Why the negativity against Ed and the Glazers? Sorry I don't follow

[Revan]

The problem with this narrative is that we had more than £150 million in the bank in the summer of 2011 (as we had had for the previous two years). It was there for SAF to spend if he wanted to - there's no other reason for keeping that much lying around doing nothing.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that money as 'cash reserves'? Which I think is something that usually you don't spend to sign players. Additionally, if I am not mistaken now we have more than 300m as 'cash reserves'.

If I am not mistaken, until 2010 or so when we restructured the debt, we were actually at loss (higher spending than revenue) because of the large debt/interest payment and at some stage because of our failure to make the payment on time, the interest rate increased from 14% to 16% or so. So, despite Fergie's 'the money was always there to be spent' I think that there is something on the argument that we were skint on summers 2008/2009/2010, money simply wasn't there. At the same time, likely if Fergie would have been more aggressive about transfers, the Glazers probably would have found some money, be it from their other businesses, or by selling part of the club (similar to how they did with PIK 220m payment, and later a 62m payment which came from their own money).

 

[matherto]

I think the problem is the market is destroyed. This talk of value only arose under them though Sir Alex backed it. We had a manager who wouldn't think twice putting a defender in midfield and often it worked. When you talk about value? That's a business issue. Supporters don't want to hear it. We risk losing our way even more if they don't sell because they bought into a successful model. They have not shown the capability to recapture that. The only way to do that is by buying and selling and promoting the right players and at the moment, the balance isn't there. When you go all those many years like we did and didn't improve the midfield? And to be honest team....it will rebound on you. Now maybe we have a good manager. The mentality in the group is immature. That's the impression they give. They crumble under pressure rather then forcing issues or dealing with the fact they are expected to be better then many teams. If you don't back the manager it's an issue. In addition, it's crazy how FEW players we were linked to in the summer. They can talk of Jan...it's too late. It's cautious some might think sensible but I think we've been too sensible. And they should sell because they do not have the bottle/finances to compete. Why should De Gea stay at a club with no ambition because of owners who cannot deliver and who are so weak they don't defend their manager but rather look to unsettle him and the players by doing nothing....they should sell.

The game changes every year, if you don't want to adapt and instead complain about 'no value' then you get left behind. It's a simple equation, spend money = win. It doesn't help that when we spend money we immediately turn every player we buy into a pile of wank even if they were a world beater previously but we still have to keep going.

The moment we stop in the current market and don't give our managers the signings they want regardless of whether they're any good and if there's sell on value or any of that and and we try and settle for a nice income by scraping a top four place we've become Arsenal/utterly fecking pointless as a football club. Looks like the Glazers have decided that this is the case and Ed is just the fall guy for it.

 

[Revan]

The game changes every year, if you don't want to adapt and instead complain about 'no value' then you get left behind. It's a simple equation, spend money = win. It doesn't help that when we spend money we immediately turn every player we buy into a pile of wank even if they were a world beater previously but we still have to keep going.

The moment we stop in the current market and don't give our managers the signings they want regardless of whether they're any good and if there's sell on value or any of that and and we try and settle for a nice income by scraping a top four place we've become Arsenal/utterly fecking pointless as a football club. Looks like the Glazers have decided that this is the case and Ed is just the fall guy for it.

Shouldn't we wait more than a single transfer window before we make that conclusion? Last summer we had our largest ever transfer window, and then in January signed Sanchez whom while was just swapped with Mhiky, difference on salaries over the course of the entire contract + signing on fee / agent fee will likely cost around 100m. If we're in the same situation next summer, I would totally agree with you, but if this was 'take a step back to take before moving forward' approach, it might well be the right decision.

 

[Moriarty]

But Ed’s job is to come up with a good plan. The owners job was to plan for SAF’s retirement. Both failing on the planning front.

I seem to recall David Gill saying - and this was a few years before Fergie actually retired - that plans were under way for the succession and that the man coming in would have trophies under his belt and European experience. Maybe he envisioned Guardiola or Mourinho at that point but no names were mentioned. We got Moyes.

 

[Revan]

I seem to recall David Gill saying - and this was a few years before Fergie actually retired - that plans were under way for the succession and that the man coming in would have trophies under his belt and European experience. Maybe he envisioned Guardiola or Mourinho at that point but no names were mentioned. We got Moyes.

Rumors back then said that Gill wanted Mourinho to succeed Fergie, but Fergie wanted Moyes, and so the owners listened to Fergie because he is Fergie, and because they were worried that without an experienced CEO (Gill was leaving), Mourinho will be harmful. Ed didn't have much say, he hadn't even start on the new job, so imagine him trying to overrule Fergie, it would have been laughable.

No idea what changed a couple of years ago, probably a combination of failures and Ed having had a few years to settle on his job.

 

[Yagami]

I seem to recall David Gill saying - and this was a few years before Fergie actually retired - that plans were under way for the succession and that the man coming in would have trophies under his belt and European experience. Maybe he envisioned Guardiola or Mourinho at that point but no names were mentioned. We got Moyes.

You're doing Moyes a disservice here. We got exactly what we wanted in a manager - Gill didn't lie! Moyes had won the league with Celtic in 81-82, the associate members cup in 85-86 with Bristol, and the 3rd division in 95-96 with Preston as a player. As a manager, he won the 2nd division with Preston 99-00 and got Everton into the CL in 04-05 for the 05-06 season. As you see, he had trophies under his belt and European experience.

 

[Moriarty]

Rumors back then said that Gill wanted Mourinho to succeed Fergie, but Fergie wanted Moyes, and so the owners listened to Fergie because he is Fergie, and because they were worried that without an experienced CEO (Gill was leaving), Mourinho will be harmful. Ed didn't have much say, he hadn't even start on the new job, so imagine him trying to overrule Fergie, it would have been laughable.

No idea what changed a couple of years ago, probably a combination of failures and Ed having had a few years to settle on his job.

I understand all that but Gill had ample time - at least 2-3 seasons - to prepare for the succession. I get that much depends on the availability of candidates but I can't imagine too many managers - top managers - being unresponsive to overtures made in 2011 or 2012. After Fergie retired, the received wisdom in the press was that the man following Fergie would be on a hiding to nothing and it would be his successor who would have the easier task. Shows you how much the press knew. The appointment of Woodward was bizarre from a footballing standpoint. Surely Gill could have lined up somebody of stature who would steady the ship.

 

[JPRouve]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that money as 'cash reserves'? Which I think is something that usually you don't spend to sign players. Additionally, if I am not mistaken now we have more than 300m as 'cash reserves'.

If I am not mistaken, until 2010 or so when we restructured the debt, we were actually at loss (higher spending than revenue) because of the large debt/interest payment and at some stage because of our failure to make the payment on time, the interest rate increased from 14% to 16% or so. So, despite Fergie's 'the money was always there to be spent' I think that there is something on the argument that we were skint on summers 2008/2009/2010, money simply wasn't there. At the same time, likely if Fergie would have been more aggressive about transfers, the Glazers probably would have found some money, be it from their other businesses, or by selling part of the club (similar to how they did with PIK 220m payment, and later a 62m payment which came from their own money).

No, it's "cash and cash equivalents". It's basically used to purchase and it's also a buffer. In 2017 United had 290m£.

 

[Lentwood]

George Soros owns nearly 10% of Manchester Utd

What does that tell you?

If you’re George Soros, you would rather make another million on your investment than win a ‘meaningless’ medal

That’s why the fans are angry at the Board. We don’t care about numbers unless its the number of trophies in the cabinet

 

[ravelston]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that money as 'cash reserves'? Which I think is something that usually you don't spend to sign players. Additionally, if I am not mistaken now we have more than 300m as 'cash reserves'.

If I am not mistaken, until 2010 or so when we restructured the debt, we were actually at loss (higher spending than revenue) because of the large debt/interest payment and at some stage because of our failure to make the payment on time, the interest rate increased from 14% to 16% or so. So, despite Fergie's 'the money was always there to be spent' I think that there is something on the argument that we were skint on summers 2008/2009/2010, money simply wasn't there. At the same time, likely if Fergie would have been more aggressive about transfers, the Glazers probably would have found some money, be it from their other businesses, or by selling part of the club (similar to how they did with PIK 220m payment, and later a 62m payment which came from their own money).

The "cash reserves" question is covered above.

Depends on whether you're talking about accounting profit/loss or cash flow. On an accounting basis we made a loss, on a cash flow basis we fluctuated but, on average, were positive. (The reason for the difference is that there are a lot of "non-cash" charges in the accounts - primarily, but not limited to, depreciation and amortisation.) The Ronaldo cash came in in 2009 and sat there for three years without SAF spending it.

The interest rate jump you're referring to would have affected the PIKs, which is why they were paid down at that point. Up until then they had been relatively cheap as a "mezzanine" layer of financing (sits between the debt and the equity and makes up the difference in the purchase cost). Cost the Glazers £250m to pay them down. (That, and the £270m they put up initially, made their total investment in buying the club £520m.)

The Glazers have never put any money directly into the running of the club - they spent their money buying it and run it as a self-supporting business. Particularly now, as it's back to being a public company.

 

[ravelston]

George Soros owns nearly 10% of Manchester Utd

What does that tell you?

If you’re George Soros, you would rather make another million on your investment than win a ‘meaningless’ medal

That’s why the fans are angry at the Board. We don’t care about numbers unless its the number of trophies in the cabinet

Not since 2013. Baron Capital Group have 37% of the "A" shares. Only gives them 1% of the voting power though - the Glazers "B" shares have 97% of the votes.

 

[Revan]

No, it's "cash and cash equivalents". It's basically used to purchase and it's also a buffer. In 2017 United had 290m£.

Thanks!

The "cash reserves" question is covered above.

Depends on whether you're talking about accounting profit/loss or cash flow. On an accounting basis we made a loss, on a cash flow basis we fluctuated but, on average, were positive. (The reason for the difference is that there are a lot of "non-cash" charges in the accounts - primarily, but not limited to, depreciation and amortisation.) The Ronaldo cash came in in 2009 and sat there for three years without SAF spending it.

The interest rate jump you're referring to would have affected the PIKs, which is why they were paid down at that point. Up until then they had been relatively cheap as a "mezzanine" layer of financing (sits between the debt and the equity and makes up the difference in the purchase cost). Cost the Glazers £250m to pay them down. (That, and the £270m they put up initially, made their total investment in buying the club £520m.)

The Glazers have never put any money directly into the running of the club - they spent their money buying it and run it as a self-supporting business. Particularly now, as it's back to being a public company.

Thanks as always! One question though, didn't they also pay 62m in 2014 or so? In which case, it means that they payed circa 580m pounds to buy the club, which is far different to 'they bought the club without spending any pence' propaganda.

 

[ravelston]

Thanks!

Thanks as always! One question though, didn't they also pay 62m in 2014 or so? In which case, it means that they payed circa 580m pounds to buy the club, which is far different to 'they bought the club without spending any pence' propaganda.

I don't think there was a payment from the Glazers. The club did get £68m from the sale of new shares in the IPO and I suppose that you could make an argument that it came from the Glazers, but it's a bit of a stretch (particularly as they needed it to balance the massive financing costs that year). But you're right about the propaganda.

 

[Lentwood]

Not since 2013. Baron Capital Group have 37% of the "A" shares. Only gives them 1% of the voting power though - the Glazers "B" shares have 97% of the votes.

I’m not commenting on who has “control” I’m commenting on the misaligned interests of the investors/owners and the manager/fans

 

[Random Task]

Has Jose been vindicated with his search for new central defenders? Based on the evidence of the last couple of games it would appear to be the case.

If Woody truly did veto the signings Jose had requested in the summer, then he has a lot to answer for.

 

[Minimalist]

Has Jose been vindicated with his search for new central defenders? Based on the evidence of the last couple of games it would appear to be the case.

If Woody truly did veto the signings Jose had requested in the summer, then he has a lot to answer for.

Not really.

He’s spent a fortune, including on centre backs. The whole team is pathetic and reflects a poor manager.

 

[Revan]

Has Jose been vindicated with his search for new central defenders? Based on the evidence of the last couple of games it would appear to be the case.

If Woody truly did veto the signings Jose had requested in the summer, then he has a lot to answer for.

If only he had been backed like Pochettino was in the summer, we would have trashed them.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Fancy believing that we couldn't have improved on these players.

 

[Random Task]

Not really.

He’s spent a fortune, including on centre backs. The whole team is pathetic and reflects a poor manager.

Should this game stay at 2-0, then it would have been decided by individual defensive errors, which was also the case against Brighton. All this results in 3 points out of a possible 9 thus far in the campaign.

Jose clearly wanted new CB's for a good reason and to me, he has been justified based on the evidence tonight.

 

[Minimalist]

This game stays at 2-0, then it would have been decided by individual defensive errors, which was also the case against Brighton. All this results in 3 points out of a possible 9 thus far in the campaign.

Jose clearly wanted new CB's for a good reason and to me, he has been justified based on the evidence tonight.

Woooo! 0-0 at home.

Feck that.

 

[RedCoffee]

Has Jose been vindicated with his search for new central defenders? Based on the evidence of the last couple of games it would appear to be the case.

If Woody truly did veto the signings Jose had requested in the summer, then he has a lot to answer for.

Ridiculous comment! He bought his ideal centre back pairing for 65 million and turned them into laurel and hardy. Why would you give Mourinho another penny for defenders after squandering such a large sum.

 

[goin4glory]

If only he had been backed like Pochettino was in the summer, we would have trashed them.

Poch already had Alderweireld.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Was it Woodward who told the press that we didn't try to sign Alderweireld because he would be our 5th best defender?

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Should this game stay at 2-0, then it would have been decided by individual defensive errors, which was also the case against Brighton. All this results in 3 points out of a possible 9 thus far in the campaign.

Jose clearly wanted new CB's for a good reason and to me, he has been justified based on the evidence tonight.

Agreed.

 

[Kapardin]

Should this game stay at 2-0, then it would have been decided by individual defensive errors, which was also the case against Brighton. All this results in 3 points out of a possible 9 thus far in the campaign.

Jose clearly wanted new CB's for a good reason and to me, he has been justified based on the evidence tonight.

I agree. But considering his bad transfer record, you can understand Woodward's reservations.

Good attacks can overcome bad defending. Look at Chelsea's shaky defense and how Sarri has compensated for it by simply outscoring the opposition. What we saw in the first 45 minutes of this game is that our attacking players (including Lukaku when in form), can press and run, link up well if coached properly to do so throughout the season. But they hardly do that and so we hardly score enough to cover the defensive lapses.

 

[L1nk]

Mourinho signed 2 shite defenders, in which he prefers to play Herrera over, and yet people wonder why they won't sanction the buying of another without getting rid of some of the dross we have there.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Ridiculous comment! He bought his ideal centre back pairing for 65 million and turned them into laurel and hardy. Why would you give Mourinho another penny for defenders after squandering such a large sum.

Yeah, I'm sure a man who has coached Carvalho, Terry, Ramos, Pepe, Varane and Lucio thinks Bailly and Lindelof are his ideal fecking centre half partnership.

Jesus Wept.

 

[Random Task]

Ridiculous comment! He bought his ideal centre back pairing for 65 million and turned them into laurel and hardy. Why would you give Mourinho another penny for defenders after squandering such a large sum.

Talking of ridiculous comments...

In any case, your point is irrelevant. Jose asked for new central defenders because he did not believe his current options were up to scratch. Surely, based on the evidence of the campaign to date, he has been justified.

He can you possibly dispute this after the horror show provided by our central defenders this last 2 weeks.

 

[Woodenlung]

Should this game stay at 2-0, then it would have been decided by individual defensive errors, which was also the case against Brighton. All this results in 3 points out of a possible 9 thus far in the campaign.

Jose clearly wanted new CB's for a good reason and to me, he has been justified based on the evidence tonight.

Surely Mourinho has responsibility to actually coach the players he has. I've seen Pochettino and Guardiola improve players whereas Mourinho just wants to get rid and spend more.

He's done as a top level coach.

 

[Random Task]

Smalling falls on his ass and hands Lucas another one.

 

[RedCoffee]

Talking of ridiculous comments...

In any case, your point is irrelevant. Jose asked for new central defenders because he did not believe his current options were up to scratch. Surely, based on the evidence of the campaign to date, he has been justified.

He can you possibly dispute this after the horror show provided by our central defenders this last 2 weeks.

Yeah, I'm sure a man who has coached Carvalho, Terry, Ramos, Pepe, Varane and Lucio thinks Bailly and Lindelof are his ideal fecking centre half partnership.

Jesus Wept.

Christ why did he spend 65 million on dogshit then. Honestly come on it’s an absolute joke if you think he should simply get more cash to spend. 400 f@£King million and we have to put up these ‘we should spend more’ comments.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Christ why did he spend 65 million on dogshit then. Honestly come on it’s an absolute joke if you think he should simply get more cash to spend. 400 f@£King million and we have to put up these ‘we should spend more’ comments.

Oh come on, look at the prices clubs are spending on players, you know as well as I do that £65m gets you two rank average centre-halves these days, which is exactly what we got.

 

[Baxter]

All those signings Spurs have made have really shown what we missed out on.

Shit excuse.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

Jose wants a new centre back & he's right but if you are Ed, would you trust Jose to spend the massive money on the 3rd centre back after he gave Jose two centre backs? I don't think we can really blame much on Ed only, the manager also needs to take the blame as well.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Was it Woodward who told the press that we didn't try to sign Alderweireld because he would be our 5th best defender?

That still never made any sense. I think Ed really doesn't have a clue on the club structure on the field but he can't be that stupid.

 

[RedCoffee]

Oh come on, look at the prices clubs are spending on players, you know as well as I do that £65m gets you two rank average centre-halves these days, which is exactly what we got.

Why did he buy average then. I remember everyone on here begging him to sign Lindelof because he was a nailed on starter

 

[vangagal]

That still never made any sense. I think Ed really doesn't have a clue on the club structure on the field but he can't be that stupid.

He is that stupid

 

[NinjaFletch]

Why did he buy average then. I remember everyone on here begging him to sign Lindelof because he was a nailed on starter

I don't know. I wasn't privy to the discussion. What I do know is that he recognised they were an issue and wasn't allowed to improve them by a fecking incompetent bean counter, and what I do know is that it's cost us 6 goals in 2 games.

 

[Random Task]

All those signings Spurs have made have really shown what we missed out on.

Shit excuse.

Not making excuses for Jose one iota. Jose should be sacked after this quite frankly disgraceful start to the season, but he was still correct in his assessment of our defensive situation, regardless of whether he is at fault or not.

 

[Godfather]

I actually hate Woodward's face. "Can do things in the transfer market others can only dream of". feck off