UNPOPULAR OPINION Glazers are right for the club

[UnitedSofa]

Talking purely in terms of monetary wise, operating vs owners wealth input into the club, in my opinion, United are doing it more or less the right way.
80% Operational vs 20% Owners wealth.

In my opinion it should be closer to 75% / 25% - but I think we shouldn’t be seen as something to have money just thrown at a la City.

Of course the best way is Arsenal at 100% operational but the money doesn’t get put back into players.

Now we have moral standpoint of the owners allegedly taking money out of the club and lining their own pockets, I’d rather it be spent more on players or upgrading Old Trafford, but in purely of an operational vs owners wealth, United are doing it the right way.

We should not be reliant on owners investment.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Tarrou]

Bollocks

 

[Red00012]

This will go well

 

[Ronaldo's ego]

You must have thick skin posting this.

 

[UnitedSofa]

This will go well

You must have thick skin posting this.

I’d like a new football focused owners as much as the next man, but I’m just talking from a business standpoint, we are doing things the right way

It’s clear that they don’t have a clue in regards to what a “football” club actually is, but the business side of things seems to be running quite smoothly

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

What a pile of shite.

 

[horsechoker]

You done did it now!

 

[Mindhunter]

So your point is that they are better owners than Liverpool’s who take out more money from the club? Great.

 

[Sweet Square]

''So the plan is to make a redcafe account and 8 years later..........''

 

[Annihilate Now!]

This is taking one set of figures and completely ignoring context.

It totally ignores how they bought the club the first place, the incredible amount of debt they saddled the club with, and the amount of money they take out of the club for themselves despite all this.

 

[Spaghetti]

Oh dear oh dear. Is this Paul or Barry?

 

[Jezpeza]

Over a billion has left this club in dividends and servicing debt levied against the club in the takeover. The 790 million borrowed has still got over 500 million to pay off the capital.

the club would run itself splendidly on its own revenues if not for the ridiculous debt servicing payments and the 22m quarterly dividends the glazers take then say we have no money for jadon sancho come end of the season.

parasites. Have never put a penny of their own money into this club but have sucked it dry.

terrible owners.

 

[crossy1686]

We should never be reliant on a chairman, it's a terrible model. City and Chelsea are fecked if their owners decide to sell up tomorrow. But I'm not sure milking the club is a good ownership model either.

I appreciate that an owners can take money out of the club, and should be entitled to really, it's a business after all, but these guys need to feck off now.

 

[sincher]

Well for a start there is no 'allegedly' about the fact that the Glazers have taken money out of the club.

Without even getting into the rest of the issues, while undeniably the club has been commercially highly successful under their ownership and has grown in value, the club's finances have been raided to a huge extent and it has been coupled with chronic mismanagement from the football side of things that shows only recent signs of improvement.

So, no we aren't reliant on owner investment. Nor, really, are any of the big clubs, though of course City and Chelsea both use such resources. But this is massively beside the point. United are, and have been since before the Glazers, one of the three most lucrative football clubs in the world, but instead of that being reflected in investment in the team and in the stadium, it is being reflected in the growth of its owners' wealth. The recent ESL initiative just highlights where the owners' priorities are.

 

[100]

The caf gets more mental day by day

 

[Charles Miller]

Unpopular opinion: Glazers have an account on the Caf.

 

[SirAF]

You are certainly right about it being unpopular!

 

[Red Royal]

The graph in the OP just reiterates to me that the owners are doing feck all for the club, so yes... it is most definitely an unpopular opinion.

 

[UnitedSofa]

Over a billion has left this club in dividends and servicing debt levied against the club in the takeover. The 790 million borrowed has still got over 500 million to pay off the capital.

the club would run itself splendidly on its own revenues if not for the ridiculous debt servicing payments and the 22m quarterly dividends the glazers take then say we have no money for jadon sancho come end of the season.

parasites. Have never put a penny of their own money into this club but have sucked it dry.

terrible owners.

Point I was trying to make is that from the graphic we make shit loads of money and don’t rely on the owners money, which is a terrible business model, looking at how much of City’s owners own money gets pumped into the team/club it may all go tits up at somepoint if they decide to move on.

Whereas we have mostly all of our money coming from purely operational revenue.

Could we infact be earning EVEN MORE money if the Glazers didn’t take out dividends against the club?

The debt would pay itself off over an extended period of time from operational revenue I would think no?

 

[UnitedSofa]

The graph in the OP just reiterates to me that the owners are doing feck all for the club, so yes... it is most definitely an unpopular opinion.

How much money should the owners pump into the club?

Like I said in the OP I think it should be closer to 25% and no where near what City pump in. We shouldn’t be reliant on an owners money. If they go, so does everything else beneath it as the owner would be propping things up.

You need a strong foundation which United have at such a huge operational revenue stream.

An owners money should boost spending not make the club reliant on it.

 

[Ananke]

The graph in the OP just reiterates to me that the owners are doing feck all for the club, so yes... it is most definitely an unpopular opinion.

Exactly this post confuses me. Surely it should be evidence FOR your argument, not against?

If anything this just makes me even angrier, if I could be, at the Glazers. Thanks. F**king parasites.

 

[Rood]

Talking purely in terms of monetary wise, operating vs owners wealth input into the club, in my opinion, United are doing it more or less the right way.
80% Operational vs 20% Owners wealth.

In my opinion it should be closer to 75% / 25% - but I think we shouldn’t be seen as something to have money just thrown at a la City.

Of course the best way is Arsenal at 100% operational but the money doesn’t get put back into players.

Now we have moral standpoint of the owners allegedly taking money out of the club and lining their own pockets, I’d rather it be spent more on players or upgrading Old Trafford, but in purely of an operational vs owners wealth, United are doing it the right way.

We should not be reliant on owners investment.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Im pretty sure you dont understand what those charts are actually showing - apart from some cash to buy the club back in 2005 (which is what the red bit is), the Glazers dont put any of their own money into the club

 

[youmeletsfly]

Your stat is the least important issue about the Glazers. How about:
- not juicing the club of money each year (even though they invest)
- massive debt
- idiotic salaries for some players
- idiotic contract extensions for some players(mostly to avoid buying others)
- appointing the right technical staff
- appointing the right managers
- investing in the stadium
- investing in the facilities

 

[charlenefan]

Oh dear, the OP is going to live to regret starting this thread

 

[AshRK]

Manchester United business club may be doing good with Glazers.

Manchester United football club is not doing good with these owners.

 

[Counterfactual]

Im pretty sure you dont understand what those charts are actually showing - apart from some cash to buy the club back in 2005, the Glazers dont put any of their own money into the club

This. Even the 20% "owner financing" must mean loans.

 

[Giggsy13]

If I had the photoshop skills, I’d edit that disgusting “RIP Fergie” banner Tevez infamously held up during city’s title parade, and change it to a more fitting for this thread, “RIP UnitedSofa”.

 

[Ish]

You done did it now!

tbf to the OP, it's a brave thread/move!

 

[RedDevilzFox]

"Right" is the not the word I would choose. One could argue they are lesser of the other "evil" owners we could potentially end up with. Or not.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

They have cost the club over a billion pounds.

 

[horsechoker]

Positives of Glazers: haven't killed anyone

Negatives: only interested in themselves, only willing to invest the minimum to keep their money rolling in, don't actually care about winning trophies

 

[sullydnl]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This is in no way "doing things the right way".

As he says in a reply in the OP's thread:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Kaos]

You're a very, very brave person

You're also objectively wrong.

 

[Tallis]

I think if a case can be made for the Glazers, it’s basically that they may be lesser of the evils. Look at the damage Peter Lim has done at Valencia or what an abhorrent notion it would be to be owned by Prince Salman or some douchey Chinese state financed conglomerate.

The one made on sources of financing doesn’t really make sense I feel.

 

[wolvored]

Just read this. Were doomed all are yes men link

 

[Zen86]

I don’t think there are any right owners for us. There’s much, much worse out there, but realistically not much better. There’s no real solution beyond fan ownership, which is unlikely.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Surey a wum, there is absolutely no logic to this post. Glazer ownership would be great & sustainable IF they weren't siphoning money out of United.

Their ownership model is basically how a vampire bat lives it's life. You latch onto something big, like a cow, that can support itself even with regular blood loss, you never drink enough blood to kill the host but you constantly take little and often, leaving it slightly weaker than it would otherwise be.

 

[Counterfactual]

Just read this. Were doomed all are yes men link

What's going on today? That article is utter tosh.

 

[TrueRed1999]

Talking purely in terms of monetary wise, operating vs owners wealth input into the club, in my opinion, United are doing it more or less the right way.
80% Operational vs 20% Owners wealth.

In my opinion it should be closer to 75% / 25% - but I think we shouldn’t be seen as something to have money just thrown at a la City.

Of course the best way is Arsenal at 100% operational but the money doesn’t get put back into players.

Now we have moral standpoint of the owners allegedly taking money out of the club and lining their own pockets, I’d rather it be spent more on players or upgrading Old Trafford, but in purely of an operational vs owners wealth, United are doing it the right way.

We should not be reliant on owners investment.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

If you think the Glazers have been good for our club you ain't no fan of the club, Sir Matt would be turning in his grave at how the club has been run into the ground with debt and how Old Trafford looks like it hasn't been updated since the 80s due to how no money has been invested in the stadium in years. And with the debt risen more in the last few years hardly a good job is it when there taking money left right and centre for their expenditures/lifestyle. Think your the only fan or so called fan I have ever heard say the Glazers have been good for the club.

 

[Adisa]

The Glazers are not the best but we could have had it a lot worse.