Agree with the above. Listening to, even agreeing with, MUST did not make a person dumb. Plenty of intelligent people were concerned about the debt. Easy to be wise after the fact, dismissing all these people (me included) as stupid is arrogant bollocks.
The Glazers 2013
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Well the question is why did the club break communications with MUST, IMUSA et al?
The reason is obviously their reaction to the Glazers, I mean if someone said they wished you never existed and would have a party if you died then would you want to sit down and have a tea and a chat with them?
Gill personally was attacked as well and people turned up to vandalise his house etc - so really it is hardly suprising that he cut all communication. But there is a new guy now and I have seen a slight softening in MUST's approach to things so it is an opportunity for a fresh start for all.
I also think you are being a bit unfair on the Fans Forum - true that they didnt do much in the past, but there has been some good proposals and changes regarding ticketing etc coming from there recently.
Anyway the club do seem to have changed their position on communicating with fans in recent years as there has been dialogue with some groups like the singing section lot and Reclaim United have had support from the club in measures to improve atmosphere (the managed to get some relaxation on rules about what kind of flags can be bought in the ground etc).
Hopefully we will see more of this going forward.
They've managed not to ruin the club, that's as far as I would go really. It would obviously be ideal if they bought the club with money they had, but as long as they clear the debts before that starts to hamper our football then that'll be forgotten.
Didn't realize they control player ambitions. Are they lizard people?
Yes.
Agree too. It's easy to dismiss a fear as unfounded with the benefit of hindsight. That doesn't make the fear itself irrational or foolish. Just because certain things never happened doesn't mean there was never any chance they might happen.
Plus, lest we forget, we're still in debt. It looks like the Glazers have it under control, which is a good thing. But the debt itself isn't a good thing, no matter which-a-way one tries to twist and turn it.
I didn't say that being concerned about the debt equated to one being dumb; we were all quite rightly concerned about the debt; simply being concerned though is an entirely different response to indulging in a misinformed and prolonged campaign of hatred which very nearly resulted in a mass boycott of the club by its own supporters. The anti-Glazer smear campaign undertaken by MUST and propelled along by the media was one of pure propaganda, misinformation and scare tactics, and I do believe that one had to have been pretty gullible to get suckered into it - especially so when you consider the great extent at which many allowed themselves to be well and truly suckered; I believe that generally stupid people stood no chance and were rendered absolute meat-heads in light of MUST's antics, whilst many perhaps otherwise intelligent people acted very stupidly indeed under the very same influence. It is indeed easy to be wise after the fact, but that doesn't exuse those gullible enough to have acted unwisely prior to the fact from accusations of stupidity on account of their words and actions during.
Yes, but none of that suits Cider's tedious, patronising anti-MUST agenda does it?
No, but then it's inaccurate, so it's not likely to suit.
The notion of supporters listening to and agreeing with MUST should have ceased to have been a valid course of action as soon as it became apparent that MUST was indulging in a campaign of abject scare tactics, shameful propaganda and, in many cases, plain old lies. The fact that so many were so slow on the uptake is the very reason why the whole affair dragged on for as long as it did.
Where's that yawn smiley?
You shouldn't have let the whole thing get so personal for you Cider - you don't realise it, but your silly over-blown rhetoric just bores everybody else.
You shouldn't have let the whole thing get so personal for you Cider - you don't realise it, but your silly over-blown rhetoric just bores everybody else.
I agree, I'm bored of it too. The whole topic is rather boring these days; but the above poll results compared to the last set wholly vindicate the oft boring work put into negating the influence of that which I consider as being a once poisonous entity within our fanbase, so I'm okay with that.
Polls as bltantly limited as this don't tell the full story come on. A lot of smart people have not voted purely because there are big tests to come. There is an obvious wave of antipathy towards the Glazers right now, success encourages that.
If the shit hits the fan on the pitch feelings can easily change.
Aye, this will be the biggest test perhaps, how they continue without one of the greatest managers of all time to shore up any and every issue that crops up. Will they get behind Moyes? Are they going to let him make huge transfers like RvP, or big money on youths? This new fellow replacing Gill sounds quite thrifty, but hopefully that's bluster so we don't get price raped.
Granted the poll is somewhat limited, but the results nevertheless display the huge turnaround in sentiment towards the Glazers in comparison to the previous such poll on here.
There can be no doubt that on-field success has had a bearing on such sentiments; but when said success has been stoked by massive spending in the transfer windows, spending which both MUST and andersred wrongly guaranteed us would be impossible, it's wholly disingenuous to dismiss our success as an irrelevance in regards to the issue at hand.
There will always be big tests ahead for any owners of a football club; we can only justifiably pass judgment upon those tests already completed, and whilst we were told by those behind the Glazer hate campaign that these tests would be failed, the truth of the matter has proved to have been the complete opposite - hence the clearly perceivable shift in supporters' opinions.
This poll definitely confirms there has been a significant change in the perception of the Glazers and of our financial position. But it does very little to pin down exactly what that change is. As has been said, the choices are too crude to tease out the concerns people still have.
I'm not sure I agree with the characterisation of MUST as liars either. I don't think Anders intended to mislead people, he just set out his point of view, which I believe was sincerely held, and informed. I wouldn't call him dumb either.
The boycott thing may well have been misguided but we'll never know for sure. History is written by the winners and MUST lost. If the boycott had been successful who knows what would've happened. Short term pain, perhaps long term gain, if your goal is fan ownership. Who knows. I must say I always thought it was a very high risk strategy, as likely to bring us to our knees as the debt. I always thought more debate was needed about what would've come next, how the club would've been rebuilt. Maybe that lack of clarity is a factor in why it failed.
The main thing is, the Glazers clearly knew their onions, had a business plan most of us couldn't comprehend, and seem to have executed it brilliantly. So hats off to them. Good owners? Maybe, maybe not. The next few years will tell us more. I'm happy to have been wrong about impending disaster.
I'm not sure I agree with the characterisation of MUST as liars either. I don't think Anders intended to mislead people, he just set out his point of view, which I believe was sincerely held, and informed. I wouldn't call him dumb either.
The boycott thing may well have been misguided but we'll never know for sure. History is written by the winners and MUST lost. If the boycott had been successful who knows what would've happened. Short term pain, perhaps long term gain, if your goal is fan ownership. Who knows. I must say I always thought it was a very high risk strategy, as likely to bring us to our knees as the debt. I always thought more debate was needed about what would've come next, how the club would've been rebuilt. Maybe that lack of clarity is a factor in why it failed.
The main thing is, the Glazers clearly knew their onions, had a business plan most of us couldn't comprehend, and seem to have executed it brilliantly. So hats off to them. Good owners? Maybe, maybe not. The next few years will tell us more. I'm happy to have been wrong about impending disaster.
There is so mich shite in this statement I have no idea where to start.
Go for it...
There never was much reason to be (greatly) concerned about the debt. United was an inherently profitable business, so its survival was never in doubt. Worst case scenario was the Glazers being forced to sell the club once again. A prolonged period of underinvestment was never likely, since devaluing their asset was not in the Glazers interest..
Had to vote yes 
Wasn't the worst case scenario a lack of investment, due to the debt, leading to us being left behind by the richer clubs? Or a sale and lease back of the ground, or the training ground? So, asset stripping. Or more extreme ticket price rises, interference with the manager.... There were plenty of things that could've happened. Also, Cider, mentioning these risks was not the same as guaranteeing they would happen. I guess it depends how you define scaremongering.
I will give credit where credit is due and praise the Glazers for the positive things they have done with United, especially considering the things we praise them for are things that most of the people believe is the biggest problems with other clubs such as Chelsea. I still vote unsure though and my opinion will be formed on their actions now that Sir Alex is gone.
The best thing about them was their trust in Sir Alex and David Gill to run this club from a football standpoint and in that regard they have been amazing. Make no mistake about it, had Sir Alex complained about them, they'd be in a world of trouble and they couldn't sack Sir Alex or very bad things would ensue. It was in their best interest to keep Sir Alex happy and I do wonder whether David Moyes will get the same treatment. If he does and gets the support Sir Alex did, then I would say that the Glazers are good owners.
The best thing about them was their trust in Sir Alex and David Gill to run this club from a football standpoint and in that regard they have been amazing. Make no mistake about it, had Sir Alex complained about them, they'd be in a world of trouble and they couldn't sack Sir Alex or very bad things would ensue. It was in their best interest to keep Sir Alex happy and I do wonder whether David Moyes will get the same treatment. If he does and gets the support Sir Alex did, then I would say that the Glazers are good owners.
To pick up on this specifically:
You can't invest money you don't have. Ask a lot of businesses who can't borrow at the moment. They know it's in their interest to invest and grow, but they can't get cash, and many are folding. The risk was the same would happen. Either the Glazers wouldn't have the money to invest, and wouldn't be able to get it. Or they would try to invest the bare minimum to succeed, but would misjudge it.
Its too simple to say, it's in their interest to spend, so they will. Especially when you owe nearly a billion, as they did at the height of it.
how about this option:
"I'd rather have them than a Russian mobster or a meddling Sheik"
i'd have voted for that.
"I'd rather have them than a Russian mobster or a meddling Sheik"
i'd have voted for that.
Looking back, seems like the Glazers have more faith in Sir Alex than most people here, especially at the start 06-07 season.
I'd voted no, because I don't like the way they gambles everything on Fergie. Let say Cathy's sister passed away a year into their ownership, and Fergie decided to retire then. Will they be able to sustain the kind of success that Fergie can bring?
They're very very lucky that Fergie stays as long as he had. The key is now whether they can keep their patience when Moyes hit a tough patch.
I'd voted no, because I don't like the way they gambles everything on Fergie. Let say Cathy's sister passed away a year into their ownership, and Fergie decided to retire then. Will they be able to sustain the kind of success that Fergie can bring?
They're very very lucky that Fergie stays as long as he had. The key is now whether they can keep their patience when Moyes hit a tough patch.
There'll be a lot of pressure from fans if Moyes hits a rough patch, probably more from fans than from sponsors.
- If the Glazers didn't have the cash to maintain the quality of the team, the writing was on the wall. In which case, being smart businessmen, I believe they would have sold.
- I don't know the terms of the original bank loans, but I very much doubt they allowed the owners to sell off assets and pocket the cash, leaving the banks with sureties on a grossly devalued business.
- Imo, the market provided a natural cap on ticket price rises.
I agree.
However, andersred personally guarranteed the Glazers would not be able to support the club by allowing Fergie funding for the transfer market for the foreseeable future. He assured us that the value of the PiK debt was too great and that the Glazers would be forced to put in place crippling restrictions on the club's spending which would mean little to no money available for transfers until around 2017 when the PiK's might feasibly be paid off. MUST based their entire campaign around anders' calculations; they factored in anders' predictions into many press releases detailing the Glazers' cost to the club as apparently it stood.
anders was entirely wrong though. At the time a few amongst us, myself included, accused him of scaremongering; he was encouraging the fans to boycott on the strength of his predictions whilst guaranteeing that his predictions were perfectly accurate. In reality though his predictions weren't even close.
I wonder how the Glazers will be viewed when they one day pay off the debt. It's the only real thing that taints them.
Yeah, financial forecasting is a notoriously tricky business, analysts rarely get it right - no more often than monkeys sitting a multiple choice exam anyway. You always have to take these projections with a pinch of salt. I never thought he could see the future, only that he had an informed perspective. I guess it was damaging if his analysis was presented as fact, which forward looking assessments never can be. I don't recall it being presented like that, but that's not to say it wasn't.
There'll be a statue of Malc outside OT and a Ginger Leprechaun Stand.
Pretty much this. They stick to what they are good at, which is making money. They leave the football to the football people.
The way they bought the club will forever count against them though. Had they not leveraged the place to the hilt then we could compete with any side in the world in the transfer market with the revenues we generate.
Could we be bought by a tycoon in the future or not? whats the criteria? why were City Paris etc chosen.
Possibly the incredibly marketable prepared rivalry with one of the biggest teams in world football.
MUST certainly didn't take his figures with the pinch of salt.
You want another instance of scaremongering? anders and MUST repeatedly made reference to the Glazers' 60% hike in ticket prices since their arrival in 2005. Under scrutiny though it was revealed that the 60% figure was accurate only to one small section of the stadium, and that once inflation was taken into account the figure was closer to 30%. Across the stadium as a whole the ticket prices had risen by only around 24%; 12% once taking inflation into account. This figure fell below hikes introduced during the final five years of the PLC, and will be lower once again when recalculated to account for the subsequent years of price freezes post 2010.
Many to this day still believe the Glazers to have hiked prices at unprecedented rates. It just isn't the case. Aside from the matter of the ACS the Glazers have more or less increased prices in line with inflation; possibly even below inflation by now.
I don't know how you're defining scaremongering and propagandaring, but in my opinion this fits the bill perfectly.
City, Chelsea, PSG etc were cheap, whereas we're probably the most expensive club on the planet.
Its skewing the facts to fit your argument which all pressure groups and media outlets do to some extent. Yes, fair enough, it is scaremongering. I didn't actually know that about ticket prices, I thought they had raised them above inflation, though only to bring them in line with "fair value" on the basis of our position as a huge and we'll supported club, which I alluded to at some point earlier today I think.
Listen, MUST got it wrong, Anders got it wrong, I'm not disputing that. I just think they believed what they were saying. I don't think they were lying.
Listen, MUST got it wrong, Anders got it wrong, I'm not disputing that. I just think they believed what they were saying. I don't think they were lying.
As an aside, on a purely speculative and rather pointless note, I wonder how things would've turned out if Magnier and McManus had acquired us instead. Or, perhaps more interestingly, if Sky had. There must be a novel in that. Boy builds time machine and repeatedly goes back to somehow alter the course of history, with a succession of different owners leading us to various outcomes. Culminating in a final version where Duncan Drasdo, as Chairman of the Peoples Committee of Mancunia, leads us to successive CL victories against Barca, with Messi, playing for us, scoring a hat-trick.
You remember the infamous "Cost to United of the Glazer ownership to date" tally which MUST would include at the bottom of every email before they fell from grace? They had that cost calculated at upwards of £600m if I remember correctly.
Those figures were provided and regularly updated by no other than andersred, and he knew perfectly well that much of it was pure speculation on his part. Was it presented as speculation though? It certainly wasn't. Hundreds of millions of pounds in that document were presented as having already left the club which in reality consisted of nothing more than anders' speculative and wildly inaccurate efforts at calculating how the PiK debt would be paid off. Are you telling me that this repeated gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of the facts that appendaged every MUST email to its members is not a case of their quite simply lying to United fans?
The fact is that the vast majority of the animosity directed towards the club's owners, much of which still lingers today, stems directly from MUST and andersred first incorrectly believing that they knew everything there was to know about the Glazers' supposed dastardly business plan (hindsight has demonstrated that they actually knew feck all), and second their repeated and arguably entirely intentional misrepresentation of the facts to the wider fanbase in order to further their increasingly corrupting agenda of hatred.
I voted "no" with to the ticket price increases and ACS as my main reasons.
I'm telling you United at the time provided very little information about the financial position of the club, and a lot of what Anders was saying was educated guesswork. It seemed to me perfectly clear that's what it was, where what he was saying was based on available numbers and where it was based on assumptions and best guesses. He repeatedly conceded he didn't have the numbers, it was a criticism he often made of the Glazers, their lack of transparency and engagement.
Nice, emotive language there. In another life you could've made a career writing MUST press releases.
After reading cider post I am going to have a look at the prices again, need to look up inflation figures but at the moment a season ticket in Stretty has gone up 48% over 8 years which isn't bad. ACS seems to be a problem for the majority of season ticket holders but I posted something earlier on how it also has it's advantages.