The Glazers.

[Flytan]

You do realise you've backed up my point? If Fergie wasn't planning for the future why didn't he buy any top class players in the summers of 2009,2010 & 2011?

Because he saw "winning now" as the priority? What lol? He's always been quoted that Gill and the Glazers supported him whenever he wanted it. The Glazers are some of the most "hands off" owners in the world when it comes to deciding transfers.

It's simple, Fergie got caught in the past. Why else did Pogba leave and Scholes come out of retirement? Why else did Giggs play until he was 40 (he was okay but hardly worth a spot at a top club at the time)? He couldn't find a midfielder for YEARS in the transfer market. He simply couldn't get behind how transfers work nowadays and whether or not it's a good thing is your decision, but unless he straight up says the Glazers kept him from spending money, what else can you assume?

 

[Sky1981]

We have spent big during glazer years, we had the world record ffs.

Although the names we bought during saf glazer era isn't fancy they do accumulate to quite a number.

We spent on top of my head

Ronaldo 17
Anderson 12?18?
Saha 15
De gea 30
Kagawa 12.5
Rvp 30 (for a 29 years old, getting virtually peanuts in resale value)
Evra 7m
Vidic 7m
Valencia 12.5

Post saf we have spend even bigger :
Fellaini 30
Mata 37
Darmian rojo blind 30m?
Shaw 30
Schneiderlin 30?
Martial 45?
Angel di maria 69 (glazer didn't know we're going to sell him so soon, they did stump up the money without a hindsight)
Pogba 90
Baily 15?
Mhkitaryan 30?

Plus they have no qualm to moyes giving rooney 300k/week when they could have just say no and sold rooney for money.

That doesn't look like a skint club to me, hell i think we spend more than barcelona/madrid/chelsea/city during lvg + jose 3 season.

*numbers might be off but it's thereabour

 

[DanClancy]

I have been very balanced in my posts and have complemented the Glazers on certain aspects of the business but what surprises me most is many of you don't appear to have an issue with nearly £500m leaving the club in interest payments and its like prior to 2011 and the knock on affect its had in the subsequent years.

How can any United fan be happy see that amount of money leave the club whilst at the same time Ronaldo left and it took the club until 2012 to buy a top class player.

 

[Sky1981]

I have been very balanced in my posts and have complemented the Glazers on certain aspects of the business but what surprises me most is many of you don't appear to have an issue with nearly £500m leaving the club in interest payments and its like prior to 2011 and the knock on affect its had in the subsequent years.

How can any United fan be happy see that amount of money leave the club whilst at the same time Ronaldo left and it took the club until 2012 to buy a top class player.

The debt is glazer's! It's not united.

The bank will ask for repayment from glazer, not united. United future gate income is being used as a collateral incase glazer can't pay. United DID NOT PAY THE INTEREST OR LOAN, THE GLAZER PAID FOR IT USING THEIR DIVIDENT (or whatever extra money they have, they just choose to install the payment instead of paying it in a lump sum).

The divident is the shareholders right, be it the glazer, roman abramovich, the sheikh, or even plc. During the plc united pays millions of money to the shareholder, just like united pays glazer what's rightfully his as a business owner, or the next guy who owns united. The money isn't being stolen.

You probably should really open your mind and really reread what's happening instead of creating some imaginary theory.

I have no problem with glazer paying their investment debt using what's reasonably valued divident they took up. If they suddenly sold ronaldo for 80m and took the money then its another story, they did not. They money is still at united book considered as cash asset.

If city sells aguero tomorrow that doesn't mean the fee would go to the sheikh pocket, it will go back to city account. So unless the glazer withdraw that 80m under prive that means they didn't enjoy the 80m

 

[Møllemanden]

The debt is glazer's! It's not united.

The amount of money pulled out of the club is incredible. What concerns me the most is the fact that, you never hear the Glazers talking about this as a being anything other than a business. Well.. They never really talk about anything publically. That's a concern to me.

Our newly rich rivals have very engaging owners. They speak openly and enthusiastic about succes on the pitch, and they have no need to use club profits to pay of their debt.

The Glazer family is costing United a helluva lot of money. So of course the debt is Uniteds.

 

[Mallrat83]

Personally I think the glaziers aren't doing a bad job. Yes there may be Alot of debt involved but it's not like it's a debt that is spiraling out of control. There managing the books well, ensuring there's still funds available to make important signings and having the funds available to attract big name players. There also bringing in Alot of marketing/sponsorship revenue with the guys they've put in place to manage this. Sure it would have been nicer to have someone come in and be able to buy the club outright but the future isn't bleak for us financially but I'm not a financial expert so what would I know lol

 

[Wan]

All very odd how some of these posters refute any criticism of the Glazers.

I think they are competent owners who are looking after their investment. You’d think their doing us fans a favour by making money available for transfers, what do you think would happen if they didn’t? Their investment would suffer so stop kidding yourselves their not looking after themselves, making huge sums of money available is out of necessity and thankfully we actually have it.

Commercially they’ve done brilliantly and the club was starting to stagnate prior to their arrival but who’s to say that would have continued under the PLC board. Would the shareholders have been happy watching the club continued to be overtook by its rivals in Europe? There is no way that would have happened, the major shareholder would have ensured their would be change.

Look at the % of EBITDA that was spent on interest & its like in those years in comparison to the last few years. This has been well under control for a long time and it easily manageable but wasn’t during those early years.

I think they’ve been good owners in several aspects for several years but its crazy suggest it wasn’t difficult in those early years. A great team with 7/8 world class players was allowed to get old. They would probably admit privately that they’d rather have made more available to Fergie in those years as it wouldn’t led to the crazy spending we’ve seen since.

This is not an anti Glazers rant at all and I’m more than happy for them to continue as owners for the years to come, my issue is with what happened during those years.

Was allowed to get old?

DDG, Rafael, Smalling, Jones, Nani, Anderson, Cleverley, Kagawa, Chicharito, Welbeck. How old were they? You could see what SAF was trying to do. He had things figured out about phasing out the old guard.

Scholes, Vida, Rio, Evra, Giggs,
RVP, Rooney, Carrick
Valencia Nani, Kagawa, Young

Injuries and loss of form badly hurt us and missing Hazard/Lucas Moura when it was obvious Nani/Valencia can't perform at their best anymore set us back to this day in that position. I wouldn't blame them for it.

 

[ravelston]

I have been very balanced in my posts and have complemented the Glazers on certain aspects of the business but what surprises me most is many of you don't appear to have an issue with nearly £500m leaving the club in interest payments and its like prior to 2011 and the knock on affect its had in the subsequent years.

How can any United fan be happy see that amount of money leave the club whilst at the same time Ronaldo left and it took the club until 2012 to buy a top class player.

You tend to reference Ronaldo leaving quite a lot. It's worth remembering that Tevez left at the same time. What was the impact on the performance of the team of those two leaving?

 

[Rory 7]

Not really. They've spent a total of £141m on the stadium and it's surrounds. Of that, £48m was on the quadrants - the other £93m has been spent since. What you're really saying is that they haven't built the final tier on the South Stand - which is true and, I suspect, is going to remain true. It's really hard to see how it could be justified financially.

What I'm really saying is they haven't invested in the stadium, everything is falling behind from corporate hospitality to capacity. And by the way you're figures are wrong, investment in the quads pre-dates the Glazers. You're figure of 93m relates to miscellaneous ad hoc projects and maintenance. There hasn't been one big ticket investment in infrastructure since the mid-2000s.

 

[Rory 7]

You really don't know ANYTHING at all about how our club is run, do you?

I know plenty. Obviously a lot more than you by the looks of things. What led you to that conclusion?

 

[Rory 7]

@MrPooni literally none of those articles cite investment in the stadium.

 

[Rory 7]

You really don't know ANYTHING at all about how our club is run, do you?

You might learn something if you read this, next time you decide to be a dickwad with posters think again:

http://www.espnfc.co.uk/club/manche...ited-consider-expanding-old-trafford-capacity

 

[Sereques]

All very odd how some of these posters refute any criticism of the Glazers.

I think they are competent owners who are looking after their investment. You’d think their doing us fans a favour by making money available for transfers, what do you think would happen if they didn’t? Their investment would suffer so stop kidding yourselves their not looking after themselves, making huge sums of money available is out of necessity and thankfully we actually have it.

Commercially they’ve done brilliantly and the club was starting to stagnate prior to their arrival but who’s to say that would have continued under the PLC board. Would the shareholders have been happy watching the club continued to be overtook by its rivals in Europe? There is no way that would have happened, the major shareholder would have ensured their would be change.

Look at the % of EBITDA that was spent on interest & its like in those years in comparison to the last few years. This has been well under control for a long time and it easily manageable but wasn’t during those early years.

I think they’ve been good owners in several aspects for several years but its crazy suggest it wasn’t difficult in those early years. A great team with 7/8 world class players was allowed to get old. They would probably admit privately that they’d rather have made more available to Fergie in those years as it wouldn’t led to the crazy spending we’ve seen since.

This is not an anti Glazers rant at all and I’m more than happy for them to continue as owners for the years to come, my issue is with what happened during those years.

The Glazers never said the club was manage poorly, all they said was Manchester United was not fulling it's potential. They were right because it's what made the takeover possible.

During those gloom years of 2005 to 2009( I think) some of the anti glazers were horrible. Drasdo, FCUM, media and all their apologist wanted the club to fail so they get "their" club back. Millions of lies were spread through the media about the glazers, about everything. They spread lies that the Glazers will never invest into the club, that we will never buy top players, they were so sure the club will go belly up. I seem to remember back when I was in the Newbies and getting into these arguments with people. They mock me because of my location and seem to believe my reasoning is based on where I live. I remember some dude that said we don't have money for DDG and all we are getting is Shay given. The media didn't help either, they made false statements about Glazer's shopping malls failing, when one of the kids bought himself an apartment, they claimed the Glazers are already taking money out of the club. They took advantage of fans emotions and spread lies.

Leverage buyout is normal is business, especially if the owners know what they are doing, this was something that was difficult to accept for some fans and was made worse because the buyers were Americans. I doubt the force against would have been that much if the buyers were British evidence been how easily Drasdo and his goons accepted Red football without evidence of where the money is coming from.

 

[Sky1981]

The amount of money pulled out of the club is incredible. What concerns me the most is the fact that, you never hear the Glazers talking about this as a being anything other than a business. Well.. They never really talk about anything publically. That's a concern to me.

Our newly rich rivals have very engaging owners. They speak openly and enthusiastic about succes on the pitch, and they have no need to use club profits to pay of their debt.

The Glazer family is costing United a helluva lot of money. So of course the debt is Uniteds.

It's not incredible. They took a normal reasonable divident in comparison with their investment.

It's not like they strip our assets and leech it off.

 

[Sereques]

The amount of money pulled out of the club is incredible. What concerns me the most is the fact that, you never hear the Glazers talking about this as a being anything other than a business. Well.. They never really talk about anything publically. That's a concern to me.

Our newly rich rivals have very engaging owners. They speak openly and enthusiastic about succes on the pitch, and they have no need to use club profits to pay of their debt.

The Glazer family is costing United a helluva lot of money. So of course the debt is Uniteds.

Mind posting the last quote you have from Sheikh Mansour?

 

[M Bison]

Mind posting the last quote you have from Sheikh Mansour?

 

[Sarni]

It's not incredible. They took a normal reasonable divident in comparison with their investment.

It's not like they strip our assets and leech it off.

Yeah it's actually not incredible at all. Unless you believe "each of the brothers takes £15m from club's accounts every year" and other nonsense like this.

 

[TheBiggest]

You might learn something if you read this, next time you decide to be a dickwad with posters think again:

http://www.espnfc.co.uk/club/manche...ited-consider-expanding-old-trafford-capacity

I'm sorry Rory, but you said The Glazers haven't done anything about our stadium. They have invested over £128m in the past four years doing two things; 1) buying up land and property around the ground so that we can built outwards and upwards, with a view to rising the capacity beyond 90,000 over the long-term and 2) Investment in changing the seating so that fans can generate the best possible atmosphere.

To say they have done nothing about our ground shows a massive naivity to what actually goes on inside our club.

 

[DanClancy]

You tend to reference Ronaldo leaving quite a lot. It's worth remembering that Tevez left at the same time. What was the impact on the performance of the team of those two leaving?

Ronaldo was owned by the club and we received a fee.

You happy that Ronaldo was sold and wasn't replaced by a top class player?
What about the near £500m that left the club in interest payments and its like up to 2011, you happy seeing that amount of money leaving the club instead of reinvesting it in the team on some of the worlds best players?

 

[ivaldo]

The queue of people waiting suck the Glazers off never ceases to amaze me!

It's almost as long the line of idiots who got caught up in the green and gold hype and refuse to accept they were wrong, despite overwhelming evidence.

 

[DanClancy]

Was allowed to get old?

DDG, Rafael, Smalling, Jones, Nani, Anderson, Cleverley, Kagawa, Chicharito, Welbeck. How old were they? You could see what SAF was trying to do. He had things figured out about phasing out the old guard.

Scholes, Vida, Rio, Evra, Giggs,
RVP, Rooney, Carrick
Valencia Nani, Kagawa, Young

Injuries and loss of form badly hurt us and missing Hazard/Lucas Moura when it was obvious Nani/Valencia can't perform at their best anymore set us back to this day in that position. I wouldn't blame them for it.

Doesn't matter how old that first group of players were, apart from De Gea they were all squad players and not good enough to be first choice United players.

Every United side under Fergie had several top class player in their 20's, that team he left didn't have one apart from the keeper.

 

[Sarni]

Doesn't matter how old that first group of players were, apart from De Gea they were all squad players and not good enough to be first choice United players.

Every United side under Fergie had several top class player in their 20's, that team he left didn't have one apart from the keeper.

And you already knew at the time of signing that they'd not be enough to be first team players. Maybe you should come and work as manager?

Fergie did not think that Smalling and Jones would not develop any further. He did not know that the next manager would ditch Nani who was one of our best players between 2009 and 2012. He couldn't possibly expect Kagawa and Hernandez to be ditched. In his mind, he was leaving a relatively young team with a couple of gaps to be filled and enough funds to fill them.

 

[Sarni]

Ronaldo was owned by the club and we received a fee.

You happy that Ronaldo was sold and wasn't replaced by a top class player?
What about the near £500m that left the club in interest payments and its like up to 2011, you happy seeing that amount of money leaving the club instead of reinvesting it in the team on some of the worlds best players?

£500m or thereabouts would have also left the club under PLC model which you somehow struggle to understand.

 

[DanClancy]

£500m or thereabouts would have also left the club under PLC model which you somehow struggle to understand.

Feel free to explain how that would happened, good luck as you're going to need it. You won't because you can't.

 

[Sarni]

Feel free to explain how that would happened, good luck as you're going to need it. You won't because you can't.

So you actually believe that in PLC, no money leaves the club and people just invest in the club without any desire to get a share of its profits? It's amazing how you pretend to be this knowledgeable financial specialist when you actually aren't able to even make a point. Somebody even explained that a few pages back but you conveniently disregarded that and continue your point about PLC costing nothing to run.

 

[DanClancy]

So you actually believe that in PLC, no money leaves the club and people just invest in the club without any desire to get a share of its profits? It's amazing how you pretend to be this knowledgeable financial specialist when you actually aren't able to even make a point. Somebody even explained that a few pages back but you conveniently disregarded that and continue your point about PLC costing nothing to run.

Please when you regain some composure I'd like you to explain how nearly £500m would have left the club under a PLC board if we'd not been taken over up until 2011?

 

[Sarni]

Please when you regain some composure I'd like you to explain how nearly £500m would have left the club under a PLC board if we'd not been taken over up until 2011?

I did not see 2011 but then we did not really pay £500m in interests by 2011, did we? Ca. £40m - £50m a year gets us to £300m maximum for 6 years since takeover.

But I completely forgot you are also including costs of refinancing the debt because it fits your agenda so that's probably why you are only going up until 2011

We have paid ca. £500m in interests until now. In dividends and taxes we'd have also paid £300m+ too, except we'd probably not have the same commercial growth that we have had.

It's in the accounts, have a look. Try to understand the numbers instead of listening to MUST.

 

[MrPooni]

So you actually believe that in PLC, no money leaves the club and people just invest in the club without any desire to get a share of its profits? It's amazing how you pretend to be this knowledgeable financial specialist when you actually aren't able to even make a point. Somebody even explained that a few pages back but you conveniently disregarded that and continue your point about PLC costing nothing to run.

You're wasting your time. I brought up the numerous issues with the plc in the post below:

Have you ever looked at the accounts from 2009 to 2011 because if you had its clearly obvious their was very little money to spend on transfers given the large % that was spent on interest repayments etc.

Fergie never ever had a problem breaking transfer records during his 26 years apart from those 3 year summers of 2009-2011. I hardly call it a coincidence.

You're either very young or have a memory like a sieve because the years leading up to the Glazer takeover had us looking more like mid-90's Liverpool than Manchester United. The club were resting on their laurels to the point where Sir Alex was in open conflict with the board as evidenced by these quotes from 2003:

Sir Alex Ferguson will not be allowed to expand his squad this summer, even though he believes it is too weak to compete in Europe.

Last month, the Manchester United manager complained that he had only 18 outfield players to choose from, leaving him at a disadvantage compared to the likes of Real Madrid and Juventus. However, despite the club yesterday announcing a 32 per cent increase in profits before player disposals in the six months to 31 January, the chief executive, Peter Kenyon, said he will not sanction any transfers unless the squad size is kept at current levels.

"It is fair to say that if Sir Alex wants to buy someone, he will have to sell someone else," Kenyon said. "You can only field 11 players at one time and we have 24 in our squad, which, when it is supplemented with some of our younger players, we feel is the right number to get through 70-plus games a year."

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...on-told-to-sell-before-he-can-buy-113315.html

There was also the small matter of the "Beckham Dividend"

MANCHESTER United shareholders are set for a multi-million pound special payout in the autumn, already being dubbed the 'Beckham dividend'.

After David Beckham's move to Real Madrid, United is under pressure to return more money to shareholders. Its full-year dividend, likely to be 2.3p, means an investment in the shares is yielding less than 2%.

Investors believe that, as United has no debt, it can crank up its annual payout, especially as underlying profits before transfers are set to soar some 40% to £44m.

An extra payout would mean an immediate, enhanced return for high-profile investors such as Irish horseracing figures John Magnier and JP McManus.

Some investors are privately scathing over the dividend when chief executive Peter Kenyon gets £625,000 and finance director David Gill takes some £500,000.

'They are paying themselves FTSE 100 salaries but we are not getting FTSE 100 dividends,' said one top institution.

Source: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1523830/Beckham-a-Real-bonus-at-Man-U.html

They effectively added £5m to the £9m dividend of the previous year to celebrate fecking up the Ronaldinho transfer. Can you understand why Sir Alex Ferguson may have genuinely preferred the Glazers to the plc now or are you just going to keep repeating disproven MUST talking points from 2006 for another 3 pages?

But @DanClancy ignored it like he ignores anything that challenges his weird worldview. I'd recommend joining me in putting him on your ignore list and moving on with your life.

 

[Sarni]

You're wasting your time. I brought up the numerous issues with the plc in the post below:


But @DanClancy ignored it like he ignores anything that challenges his weird worldview. I'd recommend joining me in putting him on my ignore list and moving on with your life.

That's probably fair. Thanks.

 

[DanClancy]

Sad to see so called United fans happy to see nearly £500m leave the club prior to 2011.

Pooni, around that time United bought Rio in 2002 for a huge fee, bought Ronaldo in 2003 and Rooney in 2004. We didn't sell our best player during that time, Beckham was no longer an important player at that time and was replaced by one of the greatest players of all time. We also bought 2 of Englands greatest ever players during that period for huge fee's. You can't compare any of that with what happened from 2009 to 2011.

 

[Sarni]

Sad to see so called United fans happy to see nearly £500m leave the club prior to 2011.

Pooni, around that time United bought Rio in 2002 for a huge fee, bought Ronaldo in 2003 and Rooney in 2004. We didn't sell our best player during that time, Beckham was no longer an important player at that time and was replaced by one of the greatest players of all time. We also bought 2 of Englands greatest ever players during that period for huge fee's. You can't compare any of that with what happened from 2009 to 2011.

We bought Ronaldo for £12m in 2003. The same sort of transfer you're now slating Glazers for us doing for two years in 2009 and 2010.

You don't have a leg to stand on here, honestly. You selected a period of 2 years to stick to (please don't quote 2011 because we actually went and spent £60m on players then!) and have absolutely zero other argument to prove that Glazers have been leeching us and hindered our ability to buy players. Not even a record Summer of 2007 (£70m spend, almost 25% of turnover), or multiple high money transfers in other years, or the fact that we have spent £300m (!!) over the last 3 years can convince you that they are actually making money available. We are possibly the most capable club right now when it comes to the transfer market and by the end of this transfer window will have probably had spent £150m+ again (including a very likely record transfer of Griezmann) but yeah, none of this has anything to do with how the club has been run.

It's all about the Summer of 2009 and 2010 when we did not buy any star. Come fecking on. You initially started off by claiming that we did not spend money for years because we spent 40% on interests, then was proven completely wrong and started clinging to those 3 years, and actually you cannot even do that because we spent a lot of money in 2011, so basically your entire argument is based on us not spending more than £25m in 2009 and 2010 transfer windows.

You are making zero sense so decide to go for dramatic 'sad to see so called fans happy to spend £500m on interests' when a) it's a false amount, b) true amount is not really massively higher than dividends and taxes would have been and comes in pair with boosting our revenue at a much higher rate largely thanks to Glazers work, c) you are actually selecting that particular period of time because it fits your agenda and refuse to go beyond 2011 because that'd make you look stupid again.

 

[TheBiggest]

Ronaldo was owned by the club and we received a fee.

You happy that Ronaldo was sold and wasn't replaced by a top class player?
What about the near £500m that left the club in interest payments and its like up to 2011, you happy seeing that amount of money leaving the club instead of reinvesting it in the team on some of the worlds best players?

Your football opinion truly is awful.

Real football isn't the same as Fantasy Football FFS. It's not about replacing a player of one value with a player of the same value. Football is a TEAM game. Not an INDIVIDUAL sport.

Ronaldo was replaced by Valencia.

And, United improved as an attacking side because of it. In Ronaldo's last season at United, we scored 68 Prem League goals, in the season afterwards, when Valencia replaced Ronnie, we scored 86 Prem League goals. We then won the title the following year - and, oh, got to another Champions League final. We also managed a total of 85pts, then 89pts then 89pts again in the following three seasons - a Manchester United all time record for three consecutive seasons.

Can you see now why everybody is laughing at your posts.

You have an anti-Glazer agenda here, saying the reason Ferguson replaced Ronaldo with Valencia was because the Glazers were holding Fergie to ransom. Fergie replaced Ronnie with Valencia - and Berbatov to an extant - because he was shifting up the way we attacked without Ronnie. As it happens, we went on to score more goals and get more points this way.

You clearly don't understand how football works on a football pitch... You think real football is like Fantasy Football. Delusion.

 

[Rory 7]

I'm sorry Rory, but you said The Glazers haven't done anything about our stadium. They have invested over £128m in the past four years doing two things; 1) buying up land and property around the ground so that we can built outwards and upwards, with a view to rising the capacity beyond 90,000 over the long-term and 2) Investment in changing the seating so that fans can generate the best possible atmosphere.

To say they have done nothing about our ground shows a massive naivity to what actually goes on inside our club.

I said they've let investment in the stadium stagnate. Which they have. No development work has happened in over ten years. That's called stagnation. If you can't see that there is no point in continuing this conversation.

 

[Sarni]

Your football opinion truly is awful.

Real football isn't the same as Fantasy Football FFS. It's not about replacing a player of one value with a player of the same value. Football is a TEAM game. Not an INDIVIDUAL sport.

Ronaldo was replaced by Valencia.

And, United improved as an attacking side because of it. In Ronaldo's last season at United, we scored 68 Prem League goals, in the season afterwards, when Valencia replaced Ronnie, we scored 86 Prem League goals. We then won the title the following year - and, oh, got to another Champions League final. We also managed a total of 85pts, then 89pts then 89pts again in the following three seasons - a Manchester United all time record for three consecutive seasons.

Can you see now why everybody is laughing at your posts.

You have an anti-Glazer agenda here, saying the reason Ferguson replaced Ronaldo with Valencia was because the Glazers were holding Fergie to ransom. Fergie replaced Ronnie with Valencia - and Berbatov to an extant - because he was shifting up the way we attacked without Ronnie. As it happens, we went on to score more goals and get more points this way.

You clearly don't understand how football works on a football pitch... You think real football is like Fantasy Football. Delusion.

This is exactly what Fergie said too, that when a player like Ronaldo leaves, you need to find a different way to play. Valencia was actually pretty excellent for us between 2009 and 2012 which resulted in him getting the no. 7 shirt and he deserved that. He was sublime in that 2011-12 season when we marginally lost the title battle to City.

Fergie's transfer policy actually worked back then and we won the title at a canter in 2012-13. He didn't spend more money because he didn't want to, not because he wasn't allowed to.

 

[Jaxdan]

I said they've let investment in the stadium stagnate. Which they have. No development work has happened in over ten years. That's called stagnation. If you can't see that there is no point in continuing this conversation.

What is it exactly you want done to OT? I was just there and thought it was pretty much a perfect blend of history and modern amenity. I'd hate to see a glitzy "plastic" stadium in it's place like Etihad, which is fine for some clubs, but not us, IMO. It holds almost 76,000 second only to Wembley and sells out almost every game. Just not sure what people expect or want in a ground during a 2-3 hour visit.

While I was there I also took in a game at Anfield, Goodison, and Etihad. I'm partial, but give me Old Trafford over any of them all day long.

 

[Rory 7]

What is it exactly you want done to OT? I was just there and thought it was pretty much a perfect blend of history and modern amenity. I'd hate to see a glitzy "plastic" stadium in it's place like Etihad, which is fine for some clubs, but not us, IMO. It holds almost 76,000 second only to Wembley and sells out almost every game. Just not sure what people expect or want in a ground during a 2-3 hour visit.

While I was there I also took in a game at Anfield, Goodison, and Etihad. I'm partial, but give me Old Trafford over any of them all day long.

I love the history of the ground but the point is we've always been brilliant at regenerating the stadium constantly and staying ahead of the curve. We had the first cantilever stand in Britain, we were streets ahead of the competition on accessibility and hospitality. All of that progressiveness stopped with the arrival of the Glazers.

This is a thread about the Glazers. I'm merely pointing out the fact that they have let the stadium stagnate for over ten years. Something previous regimes didn't do. The defensiveness about the current owners belwilders me. Are some posters Glazer supporters or are they United supporters?

The simple fact is they have let the stadium slip behind and get a little shabby. Interiors in the suites are a little bit '90s looking', no development work on the South stand has commenced under their watch and work on the last big capacity increase kicked off before their arrival. Next season we will actually have reduced capacity at Old Trafford, this again is down to under investment by the Glazers. Do you want me to go on?

The Manchester Evening News put it best when they said: "The only work the south stand has had over the last decade was having the words 'Sir Bobby Charlton' hammered onto it. There was a leak in its roof onto press box desks during the Wigan FA Cup tie when there was little or no rainfall that day and the Stretford End, Scoreboard End and north stand all dwarf it. On the Scoreboard's exterior, the Old Trafford beams are fading and even the neon lights could do with a lick of red paint."

As I said the Glazers have let development at OT stagnate through under investment. Why that's so hard for some of you to accept is beyond me.

 

[Ian Reus]

I love the history of the ground but the point is we've always been brilliant at regenerating the stadium constantly and staying ahead of the curve. We had the first cantilever stand in Britain, we were streets ahead of the competition on accessibility and hospitality. All of that progressiveness stopped with the arrival of the Glazers.

This is a thread about the Glazers. I'm merely pointing out the fact that they have let the stadium stagnate for over ten years. Something previous regimes didn't do. The defensiveness about the current owners belwilders me. Are some posters Glazer supporters or are they United supporters?

The simple fact is they have let the stadium slip behind and get a little shabby. Interiors in the suites are a little bit '90s looking', no development work on the South stand has commenced under their watch and work on the last big capacity increase kicked off before their arrival. Next season we will actually have reduced capacity at Old Trafford, this again is down to under investment by the Glazers. Do you want me to go on?

The Manchester Evening News put it best when they said: "The only work the south stand has had over the last decade was having the words 'Sir Bobby Charlton' hammered onto it. There was a leak in its roof onto press box desks during the Wigan FA Cup tie when there was little or no rainfall that day and the Stretford End, Scoreboard End and north stand all dwarf it. On the Scoreboard's exterior, the Old Trafford beams are fading and even the neon lights could do with a lick of red paint."

As I said the Glazers have let development at OT stagnate through under investment. Why that's so hard for some of you to accept is beyond me.

Why?

 

[Rory 7]

Why?

We have to extend our disabled section to conform with PL rules. We have been out of step for a number of years.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.the...er-united-old-trafford-capacity-disabled-fans

 

[Jaxdan]

I love the history of the ground but the point is we've always been brilliant at regenerating the stadium constantly and staying ahead of the curve. We had the first cantilever stand in Britain, we were streets ahead of the competition on accessibility and hospitality. All of that progressiveness stopped with the arrival of the Glazers.

This is a thread about the Glazers. I'm merely pointing out the fact that they have let the stadium stagnate for over ten years. Something previous regimes didn't do. The defensiveness about the current owners belwilders me. Are some posters Glazer supporters or are they United supporters?

The simple fact is they have let the stadium slip behind and get a little shabby. Interiors in the suites are a little bit '90s looking', no development work on the South stand has commenced under their watch and work on the last big capacity increase kicked off before their arrival. Next season we will actually have reduced capacity at Old Trafford, this again is down to under investment by the Glazers. Do you want me to go on?

The Manchester Evening News put it best when they said: "The only work the south stand has had over the last decade was having the words 'Sir Bobby Charlton' hammered onto it. There was a leak in its roof onto press box desks during the Wigan FA Cup tie when there was little or no rainfall that day and the Stretford End, Scoreboard End and north stand all dwarf it. On the Scoreboard's exterior, the Old Trafford beams are fading and even the neon lights could do with a lick of red paint."

As I said the Glazers have let development at OT stagnate through under investment. Why that's so hard for some of you to accept is beyond me.

All I was asking for was a few specifics mate as I was just there and really didn't notice any glaring issues with OT. Wasn't really a defense of the Glazers on this point, just curious as to what you find wrong with the stadium.

 

[Ian Reus]

We have to extend our disabled section to conform with PL rules. We have been out of step for a number of years.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.the...er-united-old-trafford-capacity-disabled-fans

Ah. Thank you.
Would have been a good idea to try increase the overall capacity at the same time.