Woodward, Glazers....

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,299
Location
France
If the club isn't generating enough money then its worth selling it at a discount especially since it would bring the Glazers a healthy 1.2bn profit. Alternatively they should just sell all the shares at the stock market. That money could be reinvested into business that make enough money.

As said, I think there's more that meets the eye here.
Why would they do that? Would you sell one of your assets for half of his worth?
 

Mickeza

still gets no respect
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
3,728
Location
Deepthroating information to Howard Nurse.
If the club isn't generating enough money then its worth selling it at a discount especially since it would bring the Glazers a healthy 1.2bn profit. Alternatively they should just sell all the shares at the stock market. That money could be reinvested into business that make enough money.

As said, I think there's more that meets the eye here.
It would be a 2bn profit. The Glazers didn’t spend 800m when buying Manchester United, Manchester United bought the club for them. They won’t sell though, there’s far more growth to come from television deals worldwide with streaming.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
53,178
Why would they do that? Would you sell one of your assets for half of his worth?
If its not generating enough money and I can't afford investing in it then why not? Especially if I risk a price drop due to lack of investment
 

Mark Pawelek

Full Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
2,131
Location
Kent, near London
Woody can't sell players this window for 2 reasons:
1) United players are on relatively high wages (perhaps to stop them wanting to leave and ward other clubs away from buying?);
2) It seems we want too much money for players we don't need.

Looks like United expected to sell about £60m worth of players to bring in funds for Sancho. We sold none. So no Sancho.

Since Ole's been here, over 4 transfer windows the net spend = £161.06m. £237.90m - 76.84m. Assuming Woody has nothing left to spend this window it looks like he has a budget of about £80m per season.

Below, to players bought, I added 6 promoted to the first team squad. Even if we exclude Scott McTominay from that list, it looks like the squad is again top heavy with players. United need to sell before they can buy. That's not a Glazer thing. Fan-owned Barcelona are in exactly the same position.

Out: (76.84m):
Alexis Sánchez (0.0m)
Ashley Young (1.53m)
Romelu Lukaku (66.6m)
Matteo Darmian (2.23m)
Antonio Valencia (0.0m)
Ander Herrera (0.0m)
Marouane Fellaini (6.48m)

In: (227.90m)
Aaron Wan-Bissaka (49.5m)
Bruno Fernandes (49.5m)
Harry Maguire (78.3m)
Odion Ighalo (loan)
Donny Van de Beek (35.1m)
Daniel James (15.3m)
Filip Stevanovic (10.8m)

Promoted:
Mason Greenwood,
Timothy Fosu-Mensah,
Dean Henderson,
Brandon Williams,
Axel Tuanzebe,
Scott McTominay

PS: The Filip Stevanovic deal isn't done yet because he's still 17 and can't officially sign until his 18th birthday on: 25th Sep. Possibly we haven't signed him and it was just a rumour? For what it's worth The Guardian rated him as a top 60 player youth player in the world.

Just thought I'd add a counter weight to the usual burn them at the stake Glazer hate mail here. Not everything they do is an evil plot to destroy the club.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
53,178
It would be a 2bn profit. The Glazers didn’t spend 800m when buying Manchester United, Manchester United bought the club for them. They won’t sell though, there’s far more growth to come from television deals worldwide with streaming.
This is the answer I was baiting @JPRouve into. United is worth its price and its worth being invested in. Unfortunately our owners want their dividends at all times. Westbrom and us are the only EPL whose owners took their pound of flesh in the past year or so
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,299
Location
France
This is the answer I was baiting @JPRouve into. United is worth its price and its worth being invested in. Unfortunately our owners want their dividends at all times. Westbrom and us are the only EPL whose owners took their pound of flesh in the past year or so
You are not baiting me though because you can't justify the 2bn that you are forfeitting for no reason. It's because the club doesn't cost them money that they have no reason to give up on 2Bn.
 

Nou_Camp99

Full Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
4,415
There's no white knight on the horizon with 4bn quid waiting to buy us. Only way they ever leave is if our fans grow a backbone and stop giving them money. I gave my ST up just over 5 years ago and won't ever get one back under their regime. Hurting the team on the pitch for a season or two would be worth it in the long run of getting them out in my opinion.

Half empty Old Traffords (when stadiums are able to be full again) is the only message that will ever get through to them. Sponsors won't like it and the Glazers will have to take note. Nothing else will work. Banners and songs don't make a jot of difference. It's been tried and tested. Been on the marches and sang the songs and they're still here. They only care about the money. Stop giving it to them and they'd have no choice but look for a buyer.

And this is ultimately the reason we're stuck with them because our fans are far too tolerant. Real Madrid fans or Barcelona fans would have tried to get at one of them by now if it were them in our place. That's not an exaggeration either. We either grow a backbone and take back control ourselves or we all have to shut up and just get on with it.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
53,178
You are not baiting me though because you can't justify the 2bn that you are forfeitting for no reason. It's because the club doesn't cost them money that they have no reason to give up on 2Bn.
I can slap a 10m price tag to my house but that means nothing if no one is willing to buy it at that price. Assuming that I cannot afford maintenance then what will probably happen is that the value will go down rather then up up until I either sell or I am left with a heap of stones
 

Mark Pawelek

Full Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
2,131
Location
Kent, near London
I can slap a 10m price tag to my house but that means nothing if no one is willing to buy it at that price. Assuming that I cannot afford maintenance then what will probably happen is that the value will go down rather then up up until I either sell or I am left with a heap of stones
No. The land your house sits on is probably half its market value.
 

Strelok

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
1,456
Location
Da Nang, Vietnam
You mentioned the last decade, so I used the last decade. Out of roughly 525m, 167m were paid in 2011.
I said the last 10 years, and this year is 2020. By 2018 we paid over £1bn for those parasites.

I start to believe what @oz insomniac said, you must be working for those cnuts.

Btw I've seen many here try to spin the blame toward Ed. Clearly he's clueless and a big reason for our failures. I don't try to defend him a single bit but who put that cnut in charge? In the end he's just a guy working for those parasites. And he must follow the instructions and demands from his bosses, the Glazers. Let's not fool ourselves. Those scumbags are clearly the biggest culprits here.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,299
Location
France
I can slap a 10m price tag to my house but that means nothing if no one is willing to buy it at that price. Assuming that I cannot afford maintenance then what will probably happen is that the value will go down rather then up up until I either sell or I am left with a heap of stones
But you can afford maintenance, which is showed by your annual operating expenses, and you have no reason to slap any price on your house since you are not actively selling it. It's very important for people to keep in mind that United isn't being destroyed and it's not becoming a ruin, we fans of big clubs tend to be drama queens. The issue with United are relative, it's basically that a club that is currently a big club and relatively competitive(because being a perennial PL top 6 club is actually good in the world of football) should be at the very top of football when you consider the kind of investment that we have seen in the last 6-7 years. The issue isn't that United are bad because they aren't, it's not that they don't spend because they spend a lot but that the club is poorly run when compared to the very best clubs in the world and that there is a clear lack of efficiency when you consider the money spent and results on the field.

If I was to entertain your house analogy, you have a mansion with 30 rooms, spend the money to maintain 30 rooms but only uses 15 of those rooms and are seemingly perfectly happy because those 15 rooms cover the maintenance costs of the mansion plus some change. Personally I have an issue with the 15 unused rooms that are unused but maintained daily with no effort to actually use them.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,299
Location
France
I said the last 10 years, and this year is 2020. By 2018 we paid over £1bn for those parasites.

I start to believe what @oz insomniac said, you must be working for those cnuts.

Btw I've seen many here try to spin the blame toward Ed. Clearly he's clueless and a big reason for our failures. I don't try to defend him a single bit but who put that cnut in charge? In the end he's just a guy working for those parasites. And he must follow the instructions and demands from his bosses, the Glazers. Let's not fool ourselves. Those scumbags are clearly the biggest culprits here.
I gave you the figure for the 2010-2019 period, which are the last 10 years. And no one in this thread don't consider that the Glazers are responsible and that Woodward is an incompetent CEO.
 

Mark Pawelek

Full Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2014
Messages
2,131
Location
Kent, near London
The point of my post about Woody's transfer dealings (above) is that I think I discern a plan. promoting Greenwood, buying Stevanovic and Hannibal Mejbri, trying to get Bellingham implies Woody's plan is long-term. Buy generational talents or promote them. Likely what he agree with Glazer's. Ole's plan is almost certainly about next season, not 2024. Glazer's aren't going to sell. If they believe they can buy young talent, develop them, get back to top 5 in the world. Because they want to believe it. Because they have no independent director kicking their arse over their failures, and making them face reality.

United fan base need to agitate for an independent director to join the board. Someone with a record of speaking out (in board meetings), and telling it like it is. Apart from hiring a football person as CEO of football matters. That's all I can suggest.
 
Last edited:

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
42,062
Location
CA
Yet here we are. The Glazers doesn't want to sell at reasonable prices even though they would still making huge profits by selling up. Instead they are insisting on a silly valuation of the club that is pricing everyone out. I guess that United is a far better investment than anyone think.
It is a publicly traded asset. It is not that Glazers decide how much they want to sell it (sure they can sell it for 1 penny if they want), but based on stock exchange and the club is so valuable that it makes absolutely no sense for anyone (except some country like S Arabia) to buy it.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
42,062
Location
CA
The Glazers bought us for 800m. Assuming what you're saying is right and that we don't make enough profit for them then why not sell us for a reasonable price? Lets say 2BN? The Glazers would walk away with a huge profit that can be reinvested on something that is more profitable while United would hopefully get owners that can afford them. That makes business sense for both. I think there's more to it that meets the eye.
Why on feck would they do so? This is like someone deciding to sell Amazon shares (that are at 3000) for 1500USD cause you know, they bought them at 500 so they would still have got a lot of profit.

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. No one on Earth who has some functional brain cells would do so.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
42,062
Location
CA
It would be a 2bn profit. The Glazers didn’t spend 800m when buying Manchester United, Manchester United bought the club for them. They won’t sell though, there’s far more growth to come from television deals worldwide with streaming.
Has been said a million times in the various threads here, but it is absolutely false that they didn’t spend any of their money to buy the club.
 

Keefy18

Full Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
1,766
Why on feck would they do so? This is like someone deciding to sell Amazon shares (that are at 3000) for 1500USD cause you know, they bought them at 500 so they would still have got a lot of profit.

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. No one on Earth who has some functional brain cells would do so.
Has been said a million times in the various threads here, but it is absolutely false that they didn’t spend any of their money to buy the club.
Not something you'll see in the majority of the anti board sentiments online.

I'm not even a fan of them myself, I'm indifferent to them. There is no white knight to save us and folks best accept them as owners for the foreseeable.
 

Mickeza

still gets no respect
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
3,728
Location
Deepthroating information to Howard Nurse.
Has been said a million times in the various threads here, but it is absolutely false that they didn’t spend any of their money to buy the club.
I thought they bought for 800m of which around 700m was a loan lumped back onto the club?

EDIT: Been a while since I looked into it - just googling and the PIK loans weren’t against the club. So everything other than the PIK loans was paid for by the club.
 
Last edited:

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,299
Location
France
Where exactly?
In my first reply and in most of the posts that you quoted. I didn't include 2020 because it's only an interim report but you can add it if you want, it is 28 more millions which puts you around 550m.
 

Strelok

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
1,456
Location
Da Nang, Vietnam
Has been said a million times in the various threads here, but it is absolutely false that they didn’t spend any of their money to buy the club.
Yeah you're absolutely right. For the £800m they used to buy United, about £660m came from loan leveraged on United. You can do the math.

15 years on and we're still paying that. With about half a billion pound paid solely for interests. Must be a real homerun for the banks. A much bigger one for those scumbags as United now worth about £3-4bn. You can do the math again.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
53,178
No. The land your house sits on is probably half its market value.
But you can afford maintenance, which is showed by your annual operating expenses, and you have no reason to slap any price on your house since you are not actively selling it. It's very important for people to keep in mind that United isn't being destroyed and it's not becoming a ruin, we fans of big clubs tend to be drama queens. The issue with United are relative, it's basically that a club that is currently a big club and relatively competitive(because being a perennial PL top 6 club is actually good in the world of football) should be at the very top of football when you consider the kind of investment that we have seen in the last 6-7 years. The issue isn't that United are bad because they aren't, it's not that they don't spend because they spend a lot but that the club is poorly run when compared to the very best clubs in the world and that there is a clear lack of efficiency when you consider the money spent and results on the field.

If I was to entertain your house analogy, you have a mansion with 30 rooms, spend the money to maintain 30 rooms but only uses 15 of those rooms and are seemingly perfectly happy because those 15 rooms cover the maintenance costs of the mansion plus some change. Personally I have an issue with the 15 unused rooms that are unused but maintained daily with no effort to actually use them.
I am old enough to remember AC Milan in their prime. The team with the 3 Dutch men was the best team I've ever saw playing in my life. That team was, in my opinion, better then even Pep's Barcelona. AC Milan won far more CLs then we did and nearly as many titles then we did. At the time everyone was wearing AC Milan's shirt with Van Basten, Baresi, Maldini, Baggio at their back. I confess I was jealous of them. While we had Magu erm Bruce, they had Baresi, Choccy was decent but Van Basten had more talent in his right toe then half of our squad. Guess what? Few decades later and all is gone. No one remembers AC Milan anymore. I do know people who supported AC Milan and they still do support them. Some can't be bothered watching games as regularly as they used to though. However their kids support Juventus or even Inter.

United has a bigger fan base then AC Milan ever had. However fans are fickle. Even someone like myself who is sort of 3rd generation United fan (grandfather, mother and me) will find it hard to raise our kids loving United. Why? Because kids love success, they love winning, they love spectacular football and trophies. We've seen that ourselves during Sir Alex's reign. The jump in the amount of support following the treble was substantial. At that time the supporters club was jam packed with people. Nowadays you're lucky to fill 50 seats. I myself struggle to drag myself to go and watch matches at the club these days. I do watch the game but I do it alone. No one loves sharing misery.

Being top 6 might be good for someone like Spurs or Napoli. It's not good enough to sustain a huge brand name like United is. Ultimately our support will contract, we will become less attractive for sponsors because of it and we'll become, well, like AC Milan are. Then the club's price will go down as well. Which is a shame really.

The Glazers were lucky to buy a luxurious super yacht on the cheap which is fair play to them. However its evident they can't maintain it. The stadium roof is leaking, the squad needs serious investment and we're now considering top 4 as a success. They should sell it out and make a neat profit out of it up while they can. It would benefit them and it would benefit us who would, hopefully, end up with owners who can afford them and know what they are doing.
 

Tom Van Persie

No relation
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
12,683
This is a classic case of people arguing when both things are correct.

The Glazers are bad owners. The Glazers do take money out of the club.

However, they’ve also spent enough for us to be more competitive than we are.

Ultimately, being successful at the top level needs highly successful recruitment and top level coaching to take advantage of it. We’ve largely had neither.
Agreed.
 

Strelok

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
1,456
Location
Da Nang, Vietnam
In my first reply and in most of the posts that you quoted. I didn't include 2020 because it's only an interim report but you can add it if you want, it is 28 more millions which puts you around 550m.
You mean this?
Yes, we would pay more taxes on our revenue. And no the club hasn't spend north of 800m, it's around 500m with 167m of it in 2011. Also the club only started to pay dividends yearly in 2016 from that point dividends plus interest paid have remained around 40m per year and that doesn't include finance incomes.
Could you just stop messing around and give an exact figure of how much the Glazers have taken out from the club, by 2019, according to you and based on what you could come to that figure?
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
53,178
It is a publicly traded asset. It is not that Glazers decide how much they want to sell it (sure they can sell it for 1 penny if they want), but based on stock exchange and the club is so valuable that it makes absolutely no sense for anyone (except some country like S Arabia) to buy it.
A price of something is worth what others are willing to pay for it. Will the Glazers be able to find a buyer for 4bn?
 

Keefy18

Full Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
1,766
I am old enough to remember AC Milan in their prime. The team with the 3 Dutch men was the best team I've ever saw playing in my life. That team was, in my opinion, better then even Pep's Barcelona. AC Milan won far more CLs then we did and nearly as many titles then we did. At the time everyone was wearing AC Milan's shirt with Van Basten, Baresi, Maldini, Baggio at their back. I confess I was jealous of them. While we had Magu erm Bruce, they had Baresi, Choccy was decent but Van Basten had more talent in his right toe then half of our squad. Guess what? Few decades later and all is gone. No one remembers AC Milan anymore. I do know people who supported AC Milan and they still do support them. Some can't be bothered watching games as regularly as they used to though. However their kids support Juventus or even Inter.

United has a bigger fan base then AC Milan ever had. However fans are fickle. Even someone like myself who is sort of 3rd generation United fan (grandfather, mother and me) will find it hard to raise our kids loving United. Why? Because kids love success, they love winning, they love spectacular football and trophies. We've seen that ourselves during Sir Alex's reign. The jump in the amount of support following the treble was substantial. At that time the supporters club was jam packed with people. Nowadays you're lucky to fill 50 seats. I myself struggle to drag myself to go and watch matches at the club these days. I do watch the game but I do it alone. No one loves sharing misery.

Being top 6 might be good for someone like Spurs or Napoli. It's not good enough to sustain a huge brand name like United is. Ultimately our support will contract, we will become less attractive for sponsors because of it and we'll become, well, like AC Milan are. Then the club's price will go down as well. Which is a shame really.

The Glazers were lucky to buy a luxurious super yacht on the cheap which is fair play to them. However its evident they can't maintain it. The stadium roof is leaking, the squad needs serious investment and we're now considering top 4 as a success. They should sell it out and make a neat profit out of it up while they can. It would benefit them and it would benefit us who would, hopefully, end up with owners who can afford them and know what they are doing.
AC Milan are a different story altogether, they had far more problems than we've had. There was the debt issue of course but they also invested horribly for years on players well past their best for ridiculous prices. We were guilty of that during the Jose tenure and that was one of my huge concerns with him here, that he was repeatedly chasing players past their prime.

We don't have a divine right to constantly win the league, we went 26 years without a title. Reality is many of our spoiled brat supporters seem to think we should be handed a title every summer cause of our club size and some blind arrogance.

You keep banging on about selling it, to whom? Whom is this Knight in shining armour you speak of? The morally bankrupt and evil Saudi's? Guilty of human rights violations that would paint Hitler in an almost angelic light.

Yeah lets get them in as owners just so long as we have the roof of Old Trafford fixed and we can buy new shiny things every summer.
 

Bestietom

Full Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
5,814
Location
Ireland
There's no white knight on the horizon with 4bn quid waiting to buy us. Only way they ever leave is if our fans grow a backbone and stop giving them money. I gave my ST up just over 5 years ago and won't ever get one back under their regime. Hurting the team on the pitch for a season or two would be worth it in the long run of getting them out in my opinion.

Half empty Old Traffords (when stadiums are able to be full again) is the only message that will ever get through to them. Sponsors won't like it and the Glazers will have to take note. Nothing else will work. Banners and songs don't make a jot of difference. It's been tried and tested. Been on the marches and sang the songs and they're still here. They only care about the money. Stop giving it to them and they'd have no choice but look for a buyer.

And this is ultimately the reason we're stuck with them because our fans are far too tolerant. Real Madrid fans or Barcelona fans would have tried to get at one of them by now if it were them in our place. That's not an exaggeration either. We either grow a backbone and take back control ourselves or we all have to shut up and just get on with it.
I agree. It is the only way to get these leaches out. We will never get to the top with these as owners when they won't put a penny of their own money into the club and keep draining us. Time the fans acted.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,299
Location
France
You mean this?


Could you just stop messing around and give an exact figure of how much the Glazers have taken out from the club, by 2019, according to you and based on what you could come to that figure?
I told you several times, it's around 500m for the last decade if you consider finance income such has interest received and income taxes refunds.
 

Strelok

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
1,456
Location
Da Nang, Vietnam
I told you several times, it's around 500m for the last decade if you consider finance income such has interest received and income taxes refunds.
You didn't read my question?

Based on what you, the financial expert who think clubs pay taxes on their revenues, have come to that figure?
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,299
Location
France
I am old enough to remember AC Milan in their prime. The team with the 3 Dutch men was the best team I've ever saw playing in my life. That team was, in my opinion, better then even Pep's Barcelona. AC Milan won far more CLs then we did and nearly as many titles then we did. At the time everyone was wearing AC Milan's shirt with Van Basten, Baresi, Maldini, Baggio at their back. I confess I was jealous of them. While we had Magu erm Bruce, they had Baresi, Choccy was decent but Van Basten had more talent in his right toe then half of our squad. Guess what? Few decades later and all is gone. No one remembers AC Milan anymore. I do know people who supported AC Milan and they still do support them. Some can't be bothered watching games as regularly as they used to though. However their kids support Juventus or even Inter.

United has a bigger fan base then AC Milan ever had. However fans are fickle. Even someone like myself who is sort of 3rd generation United fan (grandfather, mother and me) will find it hard to raise our kids loving United. Why? Because kids love success, they love winning, they love spectacular football and trophies. We've seen that ourselves during Sir Alex's reign. The jump in the amount of support following the treble was substantial. At that time the supporters club was jam packed with people. Nowadays you're lucky to fill 50 seats. I myself struggle to drag myself to go and watch matches at the club these days. I do watch the game but I do it alone. No one loves sharing misery.

Being top 6 might be good for someone like Spurs or Napoli. It's not good enough to sustain a huge brand name like United is. Ultimately our support will contract, we will become less attractive for sponsors because of it and we'll become, well, like AC Milan are. Then the club's price will go down as well. Which is a shame really.

The Glazers were lucky to buy a luxurious super yacht on the cheap which is fair play to them. However its evident they can't maintain it. The stadium roof is leaking, the squad needs serious investment and we're now considering top 4 as a success. They should sell it out and make a neat profit out of it up while they can. It would benefit them and it would benefit us who would, hopefully, end up with owners who can afford them and know what they are doing.
The difference is that Milan was sugar daddied during those years, United isn't and wasn't. United doesn't need to be funded by its owner in order to have one of the largest budgets in Football while Milan relied heavily on its owner. I won't do that forever, you seemingly fail to make the difference between managerial incompetence and financial capability, United has no money problem it generates enough money to be at the top but the board is incompetent, they seemingly don't know how to allocate football resources efficiently and have wasted an incredible amount of money mainly on wages.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
44,299
Location
France
You didn't read my question?

Based on what you, the financial expert who think clubs pay taxes on their revenues, have come to that figure?
The club is a PLC, the accounts are public. We know how much the club pays in interests and dividends every years.
 

Nytram Shakes

Full Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
3,990
Location
Normally dark rooms
The key criticisms are that they have spent over £1bn of the clubs money on clearing their debt, we are the only top 6 club that have paid out dividends in the last 5 years (£90 million) and Woodwards clusterfecks since 2013 have led to a massive decline with no consequences as he is still in a job.
And they are 100% fair criticisms which I agree with. What I don't agree with is people saying we haven't shown ambition in the transfer market over that time, the amount of spending we have done has been more than enough to buy a squad that should be competing for every trophy every year. its just that the money has been spent appallingly badly.