MDFC Manager
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 24,492
Not sold to balance the books/keep net spend low because CL was achieved. It's a bizarre point.Yes, but Di Maria was sold. So the point stands.
g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });
Not sold to balance the books/keep net spend low because CL was achieved. It's a bizarre point.Yes, but Di Maria was sold. So the point stands.
The trend is very clear over 7 seasons to anyone capable of recognising trends.Not sold to balance the books/keep net spend low because CL was achieved. It's a bizarre point.
As things stand, it's very likely that we could also add this window to that trend. Hardly a coincidence.The trend is very clear over 7 seasons to anyone capable of recognising trends.
The Di Maria point holds no influence over the conclusion made. Even if it did, a trend is not a rule. One outlier would not take away from that.
Fine, it's a trend. The trend being the club has a lower net spend once CL status is achieved. The inference that it's because the club doesn't want to back the manager is absolutely wrong. The only manager not backed was Mourinho in his second season.The trend is very clear over 7 seasons to anyone capable of recognising trends.
The Di Maria point holds no influence over the conclusion made. Even if it did, a trend is not a rule. One outlier would not take away from that.
We're going round in circles here. The club are not backing the manager each time one gets to the CL, and therefore they never take the club forward beyind scraping a top four (or in Mourinho's case, a 2nd but miles off the title). If you want an even more accurate description, the club only back the manager when we are out of the CL and therefore not profitable. Once we get there they have no ambition to take us any further. That is NOT backing a manager in the way that a manager of a club of our stature should be backed.Fine, it's a trend. The trend being the club has a lower net spend once CL status is achieved. The inference that it's because the club doesn't want to back the manager is absolutely wrong. The only manager not backed was Mourinho in his second season.
Let's see. I hope there are no parallels and we do make some more important signings. Although it has to be concerning that we seem to be moving very slow on incomings and outgoings.You're right he should've been sacked in the summer, that's a mistake. A bigger mistake was giving him a contract extention in the middle of the season. However, backing him would have been a third mistake. Can you imagine the state we'd have been in if he was backed?
So no, I don't see any parallels between that transfer window and this window. The actual, logical explanation for this window has already been spelt out by @Revan a few posts ago. If we'd been able to clear out some of our unwanted players quicker, we'd have seen more incoming activity as well.
For me its more of an indication that our club strategy is to finish top 4. Not to try to win the league.Fine, it's a trend. The trend being the club has a lower net spend once CL status is achieved. The inference that it's because the club doesn't want to back the manager is absolutely wrong. The only manager not backed was Mourinho in his second season.
Agreed.We're going round in circles here. The club are not backing the manager each time one gets to the CL, and therefore they never take the club forward beyind scraping a top four (or in Mourinho's case, a 2nd but miles off the title). If you want an even more accurate description, the club only back the manager when we are out of the CL and therefore not profitable. Once we get there they have no ambition to take us any further. That is NOT backing a manager in the way that a manager of a club of our stature should be backed.
This is incredibly depressing. Really makes me sad to be honest.Good thread on Swiss Ramble today comparing what owners of different clubs have invested/taken out of clubs:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Horrible numbers show how much Glazers are milking United and there lads telling about covid-19 climate shitGood thread on Swiss Ramble today comparing what owners of different clubs have invested/taken out of clubs:
It is still hearbreaking as it was on the das they got the clubThis is incredibly depressing. Really makes me sad to be honest.
Hopefully this will stop those who have been blasting the USA USA chant here on this forum. Absolutely shocking numbers this.Good thread on Swiss Ramble today comparing what owners of different clubs have invested/taken out of clubs:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
And the debt is still over 400m 15 years on. There's no end in sight to it either. They have no intention of ever paying it off.I get that the Glazers took ownership years ago. But, if someone tried to buy a team the same way again right now, would they be allowed? Almost a billion in 10 years going to financing the purchase.
I wouldn't want us selling out like that if we're still owned by those parasites. Paying off the debt will only mean they'll pay themselves off with more dividends, not actually investing further to propel us to more success. We'd just be a bigger laughing stock, and as plastic as City without the success nor ambition to show for it.And the debt is still over 400m 15 years on. There's no end in sight to it either. They have no intention of ever paying it off.
If we can't force the parasites out I think we seriously need to contemplate pimping out the Stadium for a sponsor as soon as fans are allowed back again to clear this debt as it's seriously harming us. £80 to 100m a year sponsorhip for the naming rights to Old Trafford. Debt cleared in no time. Nike Arena @ Old Trafford for example. I know a lot of the purists won't like the idea but how do you like 400m debt hanging over us constantly either?
Its sickening - Theres a full thread here on this tweet below:Even arsenal owners are better than glazers. Saw a picture today about owner financing in EPL, as usual utd at the bottom with 89m taken out from the club.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I get that. I'd prefer they pissed off and we kept the name. But that doesn't seem likely either. Club is finished anyway on the big stage until they go or until they sack Woodward and realise the mistake they made.I wouldn't want us selling out like that if we're still owned by those parasites. Paying off the debt will only mean they'll pay themselves off with more dividends, not actually investing further to propel us to more success. We'd just be a bigger laughing stock, and as plastic as City without the success nor ambition to show for it.
You can't simply conclude by looking at the total money we spent, you also have to consider the context. When we are one or two players away from title challenge, the board is satisfied with a top four finish and refuses to invest. Then we have no choice but to chase inferior targets and the team starts to decline. After a year or two the board is finally willing to invest when we struggle to get into the top four, but it's already too late as many more problems emerge and we become three to four players away from title challenge again. Of course we haven't spent the money particularly well, yet the Glazers are also responsible to a certain extent.I think the argument against the glazers has become a bit redundant in recent years, the amount the club is spending on players and wages since Fergie left has been extreme.
We have the highest (or second-highest to City depending on which source you believe) and in the top 3 or 4 in world football (again depending on the source). Our net spend on transfers over the past 5 years is second only to city in the premier league who are funded by a country! Our spending has been fine, more than fine. we havn't needed to spend more we have needed to spend better!
Of course, the Glazers are taking money out of the club, but it's a business they own its something owners of sports teams do across the world, I'm not sure that should be considering it the crime that many seem to think it is. It's just that fans have become used to billionaire owners pumping money into clubs so that they can run at a huge loss and the fact United don't do that and it massively frustrates the fan base who want us to do things like break the British transfer record when there is a global economic crisis the likes of which probably has no equivalent, and when the club doesn't do that they kick their toys out of the pram and have a paddy.
I'm not saying the Glazers are good owners, how they have spent all the money they have has been frankly shocking, for the amount of money we have spent and the wage bill we have we should have a world-beating squad, instead of a squad that is just about making it into the top 4. Not to mention the lack of investment in old Trafford, leaking roof area's that look like they haven't had a lick of paint in 20 years it's quite depressing. They also clearly should have insisted that some come in to help run the football side of the business for Woodward, since he was proposed to take over, and certainly since that utter disaster of his first window. Since then while it has become clear the guy is a genius in the commercial world, he is clearly way out of his area of expertise when it comes to football and should have no say in signings, managers or contracts.
But the whole argument over how much the club is spending is nonsense these days, the amount we are spending is fine. How we have spent it isn't.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I have read where people have said they have taken risks? What risks? A risk is when you leverage yourself to put money into the club.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
How can anyone still defend glazers is beyond me! They have not put anything from their own pocket to strengthen the club, in fact the club has put into their pockets. Glazers apologists are the worst.
If mark Zuckerberg paid a meal on his credit card. It means he owns the bank money. Doesnt mean he's broke.And the debt is still over 400m 15 years on. There's no end in sight to it either. They have no intention of ever paying it off.
If we can't force the parasites out I think we seriously need to contemplate pimping out the Stadium for a sponsor as soon as fans are allowed back again to clear this debt as it's seriously harming us. £80 to 100m a year sponsorhip for the naming rights to Old Trafford. Debt cleared in no time. Nike Arena @ Old Trafford for example. I know a lot of the purists won't like the idea but how do you like 400m debt hanging over us constantly either?
Utter shambles.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yet some people will get on fans for being appalled over how the club is ran and look to defend those leeches
Instead of putting money back into the club for improving the team, they have the cheek to claim dividends for themselves even as the team would struggle
I have heard and read more absurd things than that while them defending glazers and woodward. And the strange part is they don't have the same patience while defending the manager.I have read where people have said they have taken risks? What risks? A risk is when you leverage yourself to put money into the club.
Instead they are putting the risk of this club.
It's not just about buying players. They are doing the bare minimum to keep the club in the Champions League. Like you said about OT needing investment. The youth and reserve setups need continuous investing, as do the training facilities. They are a cancer on our club. Before these leeches turned up we were leading in every aspect, now we are one of the pack, and the bottom half of the pack at that.I think the argument against the glazers has become a bit redundant in recent years, the amount the club is spending on players and wages since Fergie left has been extreme.
We have the highest (or second-highest to City depending on which source you believe) and in the top 3 or 4 in world football (again depending on the source). Our net spend on transfers over the past 5 years is second only to city in the premier league who are funded by a country! Our spending has been fine, more than fine. we havn't needed to spend more we have needed to spend better!
Of course, the Glazers are taking money out of the club, but it's a business they own its something owners of sports teams do across the world, I'm not sure that should be considering it the crime that many seem to think it is. It's just that fans have become used to billionaire owners pumping money into clubs so that they can run at a huge loss and the fact United don't do that and it massively frustrates the fan base who want us to do things like break the British transfer record when there is a global economic crisis the likes of which probably has no equivalent, and when the club doesn't do that they kick their toys out of the pram and have a paddy.
I'm not saying the Glazers are good owners, how they have spent all the money they have has been frankly shocking, for the amount of money we have spent and the wage bill we have we should have a world-beating squad, instead of a squad that is just about making it into the top 4. Not to mention the lack of investment in old Trafford, leaking roof area's that look like they haven't had a lick of paint in 20 years it's quite depressing. They also clearly should have insisted that some come in to help run the football side of the business for Woodward, since he was proposed to take over, and certainly since that utter disaster of his first window. Since then while it has become clear the guy is a genius in the commercial world, he is clearly way out of his area of expertise when it comes to football and should have no say in signings, managers or contracts.
But the whole argument over how much the club is spending is nonsense these days, the amount we are spending is fine. How we have spent it isn't.
Sure, but if the argument is that the owners only care about qualifying for the CL season in, season out - having no ambitions beyond that - the numbers don't exactly back this up, do they?You can't simply conclude by looking at the total money we spent, you also have to consider the context.
The numbers exactly back this up, as I have said in #197.Sure, but if the argument is that the owners only care about qualifying for the CL season in, season out - having no ambitions beyond that - the numbers don't exactly back this up, do they?
Neither the minimum amount any club will make from the CL group stages (which is around £15 mill, I think), nor any realistic run for a half-decent team (say, crash out at the QF stage - which would be another £10 mill, perhaps), would seem to jibe with the kind of money United have spent on transfers and wages in recent years.
You don't keep making record signings (most recently, we broke the world transfer record for a defender (on a player most agree was "pretty good" at best) - and you don't maintain a total wage bill that is right up there with anyone - if your only ambition is to make sure you rake in somewhere between 15 and 25 mill annually on just being in the CL. That really makes no sense at all.
Our spending has been pretty high ever since Moyes was fired, arguably before, the 35mllion paid for Mata, may not seem like a lot of money now but it was then. Of course there are going to be summers were clubs spend less because it hasn't invested heavily the previous years, every club in the world has that you can' break transfer records every summer. But over the past 5 years, we have paid 3 of the top 5 fees ever paid by a British club and gave the biggest contract in premier league history to Sanchez and a net spend that is up near the top of any list you care to look at. We spend spend spend spend, and still, fans say it isn't enough and try to find reasons why we needed to spend more as if that has been the issue.You can't simply conclude by looking at the total money we spent, you also have to consider the context. When we are one or two players away from title challenge, the board is satisfied with a top four finish and refuses to invest. Then we have no choice but to chase inferior targets and the team starts to decline. After a year or two the board is finally willing to invest when we struggle to get into the top four, but it's already too late as many more problems emerge and we become three to four players away from title challenge again. Of course we haven't spent the money particularly well, yet the Glazers are also responsible to a certain extent.
Exactly this, i dont know why people argue against this. Other clubs have spent far lesser and are in a far better shape than us, despite starting from a lower point than us.The Glazers and Woodward are 100% and issue, but not because of the lack of spending, its the incompetence of the spending.
No. It literally got made illegal after everyone saw what the Glazers did to us. Saves future teams but is obviously no help to us.I get that the Glazers took ownership years ago. But, if someone tried to buy a team the same way again right now, would they be allowed? Almost a billion in 10 years going to financing the purchase.
Bare minimum? Paying 3 of the top 5 fees ever paid by a British club over the past 5 years, giving the biggest contract in premier league history to Sanchez, a net transfer spend and wage bill that is up near the top of any list you care to look at. Is not a bare minimum in anyway way you want to look at it. With this kind of expenditure, we should be challenging for every trophy every year. The fact we are not is nothing to do with finances or lack of signings and everything to do with a lack of knowledge of squad building and long term team planning.It's not just about buying players. They are doing the bare minimum to keep the club in the Champions League. Like you said about OT needing investment. The youth and reserve setups need continuous investing, as do the training facilities. They are a cancer on our club. Before these leeches turned up we were leading in every aspect, now we are one of the pack, and the bottom half of the pack at that.