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

[Speak]

Signing Di Maria only half makes up for not spending the Ronaldo money, in financial terms.
I'd still want to see us spend the money we should have been proactive and spent back when we were at the top of Europe, and I'd want proof in the future that we'll always try to improve rather than spend reactively and hope to overachieve every year.

Di Maria would only be the start of rectifying the years of under spending. I wouldn't be overly moved by it, to be honest. I'd still want them gone.
If they think owning a club this big is just a ticket to making money for decades, and they won't need to spend in line with what the club earns, then they may as well sell up.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

People are going on about net spending. Has anybody got the figures for what we have spent since the Glazers came and how much they have taken out of the club?

 

[LonelyFire]

Signing Di Maria only half makes up for not spending the Ronaldo money, in financial terms.
I'd still want to see us spend the money we should have been proactive and spent back when we were at the top of Europe, and I'd want proof in the future that we'll always try to improve rather than spend reactively and hope to overachieve every year.

Di Maria would only be the start of rectifying the years of under spending. If they think owning a club this big is just a ticket to making money for decades, and they won't need to spend in line with what the club earns, then they may as well sell up.

Prior to Herrera & Shaw, I believe the Glazers have spent £383m (straight spend not taking into account sales etc) - this compares to:

City - £694m
Chelsea - £600m
Spurs - £448m
Liverpool - £442m

The real kicker is we have spent £700m on bank charges and interest in the same period.

Edit - Quoted wrong post. @DomesticTadpole

 

[Yorkeontop]

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.

That's not the point though. The blame for those decisions lies with whoever buys these players. The Glazers should get blame for hiring incompetant people rather,Woodward,Moyes anyone?

 

[montpelier]

Prior to Herrera & Shaw, I believe the Glazers have spent £383m (straight spend not taking into account sales etc) - this compares to:

City - £694m
Chelsea - £600m
Spurs - £448m
Liverpool - £442m

The real kicker is we have spent £700m on bank charges and interest in the same period.

[/USER]

Interesting figures, thanks.

Looks a little bit skimpy doesn't it, that we're spending fewer ££££ than Spurs/Liverpool notwithstanding that City & Chelsea are trying to catch us up. I'll pretend I can't see the charges/interest I think.

Also makes me wonder that now Glazers have reduced the debt what their next plans might be. Old man Glazer passed away didn't he?

Don't think any of Spurs/Liv/Utd done all that brilliant there, except for Liverpool stumbling on the Gnash and him propelling them into 4th last year.

 

[LonelyFire]

Interesting figures, thanks.

Looks a little bit skimpy doesn't it, that we're spending fewer ££££ than Spurs/Liverpool notwithstanding that City & Chelsea are trying to catch us up. I'll pretend I can't see the charges/interest I think.

Also makes me wonder that now Glazers have reduced the debt what their next plans might be. Old man Glazer passed away didn't he?

Don't think any of Spurs/Liv/Utd done all that brilliant there, except for Liverpool stumbling on the Gnash and him propelling them into 4th last year.

The facts are had it not been for the genius of SAF, the slide we seen last season would have started long ago. We have been complacent in the market for years and the Glazers are the single reason behind that. They are and always will be parasites.

The money we've spent on the Glazers own debt is absolutely incredible. How they were able to buy Utd by, effectively, taking out a mortgage on the club is just unbelievable.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Prior to Herrera & Shaw, I believe the Glazers have spent £383m (straight spend not taking into account sales etc) - this compares to:

City - £694m
Chelsea - £600m
Spurs - £448m
Liverpool - £442m

The real kicker is we have spent £700m on bank charges and interest in the same period.

Edit - Quoted wrong post. @DomesticTadpole

Thank you. What exactly do the Glazers do to earn all this money they take out. At least Ed tries to earn his and he is the one the gets the flak. The Glazers are entrenched in the US.

 

[RedOldBoy]

If it wasn't for the Glazers we could afford to spend as much as Real Madrid and the managers would have been able to bring in almost any player they would have wanted to replace key players or strengthen the squad. The Glazers have stripped us of that ability and luckily for them they had a miracle worker to grind out results and get the best out of an average squad; 2010/2011, 2012/2013. Since 2005 we've lost: Keane, Ronaldo, Tevez, Ferdinand, Evra, and Vidic. Plus the likes of Giggs and Scholes had grown old, effective though they were, but definitely not the same players. How have we replaced them? Keane was never properly replaced, Carrick is nowhere near the level of Scholes, Evans-Jones-Smalling are nowhere near the level of Ferdinand or Vidic, Welbeck and Hernandez are no Tevez and Valencia-Nani-Young are not fit to polish Ronaldo's boots. We've gone backwards thanks to the Glazers. They didn't want to spend a pound more to allow us to get the players we need and they thought that everyone could replicate SAF. Hopefully after the Swansea game they realise that in order to succeed they need to splash some cash.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Interesting figures, thanks.

Looks a little bit skimpy doesn't it, that we're spending fewer ££££ than Spurs/Liverpool notwithstanding that City & Chelsea are trying to catch us up. I'll pretend I can't see the charges/interest I think.

Also makes me wonder that now Glazers have reduced the debt what their next plans might be. Old man Glazer passed away didn't he?

Don't think any of Spurs/Liv/Utd done all that brilliant there, except for Liverpool stumbling on the Gnash and him propelling them into 4th last year.

A lot of those teams also sell players for good amount to offset the outgoing money. We give our players away for peanuts. That makes it look like we make far too many mistakes in the market.

 

[LonelyFire]

If it wasn't for the Glazers we could afford to spend as much as Real Madrid and the managers would have been able to bring in almost any player they would have wanted to replace key players or strengthen the squad. The Glazers have stripped us of that ability and luckily for them they had a miracle worker to grind out results and get the best out of an average squad; 2010/2011, 2012/2013. Since 2005 we've lost: Keane, Ronaldo, Tevez, Ferdinand, Evra, and Vidic. Plus the likes of Giggs and Scholes had grown old, effective though they were, but definitely not the same players. How have we replaced them? Keane was never properly replaced, Carrick is nowhere near the level of Scholes, Evans-Jones-Smalling are nowhere near the level of Ferdinand or Vidic, Welbeck and Hernandez are no Tevez and Valencia-Nani-Young are not fit to polish Ronaldo's boots. We've gone backwards thanks to the Glazers. They didn't want to spend a pound more to allow us to get the players we need and they thought that everyone could replicate SAF. Hopefully after the Swansea game they realise that in order to succeed they need to splash some cash.

Think you've answered your own question - look at the players who have left in their time period. Nothing is going to change.

 

[Red Phoenix Rising]

This seems to be just another sidestep in a string of things fans want to moan about when in reality they know less than a tenth of feck all how any of it works. From the signings to the day to day running of the club and the Glazer effect. If I am honest, it's a bit strange to put a lot of this before getting behind the team.

 

[RedOldBoy]

Think you've answered your own question - look at the players who have left in their time period. Nothing is going to change.

Then why did Woodward come out and said that we have a 200 pound war chest and we will spend it? Surely if this is the case and we don't sign anyone till the end of the transfer window fans are going to turn against them. Sadly, this is what's going to happen. LVG will come out and say that there is no value in the market as Fergie had been saying all these years. It's a joke really because when you look at other clubs' signings and the prices there are some good deals. Best deal this summer was Kroos joining Madrid for 20 million. Absolutely depressing how some clubs can arrange to get good players for good prices.

 

[bishblaize]

Prior to Herrera & Shaw, I believe the Glazers have spent £383m (straight spend not taking into account sales etc) - this compares to:

City - £694m
Chelsea - £600m
Spurs - £448m
Liverpool - £442m

The real kicker is we have spent £700m on bank charges and interest in the same period.

Edit - Quoted wrong post. @DomesticTadpole

tbh the net or gross spend is only a bit of the picture.

If you look at our 2005-06 season for example we only spent £17.5M, which is peanuts. However look at who we bought - Van der Sar, Park Ji-Sung, Nemanja Vidic & Patrice Evra (plus Ben Foster). I'd argue that could be our best ever season in terms of transfers.

On the other hand, in summer '07 we bought Anderson, Nani & Hargreaves for a combined £69M. While all had their moments, none were exactly legends and we probably didn't get our money's worth from them.

So yeah, nothing wrong with looking at the numbers, as long as you consider value as well as worth.

 

[montpelier]

This seems to be just another sidestep in a string of things fans want to moan about when in reality they know less than a tenth of feck all how any of it works. From the signings to the day to day running of the club and the Glazer effect. If I am honest, it's a bit strange to put a lot of this before getting behind the team.

Being a monger of doom doesn't mean we can't/don't get behind the team. Just pessimism v optimism innit, none of us actually 'knows' cos we can't predict the future.

edit - and most of the 'everything is/will be fine' people are hoping Woody unleashes the war-chest in the next couple of weeks

<continues to worry>

 

[LonelyFire]

tbh the net or gross spend is only a bit of the picture.

If you look at our 2005-06 season for example we only spent £17.5M, which is peanuts. However look at who we bought - Van der Sar, Park Ji-Sung, Nemanja Vidic & Patrice Evra (plus Ben Foster). I'd argue that could be our best ever season in terms of transfers.

On the other hand, in summer '07 we bought Anderson, Nani & Hargreaves for a combined £69M. While all had their moments, none were exactly legends and we probably didn't get our money's worth from them.

So yeah, nothing wrong with looking at the numbers, as long as you consider value as well as worth.

That's a whole different argument - money doesn't always bring value/success of course. However, over a substantial period, more often than not it does tell a story.

 

[bishblaize]

That's a whole different argument - money doesn't always bring value/success of course. However, over a substantial period, more often than not it does tell a story.

The better financial measure is salary probably. Yes you can get cheap deals like Vidic, but they'll soon go if you pay them peanuts.

Not to mention salary bills tend to be two to three times larger than your net expenditure on transfer fees in any given year.

 

[Rood]

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.

Well we have never been amongst the biggest spenders (wages + transfer fees) in Europe neither pre or postGlazer - we were at one time the biggest in England but now sit 3rd behind the sugar daddies at City and Chelsea (and we have not been that far off Chelsea either for past few years), so really our spending should equate to at least a 3rd/4th PL finish which is why last season was a massive underacheivement.
In theory we should have a fair bit of room on the wage bill for a marquee signing or two as the likes of Rio, Vidic and Evra will have been on big deals but Woodward just doesnt seem to be able to close those deals.

 

[Rood]

tbh the net or gross spend is only a bit of the picture.

If you look at our 2005-06 season for example we only spent £17.5M, which is peanuts. However look at who we bought - Van der Sar, Park Ji-Sung, Nemanja Vidic & Patrice Evra (plus Ben Foster). I'd argue that could be our best ever season in terms of transfers.

On the other hand, in summer '07 we bought Anderson, Nani & Hargreaves for a combined £69M. While all had their moments, none were exactly legends and we probably didn't get our money's worth from them.

So yeah, nothing wrong with looking at the numbers, as long as you consider value as well as worth.

Yep and the value for money angle is just one part of that.
The main thing missing as I repeatedly mention on here is the wage bills - really that is far more important than gross or net spend nowadays.

 

[bishblaize]

Yep and the value for money angle is just one part of that.
The main thing missing as I repeatedly mention on here is the wage bills - really that is far more important than gross or net spend nowadays.

Someone posted a link on that point recently, repeated here.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...est-paid-team-in-global-salary-survey-compare

There are five clubs that have regularly spent more on wages in recent years.

• Real & Barca - Their turnovers are appreciably bigger than our.
• City & Chelsea - Until last year, they could afford to run at a loss, we couldn't.
• Bayern - no excuse

imo the only club we could reasonably have outspent on that list is Bayern. Our turnover has generally been higher over the years, though it isn't right now.

As for the other four, I fail to see how we could be expected to pay what they pay. Two have consistently had revenues in the region of £50-90M more per year than us. (Edit: And both have debts, Real particularly so) The other two can run at a huge loss year on year.

Perhaps it could be argued that we should have closed the gap a little more. I'd need to look at the figures a lot more closely to decide.

 

[::sonny::]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

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.

I'd highly doubt they are setting wages and making transfer targets, you are barking up the wrong tree with that criticism there. That responsibility rests with the CEO and we've not had extortionate wages until Rooney decided to throw his PMS.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

That's not the point though. The blame for those decisions lies with whoever buys these players. The Glazers should get blame for hiring incompetant people rather,Woodward,Moyes anyone?

I wouldn't even blame Moyes on them, that was Fergie's parting gift along with a gold Rolex and a statue outside of OT. Imagine the protests if they decided against Fergie's recommendation, we had a 7th place finish and Fergie came out and said that his suggestions were ignored and that lead us to this predicament.

 

[Invictus]

Well we have never been amongst the biggest spenders (wages + transfer fees) in Europe neither pre or postGlazer - we were at one time the biggest in England but now sit 3rd behind the sugar daddies at City and Chelsea (and we have not been that far off Chelsea either for past few years), so really our spending should equate to at least a 3rd/4th PL finish which is why last season was a massive underacheivement.
In theory we should have a fair bit of room on the wage bill for a marquee signing or two as the likes of Rio, Vidic and Evra will have been on big deals but Woodward just doesnt seem to be able to close those deals.

Are we sure about that ?

In 2002 at the peak of the Galactico era Madrid's total wage bill was the highest in the world at €135.9 million while Manchester United was at €129.8 million. So the difference ware a bare minimum. And the net transfer spend was :

2004/ 2005 :
Madrid : £17,550,000
United : £21,350,000

2003/ 2004 :
Madrid : £18,170,000
United : £13,350,000

2002/ 2003 :
Madrid : £20,000,000
United : £27,050,000

2001/ 2002 :
Madrid : £39,560,000
United : £29,300,000

2000/ 2001 :
Madrid : £34,800,000
United : -£8,300,000

1999/ 2000 :
Madrid : £19,500,000
United : £16,050,000

1998/ 1999 :
Madrid : £3,000,000
United : £25,950,000

So in 7 seasons preceding the takeover we were outspent by only around £26 million ~ £3.5 million per annum while paying just €6 million ~ £3.7 million lower at the peak of Perez' Galactico policy. This was how close we were to the highest spending club in the world. The difference from 2005-2014 is staggering in comparison. In only the 2009 summer window Madrid spent a net of £163,100,000 while the Glazers spent a net of -£1,900,000 from 2005-2009 !!!!! Even if you count half of Rooney and Ronaldo's fee it's still a paltry £17.8 million. Not only did Madrid spend £163,100,000 in the 2009 window they spent a net total of £224,700,000 from 2005-2009. That's difference of over £206,900,000 while in the previous 7 seasons it was only ~£26,000,000.

 

[bishblaize]

Are we sure about that ?

In 2002 at the peak of the Galactico era Madrid's total wage bill was the highest in the world at €135.9 million while Manchester United was at €129.8 million. So the difference ware a bare minimum. And the net transfer spend was :

2004/ 2005 :
Madrid : £17,550,000
United : £21,350,000

2003/ 2004 :
Madrid : £18,170,000
United : £13,350,000

2002/ 2003 :
Madrid : £20,000,000
United : £27,050,000

2001/ 2002 :
Madrid : £39,560,000
United : £29,300,000

2000/ 2001 :
Madrid : £34,800,000
United : -£8,300,000

1999/ 2000 :
Madrid : £19,500,000
United : £16,050,000

1998/ 1999 :
Madrid : £3,000,000
United : £25,950,000

So in 7 seasons preceding the takeover we were outspent by only around £26 million ~ £3.5 million per annum while paying just €6 million ~ £3.7 million lower at the peak of Perez' Galactico policy. This was how close we were to the highest spending club in the world. The difference from 2005-2014 is staggering in comparison. In only the 2009 summer window Madrid spent a net of £163,100,000 while the Glazers spent a net of -£1,900,000 from 2005-2009 !!!!! Even if you count half of Rooney and Ronaldo's fee it's still a paltry £17.8 million. Not only did Madrid spend £163,100,000 in the 2009 window they spent a net total of £224,700,000 from 2005-2009. That's difference of over £206,900,000 while in the previous 7 seasons it was only ~£26,000,000.

Sorry, but you can't quote those figures without also considering annual income. All figures in millions of course. Figures from 98-00 unavailable.

97-98 RM £72 MU £88
00-01 RM £138 MU £217
01-02 RM £152 MU £229
02-03 RM £193 MU £253
03-04 RM £263 MU £259
04-05 RM £275 MU £246
05-06 RM £292 MU £242
06-07 RM £351 MU £315
07-08 RM £365 MU £324
08-09 RM £401 MU £327
09-10 RM £438 MU £349
10-11 RM £479 MU £367
11-12 RM £512 MU £395
12-13 RM £518 MU £423

From 2000 to 2003 our income was much higher than Real Madrid's. In 03-04 it was about the same, and only in 04-05 did their income go beyond ours.

If anything that shows how tight the PLC were. Even when we earned more money than them, they were outspending us.

 

[Invictus]

Sorry, but you can't quote those figures without also considering annual income. All figures in millions of course. Figures from 98-00 unavailable.

97-98 RM £72 MU £88
00-01 RM £138 MU £217
01-02 RM £152 MU £229
02-03 RM £193 MU £253
03-04 RM £263 MU £259
04-05 RM £275 MU £246
05-06 RM £292 MU £242
06-07 RM £351 MU £315
07-08 RM £365 MU £324
08-09 RM £401 MU £327
09-10 RM £438 MU £349
10-11 RM £479 MU £367
11-12 RM £512 MU £395
12-13 RM £518 MU £423

From 2000 to 2003 our income was much higher than Real Madrid's. In 03-04 it was about the same, and only in 04-05 did their income go beyond ours.

If anything that shows how tight the PLC were. Even when we earned more money than them, they were outspending us.

That doesn't say much. I'm hardly interested in percentage of revenue but more in what number is actually spent on the club and transfers. Even if we spent a lower percentage on fees or wages, it was still within an inch of the very top and we also have to consider secondary investment from the rest of the club's turover - Old Trafford was expanded at a rapid pace - like the new 25,000 capacity North stand from 1995 that increased the capacity to 55,000. Later expansions till 2000 brought up the number to 68,200. So there was massive spending on the club's infrastructure. In comparison from 2005 we've only added 8,000 seats that looks horrible and doesn't even match with the bowl structure of the stadium and there have been some minor improvements at Carrington.

Meanwhile the likes of City are expanding Etihad even though they can't even fill the existing one, Fenway are undertaking the Anfield Regeneration Prohect for over £250 million, Madrid are modernizing the Bernabeu for £330 million, Bayern built the new Allianz Arena worth about £300 million. What have the Glazers done to match that ? Yeah they only took out £700 million out of the club, no biggie there. In 2012 they pocketed half of the IPO proceeds. And are planning to sell 5 % of the shares worth £88.7m and swallowing the proceeds whole. Great contribution to the club, how magnanimous. Let's polish their knobs and lick their feet.

TBF Real could have spend their whole turnover for all I care. But if United was spending similar amounts it's more than satisfactory even if the revenues were higher. Anyway as an aside why has our revenue lagged so much especially since the takeover when we were superior for almost an eternity ? Aren't they some kind of marketing geniuses ? Oh I know Real had a boom spurt with the Galactico policy while United bought Valencia, Obertan and Owen upon selling the best player in the world.

 

[Cooksen]

They need to either spend money or sell.

The longer we remain stagnant, more money will be needed and they cant see this simple fact.

 

[bishblaize]

That doesn't say much TBF. I'm hardly interested in percentage of revenue but more in what number is actually spent on the club and transfers. Even if we spent a lower percentage on fees or wages, it was still within an inch of the very top and we also have to consider secondary investment from the rest of the club's turover - Old Trafford was expanded at a rapid pace - like the new 25,000 capacity North stand from 1995 that increased the capacity to 55,000. Later expansions till 2000 brought up the number to 68,200. So there was massive spending on the club's infrastructure. In comparison from 2005 we've only added 8,000 seats that looks horrible and doesn't even match with the bowl structure of the stadium and there have been some minor improvements at Carrington.

Meanwhile the likes of City are expanding Etihad even though they can't even fill the existing one, Fenway are undertaking the Anfield Regeneration Prohect for over £250 million, Madrid are modernizing the Bernabeu for £330 million, Bayern built the new Allianz Arena worth about £300 million. What have the Glazers done to match that ? Yeah they only took out £700 million out of the club, no biggie there. In 2012 they pocketed half of the IPO proceeds. And are planning to sell 5 % of the shares worth £88.7m and swallowing the proceeds whole. Great contribution to the club, how magnanimous. Let's polish their knobs and lick their feet.

TBF Real could have spend their whole turnover for all I care. But if United was spending similar amounts it's more than satisfactory even if the revenues were higher. Anyway as an aside why has our revenue lagged so much especially since the takeover when we were superior for almost an eternity ? Aren't they some kind of marketing geniuses ? Oh I know Real had a boom spurt with the Galactico policy while United bought Valencia, Obertan and Owen upon selling the best player in the world.

Good grief. There are so many issues there in I'd have to write a thesis in response.

Lets leave it at this. If you selectively compare isolated numbers side by side with other clubs & ignore anything that doesn't fit, you can 'prove' anything.

 

[Invictus]

Good grief. There are so many issues there in I'd have to write a thesis in response.

Lets leave it at this. If you selectively compare isolated numbers side by side with other clubs & ignore anything that doesn't fit, you can 'prove' anything.

Prove to me how they've been super beneficial to United since I'm so ignorant. Let's hear the thesis. And I'd better not hear about the enhanced revenue crap. We were superior or at the very least equal to Madrid before they took over and are currently 100 million behind. Even if you factor in their better broadcasting deal the gulf is still too wide. Why have their trajectory better steeper. The negatives far and away outweigh the intermittent positive yet some supporters act as if the "anti-Glazer taskforce" are the ones who're in the wrong for bring up this issue.

 

[bishblaize]

Prove to me how they've been beneficial to United. Let's hear the thesis.

Mistake. You're assuming I support the Glazers. I don't.

My view is that the Glazers are a footballing Faustian pact. In about 18 months time the club will probably/possibly leap to the top of the revenue charts. We look to be adding at least £80M to our turnover from our two new shirt deals, the TV money and our yoghurt/bleach/noodle sponsors. At that point it could be the richest club in the world, with a smaller debt than Real Madrid to boot. Add in FFP and the future is looking very bright for them.

So for all the transfer muppets that just want us to spend big sums of money, it'll be like the Xmas every day. Lucky them.

For the Glazers too of course. The idea that they only ever wanted the £10-30M pa that they could draw from the club's revenue is daft, when they're worth several billion. They simply don't need it. Their game is to grow the club so its worth a fortune, then sell. Buy companies, sell them. That's how people like that make money. We'll be worth four times what they paid. Not bad for a decade's work.

However to do that they took the most insane risk imaginable, one that no-one should be allowed to take with football clubs. They needed a bunch of things to go right for them, all of which did. If they hadn't any level of meltdown from Liverpool to Leeds was entirely possible.

imo it should be against the law for anyone to do that to a football club. Its a complete outrage how helpless football fans are. Football clubs are not businesses in the normal sense, the relationship with stakeholders is totally unique & should be protected.

However you also can't deny that as risky as the Glazer's plan was, it worked, pretty much exactly how they planned it. The club is in an exceedingly strong place financially speaking. Therefore its up to the individual to decide whether the end justifies the means.

Personally I don't. but then neither am I desperate to see the club spending 100s of millions every summer. I like how Fergie ran things (how he always did btw) trying to focus on developing young players and only splashing out on the odd player that would make a real difference. I'd love to see that continue, though I accept that football changes and it may never be repeated. However if money is all that you love, that's what you'll receive. Expect a lot more big, glitzy transfer fees in the coming years.

What gets me is the way United's history has been retconned by anti-Glazer types so that everything was super-duper before the Glazers came along, just to justify a mantra that lost its relevance about 5 years ago.

 

[Im red2]

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.

Some is going to pay off debt, a pittance of it is going on transfers, and the greatest amount of it is going out of the club is the way it looks to me.

 

[KeninDC]

I know this is nothing new, but it bears a mention that spending is a means to an end, and not an end to itself. The argument that the underinvestment (or poorly targeted investment) chickens are coming home to roost may be valid. Still, the league results since 2005 (taken from the most recent stock offering prospectus) are nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Kill 'em all]

The Glazer regime.

 

[poshmad]

Where's 2010 - present day? Where are the stats detailing earnings?
Dont get me wrong Im not defending the Glazers in any way shape or form but you need to have all sides of the argument.

Also the net spend at £6m is irelevent considering the sale of Ronaldo will be taken into account.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

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.

There's something to be said for this, clearly. We were in a position to buy midfielders, including midfielders who wouldn't have cost an arm and a leg - but Fergie didn't to that. He had faith in what he had to the extent that he would rather splash the cash on other positions. He won the league and reached several CL finals whilst "neglecting" the middle of the park, so it's hard to argue against his priorities in that sense.

I'm not saying he was 100% right, because I do believe the later vintages of United would have been even better if he had been more open to...buying a couple of bloody good central midfielders.

We could have snapped up Vidal before he became a household name. That's well documented. And he isn't the only example. And that ain't about money, as such. He wouldn't have been a major investment at all back in the day.

 

[Kill 'em all]

Where's 2010 - present day? Where are the stats detailing earnings?
Dont get me wrong Im not defending the Glazers in any way shape or form but you need to have all sides of the argument.

That's updated until 2012. 553m spent on fees related to the Glazer's takeover of our club. This is money that used to stay within the club instead of leaving for loan repayments and financing fees.

 

[poshmad]

That's updated until 2012. 553m spent on fees related to the Glazer's takeover of our club. This is money that used to stay within the club instead of leaving for loan repayments and financing fees.

As I said not defending the Glazers, I agree they are a burden to our finances to an extent so no arguments from me.

 

[Kill 'em all]

I don't think the feeling is just on the forums, I think the fans will show great anger towards the Glazers in the coming months if not years unless they rectify this situation to a much greater extent than the previous green and gold campaign.

 

[Invictus]

I know this is nothing new, but it bears a mention that spending is a means to an end, and not an end to itself. The argument that the underinvestment (or poorly targeted investment) chickens are coming home to roost may be valid. Still, the league results since 2005 (taken from the most recent stock offering prospectus) are nothing to sneeze at.

This has little to do with the Glazer discussion TBF. Really dislike the argument that we were successful during a majority of their ownership. The results were down to one man and one man only. They were a byproduct of that man and the Glazers were inconsequential. One could put a hot potato in their place and still seen the same results. We were successful inspite of them not because of them. Anyway that man has since departed and we've already experienced what that means over the course of last season. I really doubt the results would've been similar if we had manager XYZ in place from 2005-2013. The owners got incredibly lucky that we were being managed by a genius. If United had some shit-stirrer like Rafa they'd have gone down the Hicks and Gillett route.

I don't think the feeling is just on the forums, I think the fans will show great anger towards the Glazers in the coming months if not years unless they rectify this situation to a much greater extent than the previous green and gold campaign.

I don't get it in all honestly. Does them getting in a few quality additions absolve the blame of 700 million taken out of United ? Why didn't the local fans kick up a greater fuss during the glory days of 2005-2012 and the epic debt levels. What's the use of doing it now when a majority the pillaging has been over and done with and we only have to pay 20 million per annum.

 

[KeninDC]

That's updated until 2012. 553m spent on fees related to the Glazer's takeover of our club. This is money that used to stay within the club instead of leaving for loan repayments and financing fees.

Not to get into a dueling spreadsheet discussion-but this is from Andy Green's August 2012 blog. It takes into account savings realized from debt payments and also the dividends paid by the PLC. The £350M estimate in cash Glazer costs (£531M - £180M implicitly assumes that the PLC would have generated the same increase in commercial revenue as under the Glazers.

Not defending the Glazers, just trying to establish a starting point for the discussion.

 

[KeninDC]

This has little to do with the Glazer discussion TBF. Really dislike the argument that we were successful during a majority of their ownership.
.

Sorry-but I disagree. The purpose of United is to win-and they did. I agree that we're in a diminished state-through a combination of too little and poorly directed spending. I'd argue that the original Green and Gold campaign lost traction because the results were good during the time when the campaign was most active.

Now-the squad must be improved. And if the money isn't made available I'll be the first one to light the pitchforks.