idiot. He's a company man, first and foremost - does exactly what Joel (or is it Avram) tells him to do. And he seems to have a talent for marketing and getting producers of shampoo and such to give us money. The question is whether he knows enough about the transfer market and/or football as such to be a good...transfer handling bloke. The latter is what we need. Not necessarily a continental style DOF, but someone who takes care of the transfer business.

 

[Raoul]

I don't think its down to the Glazers, Woodward, or Van Gaal (or even Moyes for that matter). It has to do with our being in perpetual transition since Fergie left. The lack of continuity in managers (4 in the span of 15 months) has resulted in a schizophrenic transfer strategy where the ideal players weren't available, or weren't available exactly when we wanted them. We got Zaha at the end of the Fergie era, Fellaini and Mata under Moyes, now Van Gaal has inherited Herrera and Shaw, who were in the pipeline from at least two managers ago. That's not a complete transfer strategy and has hurt us.

Now Van Gaal arrives and has ostensibly nixed some of the players Moyes was hopping around Europe to scout between matches, and will want his own players. I suppose you could say the appointment and subsequent flop of Moyes has set us back a couple of years, as it deprived us of the continuity that was critical after Fergie left.

Imagine for a moment if Van Gaal had been given the job after Fergie. We would be in a completely different place right now, as he would have two summers and a winter window to get his team in place, and Vidic and Evra may still be with us.

 

[Rednails]

Sorry but Fergie went along with their transfer policy AND sanctioned some very dubious buys. He must share some of the blame for our present predicament.

 

[Godfather]

Sorry but Fergie went along with their transfer policy AND sanctioned some very dubious buys. He must share some of the blame for our present predicament.

His transfer records was indeed not the best in his last couple of years.

 

[The Mitcher]

They clearly have pumped a lot of money into it but we haven't used much of it seems because of Ed. I dunno.

 

[Oneunited26]

A minor point but still: I don't think Moyes can come out and say what he wants about his United stint, actually. There's a clause in his severance package - or something of the sort. He mentioned it in a recent interview.

Anyway, I've no reason to believe there was a cap as such. The Glazers have coughed up plenty in the last year or so. Whether we have spent wisely is another matter.

I wonder why he cannot come out and say what happened? maybe Moyes would have been the first official guy who has seen the ins and out's on what the glazers and woodward have been like, and imagine the damage he could do by telling everyone the way the glazers have been using the club.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

I don't for once think the Glazers have withheld money for transfers. Fergie used to throw bigger fits at the board and complained that he had to argue with the directors to sanction transfer money every summer. He was mighty pleased we didn't have to do that once Glazers came along and never made an indication to suggest otherwise.

The transfers for Berbatov, when we already had 3 strikers + Ronaldo, the Nani + Anderson + Hargreaves summer and the salaries being offered to players like Young firmly suggests that they are willing to put money in to extract revenue. Its the fault of our football people that we haven't been able to fill the holes in our squad and failed to form a proper contingency plan for Ferguson's departure. The money's been there, always but you can't spend it unless you know who and what you want.

Clear as the nose on your face we have been held back in the transfer market, we had to be because the revenue was needed to pay the interest it is as simple as that, they are undefendable, and I for one am amazed they have dodged a sustained mass protest so far, obviously us staying successful has held people back but this still should not have deflected from what was happening, and even if LvG gets us top 4 this season it shouldn't paper over what they have done.

Yes they have raised the commercial income to the extreme, but at what cost, the players are expected to advertise stupid products, go to pre planned events, have hard commercial based pre seasons, what is the point, we are made to think £400 million revenue + per season is a massive achievement and makes us proud, I for one would rather earn less, have less sponsors putting strain on us, and have owners who invest what is left on the squad, and infrastructure.

They aren't going to go without a damn good push, which I just can't see it happening, and my big fear is they would sell to another leveraged based buyer, don't know what the answer is really.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I wonder why he cannot come out and say what happened? maybe Moyes would have been the first official guy who has seen the ins and out's on what the glazers and woodward have been like, and imagine the damage he could do by telling everyone the way the glazers have been using the club.

I think it's just a formality - it's a common thing to include as a clause, as I understand it. I don't think Moyesie necessarily sits on any explosive info. But I'm sure he's still sore about Woody - allegedly - telling his mates in the media about the sacking before he informed Moyes himself. Fergie was upset about that too - and rightly so.

 

[psychdelicblues]

The Indy laying into the gimps now.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...d-their-responsibility-no-longer-9673580.html

 

[Dylan94]

Glazersout is trending on twitter right now.

 

[Oneunited26]

I think it's just a formality - it's a common thing to include as a clause, as I understand it. I don't think Moyesie necessarily sits on any explosive info. But I'm sure he's still sore about Woody - allegedly - telling his mates in the media about the sacking before he informed Moyes himself. Fergie was upset about that too - and rightly so.

I know allot do that, I just think he may have known more what was going on, than the press or us have ever known. Because it cannot be any coincidence our summer transfer business has been has lacklustre as last summer, which may end up with the same poor ass season like the one under Moyes

 

[J-Stander]

The only thing that could possibly get them out is a complete boycott, which is never going to happen. A twitter campaign is nice and all but they won't give a flying feck what people say on the internet. People would need to act with their feet and stop giving them money. They'll be here until they've rinsed every possible penny out of the club.

 

[Oneunited26]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Sort of what I was trying to say earlier. We all know they were shit and we had problems, but these problems are almost gone and they have been providing money into the team. Of course in the end it is still a business for them but as long as the club isn't being held back then it shouldn't matter too much. It's what football has become these days. Nowadays I don't think it would be much different under a different owner. The thing that needs to change is how we go about transfers and all that. Probably bring in a director of football because whatever we've been doing hasn't been working.

It seems to me, the more money the club is making, the more the glazer kids want to keep for themselves. It seems like horrible bosses, the old dad dies, the son wants to keep has much money for themselves as possible.

 

[caisenma]

They get away with it. There was a mini protest in 2010 and then it stopped.

Fans hire pathetic planes for Moyes, yet the Glazers get away with it. I think if we don't make any signings than I can see this being the final straw for a few people and we can see some big protests again.

I agree. But what's baffling is that it's very much a business decision that's in the Glazers best interest to spend on quality players at this time.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I know allot do that, I just think he may have known more what was going on, than the press or us have ever known. Because it cannot be any coincidence our summer transfer business has been has lacklustre as last summer, which may end up with the same poor ass season like the one under Moyes

He seems to say - basically - that he wanted to bring in players who for one reason or another didn't end up being signed. Mentions Bale and Ronnie too - which sounds a bit outlandish. Then again Phelan was saying the same thing - and people thought that he was talking bollocks too, even if he had no particular reason to talk bollocks at the time.

If it wasn't bollocks - and if we were, in some form or another, in for Bale (or Ronnie) I find that...I don't know, really. You can't be in for players like that, then end up with nothing but Fellaini - and then NOT completely revise your approach to transfers. And with that I don't point the finger at Moyes - that would be someone else's department, someone who is responsible for the club's well being regardless of who the manager happens to be.

 

[Sir Matt]

I don't think its down to the Glazers, Woodward, or Van Gaal (or even Moyes for that matter). It has to do with our being in perpetual transition since Fergie left. The lack of continuity in managers (4 in the span of 15 months) has resulted in a schizophrenic transfer strategy where the ideal players weren't available, or weren't available exactly when we wanted them. We got Zaha at the end of the Fergie era, Fellaini and Mata under Moyes, now Van Gaal has inherited Herrera and Shaw, who were in the pipeline from at least two managers ago. That's not a complete transfer strategy and has hurt us.

Now Van Gaal arrives and has ostensibly nixed some of the players Moyes was hopping around Europe to scout between matches, and will want his own players. I suppose you could say the appointment and subsequent flop of Moyes has set us back a couple of years, as it deprived us of the continuity that was critical after Fergie left.

Imagine for a moment if Van Gaal had been given the job after Fergie. We would be in a completely different place right now, as he would have two summers and a winter window to get his team in place, and Vidic and Evra may still be with us.

Gill retiring with Fergie has been almost as costly as replacing Fergie with Moyes. If Gill had stayed on another year or two, the club could have eased through a transition with someone who knew what he was doing in the transfer market rather than being hobbled by Woodward. We flailed uselessly last summer and have done so again this summer.

Still, I think the Glazer's bear a large amount of responsibility in the club's lack of spending over the past 10 years, at least in terms of one of the biggest clubs in the world. Their takeover ensured that the club was constantly spending more on debt repayments than on players and refused to loosen the purse strings until it was too late. Now, we've wasted £27m on Fellaini, bought a very good but somewhat unnecessary Mata for a club record, £28m for an 18 year old leftback, and the buyout for Herrera, which is more understandable since Athletic refused to sell otherwise. And still we haven't signed players that we need, despite spending £120m in the last year. It just shows how far they've let the squad fall.

 

[Invictus]

Gill retiring with Fergie has been almost as costly as replacing Fergie with Moyes. If Gill had stayed on another year or two, the club could have eased through a transition with someone who knew what he was doing in the transfer market rather than being hobbled by Woodward. We flailed uselessly last summer and have done so again this summer.

Still, I think the Glazer's bear a large amount of responsibility in the club's lack of spending over the past 10 years, at least in terms of one of the biggest clubs in the world. Their takeover ensured that the club was constantly spending more on debt repayments than on players and refused to loosen the purse strings until it was too late. Now, we've wasted £27m on Fellaini, bought a very good but somewhat unnecessary Mata for a club record, £28m for an 18 year old leftback, and the buyout for Herrera, which is more understandable since Athletic refused to sell otherwise. And still we haven't signed players that we need, despite spending £120m in the last year. It just shows how far they've let the squad fall.

Here's where I'm uncomfortable with the owners. We talk about how they've spent £160 million in just 3 seasons. Fair enough but before that the net spend was an average of 53/7 = 7.6 million per annum. Now some have argued that half of Rooney and Ronaldo's fee was still unpaid when they took over. Even if we include that -> £53 + £14 + £6 = £73 million net in 7 years. This was when our domestic and European competitors was spending a similar amount in almost every single window. Fair enough now they've loosened the purse strings but even in the last 3 seasons Chelsea have spent : £136 million and City have spent : £145 million so it's hardly as if we're outspending them. One could say they have sugar daddies to pump in money and we can't compete with that model.

Well self-sustaining clubs like Madrid, Barcelona etc spent similar amounts to City or Chelsea through the last decade despite the absence of a benefactor. We have had similar revenues for most part in the last 10 years. So why isn't the club spending its own money on improving the squad, the infrastructure or reducing the exorbitant ticket prices. In essence we've spent £233 million at a max in 10 seasons if we include half of Rooney + Ronaldo's fee (£160 million as a reactionary measure when clear signs of decay started setting in) while letting £700 million+ go towards debt repayment when infact United was among the few debt-free footballing institutions when they took over. We could easily have rivaled Madrid, City, Barcelona, Chelsea or expanded Old Trafford to a Camp Nou-esque 100,000+ with that money while keeping the ticket prices reasonable.

All this without having the privilege of being owned by them. They're not doing United a service by spending now. It's the club's own freaking money and we're only getting crumbs of the bigger money pie. It's not as if they're rummaging through their own pockets to help the club out. Even now despite spending the £700 million, United still has to pay £20 million per year as interest while the debt is still a staggering £350 million. By the times it's repaid the cost would certainly be over £1 billion. Unacceptable really. It could have easily come crashing down without the genius of Fergie.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

Clear as the nose on your face we have been held back in the transfer market, we had to be because the revenue was needed to pay the interest it is as simple as that, they are undefendable, and I for one am amazed they have dodged a sustained mass protest so far, obviously us staying successful has held people back but this still should not have deflected from what was happening, and even if LvG gets us top 4 this season it shouldn't paper over what they have done.

Yes they have raised the commercial income to the extreme, but at what cost, the players are expected to advertise stupid products, go to pre planned events, have hard commercial based pre seasons, what is the point, we are made to think £400 million revenue + per season is a massive achievement and makes us proud, I for one would rather earn less, have less sponsors putting strain on us, and have owners who invest what is left on the squad, and infrastructure.

They aren't going to go without a damn good push, which I just can't see it happening, and my big fear is they would sell to another leveraged based buyer, don't know what the answer is really.

You only have evidence of lack of spending in key positions to back your argument, if Fergie wanted to save every penny he had to buy a serviceable midfielder, he wouldn't go about splashing 30 mil on Berbatov, 17 mil on Young, 14 mil on Zaha etc which were clearly luxury signings when they happened. Even Moyes was afforded money to break the club transfer record.

The Glazers are not going to scout and buy players for you, its upto the manager and director to do that.

 

[Rood]

Here's where I'm uncomfortable with the owners. We talk about how they've spent £160 million in just 3 seasons. Fair enough but before that the net spend was an average of 53/7 = 7.6 million per annum. Now some have argued that half of Rooney and Ronaldo's fee was still unpaid when they took over. Even if we include that -> £53 + £14 + £6 = £73 million net in 7 years. This was when our domestic and European competitors was spending a similar amount in almost every single window. Fair enough now they've loosened the purse strings but even in the last 3 seasons Chelsea have spent : £136 million and City have spent : £145 million so it's hardly as if we're outspending them. One could say they have sugar daddies to pump in money and we can't compete with that model.

Well self-sustaining clubs like Madrid, Barcelona etc spent similar amounts to City or Chelsea through the last decade despite the absence of a benefactor. We have had similar revenues for most part in the last 10 years. So why isn't the club spending its own money on improving the squad, the infrastructure or reducing the exorbitant ticket prices. In essence we've spent £233 million at a max in 10 seasons if we include half of Rooney + Ronaldo's fee (£160 million as a reactionary measure when clear signs of decay started setting in) while letting £700 million+ go towards debt repayment when infact United was among the few debt-free footballing institutions when they took over. We could easily have rivaled Madrid, City, Barcelona, Chelsea or expanded Old Trafford to a Camp Nou-esque 100,000+ with that money while keeping the ticket prices reasonable.

All this without having the privilege of being owned by them. They're not doing United a service by spending now. It's the club's own freaking money and we're only getting crumbs of the bigger money pie. It's not as if they're rummaging through their own pockets to help the club out. Even now despite spending the £700 million, United still has to pay £20 million per year as interest while the debt is still a staggering £350 million. By the times it's repaid the cost would certainly be over £1 billion. Unacceptable really. It could have easily come crashing down without the genius of Fergie.

The big ommision in your numbers when you analyse money spent on improving the squad is that you dont include wages, that is actually far more important than transfer fees nowadays. Historically, a correlation has been shown between wage bills and success whereas not much for net spend to success.

Still we have spent a large wedge of cash (c£120m) on transfer fees in the past 12 months, whether that has been spent wisely remains to be seen

Cant argue with money wasted on interest etc though, that cash could clearly have been put to better use - although it is debateable whether it is as much as £700m wasted but even £100m is a waste.

 

[Invictus]

The big ommision in your numbers when you analyse money spent on improving the squad is that you dont include wages, that is actually far more important than transfer fees nowadays. Historically, a correlation has been shown between wage bills and success whereas not much for net spend to success.

Still we have spent a large wedge of cash (c£120m) on transfer fees in the past 12 months, whether that has been spent wisely remains to be seen

Cant argue with money wasted on interest etc though, that cash could clearly have been put to better use - although it is debateable whether it is as much as £700m wasted but even £100m is a waste.

Fair enough mate.

To your first point yes I agree that wages play a big part. Absolutely. But even if we factor those in we've only just began catching up with the likes of Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea, City et al and before that we were some ways behind Milan, Juventus, Internazionale in the pre-Calciopoli era. You can't realistically expect to compete with the best if you are't willing to invest on a similar level. Sure sometimes a club may buck the trend and ride the crest of a wave at times and outperform the net spend ala Dortmund, Atletico, Porto but over an extended period it catches up with you. IMO they struck gold with Fergie's continued presence. Without him we'd be lost and I very much doubt any other manager in the world could've achieved what he did in the past 10 odd years under financial constraints for the most part.

Agree with the last point too. Every penny wasted is one too much. The club can't allow footballing aspect to deteriorate further or there will be serious ramifications on the commercial side of things. The next couple of seasons might be make or break time for the current regime.

 

[RoadTrip]

It's a culmination of things all hitting us at once.

- Ferguson being so good he didn't need as good players to win - now he's gone, the dross is clear.
- A number of transfers which didn't develop leaving us with gaps (Nani, Anderson, etc)
- Historic underinvestment (due to Fergie?) now coming to the fore.
- Gill being allowed to leave when Fergie left.
- Massive change causing inherent dip in form.
- Losing vastly experienced players all in one go.
- Lack of real leader, linked to above.

I could go on.

 

[VP]

Of course they're parasites.

For all this talk about football being a business, the three biggest clubs in the world - Barca, Madrid and Bayern - are run for their fans. We operate to increase our stock price on the NYSE. It's depressing that it's taking two bad transfer windows for some of our fans to realize this.

 

[MancunianAngels]

Its an issue across the whole of English football.

Who buys the club if the Glazers go? Will they be any better. Will people simply stop caring about them if we win a few matches?

If we want to protest, it needs to be done correctly. Get MUST/IMUSA and the fanzines involved.

Putting pressure on Woodward should be the first thing we do now.

 

[Yorkeontop]

27m for Fellaini, 37m for Mata, 27m for Shaw, 28m for Herrera. The money is there!

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Partially plagiarised but;

We replaced Ronaldo with Valencia,
Tevez with Michael Owen on a free
Giggs with Ashley Young
Scholes initially with Cleverley
and haven't bothered replacing Vidic and Ferdinand

Transfer policy is one of the most important factors in the long term success of a football club- whether its lack of funds due to the owners skimming- or just piss poor scouting/ squad assessment over the years- it's false economy, its going to cost far more to replace those players properly from a position of weakness than it would when we were champions and pretty much guaranteed to be playing in Europe every year.

They are cheapskates nothing more nothing less. Did they honestly think these were good replacements. Michael Owen for gods sake, I will alway be happy about his winner against City, but Michael Owen for gods sake.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Not to turn this into a finance thread, but I was wondering what our net spend under the Glazers is.

I can't remember what is is, but somebody posted it somewhere. It was quite high, but that just proved that the players we bought had no sell on value. Chelsea and City for all they spend had a lesser net spend. Bad housekeeping and recruitment.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

How much money you spend each year isn't the only metric. IF we bought 4 more #10's we would still be average. We need someone with a deep knowledge of the team, our youth prospects and the game to decide who and how many to bring in. We have LVG. Hopefully he is as good as advertised. I do agree with his philosophy of taking your time and making the right buys, not panic purchases for short stop gap fixes. We need a long term strategy and vision.

Thats another problem we don't fix the areas that need fixing. Defenders are sexy so let's go out and buy yet another No.10, no sense at all.

 

[Kill 'em all]

Where is the money from the Adidas deal going? Where is the money from the Chevrolet deal going? Our transfer expenditure doesn't increase but the Glazers always keep pocketing more money. We need to end this. As supporters we need to take the initiative, it's our duty to the club we all love.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

I don't for once think the Glazers have withheld money for transfers. Fergie used to throw bigger fits at the board and complained that he had to argue with the directors to sanction transfer money every summer. He was mighty pleased we didn't have to do that once Glazers came along and never made an indication to suggest otherwise.

The transfers for Berbatov, when we already had 3 strikers + Ronaldo, the Nani + Anderson + Hargreaves summer and the salaries being offered to players like Young firmly suggests that they are willing to put money in to extract revenue. Its the fault of our football people that we haven't been able to fill the holes in our squad and failed to form a proper contingency plan for Ferguson's departure. The money's been there, always but you can't spend it unless you know who and what you want.

They overpay for English players who are not up to scratch and then pay them high wages as well. Not a good business strategy at all.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

27m for Fellaini, 37m for Mata, 27m for Shaw, 28m for Herrera. The money is there!

Yes we spent that money but Mata was yet another No 10 even though I love him. Shaw fine, but what about a backup, what about CBs. Herrera, great but he isn't enough, what about a partner for him, what about a decent winger. They do everything half-cocked. I won't even mention bloody Fellaini that was just 27m flushed down the toilet.

 

[Someone]

Would buying di maria change the mood around here? i mean that would take the spending close to 150M in one year.

 

[LonelyFire]

Would buying di maria chance the mood around here? i mean that would take the spending close to 150M in one year.

That's the problem - it shouldn't but it would for most fans. They are and always have been the problem yet most fans forget what they have done and continue to do when they present a shiny new signing.

 

[LonelyFire]

Where is the money from the Adidas deal going? Where is the money from the Chevrolet deal going? Our transfer expenditure doesn't increase but the Glazers always keep pocketing more money. We need to end this. As supporters we need to take the initiative, it's our duty to the club we all love.

Unfortunately, protests wont work. A boycott may but that's unrealistic. The only thing changing this is sponsors pulling out - hit them in the pocket.

 

[montpelier]

Would buying di maria chance the mood around here? i mean that would take the spending close to 150M in one year.

Do people expect us to be able to spend like Chelsea and City?

Should we be able to spend like Chelsea & City?

I keep looking at our transfer history - a Title challenging team (which we are not) would now be based around De Gea, Jones, Smalling, Rooney, RVP, Herrera, Fellaini, Ashley Young, Valencia, Anderson, Nani, Zaha & Hernandez if £££££ spent = success like with SAF. 2/3 of those players haven't done enough which is why we are where we are.