I am not really surprised, I said a few months ago that the G&G would make a return if our form dipped, it's nowhere near what we saw a few years ago but you get the feeling it's the beginning of another campaign. We're not going to turn on Moyes or the players so the Glazers will have to take some abuse for the time being.
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?
You're over-complicating. They've taken huge amounts of money out of the club for nobody's benefit but their own, and put the most financially stable club in the work into relative jeopardy in order to do so. In the process they've massively alienated a huge seciton of the supporters. People don't like that, it's that simple.
How is it ironic? You're not allowed to oppose the way the club is being owned and run unless you stop celebrating success on the pitch? Riiight.
If there's one sign of having a low IQ, it's bringing up the "fact" that people who disagree with you have low IQs.
As I've said, yes it is likely that a lot of glory-hunters who never before bothered may turn against the owners. Which is quite funny however you look at it, seeing as they would have been the first to defend the Glazers when things were going well.
But we spent a club record last season and suddenly now, again, we're at the "we've no money" stage? Really?
That's how fickle the argument is, it's why the campaigns die a death because people with two braincells to rub together, quickly figure this out. IF we sign anyone in this window and don't sell it'll likely set a NEW club net spend record in the one season. Yet STILL it's "we've no money"
There are reasons why these campaigns die a death. Yes success helps, but people noticing how hilariously flawed the logic is, doesn't hurt either.
The original campaigns died a death because frankly not enough people cared as long as we were doing well.
IF, and it is only an IF, we keep doing badly and big money isn't spent, it would be a different type of protest from different people.
Talk of record spend etc is pretty hollow - we've spent so little for the last decade (constantly hanging around just below Spurs and Liverpool, when our income is twice theirs) that it's almost impossible to sign anybody without breaking our own records. We're still nowhere near the British record figures we used to get involved in, and there's plenty of people who think (rightly or wrongly) we need to spend proper massive amounts to sort ourselves out right now.
By far? Not been following United long have you?
2007-2013: 5 PL titles 1 CL. 2 League cups.
1994-2000: 5 PL titles 1 CL. 3 F.A cups.
Exactly.
This rebuilding job is bigger than anything Fergir has had to do. Have to sort out ageing defence and non existent midfield.
Fervid atleast tried with the defence. But not sure Jones, Smalling or Evans will become world class.
The club has spent $1 billion (£600bn) for the privilege of being owned by the Glazers. That's $1bn that could have been spent on players, Old Trafford, or reducing ticket prices. The Glazers put up a very small part of what was spent to buy the club and leveraged the rest on the club itself. Money that should remain within the club has been steadily siphoned out to pay for the finance costs of the original leveraged buyout. So, despite increasing revenue dramatically, what benefit has the club seen in terms of spending? According to the IPO, they also don't intend to increase spending in the face of rising revenue from the new PL deal and new sponsorship deals. United have had losses in the past few years despite having one of the largest revenue streams of any club in the world because of financing costs. When they sold 10% of the club's shares, they took half of the money out of the club for themselves to go along with the "management" fees and loans they take out of the club each year. The club has been spending money, sure, but has it been spending sufficient money to compete with other clubs? How could it manage to compete financially with Madrid, Barca, City, or Chelsea? Perhaps the club could utilize the £40-50m we spend annually on interest for players and wages.
For someone who is convinced he's the most intelligent person in the thread, you lean pretty hard on the false dichotomy of the Glazers vs the PLC days.
The PLC regularly denied the manager money.
As this article is just one example of
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...n-told-to-sell-before-he-can-buy-9019238.html
The IPO is a document designed to look as appealing as possible for investors. Future spend projections are always going to be low for obvious reasons.
Point of order, the annual interest bill is now around £20m - you are a few years behind the times.
Still you are right that it is money wasted that could be put to better use.
I'm not sure that checks out. Ideal situation is we'd have owners who'd come in, increase revenue and spend that all on the playing staff. But those are not the two options we have. The Glazer's determination to drive up commercial revenue was to, effectively, pay for their ownership of the club. Had they not bought the club we'd never have had to pay that money out but had that been the case it's very unlikely revenue would have been driven so high in the first place.
If people really want to see owners 'happy with 4th', take a look at Arsenal over the last few years. If people want to know our OUR PLC would have reacted to the challenge of the sugardaddies...look at theirs.
What is your obsession with the PLC when I haven't mentioned it? United spent £71m (more than double United's record transfer fee) on finance costs in 2012-13, which did not include £48m for interest costs. Leaving our gross profit at £17m, instead of £153m. Also, my £600m was £80m under what the most recent figures were. That's all with £360m of debt remaining to repay. Sure, in the future our repayments may be less, but those payments have not started yet.
Yeah I'm just imagining 8 years of "net spend" arguments.
What a disgraceful poll result.
The claim isn't "we have no money" you stupid cnut, it's that our investment has been harmfully constrained by our ownership structure. In a few years, that structure will have cost the club £1 billion. The claim is undisputably correct.
But it doesn't indisputably mean what you claim.
Yes the only reason we have to pay is because of the ownership structure but the only reason we have those funds in the first place is because raising them became a necessity under the ownership structure. Had Glazer not happened the funds would neither need to be paid nor need to be raised in the first place. Investment would be unchanged. Without the ownership structure the need to urgently put so much emphasis on commercial revenue deals would not be there.
Would commercial revenues have grown without the Glazers? Of course. Everyone's has. But by how much is questionable. So you can't really use the funds paid against the owners as without the much of those funds would never needed to have been raised therefore are very unlikely to ever have need for existing. The previous ownership structure was very clunky, immovable and rigid. I shudder to think where we'd be if you combined the immovable budgetary restraints (if they exist now they're at least movable at whim) would have dealt with the rise of the sugar daddy.
Nobody argues the Glazer's are perfect or that it's 'good' that we pay the money in debt/interest repayments at all. But there's a far more complicated calculation and consideration than one of just grunting angrily and banging the fist on the pub table.
I dont agree with your numbers (I think you are probably including PIK stuff which should not be in there IMO) but that discussion is more for the finance thread - anyway I dont disagree with the general complaint that plenty of money is wasted that could be put to better use, however the one positive is that the worst of it is over and the annual interest bill is relatively low now.
123 people voting that they're good owners. feck me. I guess it says a lot about the people that use this forum
Sad times
Sad times
Its true that, while its impossible to know how things might have panned out under different circumstances, the Glazers have been a game changer in the way they have approached the commercial side of the business. Theyve raised the bar and set the standard that other European clubs will be trying to emulate.
Yes it says they've moved on from the days Drasdo used to be able to shit on a spoon and have 75,000 open mouths kneeling before him.
For the sake of a quiet life, I used to avoid such discussions in the Newbs, but there used to be quite impassioned defences of them there.
I'm not sure about setting the bar. Bayern have been way ahead of us and others on this for years. In many ways for the first few years we were merely playing catch-up. The previous structure didn't put much emphasis on commercial revenue - the very stream that's 'paying' for the current one. I think in the years the Nike and Vodafone deals were signed - each record setting in their own way - commercial revenue actually fell ever so slightly. So it's true to at least say that area was never considered much of a priority when it came to raising funds.
Is that right? I thought all this "crisp partner in Thailand", "tyres partner in Malaysia", "cosmetics partner in Laos" business was something quite new that other clubs werent doing.
They have taken a lot money out of the club, that's something no one can defend but as owners during the Fergie era they weren't bad. From what we saw they never interfered with the football which allowed Fergie to do whatever he wanted. If you reset the vote today I am sure the majority vote would be 'no' but reset it again in August after spending £100m and it will probably move the other way.
If we see evidence that they have an interest in us remaining in contention for the biggest trophies, there won't be any resurrection of G&G or similar shows of protest. If, however, people start to suspect they're content with us scraping 4th year in, year out - well, the reactions might be dramatic. Neither glory hunters nor hardcore fans will stand for that sort of policy. We aren't Arsenal, whose frugal ways and 4th place trophies were understandable from a certain point of view. No United fan will accept a lack of ambition which is solely down to the owners wanting to line their pockets in the most comfortable manner.
Indeed. I think there was always a sense in recent years that the jury was out until after SAF left which is when they would get their biggest test. I think it is fair enough for people to be fickle about the Glazers because the facts change. I myself have swung a bit over the years, starting out strongly against but gradually coming to the view that they werent as bad as I had previously thought. My worst fears about the implications of the debt never came to pass. It is not a question of liking them but a question of how much I dislike them and how bad I think they are for the club. As HP88 said above, the main thing you have to give them credit for is their hands off approach, which contrasts starkly with Abramovich, for example. (Its an interesting question which kind of owner people would prefer of these two extremes? A meddling billionaire and we become his plaything? Or a detached businessman siphoning money out of the club into his pockets, but leaving the football alone?)
I think the biggest point I would make about the Glazers now is that the way football has gone, something was always going to happen RE our ownership. If it wasnt them it would be someone else doing something similar and if they werent doing something similar to Glazer theyd be doing something similar to Abramovich or Mansour. We are too high profile to be left alone and as a PLC you are always vulnerable. When all is said and done the Glazers are not good for the club but they are nowhere near as bad as they might have been.
I think the biggest point I would make about the Glazers now is that the way football has gone, something was always going to happen RE our ownership. If it wasnt them it would be someone else doing something similar and if they werent doing something similar to Glazer theyd be doing something similar to Abramovich or Mansour. We are too high profile to be left alone and as a PLC you are always vulnerable. When all is said and done the Glazers are not good for the club but they are nowhere near as bad as they might have been.
Exactly. And that isnt about being fickle. When the facts change so do peoples' opinions.
Why would the Glazers interfere with Fergie when he was delivering, and on a budget? It doesn't take business acumen to apply the maxim: "If it ain't broke..." The multi-multi-million sponsorship deals were rolling in and the share prices were buoyant.
Even if United spend £100m in the transfer market this summer, it doesn't take a lot of guesswork to understand why the Glazers would be doing it.
Even if United spend £100m in the transfer market this summer, it doesn't take a lot of guesswork to understand why the Glazers would be doing it.
Where do you get the idea that Bayern were ahead of us on the commercial side? I dont think it is true, altohugh I am no expert on their business.
I did read that their commercial revenue is inflated by stuff related to sharing the Allianz Arena with 1860Munich so it is not a like for like comparison.
well why did Abromovich interfere with Jose? some owners like to interfere, thankfully ours dont or havent so far at least.
To be fair, I don't think its a black and white issue.
Up to this year at least, and I'm not sure many can blame them for allowing Fergie to pick Moyes, have they had a detrimental impact, from the perspective of most fans? I don't think they have. From what we can see and have been told they have supported the manager, success has continued and commercial revenue has grown.
Obviously it's easy to support the manager and not interfere while we're being successful but we can only judge what has happened, not what might have. On those fronts they could have been a hell of a lot worse. They could have easily cashed in on Rooney last summer for example.
The thing about the Glazers is - they are businessmen - they only care about Utd in terms of commercial value. In commercial terms what they have done is pretty impressive. We can piss and moan about what might have been in terms of the money that has been sucked out of the club, and personally I think it's sickening but unfortunately it's the reality we live in.
I don't think any supporters like them, or approve of how they took control of Utd but I can see why some may hold the opinion that up to now, in the big scheme of things, they haven't been quite as bad as we thought they might have been. But it's over the next few years that we will learn whether they're as bad as we've feared.
Up to now, they haven't really had to seriously invest in players, one or two, notable exceptions required. That's not to say we haven't spent. But in terms of assessing our spending it has mostly been reasonably small sums for an organisation of our size, on young players, with a high chance of providing a good return over the life of their contract - we're in a very different position now both in terms of transfer fees and wages. That's before we even consider the added complexity of share price.
On top of that I think MUSTs approach was totally wrong, it has left fans pretty much voiceless within the club. I'm not saying fans were utmost in the minds of supporters but the change of ownership presented an opportunity to at least try to open dialogue, given the support that was behind those campaigns I think there would have been a better chance of being successful than adopting a position that made it easy for the club to just not respond. I'm not even saying a softer approach would have worked, but it might have stood a better chance than basically calling them cnuts( even if they are!).
The whole thing was also seemed to be hijacked as part of some to pred dick measuring exercise also. Where anything other than the hard line approach was taken to mean you are some sort of lesser fan.
You're correct but you can only judge them on what they've done. Not what they might have.
To be fair they could have took the hand off Real a year earlier.
The only silver lining to us probably finishing outside the top 4 is watching the Glazers sweat as our revenue sinks. You can be sure the apathetic "They're OK since they don't get involved" crowd will probably start to turn too.
The Glazers could have bought the club outright and not siphoned off (at the very least £400m) since they bought it. We're not even talking about people entitled to a profit on their investment -- they leveraged to buy.
We could have done without that sort of inteference.
What we are talking about is a very clever set of men who know the value of "speculate to accumulate."
I said I'd never get into another Glazer thread...
We could have done without that sort of inteference.
What we are talking about is a very clever set of men who know the value of "speculate to accumulate."
I said I'd never get into another Glazer thread...
Yeah what they do in the future might change people's opinion on them, hardly shocking is it?
Also I'm not sure anyone should see a drop in revenue as a good thing when it comes to the Glazers, the only thing for sure is they won't be left out of pocket.
The thing is that unless the Glazers are - in fact - idiots (and nothing suggests they are) they realize that Fergie was a one-off and that it's completely unrealistic to expect the same trophy haul under a different manager working along the exact same lines. Which means that it comes to down to what they want for the club. Continued success of a similar kind? Well, that will in all likelihood cost a great deal of money - money which should be spent in the nearest transfer windows.
A great deal less success, i.e. regular top four finishes but few to none trophies for the cabinet? Well, that will cost less. But look at the present table. We have two teams in Liverpool (4th) and Spurs (5th) that we could end up losing ground to soon enough if we don't bring in the right sort of players. I'm not saying this will happen - but it's by no means inconceivable.
A really dramatic decline in terms of success, i.e. not even regular top four finishes and CL football? Sure, that's pretty much free of charge in the short term. But in the long run such a strategy seems very unlikely. You'd think they'd prefer selling rather than hanging on to a club in such a state.
A great deal less success, i.e. regular top four finishes but few to none trophies for the cabinet? Well, that will cost less. But look at the present table. We have two teams in Liverpool (4th) and Spurs (5th) that we could end up losing ground to soon enough if we don't bring in the right sort of players. I'm not saying this will happen - but it's by no means inconceivable.
A really dramatic decline in terms of success, i.e. not even regular top four finishes and CL football? Sure, that's pretty much free of charge in the short term. But in the long run such a strategy seems very unlikely. You'd think they'd prefer selling rather than hanging on to a club in such a state.
MUST's approach was little short of a disgrace. The ACS is something that affects every fan (or at least ST holders) negatively and yet for the last five years or more all we've had, as you put it, is a dick measuring exercise with Drasdo and cohorts getting giddy over air time and column inches. Even now there's next to (or actually) feck all on the MUST website about the ACS. Fans are having to shell out money for tickets they can't afford and have no choice but to pay for and meanwhile the lead focus of MUST is and always has been some lofty ideas about fan ownership.
Maybe the arguments against the Glazer's would have more credibility if the main cheerleaders weren't complete fanboys for their own media image. Just go onto MUST's website now. There's no ACS protest or plan or campaign or even venting. It's all "How can I...er I mean, 'we' get on TV er...I mean, own the club". It's a fecking disgrace and even fans who disagree on the issue of the Glazer's should unite behind how despicably derelict in their duties our fan groups have been since the takeover. This group that's meant to represent fan interest has little to nothing to say on any issue that affects fans, instead it's a Drasdo cock measuring exercise where he fantasises about fan ownership.
"feck the fans, I'm on telly" has been what it's been for years and they use the Glazer hatred as a mask to hide behind
ACS is shit at times but we are stuck with it. MUST and various other groups have moved onto other things now such as safe standing, singing section and reducing away ticket prices. The Glazers aren't going to drop prices next season, if anything they're going up. 40k+ of us are happy to pay £1k a season to watch United to play so there's no need to drop prices.
They haven't 'moved on', it's never, ever been any more than barely a footnote to their various campaigns, if that. Focusing on pie-in-the-sky ideals of fan ownership when in the real world fans have issues that they'd probably like to have some representation in, including the ACS, has been a dereliction of their duties. The fans are voiceless, essentially and the likes of MUST are at least partially to blame.
Wasn't it this mob, supposedly representing the fans, who encouraged support of the 'Red Knights' despite nobody knowing what even their names were let alone intent, business plan, financial suitability etc?
I'm looking forward to our commercial trophies.
This Mata deal happens along with one or two more that's a strong show of which way the Glazers are aiming with regards spending.
Looks like we're about to take spending this season to about £68m net, so far. From all this money we don't have, presumably.
That's quite a simplified version of how many people feel. I've got to say I've not wanted them near the club since they first got involved. I find it ludicrous that a club like United can be sough throught a leveraged takeover as well as serving as a cash cow for its owners. Market rules and all, I get that. And I am not nostalgic for any previous ownership structure. Whether we're winning or not doesn't change how I feel about the ownership. And I felt SAF did his legacy no favors defending them time and again. One could say that's damage limitation and what else could he do, but there's plenty of grey area there.
We're in a new era of football now and I'd argue that Arsenal's structure, though far from perfect, is miles beyond ours, as is Bayern's. I'm not hoping for sugar daddies to throw hundreds of millions into the club every year. Far from it. But I'd love to see the debt cleared and the club operating on a self-sufficient basis after an initial invest into the playing squad.
Trouble is, no one wants to buy a fully-utilized brand at 1.5 billion when the only way is down, unless it's about the prestige. If the calamity persists and the club's value drops, the Glazers might be tempted to sell. Though I'm not sure if they've factored mediocrity for a few years into their business model.
You may have misunderstood, but I don't think it's realistic - nothing's convinced me so far - that fan-ownership works at our level. I just want rid of the Glazers with new owners coming in who care about the club and are chasing the prestige rather than emptying the coffers.
It really will be.
And contrary to Plugsy, I don't give a feck whether they have low IQ's or not. And I'd be very keen to see if SAF tarnishes his legacy further by coming out in the press as their cheerleader (hope he doesn't)