Solskjaer is a worryingly easy out for the Glazers

[Tarrou]

There is a difference between more scrutiny and being constantly negative. I am sure we will get the next one right after Jose, and I don't think it will be Ole and I don't think he is the best candidate even if he achieves seasons objectives.

Sure but who is being constantly negative? Me? I'm just pointing out something that is potentially important. I'm not even saying its definite, just like, let's take a moment to consider this before rushing into anything.

 

[Josep Dowling]

What investment????

They have loaded all the takeover debt on the club and have not put one penny of their own money in.
they have just drained money out for well over a decade.

Just what does the likes of darcey glazer actually do for Utd despite being on the payroll.

They are leeches end of and the sooner they sell up and F..k Off the better.

Well they aren’t going to anytime soon, so you may as well accept that.

 

[dogwithabone]

What, I wonder, if we win the FA Cup and go further than Spurs in CL and they finish trophyless will be the thinking of our decision makers ? I like Potch but my only reservation is whether he’s a nearly man. Pretty football and a top four cannot be considered a success for us. Some managers, like some players, just have that right place right time way about them. Some are lucky, some aren’t. Everything about OGS, in his entire career, smacks of perfect timing and a sprinkling of good fortune.

 

[Kag]

Jesus. Same old.

The club, in spite of the Glazers, spend a lot of money on wages and transfer fees. The latter wasn’t the problem this summer. The problem was the (reported) deals that Mourinho wanted the club to sanction.

Top brass didn’t want to sell Martial. They didn’t want to buy Willian for £50 million. They didn’t want to spend £30 million of Jerome bloody Boateng. They didn’t want to spend £75 million on Harry fecking Maguire.

Given the stick they’ve received for wasting funds previously, I’d suggest that was pretty good thinking. The club has done and will continue to spend money on attainable targets that (should), in theory, make sense from an economical point of view.

If they hire Ole then it will be because he’s done a cracking job over the next few months. It has sod all to do with saving cash.

 

[Rish Sawhney]

Well if you don't consider them taking $1bn out of us as evidence of their true motivations, take a look at Tampa Bay and what their fans say about them. I mean, there's enough there to raise this as a valid question, in the context of them being able to save $300m on a single decision.

Just pointing to our spending in last 5 years is just taking one reference point in an extremely complex equation. That is the sort of money it costs to run a massive club, to keep it at the top or get it back to the top. Despite that, we have failed.

For one, NFL franchises work in a completely different manner to premier league clubs. So I don’t think what Tampa bay fans do or do not say about the Glazers has anything to do with our situation.

2nd, the fact that you call a leveraged takeover as “taking $1bn out of the club” tells me a lot more about your understanding of the financial world than anything about the Glazers.

 

[RU Devil]

I don't think them not allowing Jose transfer money was tightening the purse strings. They were already likely in two minds about how much more he could do, even with more signings and wanted to see if he could continue on from last season or if it was as many of us thought, an overachievement. Last thing we needed was more players that don't actually improve us on top of that.

Yeah, the fix was in when you look at last summer's dealings. Not that I disagree with the board on this, but they definitely didn't want to pay for more players that might not be part of the future (w/o Jose). Everyone was aware of Jose's stages with previous teams, and were wary of going down that path. I'm sure Jose was fully aware of it as well, and it seems he dug in his heels (i.e. Pogba/Martial).

Considering the drastic increase in competition for CL spots, I doubt they would tighten purse strings in the summer, whether it was Ole or not. At worse, they would save on his salary, but I don't think he'd get less money for transfers. I'd argue he might get more money, as he'd actually have less drawing power than Poch & would need the extra money to get players that he needs.

If the plan is to get in a DOF, isn't a coach who works primarily with the team/players exactly what we will be looking for? The massive rebuild will be the responsibility of the DOF.

The manager/head coach will just concentrating on what the club supplies him, and Ole sounds a very good fit for that.

The last thing we need is a manager who will butt heads constantly with a DOF.

Good point. If a DOF is going to be implemented, then it will be that person who is in charge of the rebuild. It seems Ole seems to be a very good choice in such a situation. More of the GM/Head Coach dynamic that we see in US sports.

I would think the choice & timing of the DOF will have more influence on whether Ole is the coach or not. If the DOF isn't in place until late spring, I'd think we'll see another coach in the summer, as that person would want to dictate his staff. If the DOF is in place sooner, then Ole would at least get a chance to impress the new boss. Of course, Ole's results will have a big say.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

No one is saying the lowest possible cost. More keeping their own personal revenue high and keeping the club on an arsenal type budget as long as top 4 happens. They sure have history for this with Tampa. It can also be seen at United, no major investment unless top four doesn't happen.

No club should be spending £100’s millions each year. We once won the league one year by selling RVN and only bringing in Carrick.

The spending from the owners has more than fine, we still spent £70m+ in the summer, and £500m or whatever it is in 5 years, that’s obscene money, nothing like Arsenal, who can only afford to bring players in on loan in this transfer window.

 

[marktan]

Well if you don't consider them taking $1bn out of us as evidence of their true motivations, take a look at Tampa Bay and what their fans say about them. I mean, there's enough there to raise this as a valid question, in the context of them being able to save $300m on a single decision.

Just pointing to our spending in last 5 years is just taking one reference point in an extremely complex equation. That is the sort of money it costs to run a massive club, to keep it at the top or get it back to the top. Despite that, we have failed.

I agree with you, frankly to be competitive in the modern world you need more then one marquee £80m signing every summer - you need £160m summers like Liverpool have just had or the summer City had where they signed Walker, Mendy, Ederson etc.

The reality is the competition for top players is higher then it's ever been - we were once top draw for UK players but now with everyone having higher revenues a team like Spurs has no need to sell a player like Alli or Kane for £50m - they'll demand £80m. We could afford one of those every summer if the Glazers spend - but teams like City and PSG can buy multiple of them every year if they wish.

I'm cautiously optimisitc about Ole, but I'm with you that the lack of ambition shown in the summer by Ed and the Glazers and they $1b they've taken out of the club through dividends and debt repayments over the last decade is seriously worrying. The level of ambition they're showing right now is good enough to fight for top 4, but it's no way near good enough to be a team that actually challenges and wins the league on the regular. Yes it could happen if we get our coaching absolutely spot on - but failing that the surest way to success is spending.

 

[SwansonsTache]

2nd, the fact that you call a leveraged takeover as “taking $1bn out of the club” tells me a lot more about your understanding of the financial world than anything about the Glazers.

Well, in a LBO they use the assets of the club as security or collateral, and the ratio between capital put forth and credit used leads to very high interest rates. It is a legit and sound way to purchase a business, especially a profitable one, but not ideal for MUFC. We'd obviously be better off with some truly rich owners, not some garden gnome pound shop billionaires.

 

[Rish Sawhney]

Well, in a LBO they use the assets of the club as security or collateral, and the ratio between capital put forth and credit used leads to very high interest rates. It is a legit and sound way to purchase a business, especially a profitable one, but not ideal for MUFC. We'd obviously be better off with some truly rich owners, not some garden gnome pound shop billionaires.

See I’m the opposite. I’d much rather we be a self sufficient business that can afford to pay a few mills in dividend to their owners every year than be reliant on a rich owner for funds for our functioning and competitiveness.

 

[Tarrou]

For one, NFL franchises work in a completely different manner to premier league clubs. So I don’t think what Tampa bay fans do or do not say about the Glazers has anything to do with our situation.

2nd, the fact that you call a leveraged takeover as “taking $1bn out of the club” tells me a lot more about your understanding of the financial world than anything about the Glazers.

what does it say about my understanding of the financial world?

 

[SwansonsTache]

See I’m the opposite. I’d much rather we be a self sufficient business that can afford to pay a few mills in dividend to their owners every year than be reliant on a rich owner for funds for our functioning and competitiveness.

See, United was and are in an unique position there. Have owners outright buy the club without leveraging the assets for debt, and United would easily compete with all the oil-funded clubs just from profitability.

One thing I will give the Glazers though is how they have monetized the brand, both to their own and Uniteds advantage. But to be fair, anyone with the ability to buy United outright would have the savvy to do this. United as a business and global brand was not monetized enough pre-Glazers.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Well, in a LBO they use the assets of the club as security or collateral, and the ratio between capital put forth and credit used leads to very high interest rates. It is a legit and sound way to purchase a business, especially a profitable one, but not ideal for MUFC. We'd obviously be better off with some truly rich owners, not some garden gnome pound shop billionaires.

Utd sold their soul when they listed on the stock exchange.

As you point out, there is nothing wrong with a leveraged buy out. The key word is leverage, which vastly improves the return you make in your investment.

Do you buy your house for cash, or with a mortgage? I’ve exchanged on a BTL house, yesterday, it’s £400k, and I will be using about £30k of my own money. Even if I could afford to buy it for cash I wouldn’t, I’d go and buy 10 houses instead.

If anyone had £4bn to buy Utd, then what do you think they would do with the profits? The reality is just as much money would go out of the club.

It’s a business.

 

[SwansonsTache]

If anyone had £4bn to buy Utd, then what do you think they would do with the profits? The reality is just as much money would go out of the club.

If anyone bought United straight out then it would be a statement sort of ownership, where they wanted to cover themselves in glory, much like the City owners.

The level of tycoons that could do such a purchase would find a better use for their £4bn if it was a pure profit play.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

If anyone bought United straight out then it would be a statement sort of ownership, where they wanted to cover themselves in glory, much like the City owners.

The level of tycoons that could do such a purchase would find a better use for their £4bn if it was a pure profit play.

No one is going to buy Utd for cash, my point was illustrative. In any case, do you want someone who just uses the club as a play thing?

 

[Champagne Football]

The Glazers have spent a fortune past few seasons. Just paid Jose 15 million. They obviously want to remain competitive. They will bring in Poch if he is available and Ole misses top 4 but Poch might say no to us. If that happens then Ole will stay

 

[SwansonsTache]

No one is going to buy Utd for cash, my point was illustrative. In any case, do you want someone who just uses the club as a play thing?

Nah, I am talking about a fictional perfect owner. A situation where someone with money would buy United as a fan, and undeniably as a personal marketing tool.

The problem with City's owners is not how they've conducted themselves, it is more about who they are, and the fact that they are part of a system with a less than stellar humanitarian record. As actual owners they've transformed Manchester City.

 

[fellaini's barber]

I think we're handling this post Jose transition very well. Getting Ole as interim while reshuffling the club structure and finding a new permanent manager is a genius move. If Ole turns out to be better than expected he rightfully retains the job, if he doesn't he goes back to Norway and we hire whoever. Simples. Somehow I don't feel Ed had permanency in mind when he brought in Ole and will only give it to him due to fan pressure. Implying that the same people who spent obscene amounts buying players for Jose and LVG are all of a sudden opting for Ole to save money sounds like the type of stuff Jose fanboys used to make up here all the time

 

[Fosu-Mens]

The Glazers have spent a fortune past few seasons. Just paid Jose 15 million. They obviously want to remain competitive. They will bring in Poch if he is available and Ole misses top 4 but Poch might say no to us. If that happens then Ole will stay

The Glazers have not spent anything. The club has been able to use more of its income/revenue due to refinancing of the loans. The owners are still taking dividends out of the club each year and we are still paying off the loans.

 

[SwansonsTache]

The Glazers have spent a fortune past few seasons. Just paid Jose 15 million. They obviously want to remain competitive. They will bring in Poch if he is available and Ole misses top 4 but Poch might say no to us. If that happens then Ole will stay

They have not spent a fortune. They have allowed their asset, which is United, to use it's own generated funds to remain relatively competitive. This fictional idea of the Glazers somehow funding our transfer activity and day to day operations is ridiculous.

 

[JMack1234]

Errm I think it's all up in the air.

I've been absolutely staggered by the amount of people on here who've decided that Ole is the guy to take us forward because he's won five winnable games and he smiles. I hope he's right the guy to take us forward but i'm very aware that taking over from a miserable b*stard like Mourinho, playing nice football and smiling is one thing. Coming in as a permanent manager who has to make very tough decisions, freeze players out, bring players in and build a side with a identity is very much another. However it isn't worth much brain space because with the run of games we have we'll all find out if he's the guy soon enough.

In short-term appointing Ole would make a lot of sense for the Glazers. Everyone likes Ole and we'd play attacking football for the first time since SAF left. In the long-term it'll probably kick them in the wotsits because if/when things start to go wrong under Ole nobody will want to blame him. Because everyone likes Ole and they won't want to admit that they got carried away in the first place. Thus you'd see fans turning against the Glazers in a much more serious way.

 

[Patrick08]

Sure but who is being constantly negative? Me? I'm just pointing out something that is potentially important. I'm not even saying its definite, just like, let's take a moment to consider this before rushing into anything.

No not you, genrally threads created here have been. And then we see two extremes of it as well. 5 games in and people are already talking about what will it take for Ole to get it permanently, then the next thread is if Ole is too easy for glazers to deal with and he won't force the owners to spend much and keep being a yes men to them. These are all wild speculations.

The club has already taken 6 months for restructuring and following a due process for new manager worrying and having a rant about something not in our control sets out unnecessary agendas which was I was talking about.

 

[Patrick08]

They have not spent a fortune. They have allowed their asset, which is United, to use it's own generated funds to remain relatively competitive. This fictional idea of the Glazers somehow funding our transfer activity and day to day operations is ridiculous.

They are also responsible for bringing our commercial revenues to the highest high, how can we separate that fact and have a veiw that they are not responsible for bringing the money in but are only responsible for taking it out.

 

[SAFMUTD]

I don't even know why we are asking ourselves this at this point, lets enjoy the ride for the moment. We have had very few happy moments in the recent years lets just enjoy this.

If Ole is good enough he'll stay, unfortunately I think it's highly improbable that he has the tactic knowledge to compete at this point but let's give him a chance. My prediction is that unless OGS makes something really really extraordinary then we'll go for Pocettino. Right know the team is playing as it should, attacking, exciting football, so lets not worry about this for now.

 

[Ban]

Errm I think it's all up in the air.

I've been absolutely staggered by the amount of people on here who've decided that Ole is the guy to take us forward because he's won five winnable games and he smiles. I hope he's right the guy to take us forward but i'm very aware that taking over from a miserable b*stard like Mourinho, playing nice football and smiling is one thing. Coming in as a permanent manager who has to make very tough decisions, freeze players out, bring players in and build a side with a identity is very much another. However it isn't worth much brain space because with the run of games we have we'll all find out if he's the guy soon enough.

In short-term appointing Ole would make a lot of sense for the Glazers. Everyone likes Ole and we'd play attacking football for the first time since SAF left. In the long-term it'll probably kick them in the wotsits because if/when things start to go wrong under Ole nobody will want to blame him. Because everyone likes Ole and they won't want to admit that they got carried away in the first place. Thus you'd see fans turning against the Glazers in a much more serious way.

This. Its a two edged sword, it may be an easy route for them but if things do south it will be them who'll be on the firing line, not Ole.

 

[Tarrou]

No not you, genrally threads created here have been. And then we see two extremes of it as well. 5 games in and people are already talking about what will it take for Ole to get it permanently, then the next thread is if Ole is too easy for glazers to deal with and he won't force the owners to spend much and keep being a yes men to them. These are all wild speculations.

The club has already taken 6 months for restructuring and following a due process for new manager worrying and having a rant about something not in our control sets out unnecessary agendas which was I was talking about.

Yeah you're right. And to be honest part of the reason I started this thread is I think we're getting a bit too carried away with Ole. Its difficult though after the shit we've been through, not to get caught up in this moment and I'm absolutely what he's done for us.

I actually would just really love it if Ole was the right man, but I'm not sure he is and I don't think we can know for sure in the next six months. So we need to take a calculated risk which is fine if its for the right reasons.

 

[Bubz27]

I don’t think there is anything wrong with Utd employing OGS if he proves himself in the next 5 months. Poch is relatively unproven in any case, as you point out - appointing him could cost an absolute fortune.

The days of managers having lots of player contacts are long gone (as this level), and that’s why someone like OGS could potentially thrive under a DOF.

Not having a dig at Poch, but what’s he won as a manager? What did he win as a player - he wasn’t a great player by all accounts. What influence has he had on transfers at spurs (very little as far as I can see). He’s done well, but there are no guarantees he would work - so if by the end of the season we have a manager who is doing well, why not keep him? Any new manager has (not scientifically prove ) a 50/50 at best chance of success, so keep OGS is he is successful.

I'm not saying otherwise. Nothing wrong with Ole getting the job on merit.

But I don't think it's ludicrous to say Poch has done more in management and would be a lower risk than Ole. Especially if we actually are going to restructure the club.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

They have not spent a fortune. They have allowed their asset, which is United, to use it's own generated funds to remain relatively competitive. This fictional idea of the Glazers somehow funding our transfer activity and day to day operations is ridiculous.

They own the club, so what if it’s not from their own personal piggy bank, they have sanctioned a fortune to be spent over the past 5 years.

You need to learn about business. Do you think Richard Branson buy aeroplanes with his own money? I’ll use the example of a house again - will you save up £200k (or whatever) to buy a house in cash, or will you use a mortgage? An example of a BTL is much better, as it brings in an income as well as the capital appreciation - but the essence is the same.

Unfortunately some fans need to live in the real world, football clubs are assets, assets that can be traded, borrowed against, and make money.

 

[SwansonsTache]

One thing I will give the Glazers though is how they have monetized the brand, both to their own and Uniteds advantage. But to be fair, anyone with the ability to buy United outright would have the savvy to do this. United as a business and global brand was not monetized enough pre-Glazers.

They are also responsible for bringing our commercial revenues to the highest high, how can we separate that fact and have a veiw that they are not responsible for bringing the money in but are only responsible for taking it out.

As you can see I don't have that view.

 

[SwansonsTache]

You need to learn about business.

And you need to learn to read.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

I'm not saying otherwise. Nothing wrong with Ole getting the job on merit.

But I don't think it's ludicrous to say Poch has done more in management and would be a lower risk than Ole. Especially if we actually are going to restructure the club.

I see your point. I think if OGS is successful (to be determined), then he would be a lower risk than Poch, as any new manager is a risk. Neither OGS or Poch have been successful as managers (yet), in respect of relevant trophies, but then we all know how appointing a previously successful manager turned out!

It’s all a bit moot/ theoretical at the moment. Let’s see how he does at the end of the season.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

And you need to learn to read.

Good comeback. Care to elaborate?

 

[shamans]

They own the club, so what if it’s not from their own personal piggy bank, they have sanctioned a fortune to be spent over the past 5 years.

You need to learn about business. Do you think Richard Branson buy aeroplanes with his own money? I’ll use the example of a house again - will you save up £200k (or whatever) to buy a house in cash, or will you use a mortgage? An example of a BTL is much better, as it brings in an income as well as the capital appreciation - but the essence is the same.

Unfortunately some fans need to live in the real world, football clubs are assets, assets that can be traded, borrowed against, and make money.

And in the real world some owners of organizations are better than others. With Glazers we always get these trite excuses of how it's a business and all. It doesn't hide the fact of how bad they have been overall. We are doing well despite them not because of them.

 

[SwansonsTache]

Good comeback. Care to elaborate?

No point in elaborating.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

And in the real world some owners of organizations are better than others. With Glazers we always get these trite excuses of how it's a business and all. It doesn't hide the fact of how bad they have been overall. We are doing well despite them not because of them.

Decisions on managers, or structure can definitely be criticised (as can anything in retrospect) - we have have 20/20 vision in himdsight. The point was around spending, and ability to spend, and that’s been there - only outspent by City and PSG over the past 5 years - what more do you want form the owners in respect of spending? It’s not realistic to be going out and buying someone like Mbappe every year.

 

[Bubz27]

I see your point. I think if OGS is successful (to be determined), then he would be a lower risk than Poch, as any new manager is a risk. Neither OGS or Poch have been successful as managers (yet), in respect of relevant trophies, but then we all know how appointing a previously successful manager turned out!

It’s all a bit moot/ theoretical at the moment. Let’s see how he does at the end of the season.

Nothing would make me happier than Ole being our 'Pep'. Not in terms of style.

But let's be honest, Ole has it all to prove over these next 6 weeks (run of tough fixtures) if he is to get the job. He has to do more then Poch would to get the job.

 

[Patrick08]

And in the real world some owners of organizations are better than others. With Glazers we always get these trite excuses of how it's a business and all. It doesn't hide the fact of how bad they have been overall. We are doing well despite them not because of them.

The one at arsenal has been worse.

 

[Buster15]

The idea that Glazers want to run the club at the lowest cost possible is wrong.

I think I understand what you were alluding to but it is a reality that any business has to be operated at the lowest possible operating cost. Otherwise it will not be sustainable.

Manchester United was bought by the Glazers as a business investment and not because of the love of the club. That has always been clear.

It was bought totally with borrowing (leveraged). As we know, the club's profits are being used to pay off the loan and when that is completed they will own a massive massive asset.

Makes brilliant business sense but is understandably frustrating for the supporters.

 

[RedCoffee]

People always seems to forget that Sir Alex and Sir Bobby are both on the board representing the history and culture of the club. The right decision will be made by the board as a collective not just the easiest one.

 

[Khalifa711]

I don't believe money is the issue here, sure we can invest £200m a season but it would be pointless if the players we bring get frozen out each week. What ole has done is shown to some extent that we have players of exceptional quality and has them showing that on the pitch. We do need investment but not £200m per season.

Right now a dof is needed to identity weak areas on the pitch, find targets and look at which players we can bring to the first team from the youth setup. As of now our defence is probably our worst area. We need to let go of a few players, 2/3 CB, 2/3 FB, Grant, Scott, Fellaini, Mata?
Promote youth, Henderson, Tuanzebe, Mensah, Gomes, Chong, Mason and buy a CB and FB. Hardly a £200M investment