Crustanoid
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 18,511
Pathetic cnut of a man
He’s surpassed himself this time
He’s surpassed himself this time
Glazers won't spend a cent if they think Top 4 is safe. Biggest chance of getting Sancho if the 3 or 4 teams which finished below United spend big.I think it means we won't be paying £108m for a single player. Another sub-£60m signing (or two) could still happen.
Transfermarkt?Is there anywhere I can get info on spend and income from selling year on year?
Thats what Ole said early on, saying maybe they can take advantage of the market. If that was the board's gameplan they have again got it wrongThis strategy only works if clubs start going bust and United get to pick up their players for cheap in fire sales.
Is this the same bloke that engineered a leveraged buyout that has currently cost the club £1 billion in debt repayments, interest, and fees, and the very reason why we still have half a billion of debt on the balance sheet? How very resourceful. An absolute, hypocritical scumbag who'll go down as one of the worst figures in Manchester United's history.Woody updated in an article in MEN
"Together, these investments reinforce our optimism about the future, and we will continue to build on these strong foundations. However, we must also be responsible in our use of resources during the most extraordinarily challenging time for everyone in football."
I think that's all folks. Bruno and VDB and the youngsters signed. Very much along the lines of Ole's interview.
More people should be thinking like this, they're ruining our club, we should be spending now to make up the ground instead of acting like some small level mid table team,The club should be boycotted, properly.
It isn't really Man Utd anymore anyway - not with these cretins behind everything.
It's Glazer Utd, they've stripped the club of it's identity, Manchester United won't exist properly again until after they've fecked off.
To be fair, I think we don't know whether it will work yet. If all games are played behind closed doors for the whole season and maybe into the next, maybe it will still come to past.Thats what Ole said early on, saying maybe they can take advantage of the market. If that was the board's gameplan they have again got it wrong
Think you miss my point is simply you got what you wanted (the supporters in general I mean) and then when it doesn't work out decide its not the manger but the board at fault.So now we wave green and gold scarves and that would mean Woodward and Glazers just go away, because that's what fans want now.
Isn't it ridiculous if clubs were run on whims and fancies of supporters? Doesn't it show gross incompetence?
I mean if they weren't making a profit from the club they wouldn't be doing it.Right here I would say, yes. You said every owner takes money out of their club.
That's not true at all.
I'm more getting at supports singing for one managers name, getting him, he fails and then deciding rather than blame the manager for failing blame something else...the board.A football club needs a clear long term strategy and succession plan. If the board are making decisions based on some perceived flag waving, then they are grossly incompetent.
Perhaps, read his "wall of tweets".Argue with what exactly? You give me a link to a wall of tweets?
How would you account for this?I mean if they weren't making a profit from the club they wouldn't be doing it.
City owners sold 300m worth of shares without putting the bare minimum back into the club since (Ake at 40m approx and Torres 20m)... where is the remaining 230m? That's right in their pockets.
Where are all these broke, hard up club owners you speak of that are out of pocket?
They aren't doing this to keep supporters happy, its all profit driven ultimately.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Didn't they buy the club with their own money?Think you miss my point is simply you got what you wanted (the supporters in general I mean) and then when it doesn't work out decide its not the manger but the board at fault.
Maybe the manager just didn't do a good enough job, quite simply.
There's positives and negatives to both sides of it in reality.
Partially I believe.Didn't they buy the club with their own money?
He's the same guy tweeted that the Glazers have taken out £838m from the club the last ten years?Perhaps, read his "wall of tweets".
He is knowledgeable and you'll find much of the financial info you are looking for.
Aye and you do realized we've spent over 1b in player investments too yeah?He's the same guy tweeted that the Glazers have taken out £838m from the club the last ten years?
Do you realize if the Glazers didn't take that £1bn out we could have spent £1.5 - 2bn instead?Aye and you do realized we've spent over 1b in player investments too yeah?
The club is being ran at nearly a 1:1 ratio.
The situations are completely different because the reasons for the debt are so different. Spurs have huge debts because they see the new stadium as a way to grow the club with the returns eventually paying off the debt. Our debt and the cost of servicing the debt has provided United with no benefits whatsoever, apart from some small tax breaks. It's been an incredible, astronomical waste of money that we'll never get back.There's positives and negatives to both sides of it in reality.
Chelsea have been funded by Roman as we all know, but the club essentially owe that money to him and if he were ever to have financial difficulties you can rest assured he'd want it back. I believe its in the ball park of 1b now Roman is owed.
Are we saying that we would like the Glazers to do something similar? It's not really a balanced scenario, its gone to the other extreme.
I don't see the relevancy in tagging us with Villa, Fulham and Brighton...they are staving off relegation or actually relegated. We've remained reasonably competitive, but not competitive enough to match the investment that has been made into the squad since 2013.
City as I pointed out have taken 300m in club shares after his tweet in Sept and only reinvested about 60m of it back into player purchases for example. The other 230m is where exactly?
Spurs have huge, huge debt now due to the stadium build and Arsenal too are in debt. Regardless of owner investment their situations aren't too different from our own.
I'll also point out Spurs and Arsenal haven't spent anything close to what we have on player signings in the last 5 years, Spurs approx 350m over five years and Arsenal approx 440m whilst we've spent 610m.
We essentially self run and whilst we can demand the owners dip into their own pockets to aide player investment for example the club doesn't need it essentially.
Fair point re the stadium and its a long term investment, problem now is covid and we've empty stadiums. They obviously didn't know that was going to happen and it'll mean they'll be hurting financially for longer.The situations are completely different because the reasons for the debt are so different. Spurs have huge debts because they see the new stadium as a way to grow the club with the returns eventually paying off the debt. Our debt and the cost of servicing the debt has provided United with no benefits whatsoever, apart from some small tax breaks. It's been an incredible, astronomical waste of money that we'll never get back.
Edwin wouldn't be a DoF. He would take Woodward's position at the club. Nothing to lose and everything to gain.Woodward is only part of the problem. He's a puppet - move him on and they'll replace him with another puppet who's purely financially/commercially focussed.
IMO a DOF at United will never happen - not in the capacity that we need anyway. I don't doubt that the club has had conversations with candidates but they're probably taking one look at how the club is being run and how their hands will be tied, and running.
We are club in fecking mountains of debt we have no need to be in. You'll still find people willing to make excuses for them.Wheres our brand new shiny stadium?
The Glazers should have never been allowed to load the club with debt in the first place. That is the root of the problem.Fair point re the stadium and its a long term investment, problem now is covid and we've empty stadiums. They obviously didn't know that was going to happen and it'll mean they'll be hurting financially for longer.
Our debt could technically be cleared, it would mean no investment in players then probably. Would you be OK with that? I doubt it but stand to be corrected. We're in a summer with a singular signing and folks are losing their minds.
Folks want this magical knight in shining armor to show up that will buy the club debt free, then invest in Old Trafford and invest again in training ground facilities (already done twice in the last 5-6 years) then fund a bottomless pit for player investments... we're talking something in the realm of 6 billion in reality, which simply isn't going to happen.
Why are we having to choose between clearing the debt or signing new players? How about the Glazers stop taking out £20 million dividends each year and use that money to slowly pay off the debt each year. Why are they the only owners in the league to pay themselves a dividend? Haven't they cost the club enough, both financially and in sporting terms? Of course I want to see the debt fall but not at the expense of squad/stadium improvements as we'll continue to decline as a club on the pitch. The Glazers are happy to have circa £500 million of debt on the balance sheet as the tax breaks provides bigger profits and so more money for them to pocket.Fair point re the stadium and its a long term investment, problem now is covid and we've empty stadiums. They obviously didn't know that was going to happen and it'll mean they'll be hurting financially for longer.
Our debt could technically be cleared, it would mean no investment in players then probably. Would you be OK with that? I doubt it but stand to be corrected. We're in a summer with a singular signing and folks are losing their minds.
Folks want this magical knight in shining armor to show up that will buy the club debt free, then invest in Old Trafford and invest again in training ground facilities (already done twice in the last 5-6 years) then fund a bottomless pit for player investments... we're talking something in the realm of 6 billion in reality, which simply isn't going to happen.
Leveraged buy outs are common enough within business.The Glazers should have never been allowed to load the club with debt in the first place. That is the root of the problem and the main source of fan frustration.
You do realize the current debt is 400m approx?Why are we having to choose between clearing the debt or signing new players? How about the Glazers stop taking out £20 million dividends each year and use that money to slowly pay off the debt each year. Why are they the only owners in the league to pay themselves a dividend? Haven't they cost the club enough, both financially and in sporting terms? Of course I want to see the debt fall but not at the expense of squad/stadium improvements as we'll continue to decline as a club on the pitch. The Glazers are happy to have circa £500 million of debt on the balance sheet as the tax breaks provides bigger profits and so more money for them to pocket.
Great ideaHow about a #GlazersOut day. The GlazersOut movement seems confined to social media and hashtags and needs more heft.
we could publicize this day and on that day people could disengage from the Glazers revenue streams (ManUtd social media, MUTV, shirt sales, etc). If coordinated on one day these would show up as a blip in the world’s consciousness and the and we could then repeat it.
I vote for Oct 6 2020 as the first GlazersOut day.
But is it good for the club?Leveraged buy outs are common enough within business.
It's certainly not illegal.
With you there. This isn't Man Utd anymore. It hasn't been for years. Just us fans have been oblivious to it. Economics Utd is purely a cash producing operation.The club should be boycotted, properly.
It isn't really Man Utd anymore anyway - not with these cretins behind everything.
It's Glazer Utd, they've stripped the club of it's identity, Manchester United won't exist properly again until after they've fecked off.
Sweet Jesus. The reason for those debts are vastly different. Ours is simply for the privilege of Glazer ownership. Arsenal and Spurs have built brand spanking new stadiums to increase their revenue streams. The latter is an actual investment in the future of the football club whilst the former is dead money pissed up the wall. There is zero benefit to us being taken over in a leveraged buyout. I’m not entirely sure why you keep trying to spin how it hasn’t been anything other than a disaster. You keep banging on about what we’ve spent - fantastic. The context ignores how we couldn’t afford to build again after losing the best player in the world and reaching two CL finals. The squad was in decline from 2009 onwards until SAF left due to “no value in the market”. But regardless of all that, we could have spent 6bn for all I care, it still doesn’t change the vast sums of money that have been lost from the club to pay off a debt that should never have been ours to begin with. No amount of Glazer spin is ever going to justify it.There's positives and negatives to both sides of it in reality.
Chelsea have been funded by Roman as we all know, but the club essentially owe that money to him and if he were ever to have financial difficulties you can rest assured he'd want it back. I believe its in the ball park of 1b now Roman is owed.
Are we saying that we would like the Glazers to do something similar? It's not really a balanced scenario, its gone to the other extreme.
I don't see the relevancy in tagging us with Villa, Fulham and Brighton...they are staving off relegation or actually relegated. We've remained reasonably competitive, but not competitive enough to match the investment that has been made into the squad since 2013.
City as I pointed out have taken 300m in club shares after his tweet in Sept and only reinvested about 60m of it back into player purchases for example. The other 230m is where exactly?
Spurs have huge, huge debt now due to the stadium build and Arsenal too are in debt. Regardless of owner investment their situations aren't too different from our own.
I'll also point out Spurs and Arsenal haven't spent anything close to what we have on player signings in the last 5 years, Spurs approx 350m over five years and Arsenal approx 440m whilst we've spent 610m.
We essentially self run and whilst we can demand the owners dip into their own pockets to aide player investment for example the club doesn't need it essentially.
“Disruption from the pandemic is continuing to create huge economic pressures from the top to the bottom of the football pyramid and, while we are fortunate to be in a more resilient position than most clubs, we are not immune from the impact. Despite this, we are delighted to have brought in Donny van de Beek from Ajax, adding further quality to a midfield already strengthened by the recruitment of Bruno Fernandes in January.
“Both Donny and Bruno are players we had been tracking for some time and their signings reflect out long-term approach to blending high-quality recruits with homegrown talent to develop a squad capable of winning trophies playing attacking, entertaining football.”
“As part of that process, we have also awarded new contracts to Nemanja Matic and academy graduates Dean Henderson, Brandon Williams, Scott McTominay and Mason Greenwood over the past year. We have also continued to strengthen our thriving academy by attracting several promising young players from across Europe, including Marc Jurado from Barcelona and Alvaro Fernandez Carreras from Real Madrid.
“Together, these investments reinforce our optimism about the future, and we will continue to build on these strong foundations. However, we must also be responsible in our use of resources during the most extraordinarily challenging time for everyone in football.”
And I've addressed that already the first bold part.Sweet Jesus. The reason for those debts are vastly different. Ours is simply for the privilege of Glazer ownership. Arsenal and Spurs have built brand spanking new stadiums to increase their revenue streams. The latter is an actual investment in the future of the football club whilst the former is dead money pissed up the wall. There is zero benefit to us being taken over in a leveraged buyout. I’m not entirely sure why you keep trying to spin how it hasn’t been anything other than a disaster. You keep banging on about what we’ve spent - fantastic. The context ignores how we couldn’t afford to build again after losing the best player in the world and reaching two CL finals. The squad was in decline from 2009 onwards until SAF left due to “no value in the market”. But regardless of all that, we could have spent 6bn for all I care, it still doesn’t change the vast sums of money that have been lost from the club to pay off a debt that should never have been ours to begin with. No amount of Glazer spin is ever going to justify it.
Exactly my point; the debt has put the club in a tricky position where we're having to pick and choose. We either pay off large chunks of the Glazer debt at the expense of squad/stadium improvements, or we choose to ignore the debt in order to invest in the squad, however we're basically kicking the can down the road by choosing to ignore the debt. In addition, I don't think the club would be comfortable in undertaking a large redevelopment of OT when we're in so much debt, so OT becomes more dated.Leveraged buy outs are common enough within business.
It's certainly not illegal.
You do realize the current debt is 400m approx?
Where exactly do you think 400m is going to come for god sake? Then you want probably another 200m spent on players annually. To point out something you likely don't know the owners cleared the worst of the debt tranches in 2011 I think it was and in turn our spending improved there after dramatically on player investment.
Again, where exactly does this total of 600m come from? Is there a magical money tree hidden somewhere at Carrington or OT that you know of?
It went to crap again cause of Brexit and now Covid, are we blaming the owners on that too now?
And no they aren't the only owners taking dividends for god sake.