The Glazers 2013

[ciderman9000000]

The Glazers are excellent owners, the best in the Premier League without doubt. I obviously voted yes.

 

[Anderson's Cat]

Yeah the ticket prices are high, but we get a good product for our money. There are supporters paying similar amounts for mid-table drudgery.

 

[Mr Anderson]

Of course they see us as a business. They bought us for that very reason, they never really followed football before they bought us.

Compared to other owners, they aren't that bad. They run us very well as a business, and let the right people take on the footballing matters. They spiked the ticket prices, but with inflation and other "sports entertainment" tickets going for similar if not much more price wise, I don't find it too bad personally. It was a big change for the fans at the time alright though.

The problem I have, is their constant silence. We never know really what their plans for the club are, why they do certain things etc. that is where the rumours start and build up speed. It is only the likes of Andersred on twitter that goes through financial statement releases and explains what the feck is going on.

We are in a relatively healthy position both on and off the pitch. Our success on the pitch made life very easy for them....well that bit easier anyways. They have done us good, it isn't a definite yes at all. I'd prefer to have "better than expected" option.

 

[Adebesi]

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.

Those aren't the main reason. The main reason is the debt has been reduced to a perfectly manageable level.

 

[Escobar]

The debt and money outflow is a clear no and this is why it will stay a no for sure. But, to be fair, in connection with how the run the club / interfere / support the manager, there cant be any complaints. Yes, ticket prices are high but compared to other teams, it is ok

 

[IrishLegend]

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.

It's not YOUR club though. It's their's. They own it. If you have a problem with that stop supporting the club and spend your money elsewhere. Or buy the club.

I'm sick of this arrogant bullshit sense of entitlement that this is OUR Club. How dare they do x - y and z. They can spend their money how ever the feck they want. If they want to give the manager no transfer budget for 10 year they can. They won't because they are actually quite smart owners who realise that success on the pitch = financial rewards.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Of course they see us as a business. They bought us for that very reason, they never really followed football before they bought us.

Compared to other owners, they aren't that bad. They run us very well as a business, and let the right people take on the footballing matters. They spiked the ticket prices, but with inflation and other "sports entertainment" tickets going for similar if not much more price wise, I don't find it too bad personally. It was a big change for the fans at the time alright though.

The problem I have, is their constant silence. We never know really what their plans for the club are, why they do certain things etc. that is where the rumours start and build up speed. It is only the likes of Andersred on twitter that goes through financial statement releases and explains what the feck is going on.

We are in a relatively healthy position both on and off the pitch. Our success on the pitch made life very easy for them....well that bit easier anyways. They have done us good, it isn't a definite yes at all. I'd prefer to have "better than expected" option.

Yes, that´s a good point. I definitely think they could´ve been better in this respect. A clear statement regarding their future plans wouldn´t go amiss. From their own perspective I don´t see what they have to lose by being a bit more sociable with the fans: Many are still worried, after all, that the whole business will end with them reselling the club once the profit has reached whatever level they´re after.

The fact (certainly seems like a fact) that they have no interest in the football club as such isn´t endearing to fans, that´s for sure.

 

[hp88]

It's not YOUR club though. It's their's. They own it. If you have a problem with that stop supporting the club and spend your money elsewhere. Or buy the club.

I'm sick of this arrogant bullshit sense of entitlement that this is OUR Club. How dare they do x - y and z. They can spend their money how ever the feck they want. If they want to give the manager no transfer budget for 10 year they can. They won't because they are actually quite smart owners who realise that success on the pitch = financial rewards.

Your basically saying if you don't like it then feck off, easy to say but impossible to do for a lot of supporters.

 

[IrishLegend]

Your basically saying if you don't like it then feck off, easy to say but impossible to do for a lot of supporters.

Partly but that wasn't the point I was trying to get across.

The club paid dividends under the plc just have they have under the Glazers, If this was Apple and people asserted that they didn't reinvest that money back into the company and got all angry because they paid dividends it'd be comical.

My point is it's not your money they're investing, it's their. Earned through profits of the company they own, not you. We should be greatful their putting any money at all into the club. There under no legal or moral obligation to do so.

As for supporting other clubs, other fans have done so. Look at FC United. To support any club is a choice not an obligation. I just find it somewhat amusing as well that many of the people complain are the people that don't go to matches regularly or buy any merchandise and yet still have this unbelievable sense of outrage that Glazers are spending THEIR money. It's just comical. When I buy any other product I don't get all upset on what the company spends the profits from my purchase on.

 

[Bread]

I don't see how anyone who really card about United as a club that serves as a football club can call the Glazers good owners, regardless of on the pitch success which to be honest has happened in spite of them and not because of them.

 

[finneh]

Partly but that wasn't the point I was trying to get across.

The club paid dividends under the plc just have they have under the Glazers, If this was Apple and people asserted that they didn't reinvest that money back into the company and got all angry because they paid dividends it'd be comical.

My point is it's not your money they're investing, it's their. Earned through profits of the company they own, not you. We should be greatful their putting any money at all into the club. There under no legal or moral obligation to do so.

As for supporting other clubs, other fans have done so. Look at FC United. To support any club is a choice not an obligation. I just find it somewhat amusing as well that many of the people complain are the people that don't go to matches regularly or buy any merchandise and yet still have this unbelievable sense of outrage that Glazers are spending THEIR money. It's just comical. When I buy any other product I don't get all upset on what the company spends the profits from my purchase on.

You obviously how a very low opinion of owners in Football if you think we should be grateful that they are putting any money at all into the club.

Unfortunately my threshold to believe an owner is "good" is not being better than the Portsmouth owners. Usually "good" denotes being better than average, not better than the absolute worst.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Only 30% say no.

I doubt many PL club owners would have such a high approval rating

But in most cases opinion appears to be split between locals/regular match goers and the likes of me.

(Although I voted unsure)

 

[Bread]

It's not YOUR club though. It's their's. They own it. If you have a problem with that stop supporting the club and spend your money elsewhere. Or buy the club.

I'm sick of this arrogant bullshit sense of entitlement that this is OUR Club. How dare they do x - y and z. They can spend their money how ever the feck they want. If they want to give the manager no transfer budget for 10 year they can. They won't because they are actually quite smart owners who realise that success on the pitch = financial rewards.

I don't see how you can say that, It is OUR club as you put it, the fans have more right in some ways to call a club theirs than people who actually own it. The fans are the absolute beating heart of any club, they have been around long before the Glazers and will be around long after. All of football's routes comes from serving a local community, and community that allowed the bigger clubs like United to grow and become more successful. The fact that football virtually exists now to make money for others is not a nice feeling, just look at how many "official partners" United have, I'm sure if the league rules allowed it our next home shirt would look like a Nascar driver, yes in fairness this is necessary and partly what pays for a Robin Van Persie but the fact that most of this incoming money is used to line executives pockets which huge salaries again is not exactly what football should be about.

You say the fans cannot call it their club, this to me is a very modern football fan attitude where it seems your club is just the team you watch on TV and follow from a far, in the same as you may watch/support a tennis player or formula 1 driver. There is nothing wrong with watching from a far and no one take this as a dig at OOT fans or non matchgoers but I really think a club is more than that, a club should be something which anyone can feel a part of and contribute too, regardless of background or location. Put it this way, you say the fans can't call it their club, but who would it fall to (and has done in certain cases I.e Portsmouth) to pick up the pieces if the money all went. The Glazer's won't be sticking around then but the fans will, the fans are the ones who can call it their club, not the money centred American's who own it.

 

[ciderman9000000]

My point is it's not your money they're investing, it's their. Earned through profits of the company they own, not you. We should be greatful their putting any money at all into the club. There under no legal or moral obligation to do so.

Whilst I agree partly with the sentiment you seem to be hacking away at like a like a downs syndrome chimpanzee, your repeated and various misusings of the word 'their' and its phonetic relatives is an absolute disgrace to humankind.

 

[Comsmit]

Partly but that wasn't the point I was trying to get across.

The club paid dividends under the plc just have they have under the Glazers, If this was Apple and people asserted that they didn't reinvest that money back into the company and got all angry because they paid dividends it'd be comical.

My point is it's not your money they're investing, it's their. Earned through profits of the company they own, not you. We should be greatful their putting any money at all into the club. There under no legal or moral obligation to do so.

As for supporting other clubs, other fans have done so. Look at FC United. To support any club is a choice not an obligation. I just find it somewhat amusing as well that many of the people complain are the people that don't go to matches regularly or buy any merchandise and yet still have this unbelievable sense of outrage that Glazers are spending THEIR money. It's just comical. When I buy any other product I don't get all upset on what the company spends the profits from my purchase on.

Very objective all of that. You are a definite "customer" not to put to finer point on it.

The bolded bit will be very hard for people to stomach, particularly in light of the £500 million plus that has been pissed away since 2005 to hedge funds and corporate institutions. Plus the fact that even after all that the club still has a gross debt of around £420 million.

The way you pulled someone up for uttering "our club" is a tad petty. You know what the guy meant, most people on this forum refer to United as "us" or "our great club, history etc." The simple truth is he is right....they loaded THEIR debt onto the club, in turn plundering money from the club to keep their heads above water. They are speculators not capital rich investors, and they speculated with the future of the club. They are not good owners, they are good speculators.

And the analogy with Apple doesn't add weight at all.....United is more than a fecking business for heaven's sake.

 

[Bread]

Partly but that wasn't the point I was trying to get across.

The club paid dividends under the plc just have they have under the Glazers, If this was Apple and people asserted that they didn't reinvest that money back into the company and got all angry because they paid dividends it'd be comical.

My point is it's not your money they're investing, it's their. Earned through profits of the company they own, not you. We should be greatful their putting any money at all into the club. There under no legal or moral obligation to do so.

As for supporting other clubs, other fans have done so. Look at FC United. To support any club is a choice not an obligation. I just find it somewhat amusing as well that many of the people complain are the people that don't go to matches regularly or buy any merchandise and yet still have this unbelievable sense of outrage that Glazers are spending THEIR money. It's just comical. When I buy any other product I don't get all upset on what the company spends the profits from my purchase on.

I would argue they are only putting money into the club because if they don't it becomes less of an asset and as a result makes less or no money for them, if they could make the same money themselves without putting any in then I have no doubt they would do so. We have no reason to be grateful at all, it's not out of the goodness of their hearts that any money is pumped into the club, it's to make more money and keep the company making money. I'm sure if they could swap every local fan for a tourist who spent 300 quid in the megastore a game and not lose any money they would do it.

And again you cannot compare Apple as a company to a football club, Apple are a company that exists and has always existed to create productions for sale, push technological advances as much as they can and to make money. If their products were no longer of an acceptable standard and sales suffered then the company would fold. Apple is not an entertainment industry, no one buys apple products because their Dad did, no one sticks with them regardless of the quality of their output and no one feels any emotional attachment to them, they are a company nothing else.

A football clubs is routed in a community, people follow clubs for generations and the quality of their output will not stop a lot of these fans, hense lower league football. By your logic any fan who's team gets relegated below a standard they want to see should just go and find another one as you would with an apple product.

 

[IrishLegend]

You obviously how a very low opinion of owners in Football if you think we should be grateful that they are putting any money at all into the club.

Unfortunately my threshold to believe an owner is "good" is not being better than the Portsmouth owners. Usually "good" denotes being better than average, not better than the absolute worst.

It's not a low opinion just a realistic one. Football is a business. Why should it be treated differently from any other?

The Glazers have not drastically increased ticket prices as many believe. The cost per game to see top quality football is still relatively low compared to other top clubs in England.

They continue to buy good players and have never stopped the manager signing a player unlike the PLC.

My season ticket price is frozen this year. When an increase in line with inflation would be the bare minimum I would expect. We've won a record 20th league title. The club has appointed a new manager on a 6 year contract (and while it wasn't my first or even second choice, the fact they've given him such a long contract show they're running the club the right way).

God knows how many owners put money into the club by loaning it to the club, signing players they can't afford to pay then want their money back when they sell the club.

We should be bloody grateful that we've never even approached that situation, partly because the Glazers have had to be financially prudent. They run this club to make a profit, which means on the field success. While they brought the club with debt that none of us are happy with, they are reducing it every year, have never skimped on players and have delivered record success.

I hated the Glazers when they first came, but the sooner fans get the idea that they're here to stay and truly aren't that bad, the sooner we can work with them to help make this club even better. If MUST finally come to this realisation maybe they can actually help the match going fans and get rid of the ACS rather than spend wasted breath crying about how awful the Glazers are.

 

[Bread]

Sorry Irishlegend but you appear to be exactly the sort of modern fan I find hard to associate with, a customer more than a supporter.

 

[Bread]

It's not a low opinion just a realistic one. Football is a business. Why should it be treated differently from any other?

Whilst that is true in terms of money making it's not a business like any other, as I said no other company is so dependant on loyalty and where the quality of their product is almost irrelevant to a lot of people buying the product. As I said no one continues buying shit laptops because of loyalty to the company but lots of people go and watch shit football out of loyalty to the club.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Partly but that wasn't the point I was trying to get across.

The club paid dividends under the plc just have they have under the Glazers, If this was Apple and people asserted that they didn't reinvest that money back into the company and got all angry because they paid dividends it'd be comical.

My point is it's not your money they're investing, it's their. Earned through profits of the company they own, not you. We should be greatful their putting any money at all into the club. There under no legal or moral obligation to do so.

As for supporting other clubs, other fans have done so. Look at FC United. To support any club is a choice not an obligation. I just find it somewhat amusing as well that many of the people complain are the people that don't go to matches regularly or buy any merchandise and yet still have this unbelievable sense of outrage that Glazers are spending THEIR money. It's just comical. When I buy any other product I don't get all upset on what the company spends the profits from my purchase on.

As others have suggested more eloquently above the problem with your argument is that a football club isn't just another product you can pick up from the shelf of your local Tesco. People have emotional ties to football club, in many cases ties that are passed down over many generations.

 

[IrishLegend]

Sorry Irishlegend but you appear to be exactly the sort of modern fan I find hard to associate with, a customer more than a supporter.

Me and my family have support United for generations. Your problem is you see being a customer and being a supporter as two separate things. Ask yourself this, what is more useful to the club that you profess to support. Spending some money buying their stuff / tickets to the games etc. Or your emotional support in matches. I think we all know whats more important in the grand scheme of things. Your loving United doesn't buy us players like RvP unless you put your money where your mouth is.

As others have suggested more eloquently above the problem with your argument is that a football club isn't just another product you can pick up from the shelf of your local Tesco. People have emotional ties to football club, in many cases ties that are passed down over many generations.

A football club IS just like any other business, except maybe they have more regional / stronger brand loyalty. If the customer (fans) stop supporting (buying the products) the business. Then it suffers just like any other business. If you have a problem then vote with your wallet. I suggest your problem is you've done this and you're not in the majority and feel bitter about it.

Whilst that is true in terms of money making it's not a business like any other, as I said no other company is so dependant on loyalty and where the quality of their product is almost irrelevant to a lot of people buying the product. As I said no one continues buying shit laptops because of loyalty to the company but lots of people go and watch shit football out of loyalty to the club.

But the quality of their product IS relevant, Look at attendances of clubs in the PL vs there attendance when they go down to the Championship. Look at the attendance of top clubs vs bottom clubs.

There is a group of fans that support the club financially (the key word here) through thick and thin but they are rare. It also breeds the sense of entitlement that I think both of you clearly suffer from.

You say that you find it hard to associate with me. I'd just like to ask you this. Where are you most weekends? If you want to find me just look at my location.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

A football club IS just like any other business, except maybe they have more regional / stronger brand loyalty. If the customer (fans) stop supporting (buying the products) the business. Then it suffers just like any other business. If you have a problem then vote with your wallet. I suggest your problem is you've done this and you're not in the majority and feel bitter about it.

For what? What do I vote for with my wallet? If you regard United as a product and me as a customer my wallet can only do two things: Either pay for the same product (even though I may be somewhat dissatisfied with it) or stop paying for it altogether (go support another team and give them the benefit of my wallet). Every nuance which lies between those two extremes is lost in your product/customer analogy. And it is precisely these nuances which makes it more than a little problematic to simply conclude that a football club is just a product and the fans just customers.

It's possible to regard football purely from a business perspective. It's possible to regard art, to make an obvious example, purely from a business perspective too. Everything we - in everyday parlance - care about may be regarded as a product we can chose, or not chose, to purchase. And most of those things can indeed be purchased too, in some shape or other.

The - undeniable - fact that there is a business side to most things doesn't mean these things have no other sides.

 

[Bread]

Me and my family have support United for generations. Your problem is you see being a customer and being a supporter as two separate things. Ask yourself this, what is more useful to the club that you profess to support. Spending some money buying their stuff / tickets to the games etc. Or your emotional support in matches. I think we all know whats more important in the grand scheme of things. Your loving United doesn't buy us players like RvP unless you put your money where your mouth is.

But the quality of their product IS relevant, Look at attendances of clubs in the PL vs there attendance when they go down to the Championship. Look at the attendance of top clubs vs bottom clubs.

There is a group of fans that support the club financially (the key word here) through thick and thin but they are rare. It also breeds the sense of entitlement that I think both of you clearly suffer from.

You say that you find it hard to associate with me. I'd just like to ask you this. Where are you most weekends? If you want to find me just look at my location.

I'm not saying you don't and for the record I'm an ST holder too, have been for 6 years.

My argument isn't based on use to the club at all, it's on the fundamental attitude of any given football club, I personally don't like the attitude that fans should be treated like customers, for two reasons 1: they won't be treated like customers when it all goes tits up 2: it's just not a healthy attitude to have long term, and other clubs like Swansea, Bayern and probably even Barcelona will definitely see their fans as more than customers, the fans are a part of the club, more so than any of the players or owners as they are the only ones not in it for personal gain, they are in it for the support of the club, whoever that may be (you could argue they gain in terms of entertainment but it's not the same as being a player or owner in terms of what they get) and they will be around far longer than anyone else involved, owners should see this group of generally moaning bastards as a lot more important than they do in this day and age.

The fans deserve to be listened too and where possible catered for, hense the bunsdesliga model that works so well where the fans are a real essential part of any club, their opinions are listened to, they have vote for or against owners which places more importance on the owners maintaining a healthy relationship with them and they consider their needs with regards to pricing, something United just do not do.

 

[Redjazz]

Depends on what you believe a football club ought to be doing and for whom it ought to be doing it.
If the purpose of the club is to maximise profits, enrich proprietary owners, then the Glazers are champions of the for-profit model of football ownership, storming ahead of their very few peers.
Most clubs are, in fact or by article, run as not-for-profit concerns- all four CL semi-finalists this year are de jure not-for-profit clubs. Their goal is to maximise reinvestment and enrich spectacle for the fans.
Both models operate as businesses but with fundamentally different goals.

 

[finneh]

It's not a low opinion just a realistic one. Football is a business. Why should it be treated differently from any other?

The Glazers have not drastically increased ticket prices as many believe. The cost per game to see top quality football is still relatively low compared to other top clubs in England.

They continue to buy good players and have never stopped the manager signing a player unlike the PLC.

Is it a realistic one though? How much money has Whelen taken out of Wigan? or Ashley, Newcastle? Or Abramavich, Chelsea? Mansour, City? Or Lerner, Villa? Or Henry, Liverpool? Or Kenwright, Everton?... Stoke?... West Ham?... Sunderland?... Norwich?... QPR?...

You'll find that the vast majority of Premier League clubs don't take vast sums of money out of the club. They treat it more like a charity than the business you seem to believe. I'm not suggesting that every single owner is brilliant, as every model has its own flaws (see the Chelsea/City managerial merry go round), but to suggest Football is no different to any other business is naive in the extreme.

Again you have no idea if the Glazer's have "stopped" the manager signing a player. As with any business I'm sure they made all budgets perfectly clear and particularly at the height of the indebtedness I'm sure this in itself ruled out targets, whether or not there was a "no" or just an understanding is irrelevant.

My season ticket price is frozen this year. When an increase in line with inflation would be the bare minimum I would expect. We've won a record 20th league title. The club has appointed a new manager on a 6 year contract (and while it wasn't my first or even second choice, the fact they've given him such a long contract show they're running the club the right way).

God knows how many owners put money into the club by loaning it to the club, signing players they can't afford to pay then want their money back when they sell the club.

God knows indeed. But go through a list of every Premier League team and see if you can find a single one that seems to be run in a way that is as terrible a picture as you paint. Yes Football isn't in the best of states with debt, but guess what? The entire debt of every other Premier League team is less than the debt of Manchester United.

Again I'd say that most Football operations should be credited to Fergie, including the appointment of Moyes with a 6 year contract (that of course could prove disastrously costly).

We should be bloody grateful that we've never even approached that situation, partly because the Glazers have had to be financially prudent. They run this club to make a profit, which means on the field success. While they brought the club with debt that none of us are happy with, they are reducing it every year, have never skimped on players and have delivered record success.

I hated the Glazers when they first came, but the sooner fans get the idea that they're here to stay and truly aren't that bad, the sooner we can work with them to help make this club even better. If MUST finally come to this realisation maybe they can actually help the match going fans and get rid of the ACS rather than spend wasted breath crying about how awful the Glazers are.

Why should we be grateful that instead of putting their own money into the club via interest free loans (or low interest loans) that the club later has to pay off; they've bought the club with large loans with massive interest rates that we've had to pay off. Again you don't know if they've "skimped" on players as mentioned previously.

I think most fans realise that they are here to stay, mainly because (for various reasons) United is a cash cow that they can keep on milking.

The reason I answered "no" isn't because I think the Glazer's are the worst owners that have ever graced the game, far from it. The reason I answered no is because I look around every other Premier League club and see more favourable owners. Mostly ones whose contribution is either positive or neutral, but very rarely heavily negative.

In my opinion the only real question you should ask yourself is: have they increased our profitability (over and above what you feel another owner would) more than they have cost us via their leveraged buyout. My answer to that question, looking at the increased profitability of historical competitors on the Continent (Bayern, Madrid, Barcelona), is no. But I know a lot of others feel that they have, which is fair enough, none of us really know for sure.

 

[Comsmit]

It's not a low opinion just a realistic one. Football is a business. Why should it be treated differently from any other?

The Glazers have not drastically increased ticket prices as many believe. The cost per game to see top quality football is still relatively low compared to other top clubs in England.

They continue to buy good players and have never stopped the manager signing a player unlike the PLC.

My season ticket price is frozen this year. When an increase in line with inflation would be the bare minimum I would expect. We've won a record 20th league title. The club has appointed a new manager on a 6 year contract (and while it wasn't my first or even second choice, the fact they've given him such a long contract show they're running the club the right way).

God knows how many owners put money into the club by loaning it to the club, signing players they can't afford to pay then want their money back when they sell the club.

We should be bloody grateful that we've never even approached that situation, partly because the Glazers have had to be financially prudent. They run this club to make a profit, which means on the field success. While they brought the club with debt that none of us are happy with, they are reducing it every year, have never skimped on players and have delivered record success.

I hated the Glazers when they first came, but the sooner fans get the idea that they're here to stay and truly aren't that bad, the sooner we can work with them to help make this club even better. If MUST finally come to this realisation maybe they can actually help the match going fans and get rid of the ACS rather than spend wasted breath crying about how awful the Glazers are.

Football is a sport first and foremost, not a business. Most people buy into it for the love of the game for better or worse. The Glazers are an anomoly of sorts as they look to extract money from the club, or more specifically extract value in order to maximise sell-on profit. They buy for love of money and not football.

Ticket prices were frozen mainly as a direct response to the effects of the protests circa 2010. They will be sure to rise again. Everything is peachy when United are winning of course, fans are more apathetic.

Which football club owners are you actually referring too?

I am simply stunned that you feel supporters should be grateful towards their ownership model...for what? Not sacking Sir Alex Ferguson? Not selling the naming rights to Old Trafford? Damn right they should cough up when Ferguson wants a top player, he knows how to deliver success on the pitch.

Which players did the PLC prevent him from signing? It was a drawn out process to acquire the funding but they generally delivered. Simple fact is they funded the purchase of British record transfers on numerous occasions during Ferguson's reign. In the modern era we have seen Van Nistelrooy, Veron, Ferdinand, Ronaldo and Rooney all purchased at great expense. Hardly hamstringing him with that lot.

As for attempting dialogue with the owners you are living in la la land. Countless attempts have been made to find a line to the Glazers...and all have been rebuffed. This stance fuels paranoia and distrust hence the objectives of MUST are built around negativity and criticism of the owners. MUST are an easy target for criticism but at least they got off their arse and reminded the Glazers that supporters can make a statement when there is a genuine will to be heard. Perhaps instead of criticising you might acknowledge they may have had something to do with the freeze on your precious ticket prices?

 

[Bread]

I just don't see how anyone can call the Glazers 'excellent' owners without wanting to be obtuse. I can understand tollerating them, or rightfully admitting they are not the worst owners in the world but what can they do that anyone actually likes?

 

[esmufc07]

Avi makes a great soufflé I hear

 

[StuCol]

The debt is reduced and we got Van Persie. That's not too bad to be fair. It will be more clear when we see how they back Moyes though.

 

[AARRONB06]

No.

crediting them for Sir Alex Ferguson's work just because they didn't "interfere" is slightly insulting to him I think.

Meanwhile they rip off fans with ridiculous ticket schemes, use the club to funnel money for themselves, transfer the training ground into their own ownership so they can feck the club over for more money if it is sold in the future, etc...yeah, they're fantastic.

This is 100% my view. Only positive I can give them is they stay well out of the football and keep well on the business side of things, they are brilliant business men, but we don't want businessmen looking out for there best interests, we want someone looking out for the clubs best interests.

 

[bsc]

Jelly and ice cream when...

 

[Rams]

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.

Before we payed the shareholders dividend.


Listen, this whole thread is becoming pointless. The fact is that despite the Glazers burdening the club with debts, on & off the pitch the club has arguably had its most successful period in its history. If the question is 'are the Glazers cnuts for putting the debt in the club and for hiking ticket prices?' then the answer could arguably yes. On the other hand, if the question is 'have the Glazers done a good job?' then the answer is probably also yes. Whether they can keep it up remains to be seen, but with revenue ever increasing there's also no immediate reason to predict they won't. Maybe not nice to hear, but it's the only objective conclusion to make.

 

[ravelston]

If Moyes even looks like being a Wilf McGuinness it's all going to go tits up!

McGuiness was a 31 year old whose only managerial experience had been with United reserves. O'Farrell's first division experience was leading Leicester to relegation. Do you really think that Moyes looks like either of them?

 

[ravelston]

Before we payed the shareholders dividend.


Listen, this whole thread is becoming pointless. The fact is that despite the Glazers burdening the club with debts, on & off the pitch the club has arguably had its most successful period in its history. If the question is 'are the Glazers cnuts for putting the debt in the club and for hiking ticket prices?' then the answer could arguably yes. On the other hand, if the question is 'have the Glazers done a good job?' then the answer is probably also yes. Whether they can keep it up remains to be seen, but with revenue ever increasing there's also no immediate reason to predict they won't. Maybe not nice to hear, but it's the only objective conclusion to make.

Got to agree.

One of the problems with this whole discussion is the extent of the misinformation pushed out by andersred and MUST. Several posts in this thread have referred to the transfer of the ownership of Carrington from United to the Glazers. This belief comes from andersred posts suggesting that the Glazers could make such a transfer. Of course it never happened but, because andersred talked about it, a substantial number of posters believe it actually did happen. There are many other examples. (Is it actually surprising that the club have no dialogue with MUST - why would they want to talk to an entity whose primary purpose for the entirety of the Glazers' ownership seems to have been a continuous broad-brush smear attack.) This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of grounds for criticism - the problem is separating the real from those invented by andersred and MUST.

 

[Comsmit]

Got to agree.

One of the problems with this whole discussion is the extent of the misinformation pushed out by andersred and MUST. Several posts in this thread have referred to the transfer of the ownership of Carrington from United to the Glazers. This belief comes from andersred posts suggesting that the Glazers could make such a transfer. Of course it never happened but, because andersred talked about it, a substantial number of posters believe it actually did happen. There are many other examples. (Is it actually surprising that the club have no dialogue with MUST - why would they want to talk to an entity whose primary purpose for the entirety of the Glazers' ownership seems to have been a continuous broad-brush smear attack.) This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of grounds for criticism - the problem is separating the real from those invented by andersred and MUST.

People aren't dumb, there is a wealth of information relating to the financial management of Manchester United since 2005. Leaving Carrington aside, there are various matters of contention relating to the Glazer ownership, and generally people still remember them.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Got to agree.

One of the problems with this whole discussion is campaign nt of the misinformation pushed by andersred and MUST. Several posts in this thread have referred to the transfer of the ownership of Carrington from United to the Glazers. This belief comes from andersred posts suggesting that the Glazers could make such a transfer. Of course it never happened but, because andersred talked about it, a substantial number of posters believe it actually did happen. There are many other examples. (Is it actually surprising that the club have no dialogue with MUST - why would they want to talk to an entity whose primary purpose for the entirety of the Glazers' ownership seems to have been a continuous broad-brush smear attack.) This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of grounds for criticism - the problem is separating the real from those invented by andersred and MUST.

Andersred and MUST have been put to the sword, mate. Their bullshit scare tactics and smear canpaign failed and thus neither have any credibility whatsoever these days.

 

[ciderman9000000]

People aren't dumb.

Yes they are, lots of people are generally pretty dumb.

The fact is that many thousands of people were thoroughly taken in by the bollocks spouted by MUST; very few thought to question the validity of what MUST were saying.

 

[Eyepopper]

Are they good owners? Depends on your perspective really.

Utd was a corporate machine before they got here, but they've taken it to new levels.

Overall if you're someone resigned to the notion that football isn't the same as it used to be, that its as much business as sport these days then they've probably been good owners.

If you're someone who believes and wants to preserve the idea that a club should be there primarily for the fans then they've definitely been bad owners as a consequence of commercial success seems to be that match going fans are last on the list of priorities.

Personally I'm caught somewhere between the two, I believe strong loyal local support is hugely important to a club and that loyal fans should be rewarded and treated with respect, but at the same time I do accept that football has become such a large commercial beast and that the old ways of doing things doesn't work anymore.

I'd like to see fans have a voice within the club, but to achieve that you need to realise who and what you're dealing with. If you take MUST as an example, IMO their approach will never achieve what it might if they adopted an approach which didn't equate to standing outside OT calling the Glazers wankers, even if they might be correct.

 

[hp88]

The relation between MUST and the club hasn't always been like this, it went down the pan when the club refused to talk to them, I think the same goes for IMUSA. At the moment the only way for supporters to communicate with the club is through the quarterly forum but it seems like they would rather talk about installing WIFI in hospitality instead of issues the effect the average match going supporter.

 

[Comsmit]

Yes they are, lots of people are generally pretty dumb.

The fact is that many thousands of people were thoroughly taken in by the bollocks spouted by MUST; very few thought to question the validity of what MUST were saying.

I'm talking about people posting on this forum.....and generally they are not dumb. Sucking up the information churned out by Andersred and MUST does not make someone so either....it simply implies they preferred to listen to people (respected or otherwise) who were concerned about the same issues they were.

The bare facts of the Glazer ownership model are not bollocks Cider....we can all locate them in the freely available financial results and the now infamous prospectus of 2010.