45.28% have said yes 
Amazing.
Amazing.
The Glazers 2013
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
Some people just see continued success on the pitch and think they can't be bad, ignoring the raised ticket prices, the hundreds of millions spent repaying their debts and the tens of millions they take out of the club in personal loans. We've been successful because of SAF and the way he had built up the club but the Glazers are still a parasite.45.28% have said yes
Amazing.
And some people ignore the fact that the club is extremely financially stable and successful. Every owner of every business in the world wants to make a profit, why should the Glazers be any different. And that there are a LOT worse football owners out there than the Glazers.
As for the raised ticket prices, every club has raised their ticket prices over the last 10 years for 2 simple reasons, Inflation and Supply+Demand. You want to bitch about ticket prices, try supporting Arsenal.
I didn't vote - the options are too vague. We can't call a family that have taken a lot of money out of the club good for United, but they haven't been as bad as was predicted when they came here.
Leveraged buyout aside, they seem to want what is best for the club.
They also raised the revenue with a lot of contracts all over the world. Also, the profit of the club in the end of the tear gets taxed and some of it pays as dividend. I don't think that the difference is that big.
Again, I want to reinforce that I have traditionally shared a lot of these views, and still do to some extent. But you have to be open minded about this. How bad is it to spend millions repaying debts, if you also increase revenues by millions in new creative ways in order to do so? Does the positive not cancel out the negative? Similar with the personal loans: I am not delighted about them doing it, but if they are doing it from revenues that were generated by their efforts (new sponsorship etc), and the club is net wealthier than it was before them, despite the money they are skimming, is it still so bad? It isnt like they have come in and started extracting money and nothing else.
Its not just the success on the pitch. Its the success on the balance sheet. It is success by whatever measure you want to use. Bearing in mind that there is no measurement of success that uses ticket prices.
Still not committing to them being "good owners". I just think this is too delicate a subject to have such binary choices for the answers. But I do think the good owners being envisaged by some in here are a figment of the imagination.
Its not just the success on the pitch. Its the success on the balance sheet. It is success by whatever measure you want to use. Bearing in mind that there is no measurement of success that uses ticket prices.
Still not committing to them being "good owners". I just think this is too delicate a subject to have such binary choices for the answers. But I do think the good owners being envisaged by some in here are a figment of the imagination.
Without wishin to dredge up a very old argument, our ticket prices were ripe for an increase and are still now very competitive in relation to the quality that we get for the cost.
Basically they are the opposite of Abramovich.
He puts money in - they take it out
He seems to have little regard for creating a good name for the club - they have held onto the traditions of the club
He fires managers at will - they've just given a 6 year deal to someone they probably had never heard of
It depends what you value most. Financials aside, I don't dislike what they are doing for the club.
even I am pretty suprised by that! quite a swing from 2009 when only 3.5% said they were good owners.45.28% have said yes
Amazing.
Although the options given were slightly different, I think it would have been better to have the exact same poll to compare
In 2009 I voted that they were 'better than expected' - Im not even sure which of the options to go for now but I would lean towards 'Yes' rather than 'Not Sure', the main negative is always ticketing issues like ACS etc.
Yes, if there was a better than expected option I would have voted thus.
what he said
They've handled themselves well in the past few days, can't say anything else.
Now we shall see what they're truly made of, though. Without the greatest managerial genius ever in charge of what happens on the pitch there will be different strokes for all involved with our club.
They do deserve credit for adhering to Fergie's ways when it comes to the successor. It might have been the obvious thing to do - but I know owners who would've been far less willing to opt for a sensible, long-term plan.
Doesn't mean I love 'em. But given my skepticism regarding all things Glazer I feel it¨s only right to give 'em their due when they - actually - deserve it.
Now we shall see what they're truly made of, though. Without the greatest managerial genius ever in charge of what happens on the pitch there will be different strokes for all involved with our club.
They do deserve credit for adhering to Fergie's ways when it comes to the successor. It might have been the obvious thing to do - but I know owners who would've been far less willing to opt for a sensible, long-term plan.
Doesn't mean I love 'em. But given my skepticism regarding all things Glazer I feel it¨s only right to give 'em their due when they - actually - deserve it.
My understanding is that ticket prices have gone up at a much slower rate than under the PLC era. And have been frozen for the last 2/3 years whilst all our rivals have continued to increase prices. The problem is the ACS.
A lot of money has flowed out of the club, but when you compare this to the amount that would have flowed out under the PLC in taxes and dividends, the difference is minimal. Allied to that, the commercial side of the business has increased several fold. Moving into the era of FFP, it will put us in a better position than nearly any other club in the world. It's speculation at best to say the PLC would've achieved the same success.
I don't think anyone is looking to credit them for what has happened on the pitch, but we've all benefited from what SAF has done. All he wanted from owners was a hands off, transfer supportive approach. And he got it. He loved working under them, he said as much many times.
People claim that United are now run like a business, but it is a business. It's not a non profit. It's not fan owned. Even clubs which are fan owned, like Real Madrid or Barcelona, are still run like businesses; And their practice of individual TV bargaining is far more damaging to their domestic game and fans than anything United have done. Neither of those clubs are run sustainably, and both have soaring debts. If it wasn't for successive bent Spanish governments, Real would've been in the financial crapper a long time ago.
And whilst I will agree that the bundesliga seems to be a fans utopia, the fact that it isn't at OT, isn't because of the Glazers, because the PLC were just as 'business' orientated.
This probably won't be a very popular view around here (although looking at the Poll results, maybe it will be). But I think some people are just blinded by irrational hate. If the Glazers manage to improve their relationship with regular match going fans, I think it'd be hard to argue against them being 'good' owners. Not perfect, but hardly the doom mongering some were predicting.
Haven't the prices been frozen two years running?
Voted for the 3rd option but one thing you can say for the Glazers unlike most other foreign owners is that they don't appear to seek any sort of limelight and are quite happy to stay in the background
I am pretty unsure.
What I do know though is from a footballing aspect, they've been good. They've enough sense to not fiddle with the team like Abramovich.
And they view the club purely as a business, we're a source of money and nothing else to them.
What I do know though is from a footballing aspect, they've been good. They've enough sense to not fiddle with the team like Abramovich.
And they view the club purely as a business, we're a source of money and nothing else to them.
Cracking post.
I think a big problem with a lot of fans is they somehow have this sense of entitlement. That the money the club makes is their money and how DARE the owners spend it on anything other than signing more players / improving the club.
Get rid of the ACS and would there be any real reason to bitch and moan about them? I think not.
They've done more or less what I expected from the start.
My answer to the big question would be 'yes and no'.
Was torn between no and not sure.
They haven't been good for us. Absolutely not.
In time they could prove to be good, but we can't say for sure until the debts are paid off and we see what their real intentions are.
They haven't been good for us. Absolutely not.
In time they could prove to be good, but we can't say for sure until the debts are paid off and we see what their real intentions are.
The ACS is bad if you don't want to go to cup matches and can't sell your tickets; it's fine if you want to go to the matches and are guaranteed tickets for the big matches. (Arsenal's season ticket price includes the first 7 cup matches; for the later rounds there are no guarantees.)
This is an urban legend. It never happened.
The club's part of the sale proceeds was used to pay down debt.
"Treating fans as customers", together with "Leveraging the global brand", has been a key element of United's strategic plan since well before the Glazers. You'll find it in the 2003 and 2004 annual reports.
- Stabilising ticket prices - apart from the VAT increase prices have been the same for the last 4 seasons. (Compare that to our peer group.)
- Massively increasing Commercial revenues putting us in a very strong position with respect to FFP (and the Prem's financial constraints).
Of course they're not perfect - they may not even be nice - but I'm not sure how you justify "evil".
It's alarming.45.28% have said yes
Amazing.
As are some of the assumptions in this thread.
I'm not sure alarming is the word. The club is riding high financially speaking (and high enough footballing wise too, except for the...yeah, you know, that thing that happened the other day which has made my whisky intake go through the roof), the percentage is just about where I would expect it to be. Pretty much where it has been, I should say, these last few years.
If you disregard the debt (which more and more people do, partly because it's old news and people these days have the attention span of half a guppy, and partly because they've been informed that nurturing a huge fecking debt is just what a solid business is all about nowadays) these ginger Yanks are moving along just splendidly.
The ticket prices can always be explained away by fluctuations in the market, or the global economy, I don't know - there's always some plausible excuse. And we're league champions. Not a bad thing.
And now these cnuts have gone and done something almost suspiciously decent and rational, by supporting Moyes' appointment.
I don't blame people for having some kind of faith in 'em at the moment.
I personally never have have faith in 'em, though. I only have faith in...nah, nothing, when all is said and done. Possibly in Scholes. But that's about it.
The facts are though that the club is worth way more than the debt, the debt is decreasing and profit is increasing. As long as that continues then everything is financially healthy.
Interesting question for sure...my guess would be there is no definitive answer.
People can say what they like about Abramovich, he has made some spectacular errors of judgement....but he holds a genuine love for the game and he changed the face of English football forever. Without him Chelsea would not have secured 3 Premier League titles, 4 FA Cups and a Champions League title....and they would not be about to welcome Jose Mourinho back to English football.
He cleared their debts, built them a state-of-the-art training complex and has backed every manager with a big budget. There are undeniably good things he has done for Chelsea FC. Is he a good owner? There are cases on either side.
Sure, yeah. Looks like they're in good shape. "Financially healthy" is nevertheless a matter of definition as long as the debt hasn't, in fact (in pounds and pennies, or dollars and cents), been dealt with.
Which ain't to say I have any reason to believe they won't manage it. I'm not being polemical here, just...I don't know, vaguely principal. Or possibly just vague.
With Fergie gone now is the time to see what kind of owners they are...
Fergie hasn't gone, he's going on the same board that appoints the manager.
I'm not voting here. No way will I call the Glazers GOOD owners. I'd say it's a case of 'it could have been worse, much worse even'. They let the club be, which is so important. But they've still cost it hundreds of million.
Before the Glazers we invested in players and rebuilt the stadium out of profits.
With the Glazers we invested in players and paid off some of their debt out of profits.
With the Glazers we invested in players and paid off some of their debt out of profits.
So the question is who would win a fight between the Glazers + Fergie, or Abramovich + Fergie and a shedload more money to spend?
We don't really know that, do we? Yeah, Fergie has kept buying players but there's no way of knowing if he would've invested more in the squad if he had had some of the money that has been used on debt. Of course he might also have gotten exactly what he wanted.
There's also the possibility that the club might have been in the process of expanding OT (or have done so already) if it wasn't for the Glazers. All ifs and buts of course, but we can only speculate on what would've happened.
This is precisely why they are to be appreciated. You can have a Roman Abramovich style owner who would have turned pretty much destroyed the club. Fergie's influence cannot be ignore but I'm not sure what kind of "active intervention" that you seem to expect from the owners, if keeping quiet is not sufficient.
Well, this is not a charity institution. A club as big as us has to be run professionally if we are to continue our success. In these economic stress conditions anything else would lead to financial ruin.
I do agree their treatment of fans leaves much to be desired, but overall I do not see any problems in the way the club is being run (debt ignored).
we will always be owned by somebody. They have been very respectful of the manager. I would expect they will leave Moyes to run the team too.
I wanna see what happens this summer, will they give Moyes a decent chest to work with. This is going to be a huge season coming up, we need a signal of intent, stand still, and you have Citys weaksauce defence of the title.
feck me, I can't believe this thread.
How have they not been good owners?
They bought the club with money they didnt fecking have, they've taken money out of OUR club to repay their debts. I will go further into it tomorrow as I'm knackered. But for anybody to call them 'Good' owners is fecking weird, how on Earth have they been good? If it wasn't for our success on the pitch - which was mainly down to Fergie, we'd have been fecked.
VIVA Uncle Malc
If Moyes even looks like being a Wilf McGuinness it's all going to go tits up!