The Glazers 2013

[golden_blunder]

An update on a previous poll, do people still feel the same?

Old thread https://www.redcafe.net/f6/glazers-274608/

 

[Liam147]

The other option 'better than I thought' should be on this one. It's the middle ground. There's no way in hell I'd say they were good owners considering the money they've bled out of the club, but considering our success under them, it's hard to say they're particularly bad either.

 

[Sunny Jim]

I think that they have been extremely lucky. The debt is getting lower and lower, the transfer funds were there when needed.... i'm warming towards them.

 

[SirAF]

I certainly don't have any major issues with our owners at the moment. They, seemingly, don't meddle with the football management and they have increased the clubs value through some great commercial deals. The debt is also being reduced.
However, I feel that we'll really get an idea in the next few seasons with the changes that are coming.

 

[100]

Lucky is the best way to describe them, they took a massive gamble and without Fergie as manager and his long term planning we could well be in a very different position.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

Havent voted because I cant really put it into a one word thing.

The way they acquired the club was bad, the worst thing you can do to a football club in reality, saddle it with debts that rely on success to pay off.
The way they allowed people with knowledge of running a football club get on with doing so without interference since then is good.

I would have preferred them never to have owned us, but there are innumerable worse positions we could have been in.

 

[Adebesi]

I think that they have been extremely lucky. The debt is getting lower and lower, the transfer funds were there when needed.... i'm warming towards them.

The financial crisis wasnt exactly lucky though, was it? This whole thing was conceived in a different, far simpler time. That they have still managed to get to where they currently are, despite the global economic conditions, is something more than luck.

I havent voted yet. I dont like my choices. Damn these polls, the reality is so much more nuanced than these answers allow for.

 

[mufcwarm92]

Over half think yes? Oh dear...

 

[jdmufc]

I think we'll find out just how good or bad they are over the next year or two.

 

[noodlehair]

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.

 

[Adebesi]

There is another reading of this. Without going into it in great detail, read the latest AndersRed has written about our finances. He mentions "luck" a bit too much for my liking too. It is a lot more than luck. They saw how much our commercial strategy could be developed and they have done that. Our financial position is not astonishingly bright, so much so that even naysayers like Anders have had to concede there is no financial threat to us from their ownership at all. We are raking it in. Putting ticket prices up, yes. Great owners, maybe not, it depends on your criteria. But from a business perspective they have been vindicated.

 

[Badunk]

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 basically my position. The only reason we didn't end up with a Liverpool situation is the success SAF brought.

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

If they lowered ticket prices, then I wouldn't have all that much a problem with them. I'm not all that clued up on what they do, but it's clear they have multiplied the value of the club and our revenue has massively increased, as we now have a sponsorship deal for just about everything you can slap a brand name on, which I imagine they are driving forces behind initiating. I'm not bothered about that, so long as Old Trafford isn't renamed Chevrolet Dome or DHL Field or something.

But for all the mind-boggling amounts of money they bring in to the club now with all these endorsements, it'd be nice to give a little back to the supporters by reducing ticket prices a little.

They are very astute businessmen who know how to make astronomical amounts of money, but that means they don't really give a shit about the supporters. If they did, then there'd be no problem, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[noodlehair]

There is another reading of this. Without going into it in great detail, read the latest AndersRed has written about our finances. He mentions "luck" a bit too much for my liking too. It is a lot more than luck. They saw how much our commercial strategy could be developed and they have done that. Our financial position is not astonishingly bright, so much so that even naysayers like Anders have had to concede there is no financial threat to us from their ownership at all. We are raking it in. Putting ticket prices up, yes. Great owners, maybe not, it depends on your criteria. But from a business perspective they have been vindicated.

This is the thing. I don't get why everyone gets so hung up on the debt when Glazers or not, it's there. It's now completely seperate from the question of whether they are good owners going forwards.

But, lets just take the bickering over how managable the debt was and is out of the equation, and look at them purely as owners from a fans perspective:

Things they've done which a fan might perceive as negative:
- Bought club with money they didn't have, meaning their buying of the club has effectively been paid for by the fans
- Introduced ACS for season tickets meaning fans with season tickets are ripped off, every single year
- Banned people from expressing their opinion inside the ground if they don't like what the opinion is
- Transfered ownership of training facilities to themselves and NOT the club
- Put club on stock exchange with no promise of investment gained from it being used for the club's benefit
- Have overseen David Gill's weird crusade to turn Manchester United into some kind of heartless business coorporation, to the point the club now refers to fans as "customers"...who it willingly treats like shit because it knows they can't go anywhere else.

THings they've done which fans might view as a possitive:
- Not interfered with Sir Alex Ferguson's job
- Allowed him to buy some players and invest in the team.


So yeah, they seem to be pretty good at being ruthless, evil business men, but in terms of being good owners from a fan perspective, I can only think of the two things. One is very much self interest orientated to help their business plan work, and the other literally equates to not actually doing anything at all.

 

[Jacob]

Strictly speaking from a financial point of view, they have been good, management wise too. On the club side however, not too sure, their corporate mindset has brought its disadvantages as well.

 

[Adebesi]

This is the thing. I don't get why everyone gets so hung up on the debt when Glazers or not, it's there. It's now completely seperate from the question of whether they are good owners going forwards.

But, lets just take the bickering over how managable the debt was and is out of the equation, and look at them purely as owners from a fans perspective:

Things they've done which a fan might perceive as negative:
- Bought club with money they didn't have, meaning their buying of the club has effectively been paid for by the fans
- Introduced ACS for season tickets meaning fans with season tickets are ripped off, every single year
- Banned people from expressing their opinion inside the ground if they don't like what the opinion is
- Transfered ownership of training facilities to themselves and NOT the club
- Put club on stock exchange with no promise of investment gained from it being used for the club's benefit
- Have overseen David Gill's weird crusade to turn Manchester United into some kind of heartless business coorporation, to the point the club now refers to fans as "customers"...who it willingly treats like shit because it knows they can't go anywhere else.

THings they've done which fans might view as a possitive:
- Not interfered with Sir Alex Ferguson's job
- Allowed him to buy some players and invest in the team.


So yeah, they seem to be pretty good at being ruthless, evil business men, but in terms of being good owners from a fan perspective, I can only think of the two things. One is very much self interest orientated to help their business plan work, and the other literally equates to not actually doing anything at all.

Way to take the debt out of the equation: bring it up as your first point.

I would add to the pros side of your thing:

• Made a shit load of money for the club, some of which will surely get pocketed by the owners, but more of which may well be used to ensure the squad is competitive with the sugar daddy clubs.

That is speculation of course. I have no idea whether they will spend more money on transfers, or how things will pan out. But having a healthy balance sheet is something the fans have every reason to feel positive about. And this is speaking as someone who has traditionally been anti Glazer. The fact is, a lot of the concerns about what would happen have patently not materialised.

You are absolutely right though about the ACS and the shit about the banners and the lack of communication with fans. Clearly they are not great owners in that respect.

 

[Pexbo]

I've always been of the opinion that they're good for every element of the club bar one, which is probably the most important thing - the match going fan.

They run a tight ship financially lowering the debt and maximising income.
They offer the manager all the space needed to run a football team.
They support the manager financially allowing for realistic transfers.
The appointment of Moyes shows to me that they are smart enough to listen to good advice and run the club properly.
Doing all that was needed to keep Rooney at the club in 2010 showed to me they believed that investing in success in the club was more important to them (in business terms, make no mistake) than making a quick quid.


The way they treat the match going fans stil irks me though. They should reward loyalty a lot more and set up better relations with them. I should also say that I think MUST could work a lot harder to set up a narrative with them rather than the aggressive trying to kick them out stance they have had since day 1.

 

[Adebesi]

I agree with JD that now, with SAF gone, we will get a much clearer picture of their competency. How the handle the succession will be their biggest - maybe their first real challenge on the football side of things.

 

[Skywarden]

I picked unsure. I know they are awful from fans' PoV and from a financial PoV I do not have enough knowledge of their planning to understand where and how well it's going. Yes. I do see that ups and downs of debts, staff costs, commercial growth etc. but in my mind there's not enough depth to grasp anything beyond that.

Also, SAF's not in charge now so we'll get further indication of their competency.

 

[londonredmaniac]

Horrible leeching cnuts.

feck off.

 

[KM]

I've voted no so far. The only good thing they've done is to not interfere with Fergie's work(which tbf, the PLC failed to do).

However the real tests begins now. Ed Woodward is reportedly a Glazer man and Moyes won't have SAF's influence. Let's see what they do now.

Giving money for Transfers doesn't necessarily equate good owners IMO. The fans play a great part and with the ACS Scheme, the fans are regularly ripped off.

 

[Randall Flagg]

For all we know they could be more trigger happy than Roman.

I voted unsure and will give benifit of doubt.

 

[Talking Vulture]

They're still twats

 

[Adebesi]

Again though, if you measure them relative to peer group, instead of a fantasy about what fans would like to see, are they very very bad? We are one of the most expensive teams to watch in the league - but not the most, I understand? Well, that is actually not bad, considering by supply and demand or success measures, we should be the most expensive. I dont know how ACS compares to the arrangements other clubs have with ticketing. But for anyone objective and knowledgeable about this, are the Glazers an outlier, in terms of shafting fans? Or are they just basically quite normal?

 

[KM]

Again though, if you measure them relative to peer group, instead of a fantasy about what fans would like to see, are they very very bad? We are one of the most expensive teams to watch in the league - but not the most, I understand? Well, that is actually not bad, considering by supply and demand or success measures, we should be the most expensive. I dont know how ACS compares to the arrangements other clubs have with ticketing. But for anyone objective and knowledgeable about this, are the Glazers an outlier, in terms of shafting fans? Or are they just basically quite normal?

No we're not actually.

I might be wrong, but nearly all of the London teams tickets are expensive than us. But then, they're also London based, so you've to take that into consideration.

 

[Drifter]

No

 

[hp88]

If they lowered ticket prices, then I wouldn't have all that much a problem with them. I'm not all that clued up on what they do, but it's clear they have multiplied the value of the club and our revenue has massively increased, as we now have a sponsorship deal for just about everything you can slap a brand name on, which I imagine they are driving forces behind initiating. I'm not bothered about that, so long as Old Trafford isn't renamed Chevrolet Dome or DHL Field or something.

But for all the mind-boggling amounts of money they bring in to the club now with all these endorsements, it'd be nice to give a little back to the supporters by reducing ticket prices a little.

They are very astute businessmen who know how to make astronomical amounts of money, but that means they don't really give a shit about the supporters. If they did, then there'd be no problem, as far as I'm concerned.

This is exactly what I thought when my renewal came through the post and after reading the financial result they posted a couple of days later it's clear that they're not strapped for cash. I am not asking for price cuts on season tickets as it's unlikely to happen but the the ACS is something they could work on.

 

[hp88]

Again though, if you measure them relative to peer group, instead of a fantasy about what fans would like to see, are they very very bad? We are one of the most expensive teams to watch in the league - but not the most, I understand? Well, that is actually not bad, considering by supply and demand or success measures, we should be the most expensive. I dont know how ACS compares to the arrangements other clubs have with ticketing. But for anyone objective and knowledgeable about this, are the Glazers an outlier, in terms of shafting fans? Or are they just basically quite normal?

As for as I know Arsenal are the only club that force season ticket holders into buying cup games. A Few club operate a scheme where you can buy a "FA Cup Package" or "Europe Package" and have those games added onto your season ticket, this is something I wouldn't mind having at our club. The ACS does have one advantage though, whilst everyone was running around looking for a Madrid ticket those in the ACS knew that they had a guaranteed ticket. I wonder how many season ticket holders were complaining about the ACS on that night.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

So long as they stay out of the way and still back us with transfer funds etc then they don't bother me.

 

[Varun]

We'l only know over the next few years.

 

[JP77]

I think that they have been extremely lucky. The debt is getting lower and lower, the transfer funds were there when needed.... i'm warming towards them.

Lucky is the best way to describe them, they took a massive gamble and without Fergie as manager and his long term planning we could well be in a very different position.

Embarrassing. The idea that they've got lucky is absurd, plain and simple.

They've done a much better job than quite a few of our fans give them credit for.

 

[stubie]

Can't knock them as they have stayed out of the footballing side of things. Seem to be getting some good sponsorship deals as well as the debt reducing so all seems well at the moment.

 

[Siorac]

I'd say they are very effective owners. They are very good at squeezing every last penny out of the club's earning potential and they let the football people deal with the football.

For matchgoing fans they are bad.

 

[SirFergie]

The other option 'better than I thought' should be on this one. It's the middle ground. There's no way in hell I'd say they were good owners considering the money they've bled out of the club, but considering our success under them, it's hard to say they're particularly bad either.

Agreed. The other side is the playing side of it too; they didn't interfere with Fergie, they always backed him when he needed money for a player and they never went behind his back and hired someone who could jeopardise the harmony of the Club.

The other side is as Liam said, the amount of money they've taken out of the club because of their leveraged takeover just seems to me to be stupid and careless.

 

[IrishLegend]

* Stayed out of Football matters
* Haven't hampered transfers
* Increase commercial revenue to ludicrous levels
* Record Sponsorship deals
* Debt significantly reduced
* Frozen ST prices again this year
* Champions 19 scarf and 20 flag was a nice touch.

Overall I'd say their pretty good owners. I detest the way they brought the club but that unfortunately is the real world of business and happens alot. I've gone from the adamantly anti-glazer camp to there not so bad. I'd rather them than Roman or the clowns that were at Liverpool before.

 

[Bilbo]

I feel that they understand the traditions of the club to some extent. Haven't sold the naming rights to Old Trafford despite this being a potential cash cow, and the Moyes appointment also suggests that they want the continuity.

Obviously there are bad points, but overall I am comfortable with the situation.

 

[Adebesi]

I feel that they understand the traditions of the club to some extent. Haven't sold the naming rights to Old Trafford despite this being a potential cash cow, and the Moyes appointment also suggests that they want the continuity.

Obviously there are bad points, but overall I am comfortable with the situation.

So you vote yes?

 

[onesaf]

I went for no simply because they put us in debt and even though it's getting lower it is still debt we shouldn't have had.

 

[Comsmit]

Not sure about the timing of this.....a lot of opinions will be influenced by the wave of nostalgia and euphoria of winning another title.

Personally I don't feel they are good owners, bottom line is they are only interested in themselves and what they can get out of Manchester United. They can spin as much shit about the history and traditions of the club but they don't fool me....it's all positive PR and it is sickly at that. Never once have they seriously engaged with supporters. They are complete opportunistic hawks and everything they do is geared towards the end game.....the sale of a fabulously wealthy club for unbelievable profit.

Yes they have stayed out of the managing of the club, but that isn't anything to praise them with....it is just common fecking sense. Alex Ferguson knows how to manage, so just leave him to it...show him the money when he needs it and don't interfere....common sense if you want to maximise the value of your asset. They bought in a sales team to whore our name out to the highest bidder....this was needed to actually keep money pouring into the coffers....but it is certainly reflected in the club's increased wage bill. I would truly praise the sales people they actually employed, they are the architects of these eye-watering sponsorship deals.

The apathy towards them is understandably a result of the continued success, but I won't ever be able to call them good owners. Wigan just won the FA Cup....Dave Whelan made a lot of that possible. When he bought them they were in the 4th tier of English football. Now he may talk a lot of shit....but he definitely is a good owner.

 

[Adebesi]

Personally I don't feel they are good owners, bottom line is they are only interested in themselves and what they can get out of Manchester United.

This is an interesting philosophical question though. What is better, a well meaning meddler who only wants to bring glory to his team - and thereby himself (Abramovich)? Or a cynical and calculating businessman, who has no particular interest in the club per se, except a financial one, who knows interference is likely to be counter-productive, and therefore stays out of the football side of things?

What is more important - the means or the end? Glazer stays out of football, but for the "wrong" reasons - profit. Abramovich interferes for the "right" reasons - because he wants Chelsea to be the best team in the world, playing sexy football.

Again, whether that is an accurate characterisation of Glazer will be clearer after a couple of years of Moyes.