Woodward, Glazers....

Alvaro Maestre

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
771
Location
Between Klopp`s Front Teeths .
I think we are part of the issue too . 30% of the fans wants them out, another 30% think that they are good owners, the other 30% think that they are not good owners but prefer to keep them so it can we worse and a 10% dont even care . It should be an easy decision for us the fans by just seeing a financial graphic chart or just seeing the constant success of other international clubs of our calibre , but no , we just seem to never agree on something as a unit , even when is clear as water.
 

KiD MoYeS

Good Craig got his c'nuppins
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
28,226
Location
Love is Blind
Glazer mafia have been and will continue to be THE problem at Manchester United. Felt it the past couple years even when Woodward was getting criticism. There was an Athletic article sometime this year detailing that the Glazers had to sign off on everything from transfers to expensing a cup of coffee, no matter how much. It is not about Woodward, Judge, Solskjaer et. al. Asked this question in the Sancho thread but more suitable for this thread... Do any of you honestly feel the Glazer family value Manchester United's on pitch success over extra zeros in their bank account?
 

roonaldo78

Full Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Messages
2,650
Exactly, they are staggeringly bad at sport management but it's not due to a lack of spending, just a lack of competency.
This is the key point and will continue to be the case until the ownership changes. In any big organisation such high levels of incompetancy would mean heads will roll but none of that seems to be happening here and instead the same people continue to be rewarded for their failure.
 

clarkydaz

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
9,954
Location
manchester
Who was the man who made the decision to offer Phil Jones a 5 year contract? Jose publicly scoffed he is never available, Ole never plays him and bought Maguire so wasnt part of Oles vision. We still cant shift smalling, Rojo, Lingard, Jones, Andreas, Dalot, which would have helped towards Sancho. Just a shambles of a club
 

Chief123

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
1,709
Location
Twitter...searching #Sancho
There seems to be very mixed views on the Glazers on the forum. Some views on both ends of the extremes.

My personal view of why there is such mixed feelings and not a unified view of the Glazers ownership is because of a few various points which some are positive and some are negative:

- A lot of the support and defence of the Glazers comes from the fact we have not been shy to spend big in the transfer market. Yes, it's been spent badly at times but lack of spending has not been an issue during their tenure. The fact we have spent more than virtually everyone else adds a lot of weight to the defence of the Glazers. However, there is a caveat to this. The reason why Glazers have been able to spend so much in the transfer market is due to the limitations on Utd being a lot more relaxed than it is for other clubs simply due to FFP. It's allowing us to spend what we do due to the success of Utd commercially and the revenue Utd generates.
- However, if there was no FFP (even though its pretty flimsy as it is) I don't think there is any doubt that the likes of City, Chelsea and possibly even the likes of Everton with billionaire owners would spend significantly more than we currently do. In fact, I would imagine it to be an insane amount of spending. So much so that it would really blow us out of the water when it comes to transfer expenditure and essentially put a lot more pressure on Glazers as it would highlight the deficiencies we do have with being a club in debt.
- The way the club was bought with literally no money of their own and all financed through loans, it was an incredible business deal for the Glazers. They could see it's a business that produces fantastic revenues which will be able to service the debt easily and at the same time allow them to take considerable profits out of the business. This is sadly something we will always have to accept as fans. Glazers are not fans of the club at all. They are and always will be businessman looking to make profit from a business called Manchester Utd. They will take advice and guidance from those within the club when it comes to investments in players in order to protect and enhance the brand and to keep it at a level which is generating good revenues and profits.
- Personally, I don't have criticism for Glazers lack of spending. I do however hate the way the club is owned by businessmen who's primary interest in profit generation and not success on the field.
- The frustration is that if we didn't have Glazers as owners, we would be able to spend significantly more than what we have spent and be able to bring the team back to the top a lot quicker than it's currently taking. For example the 90m that has been taken in dividends in the last 5 years would have been the money to pay for Sancho now.
- While the Glazers are in charge, we will always have the boardroom balancing act of weighing up whether it makes business sense as opposed to football sense.
- If FFP was completely abolished, in my view it would be incredibly hard for Utd to get anywhere back near the top with the warchest City and Chelsea would have. A lot of the support that Glazers are getting is because of the restrictions on other clubs. Utd's financial strength in the transfer market would be significantly more than it currently is without being a club owned by debt.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,299
Location
France
This is the key point and will continue to be the case until the ownership changes. In any big organisation such high levels of incompetancy would mean heads will roll but none of that seems to be happening here and instead the same people continue to be rewarded for their failure.
And the issue is that it's fairly common in football and the two type of potential new owners have a very high chance of being as incompetent. There is a reason why United have only had actual success with two managers in the last 70 years and it has been despite the owners.
 

glazed

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
3,117
I don't think it's true because CL prize money brings a lot of money, as well as CL TV incomes.
True but you have to ask yourself how much you need to spend to be assured of winning. Especially in knock out competitions like CL where anything can happen, but also in the PLO where you are up against an oil rich owner for whom normal economics doesn't apply.
 

Jaqen H'ghar

I can't drive...55
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,083
I disagree with this. Building for top 4 in the future will be the same as building for winning the league as the top 4 candidates will all spend heavily. There is no top 4 anymore with the Arsenal approach the last 10 years.
True. Recently it's been shaping into two teams playing for the title, followed by at least 5 teams fighting for the other two CL spots. By aiming to do just enough for top for, odds increase that well miss out, and we often have.
 

Fluctuation0161

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
3,111
Location
Manchester
No, finance costs and dividends aren't a good question because people overestimate them, especially since people seem to think that if they didn't exist the money would go toward transfer fees when the majority of it would be taxed. The money generated wouldn't even allow you to purchase one more VDB.
1 billion in debt repayments since 2005 isn't it? The tax rate would need to be over 99% to reduce that down to one VDB?
 

Jaqen H'ghar

I can't drive...55
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,083
And the issue is that it's fairly common in football and the two type of potential new owners have a very high chance of being as incompetent. There is a reason why United have only had actual success with two managers in the last 70 years and it has been despite the owners.
United of the past were not the juggernaut the Glazers took over. Two very different eras, and I don't think a comparison make sense.

United hit gold in that the Fergie Era coincided with the rise of the Premier League, and it gives us an advantage to this day, that we are still relevant despite what the Glazers have done to the club. Any semi decent owners would have us in a much better place.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
15,352
I think we are part of the issue too . 30% of the fans wants them out, another 30% think that they are good owners, the other 30% think that they are not good owners but prefer to keep them so it can we worse and a 10% dont even care . It should be an easy decision for us the fans by just seeing a financial graphic chart or just seeing the constant success of other international clubs of our calibre , but no , we just seem to never agree on something as a unit , even when is clear as water.
I don't think 30% consider them "good owners" (I personally don't know a single United fan who thinks they are), so you could probably increase the percentage for "it could be worse" considerably.

As for protests and whatnot - yeah, sure, we could have done more as a fanbase to voice our discontent with the way things have been run. But - as you allude to - we don't agree on precisely what the problem is. We all agree we should be doing better - but that isn't a realistic foundation for launching massive protest campaigns from a more or less - erm - united fan base that would have any effect on the decision making. Not least when you factor in a) fan culture in English football and b) United's structure in terms of ownership/leadership.

The last point leads me to this (which is not directed at you or anything you said in your post): there's also a tendency among certain fans to cry "Glazers out!" as if United were - in fact - Barca (or any other comparable club), where the people in charge can be forced out if they ain't popular. United's fans can't force the owners out by any other means than - well - forcing them to sell the club (in other words to force through a scenario in which it would be more profitable for them to sell the club rather than...not). The phrase "not bloody likely" springs to mind.

ETA I sometimes get the impression that some our fans think that joining Twitter campaigns to the tune of #Glazersout actually will make the owners go: "Oh...what's this then? The fans don't like us...bloody hell, we better call Bin Salman right away - we certainly don't want to own an insane cash cow whose fans think we're stingy (and ginger) cnuts..."
 
Last edited:

DomesticTadpole

Doom-monger obsessed with Herrera & the M.E.N.
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
74,755
Location
Barrow In Furness
I don't think 30% consider them "good owners" (I personally don't know a single United fan who thinks they are), so you could probably increase the percentage for "it could be worse" considerably.

As for protests and whatnot - yeah, sure, we could have done more as a fanbase to voice our discontent with the way things have been run. But - as you allude to - we don't agree on precisely what the problem is. We all agree we should be doing better - but that isn't a realistic foundation for launching massive protest campaigns from a more or less - erm - united fan base that would have any effect on the decision making. Not least when you factor in a) fan culture in English football and b) United's structure in terms of ownership/leadership.

The last point leads me to this (which is not directed at you or anything you said in your post): there's also a tendency among certain fans to cry "Glazers out!" as if United were - in fact - Barca (or any other comparable club), where the people in charge can be forced out if they ain't popular. United's fans can't force the owners out by any other means than - well - forcing them to sell the club (in other words to force through a scenario in which it would be more profitable for them to sell the club rather than...not). The phrase "not bloody likely" springs to mind.
One of the problem regarding protesting is, yes there are millions of fans, but they are spread all over the world, nevermind all over the country. A club like Blackpool it worked because of a more localised fan base. Protests and disruption plans could be
coordinated for impact, a club our size it is near impossible. Also near impossible to get everyone to agree that there is a problem. There will be some who think everything is fine. That are happy as long as we don't go down.
 

treble_winner

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
138
ETA I sometimes get the impression that some our fans think that joining Twitter campaigns to the tune of #Glazersout actually will make the owners go: "Oh...what's this then? The fans don't like us...bloody hell, we better call Bin Salman right away - we certainly don't want to own an insane cash cow whose fans think we're stingy (and ginger) cnuts..."
We cannot physically force them out of the club. But we can provide enough pressure on social media to force them to act more decisively or change something in their capacity to avoid a bad press. As we all know, Woodward pays a great deal of focus on social media exposure. Hitting on that front will not hurt them, but at least make them notice. We as fans are still their "customers" at least on theory. You think a business can keep ignoring and pissing the customers off? The relationship between "customers" and "services" are less tense in football, but some lines still have to be drawn.

Remember the clumsy "Looking for DOF" PR line they usually dish out when things look bad? It's clumsy and they are blatantly lying to us instead of truly focusing on changing to a more effective structure. But still it's clearly an act of trying to appease us fans. So they cannot ignore us forever. But in order for our discontent to be heard, it needs to be voiced out more clearly and more frequently. Instead our fans seem more interested in arguing among themselves whether the Glazers are bad or we are not proper fans for not supporting them...etc. For a Manchester "United" fanbase, we ironically enjoy keeping ourselves divided. Someone suggest a protest/walk out...and he would get mocked immediately even on CAF. We saw this before in the 2018 summer.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
15,352
A club like Blackpool it worked because of a more localised fan base.
Yes - and also because it wasn't worth it anymore for the owners. They weren't forced to sell something that otherwise would've been hugely lucrative to keep hold of.

And - how many years did Blackpool fans moan about and protest against the owners before they finally fecked off? Let's not forget, this was a case where the owners were under scrutiny for all kinds of nasty business (including non-business...business, e.g. the rape case) - and it was also a case of a relatively speaking small club (albeit one with history and a proud local fanbase, certainly - but still: absolute peanuts compared to United).
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,299
Location
France
1 billion in debt repayments since 2005 isn't it? The tax rate would need to be over 99% to reduce that down to one VDB?
We were talking about the annual spendings.

United of the past were not the juggernaut the Glazers took over. Two very different eras, and I don't think a comparison make sense.

United hit gold in that the Fergie Era coincided with the rise of the Premier League, and it gives us an advantage to this day, that we are still relevant despite what the Glazers have done to the club. Any semi decent owners would have us in a much better place.
United were a juggernaut due to SAF and nothing else. Any owner that isn't extremely wealthy or very competent would have most likely done as bad as the Glazers because one of the bad sides of the SAF era is that at some point he became United, there was no one else on the football side of things. I have never understood that type of set up because anything can happen, the manager dies in a car accident and the club has no direction. Personally I blame the Glazers and Gill for that because they knew that he was going to retire at some point and never adapted the structure of the club in advance instead they went with a similar type of manager but clearly not as good in Moyes.

Uniited spent enough money to be extremely competitive, what they didn't do is focus on the club structure and bring the skill sets that SAF possessed and would be needed when he retires. Now if most fans are honest even in 2010 they thought that it was blasphamous to suggest that the club needed to change its structure and put football men above SAF, even though it was the only way to not drop dramatically outside of signing the very best managers around which would have been Guardiola, later it was Klopp and now I don't really know, probably Zidane.
 

DomesticTadpole

Doom-monger obsessed with Herrera & the M.E.N.
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
74,755
Location
Barrow In Furness
Yes - and also because it wasn't worth it anymore for the owners. They weren't forced to sell something that otherwise would've been hugely lucrative to keep hold of.

And - how many years did Blackpool fans moan about and protest against the owners before they finally fecked off? Let's not forget, this was a case where the owners were under scrutiny for all kinds of nasty business (including non-business...business, e.g. the rape case) - and it was also a case of a relatively speaking small club (albeit one with history and a proud local fanbase, certainly - but still: absolute peanuts compared to United).
It is reported that WHU owners now want to sell as supposedly does Mike Ashley at Newcastle. Our owners do not go to games, so all the criticism is water off a ducks back. They leave Ed Woodward to deal with it all.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
15,352
But we can provide enough pressure on social media to force them to act more decisively or change something in their capacity to avoid a bad press.
Yes - I absolutely agree with this in theory. How you go about it in practice, though, is another matter altogether.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
15,352
United were a juggernaut due to SAF and nothing else.
Well...

If we're talking about commercial success here (which we seem to be doing to a fair degree), then United were a juggernaut prior to the Glazer takeover for two reasons: 1) we had an enormous fan base compared to most teams (and that had nothing to do with Fergie - United pulled the biggest crowds in England throughout the years between Busby and Fergie, and the club just kept increasing its global fan base in spite of not winning a single league title) and 2) yes, SAF and the on-pitch success we enjoyed under him in the PL era.

Malcolm Glazer (and then his offspring) capitalized on both factors after the takeover.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,299
Location
France
Well...

If we're talking about commercial success here (which we seem to be doing to a fair degree), then United were a juggernaut prior to the Glazer takeover for two reasons: 1) we had an enormous fan base compared to most teams (and that had nothing to do with Fergie - United pulled the biggest crowds in England throughout the years between Busby and Fergie, and the club just kept increasing its global fan base in spite of not winning a single league title) and 2) yes, SAF and the on-pitch success we enjoyed under him in the PL era.

Malcolm Glazer (and then his offspring) capitalized on both factors after the takeover.
I was only thinking about football otherwise the case is in my opinion even stronger because United were one of the biggest clubs before SAF and they were one of the wealthiest,. As you said they were a commercial success yet they weren't all that successful on the pitch with no league title since 1967.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
15,352
I was only thinking about football otherwise the case is in my opinion even stronger because United were one of the biggest clubs before SAF and they were one of the wealthiest,. As you said they were a commercial success yet they weren't all that successful on the pitch with no league title since 1967.
Right - just wanted to make the point.

In terms of football - and the "structure" of the club - you're obviously 100% right. It was Fergie - and, indeed, nothing else (he was the "structure" - and when he left...here we are).
 

Squeaky Bumtime

New Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2020
Messages
1,306
Biggest problems is that regarding structure not much has changed since Fergie retired and we're seeing the same problems which come from that fact every year.
 

Jaqen H'ghar

I can't drive...55
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,083
United were a juggernaut due to SAF and nothing else. Any owner that isn't extremely wealthy or very competent would have most likely done as bad as the Glazers because one of the bad sides of the SAF era is that at some point he became United, there was no one else on the football side of things.
I agree with this. In a way SAF was Manchester United. His management brought success at a time where the football landscape was changing, and it put the club in a position to capitalize on that. They became the richest and at one point the most popular club in the world. That was the club the Glazers took over.

I have never understood that type of set up because anything can happen, the manager dies in a car accident and the club has no direction. Personally I blame the Glazers and Gill for that because they knew that he was going to retire at some point and never adapted the structure of the club in advance instead they went with a similar type of manager but clearly not as good in Moyes.
True, and I'd say he made success look easy. Even without much Glazer backing he kept the club afloat. The Glazers underestimated how difficult what he did was, and I think that he knew that with the Glazers if he stayed any longer he would just tarnish his reputation. The "no value in the market" and him and Gill leaving so suddenly at the same time, to me says there's more to the story than meets the eye, but that's just conjecture on my part.

It is telling though that they thought Woodward and Moyes could fill those big shoes.
Uniited spent enough money to be extremely competitive, what they didn't do is focus on the club structure and bring the skill sets that SAF possessed and would be needed when he retires. Now if most fans are honest even in 2010 they thought that it was blasphamous to suggest that the club needed to change its structure and put football men above SAF, even though it was the only way to not drop dramatically outside of signing the very best managers around which would have been Guardiola, later it was Klopp and now I don't really know, probably Zidane.
Regarding the spending, yes they have spent enough for success, but we're very erratic about when to spend and when not to.

The main problem I have with them is that the club have become more of a financial institution, geared more towards profit than a football club looking for success. As long as the club do well financially, there is no incentive for them to make any meaningful change, while we as fans care more about what happens on the field. Our vision of what we want from the club and theirs are at odds, but they own the club and call the shots, while we, the fans that love the club just vent our frustration on social media.

I don't think I'll ever be able to look at the clubs accounts and say "The Glazers are OK" while the club seems to be suffering.
 

Crustanoid

Full Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
16,994
Apparently Spurs getting Reguilon now. Great work this summer, Ed and the resident parasites
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,299
Location
France
I agree with this. In a way SAF was Manchester United. His management brought success at a time where the football landscape was changing, and it put the club in a position to capitalize on that. They became the richest and at one point the most popular club in the world. That was the club the Glazers took over.


True, and I'd say he made success look easy. Even without much Glazer backing he kept the club afloat. The Glazers underestimated how difficult what he did was, and I think that he knew that with the Glazers if he stayed any longer he would just tarnish his reputation. The "no value in the market" and him and Gill leaving so suddenly at the same time, to me says there's more to the story than meets the eye, but that's just conjecture on my part.

It is telling though that they thought Woodward and Moyes could fill those big shoes.

Regarding the spending, yes they have spent enough for success, but we're very erratic about when to spend and when not to.

The main problem I have with them is that the club have become more of a financial institution, geared more towards profit than a football club looking for success. As long as the club do well financially, there is no incentive for them to make any meaningful change, while we as fans care more about what happens on the field. Our vision of what we want from the club and theirs are at odds, but they own the club and call the shots, while we, the fans that love the club just vent our frustration on social media.

I don't think I'll ever be able to look at the clubs accounts and say "The Glazers are OK" while the club seems to be suffering.
I fundamentally disagree with your last paragraphs, United hasn't become a financial institutions and there is a big incentive to change things. The reason is fairly simple, United spent too much when you consider the results even if the Glazers were happy with Europa League qualification we are currently doing it in an extremely inefficient way and trying to become efficient wouldn't actually cost them more because the personal working in front offices is generally paid in thousands hundreds of pounds with a few being in the low millions, so it's a small financial commitment for a massive gain that can easily be in the 40m-100m per year.

That's the part that I don't get about some members of the fanbase, they are so focused on vilifying the Glazers and Woodward that they made up a scenario that doesn't add up. It seems more appealing to think that the Glazers are conniving than realizing that they should be slapped because they are either allowing the club to spend way too much or they want to be a top CL team and are not realizing that the club is wasting money and not allowing them to take way more money home.

There isn't really a scenario where the Glazers are being smart, at least not when it comes to United.

Edit: To be completely explicit, no smart owner would be happy with an EL team that has a budget over 550m£ per year, we are in dumb-ass territory here.
 

Giggsy13

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
324
Location
Toronto
If you wondered whether Ed and the Glazers had any shame well don’t worry they don’t. Instead of backing a club legend this summer, they’re instead completely screwing Ole. That should fill every supporter with anger, disappointment and disgust. This was the year to add to the squad and improve.
 
Last edited:

Wedge

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2,868
Location
Various fields
Supports
a soft spot for Ajax
If they don't back ole after he did more than expected, I hope the glazers and Woodward are chased out of united.
 

DomesticTadpole

Doom-monger obsessed with Herrera & the M.E.N.
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
74,755
Location
Barrow In Furness
If they don't back ole after he did more than expected, I hope the glazers and Woodward are chased out of united.
Exactly. We can all debate about Ole's credentials, but he did, as you say a lot better than could ever be hoped. One stage we were debating relegation. He is a club legend, not some random manager who people have no personal affection for.
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
38,758
Location
Canada
So if Spurs get Reguilon and we sign nobody, we would have been outspent (or level with) this window by:
  • Villa
  • Chelsea
  • Everton
  • Leeds
  • City
  • Newcastle
  • Spurs
  • Wolves
Thats a rough list.
 

alexthelion

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
685
My argument would be



2) we wouldn't have been saddled with glazer debt. Better players bigger stadium more attractive club to advertise.
No guarantee of that at all.

We've splurged millions and millions on mediocre players, who's to say that wouldn't still be the same.
 

arthurka

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
12,628
Location
Rectum
Not dependant on this transfer window but this club is in absolute shocking state. Nothing short of shambolic.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
5,548
Location
Manchester
Regardless of it we get Sancho or not, this summer has just compounded how diabolically run we really are as a football club. We had the chance to bridge the gap with the top 2, and we didn’t take action. No ambition, no success, no future.

Until the club is sold expect a top 6 battle every year. You’re never going to see a title challenge under this board.
 

Jaqen H'ghar

I can't drive...55
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
1,083
I fundamentally disagree with your last paragraphs, United hasn't become a financial institutions and there is a big incentive to change things. The reason is fairly simple, United spent too much when you consider the results even if the Glazers were happy with Europa League qualification we are currently doing it in an extremely inefficient way and trying to become efficient wouldn't actually cost them more because the personal working in front offices is generally paid in thousands hundreds of pounds with a few being in the low millions, so it's a small financial commitment for a massive gain that can easily be in the 40m-100m per year.

That's the part that I don't get about some members of the fanbase, they are so focused on vilifying the Glazers and Woodward that they made up a scenario that doesn't add up. It seems more appealing to think that the Glazers are conniving than realizing that they should be slapped because they are either allowing the club to spend way too much or they want to be a top CL team and are not realizing that the club is wasting money and not allowing them to take way more money home.

There isn't really a scenario where the Glazers are being smart, at least not when it comes to United.

Edit: To be completely explicit, no smart owner would be happy with an EL team that has a budget over 550m£ per year, we are in dumb-ass territory here.
As long as they're making money, they don't care. The facts that they haven't restructured the club, Woodward oversees the football side and that everything has to be signed off by Joel Glazer, who knows nothing about football tells us all we need to know.
 

RedDevil@84

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
11,589
The window was more or less on expected lines. Already knew Woodward would not go after multiple players in same window. He just doesn't run the club in a way that will facilitate it. Also he himself has said getting one player itself is tough for him.
We may still get Sancho and the club social media will put on a show expecting fans to get all giddy. And forget all about Woodward and Glazers.
 

DomesticTadpole

Doom-monger obsessed with Herrera & the M.E.N.
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
74,755
Location
Barrow In Furness
The window was more or less on expected lines. Already knew Woodward would not go after multiple players in same window. He just doesn't run the club in a way that will facilitate it. Also he himself has said getting one player itself is tough for him.
We may still get Sancho and the club social media will put on a show expecting fans to get all giddy. And forget all about Woodward and Glazers.
Which is why we make no progress.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,299
Location
France
As long as they're making money, they don't care. The facts that they haven't restructured the club, Woodward oversees the football side and that everything has to be signed off by Joel Glazer, who knows nothing about football tells us all we need to know.
So you are trying to make the point that they don't care about actually making money and don't care about making more money with the same level of investment? And everything will always be signed off by the owner, it tells us nothing that's how every single entity on earth work.
 

passing-wind

Full Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
1,900
Surely the fans would have to make the support toxic to get the owners to move ? I don't believe owners of large football clubs can have riled up fans without those effects having detrimental influences on sponsorship, perceived brand ownership, the stock price / financial values etc. I really can't look at our history and say we've not spent feasible amounts to be competitive, it's the infrastructure of our club that is useless more so than the owners.

Is anyone going to tell me FSG over at pool are any more promising when it comes to the financial investment at Liverpool ? They seem to be excelling in a very confined financial space but having the right people in the right places (as well as Klopp) helps them from spending low values on a Mane, Salah, Robertson etc but having trophies to back those purchases. But if you put Woodward and his role into the Liverpool hierarchy they will produce the same outcomes as us.

Woodward is 150% a bigger problem at this club than the Glazers. If we have the right direction on the footballing side of things the club is certainly a large enough entity onto itself to produce without needing financial injection coming from an external source.
 

DomesticTadpole

Doom-monger obsessed with Herrera & the M.E.N.
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
74,755
Location
Barrow In Furness
Surely the fans would have to make the support toxic to get the owners to move ? I don't believe owners of large football clubs can have riled up fans without those effects having detrimental influences on sponsorship, perceived brand ownership, the stock price / financial values etc. I really can't look at our history and say we've not spent feasible amounts to be competitive, it's the infrastructure of our club that is useless more so than the owners.

Is anyone going to tell me FSG over at pool are any more promising when it comes to the financial investment at Liverpool ? They seem to be excelling in a very confined financial space but having the right people in the right places (as well as Klopp) helps them from spending low values on a Mane, Salah, Robertson etc but having trophies to back those purchases. But if you put Woodward and his role into the Liverpool hierarchy they will produce the same outcomes as us.

Woodward is 150% a bigger problem at this club than the Glazers. If we have the right direction on the footballing side of things the club is certainly a large enough entity onto itself to produce without needing financial injection coming from an external source.
The owners are never there though, it might get to Ashley and the Dildo Brothers, but it won't bother the Glazers.