Woodward, Glazers....

Dans

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Jun 4, 2001
Messages
25,850
Location
Oberbayern
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
18,851
Location
...
I don’t know if how good or bad they have been at their respective jobs, but our troubles are more on the football managers for me. On the whole, I would say they have recruited managers and given them money to spend. Yes, you could nitpick as to an occasion where a manager didn’t get the player he wants, which is part of football. You can’t say ‘the board is useless because that one time, JM wanted to sign x and he couldn’t’.

I think we have over complicated. No exec or owner would be on the training field trying to undermine the manager’s time with his players. Trying to make sure the team doesn’t gel or play good football etc. Managers are to blame for failing to do the football side of things properly.

Jose Mourinho, for example, came in and bought a whole new spine for his team. Whatever you think of the owners, De Gea, Valencia (of that time, who was very good), Bailly, Smalling, Shaw, Matic, Herrera, Pogba, Mkhitaryan, Ibrahimovic, Martial, Rashford, Lindelöf, Lukaku + more is not a poor team. It’s a team that COULD compete for a league title if they were set up well. Half of those players he bought himself. Most of whom were in their prime. I’m not sure what anyone other than the manager is supposed do here.
 

Will Singh

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
4,498
Location
Theatre of dreams
I don’t know if how good or bad they have been at their respective jobs, but our troubles are more on the football managers for me. On the whole, I would say they have recruited managers and given them money to spend. Yes, you could nitpick as to an occasion where a manager didn’t get the player he wants, which is part of football. You can’t say ‘the board is useless because that one time, JM wanted to sign x and he couldn’t’.

I think we have over complicated. No exec or owner would be on the training field trying to undermine the manager’s time with his players. Trying to make sure the team doesn’t gel or play good football etc. Managers are to blame for failing to do the football side of things properly.

Jose Mourinho, for example, came in and bought a whole new spine for his team. Whatever you think of the owners, De Gea, Valencia (of that time, who was very good), Bailly, Smalling, Shaw, Matic, Herrera, Pogba, Mkhitaryan, Ibrahimovic, Martial, Rashford, Lindelöf, Lukaku + more is not a poor team. It’s a team that COULD compete for a league title if they were set up well. Half of those players he bought himself. Most of whom were in their prime. I’m not sure what anyone other than the manager is supposed do here.
I think the Glazers are businessmen and very good at it but owning a football club has another angle to just business and that is football. What they’ve done is employed a manager and gave him a budget (a good one at times) and left it at that. What they should be doing is setting up a structure for the football side of the club to be as good as the business side. For years SAF shielded this and now he’s gone the floors are there to be seen.
 

Fosu-Mens

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
3,961
Location
Fred | 2019/20 Performances
I think the Glazers are businessmen and very good at it but owning a football club has another angle to just business and that is football. What they’ve done is employed a manager and gave him a budget (a good one at times) and left it at that. What they should be doing is setting up a structure for the football side of the club to be as good as the business side. For years SAF shielded this and now he’s gone the floors are there to be seen.
I think Malcom was a smart business man. Saw the long term secure financial benefits of owning sportclubs. His kids on the other hand have shown no evidence of being good business people. The increased revenue of Manchester United over the last years are mainly due to a continuation of the marketstrategy that Manchester United was head and shoulders above the rest of the EPL when the club was bought by the Glazers. Also important is the overall increase of popularity of Football on a global scale (increased revenue for all top clubs in the EPL is an example of this).

And we do not know how involved they are with decisions made at the club. How much is on the managers, Woodward, the board or certain players. Given the lack of transparency regarding who makes what decisions at the club, which only makes sense if it is intentional, one might think that this is all down to managers making bad decisions while the Glazers might be vetoing this and that... So every fans is basically guessing when trying to blame a single person. That being said, given the lack of results on the pitch, it is clear as day that the Glazers do not care what happens on the pitch as long as the club is performing financially. If not, then Woodward would have been gone a long time ago regardless of who made what decision.
 

Rozay

Master of Hindsight
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
18,851
Location
...
I think the Glazers are businessmen and very good at it but owning a football club has another angle to just business and that is football. What they’ve done is employed a manager and gave him a budget (a good one at times) and left it at that. What they should be doing is setting up a structure for the football side of the club to be as good as the business side. For years SAF shielded this and now he’s gone the floors are there to be seen.
But what does this mean in real terms? And how much do we know to the extent that we have such a problem with the setup on the football side? We have an army of football employees. Which ones are you not happy with? My thinking is that the ultimate answer to that is the XI employees on the green field and the couple on the touchline. Other than that, I think we’re splitting hairs and venturing massively into the unknown into intangibles. Ultimately, we’re not happy with the results. We may not have the ‘best head scout’. I don’t know. But I do know that neither of us probably know.
 

Chairman Woodie

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
1,013
Location
Ireland
I think Malcom was a smart business man. Saw the long term secure financial benefits of owning sportclubs. His kids on the other hand have shown no evidence of being good business people. The increased revenue of Manchester United over the last years are mainly due to a continuation of the marketstrategy that Manchester United was head and shoulders above the rest of the EPL when the club was bought by the Glazers. Also important is the overall increase of popularity of Football on a global scale (increased revenue for all top clubs in the EPL is an example of this).

And we do not know how involved they are with decisions made at the club. How much is on the managers, Woodward, the board or certain players. Given the lack of transparency regarding who makes what decisions at the club, which only makes sense if it is intentional, one might think that this is all down to managers making bad decisions while the Glazers might be vetoing this and that... So every fans is basically guessing when trying to blame a single person. That being said, given the lack of results on the pitch, it is clear as day that the Glazers do not care what happens on the pitch as long as the club is performing financially. If not, then Woodward would have been gone a long time ago regardless of who made what decision.
I agree with you, Malcolm Glazer was the smart businessman. Like you, I am not so sure about his sons.

However, I think the key to United's increased commercial success has been Ed Woodward. Since Ed Woodward arrived at United, the Club's commercial success has soared. Now sponsorship deals account for roughly half of all United's revenues.
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
9,954
Location
manchester
I agree with you, Malcolm Glazer was the smart businessman. Like you, I am not so sure about his sons.

However, I think the key to United's increased commercial success has been Ed Woodward. Since Ed Woodward arrived at United, the Club's commercial success has soared. Now sponsorship deals account for roughly half of all United's revenues.
He has been selling fergies legacy up to now. Our appeal is falling bigtime
 

Fosu-Mens

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
3,961
Location
Fred | 2019/20 Performances
I agree with you, Malcolm Glazer was the smart businessman. Like you, I am not so sure about his sons.

However, I think the key to United's increased commercial success has been Ed Woodward. Since Ed Woodward arrived at United, the Club's commercial success has soared. Now sponsorship deals account for roughly half of all United's revenues.
Selling the brand that is Manchester United was not that difficult 3-4 years ago. If you compare the % increase in commercial income to other top EPL clubs over the last 5 years you will see that the other clubs have outperformed us. This can be attributed to that we had already a fairly developed and/or partly saturated commercial base, then again our previous commercial income superiority compared to other top EPL clubs is not that big anymore. And turning a massive brand into a commercial prostitute while completely ignoring what made this brand what it is(soon to be was)... is short term thinking.
 

steve.crowford

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
213
Location
USA
Under Woodward United wasted millions in wrong footballers and mostly of them were signed against the managers vision and plans The End product is a shit squad . His football knowledge is insane. The club structure allows it. It's an another problem. This is my point . Don't care about how big the budged still is.

btw At other football giants the football results are the main priority. Barca just approved over a billion budget ,but if the team fails to deliver their president will be removed. At Madrid is also the same.
 

Stepney73

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
365
I agree with you, Malcolm Glazer was the smart businessman. Like you, I am not so sure about his sons.

However, I think the key to United's increased commercial success has been Ed Woodward. Since Ed Woodward arrived at United, the Club's commercial success has soared. Now sponsorship deals account for roughly half of all United's revenues.
As said they all have just made money off the back of the clubs history(and recent success).even the likes of Everton (who in 2004 sold England's hottest talent to us for 30 million)and West Ham can easy spend 50million in a transfer window these days.

The glazers have not been good for Manchester United in any way.

Woodward has probobally only done what any half decent PR or marketing company would have done anyway.


14 years ago finishing second was regarded as a failure.
14 years ago most fans expected Utd to be at least in the CL quarters and a domestic cup.

Now we are discussing the possibility of relegation ffs.

anyone who defends the glazers seriously needs their head testing.
 

ReddBalls

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2015
Messages
722
I am just leaving this story here, of how Private Equity firms who have joined the dark side operate. It's well worth reading for those of you who are not in the know, and it's also kinda depressing from the point of view of an United fan.

I absolutely recommended that you read the whole article, but I have quoted the part most related to United beneath the spoiler button. https://splinternews.com/the-working-persons-guide-to-the-industry-that-might-ki-1824148959

[...]Most big companies are already fairly sophisticated. They do not need an outside firm to improve their marketing, or put in a more efficient IT system. So how do PE firms make money buying these huge companies? “Financial engineering,” Appelbaum says. “Load these companies up with debt. Debt is the lifeblood of the private equity industry.”

Private equity has a great business model—if you’re a private equity manager. First, a PE firm raises a fund using money from large investors, including pension funds investing the retirement money of regular working people, many of them in unions. The firm puts in a small amount of money and borrows a large amount of money in order to purchase a big company. That debt is owed by the company itself. Now the PE firm owns a company, and the company has a huge amount of debt that it didn’t have before. (A nifty bonus was that until very recently, the interest on that debt was tax-deductible, meaning that taxpayers were, in essence, paying that bill.) The firm itself gets to make all of the operating decisions about what to buy and sell, and how to manage what they own. And typically, the firm itself has little of its own money on the line—it “typically puts one to two dollars for every hundred dollars of equity that the (investors) put in,” according to Appelbaum. The PE firm “takes 20% of the profits, even though they’ve only put up 2% of the equity. So they make money coming and going.”

On top of that cut of the profits, the firm charges investors a fee of around 2% of their money per year; and, on top of all of that, the firm charges the companies that they own hefty fees—millions of dollars a year—for their “advice” and “monitoring.” This is a steady revenue stream for the PE firms themselves, but only adds to the crushing financial burdens placed on the companies they own.

“What people often ask me is, ‘Why would any CEO agree to this?’” says Appelbaum. “And the answer is, the private equity firm gets to select the people on the board of directors. And the board of directors can fire the CEO.”

In this way, it is possible for PE firms—with very little investment of their own—to suck money out of a perfectly healthy company. If all goes well, they sell it; if not, they can still suck out enough to make a profit before the company collapses in on itself.

Debt
In most deals, private equity firms want to minimize the amount of their own money they put in, and maximize the amount of borrowed money they use. More debt means greater profits if the value of the company they buy rises. But debt also means greater risk. All of that debt that must be paid back means that companies are suddenly in a very perilous position should anything go wrong. Their financial cushion, their safety net, is now eaten away by payments on the debt that the PE firm used to buy them. Overnight, a financially healthy company becomes one that is living on the edge—not for any benefit for employees or customers, but solely for the financial benefit of the PE firm that bought them.

“What happens is, then everything has to fall into place,” Appelbaum says. “If anything goes awry, the risk of bankruptcy is just huge if you’ve loaded a company up with debt. And if not quite bankruptcy, certainly defaulting on their debt, financial distress, having to take radical actions to pay back the debt.” Those radical actions typically take the form of budget cuts, layoffs, and selling off parts of the company as necessary to raise cash. PE firms will slash every last part of a company before they will let themselves take a financial loss.

“It’s as if you buy your neighbor’s house. You put down the down payment. You own the house. But your neighbor has to pay off the mortgage. And if the neighbor can’t pay the mortgage, they go bankrupt, not you. That’s a sweet deal.[...]”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Penna

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
5,268
I am just leaving this story here, of how Private Equity firms who have joined the dark side operate. It's well worth reading for those of you who are not in the know, and it's also kinda depressing from the point of view of an United fan.

I absolutely recommended that you read the whole article, but I have quoted the part most related to United beneath the spoiler button. https://splinternews.com/the-working-persons-guide-to-the-industry-that-might-ki-1824148959

I literally HOPE the fans read this, especially the Glazer apologists. So damning.
 

Coops73

Full Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
1,999
I am just leaving this story here, of how Private Equity firms who have joined the dark side operate. It's well worth reading for those of you who are not in the know, and it's also kinda depressing from the point of view of an United fan.

I absolutely recommended that you read the whole article, but I have quoted the part most related to United beneath the spoiler button. https://splinternews.com/the-working-persons-guide-to-the-industry-that-might-ki-1824148959

Sounds kinda familiar, can’t quite remember where I’ve heard this though. Mmm, maybe it’ll come to me when United have been sold or are in the championship.
 

Steve Bruce

Full Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
550
Can't believe anyone would be happy that a major sponsor thinks united are a bad idea.

Yes it's not the nicest sponsor emblem but the money involved is massive. If our next one has a nice looking badge but pay half the money then it's terrible news for united
 

Raees

Legal Guardian of the Football forums
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
28,357
For all the credit Woodward gets for increasing our sponsorships etc would it really have taken a rocket scientist to sell the brand that is Manchester United?

Has he truly maximised the brand if in truth other clubs have been allowed to catch up with us on this front and if anything Uniteds allure has fallen under his watch. He’s merely ridden the aftermath of Fergies era of success.
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
5,268
Does anyone have access to 'The Athletic' piece done by Adam Crafton on Ed? He tweeted it this morning. Apparently he and 3 other journalists spent a few looking into his life and his reign at United.
 

El B

Full Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
2,051
Location
Dublin
Does anyone have access to 'The Athletic' piece done by Adam Crafton on Ed? He tweeted it this morning. Apparently he and 3 other journalists spent a few looking into his life and his reign at United.
Read it earlier, shines a light on some stuff and pretty interesting all in.

<snipped due to potential legal issues>

It's worth subscribing though, or even just checking out the free trial.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
5,268
Read it earlier, shines a light on some stuff and pretty interesting all in.

<snipped out due to potential legal issues>

It's worth subscribing though, or even just checking out the free trial.
Legend. Thank you. I will be reading this just after my meeting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bestietom

Full Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
5,814
Location
Ireland
We have only got to look at the squad we have now compared to what we had in Fergies time. We had better players that didn't even make the bench ffs.
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
87,970
In the end Mourinho got Diogo Dalot, Lee Grant, and Fred. There are claims Mourinho only acceded to the Brazilian midfielder, who came at a cost of £52 million, because he felt the alternative was no midfielder at all.
It is £52M for a midfielder. It isn't like that is a drop in the ocean.

By the way, full articles from paywalled sites aren't allowed to be posted as the caf can be sued. You can PM it to him though.
 

El B

Full Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
2,051
Location
Dublin
It is £52M for a midfielder. It isn't like that is a drop in the ocean.

By the way, full articles from paywalled sites aren't allowed to be posted as the caf can be sued. You can PM it to him though.
My bad! Slap on the wrist for me.

Anyone interested can always sign up for a free trial and read it anyway.
 

Ziggy Starduster

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
136
Just reading on Twitter that Kevin Glazer has sold some class A shares. Which I understand are shares that carry voting rights.
I'm not sure who this affects anything, if at all, but with a recent big sale of Glazer shares, perhaps they too are concerned by the fall in share price. Who knows?
 

GBBQ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
4,088
Location
Ireland
He has been selling fergies legacy up to now. Our appeal is falling bigtime
Is it though? Our football is free fall for sure but still we remain one of the best supported clubs playing in one of the most watched football leagues. Thats what sponsors care about, being visible. Its a bonus if we're the EPL or CL winners of course but any article I can find on line still ranks us as selling the most jerseys globally even though we haven't won the league since SAF retired and don't have a global superstar like Messi or Ronaldo.

https://www.footyheadlines.com/2019/04/2018-top-10-best-selling-football-kits.html
 

Eric7C

New Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2015
Messages
993
Is it though? Our football is free fall for sure but still we remain one of the best supported clubs playing in one of the most watched football leagues. Thats what sponsors care about, being visible. Its a bonus if we're the EPL or CL winners of course but any article I can find on line still ranks us as selling the most jerseys globally even though we haven't won the league since SAF retired and don't have a global superstar like Messi or Ronaldo.

https://www.footyheadlines.com/2019/04/2018-top-10-best-selling-football-kits.html
We are not visible on champions league nights - one of the biggest draws in football viewership - and won't be there next season also, mostly likely. It will take some time, but further poor performances on the pitch will definitely hurt our appeal.
 

Johan07

Full Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Messages
1,936
Just reading on Twitter that Kevin Glazer has sold some class A shares. Which I understand are shares that carry voting rights.
I'm not sure who this affects anything, if at all, but with a recent big sale of Glazer shares, perhaps they too are concerned by the fall in share price. Who knows?
Its Class Bs which carries voting rights.
Class As is what is traded on the NYSE only.
As a lawyer I would be extremely surprised if there is not a Shareholders agreemeent set in stone about the Class Bs not being tradable without offering them to the other Glazers first for example. And they are not being publicly traded either so it would have to be private sale which is not without complications.
The Glazers have been diluting their total equity by offering Class As to the market for quite a while now, I think their total stake in United is down to 75 percent or something currently.
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
87,970
Just reading on Twitter that Kevin Glazer has sold some class A shares. Which I understand are shares that carry voting rights.
I'm not sure who this affects anything, if at all, but with a recent big sale of Glazer shares, perhaps they too are concerned by the fall in share price. Who knows?
Kevin was the Glazer with the least interest in the club. Had been said for years that him, Darcie and Edward would be selling their shares at some point.

Kevin and Darcie still have little involvement with the club but apparently Edward is now more in contact with Woodward from the article @El B posted.

That's another thing that makes me unsure of the reliability of the article (despite the names). It says Joel, Bryan and Darcie are involved with Tampa while Avram, Joel and Edward are most in contact with Woodward, but whenever you see shots of the Glazers at Old Trafford it is Avram, Joel and Bryan so I'm not so sure about that.
 

GBBQ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
4,088
Location
Ireland
We are not visible on champions league nights - one of the biggest draws in football viewership - and won't be there next season also, mostly likely. It will take some time, but further poor performances on the pitch will definitely hurt our appeal.
We've been a non entity in the CL since SAF retired but still sell more jerseys than EPL teams who won it. But I agree its not infinite and obviously we are losing a lot of new younger fans to City and Liverpool now. I just don't buy the idea that at this point in time that we're not an attractive advertising option for major companies, very few teams offer that global reach.
 

ReddBalls

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2015
Messages
722
Read it earlier, shines a light on some stuff and pretty interesting all in.

<snipped due to potential legal issues>

It's worth subscribing though, or even just checking out the free trial.
Great read. Thanks.
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
9,954
Location
manchester
Is it though? Our football is free fall for sure but still we remain one of the best supported clubs playing in one of the most watched football leagues. Thats what sponsors care about, being visible. Its a bonus if we're the EPL or CL winners of course but any article I can find on line still ranks us as selling the most jerseys globally even though we haven't won the league since SAF retired and don't have a global superstar like Messi or Ronaldo.

https://www.footyheadlines.com/2019/04/2018-top-10-best-selling-football-kits.html
I say our appeal is falling overall in the sense best players dont want to come anymore, our best players want to leave. That only weakens you. Anyone with a passing interest now realises the club are regressing, wheras the last 6 years might have been seen a blip.
 

Fosu-Mens

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2016
Messages
3,961
Location
Fred | 2019/20 Performances
One of the few potential owners that would make me evaluate my support for the club. With our current owners, the idea behind the club is to make money, and that is somewhat fair. If we are bought by the Saudis then we will become a sports washing tool for one of the worst regimes in the world today, and even if we end up becoming competitive again... Every trophy would be soiled on the basis that the intention was not to win it for the fans but to improve a tyrannical regimes reputation in the western world.
I have nothing against the average person from Saudi Arabia, 99,9% of them are surely decent people. The issue is the people at the top and their non-secular state and what they do or don't.
 

arthurka

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
12,628
Location
Rectum
One of the few potential owners that would make me evaluate my support for the club. With our current owners, the idea behind the club is to make money, and that is somewhat fair. If we are bought by the Saudis then we will become a sports washing tool for one of the worst regimes in the world today, and even if we end up becoming competitive again... Every trophy would be soiled on the basis that the intention was not to win it for the fans but to improve a tyrannical regimes reputation in the western world.
I have nothing against the average person from Saudi Arabia, 99,9% of them are surely decent people. The issue is the people at the top and their non-secular state and what they do or don't.
I get what you are saying but it's not like the club will be using their money as the club can generate a lot of money to use when it's not saddled with debt, dividends and payoffs. But like City and PSG being used as a positive marketing tool will probably work up to a certain degree.
 

dev1l

Full Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
8,921
One of the few potential owners that would make me evaluate my support for the club. With our current owners, the idea behind the club is to make money, and that is somewhat fair. If we are bought by the Saudis then we will become a sports washing tool for one of the worst regimes in the world today, and even if we end up becoming competitive again... Every trophy would be soiled on the basis that the intention was not to win it for the fans but to improve a tyrannical regimes reputation in the western world.
I have nothing against the average person from Saudi Arabia, 99,9% of them are surely decent people. The issue is the people at the top and their non-secular state and what they do or don't.
Fully agreed. Most probably the Saudis will use United to "recycle" their image with the rest of the world. Through United they can market themselves as benevolent people masking the atrocities being committed at home. (Most of which are not being reported by the media - reports of Saudi donations to big media groups are not isolated incidents)

Any half decent person won't want to be associated with all this..