Better the devil you know?

No. Just no.

If there was a 50/50 chance that getting rid of the Glazers meant the devil himself would perform daily acorn (wide end first) insertions into my promise ring then I'd take the risk.

They're cnuts.
 
Interesting to hear if anyone out there thinks that the Glazers staying in charge might be the best option?

They seem to have finally stumbled on a decent manager and - for all their sins - have tended to back their managers in the transfer market. With the rumours of Avram Glazer being keen to hold onto the club, what happens if they raise a couple of hundred million through selling some equity in the club to give ETH a war chest for the summer?

We’ve a lot of fans (including me) who are uncomfortable with being owned by a nation state. And any private owner is going to have to raise 5 or 6 billion quid to buy the club. That’s a brutal outlay and it’s hard to see how that won’t involve more debt on the club and put us on the back foot in the transfer market.

So yeah, what are the thoughts on business as usual next season?
I can see where you're coming from but it's a very firm no from me. The Glazers have become synonymous with lowered expectations at the club and we can never really get back to where we would like to be as long as they remain here.

We are on an upward trajectory at present, with a good manager and good squad mentality. We need a considerably more competent owner to make the most of that, rather than remaining with the current owners who are likely to hamper that progress through underinvestment or some other ill-advised move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Invictus
Feck no. They are sucking everything out from this club for their own profit.

At least Qatar would be putting money into this club, not sucking it out like Glazer did. Feck those feckers.
 
Interesting to hear if anyone out there thinks that the Glazers staying in charge might be the best option?

They seem to have finally stumbled on a decent manager and - for all their sins - have tended to back their managers in the transfer market. With the rumours of Avram Glazer being keen to hold onto the club, what happens if they raise a couple of hundred million through selling some equity in the club to give ETH a war chest for the summer?

We’ve a lot of fans (including me) who are uncomfortable with being owned by a nation state. And any private owner is going to have to raise 5 or 6 billion quid to buy the club. That’s a brutal outlay and it’s hard to see how that won’t involve more debt on the club and put us on the back foot in the transfer market.

So yeah, what are the thoughts on business as usual next season?
It could easily be a lot worse under new owners. You are right in that regard. There’s no easy solution here.
 
Interesting to hear if anyone out there thinks that the Glazers staying in charge might be the best option?

They seem to have finally stumbled on a decent manager and - for all their sins - have tended to back their managers in the transfer market. With the rumours of Avram Glazer being keen to hold onto the club, what happens if they raise a couple of hundred million through selling some equity in the club to give ETH a war chest for the summer?

We’ve a lot of fans (including me) who are uncomfortable with being owned by a nation state. And any private owner is going to have to raise 5 or 6 billion quid to buy the club. That’s a brutal outlay and it’s hard to see how that won’t involve more debt on the club and put us on the back foot in the transfer market.

So yeah, what are the thoughts on business as usual next season?
I am one of those who prefer to keep the Glazers and have argued against new owners on many occasions and in many threads.
From my opposition to state/dictator (backed, linked, whatever) ownership, to the rational question of business logic and ROI expectation on any acquisition of the club, I fail to see how change in ownership could come without either selling our souls, or plunging into austerity and value-extraction for years to come.

If people think Glazers' dividends and debt repayments were bad, wait to see what loan payments on £5-6bn deal would be.

Even if it is not a LBO, no business person would just burn money on the club without a plan to get returns ASAP. That's just not how things work.

I see most posters and fans as incredibly naive when it comes to Manchester United, the business.

The problem with Glazers staying is that we know the club is running on fumes right now and we need capital injection. There are strong rumours that minor share could be sold for significant capital but that would come with more fiscal pressure and am not certain if it will make things better or be more like Barcelona's "levers".

In any case, let's win today, celebrate Ole's birthday and get back to worrying and arguing tomorrow!

GGMU!
 
Interesting to hear if anyone out there thinks that the Glazers staying in charge might be the best option?

They seem to have finally stumbled on a decent manager and - for all their sins - have tended to back their managers in the transfer market. With the rumours of Avram Glazer being keen to hold onto the club, what happens if they raise a couple of hundred million through selling some equity in the club to give ETH a war chest for the summer?

We’ve a lot of fans (including me) who are uncomfortable with being owned by a nation state. And any private owner is going to have to raise 5 or 6 billion quid to buy the club. That’s a brutal outlay and it’s hard to see how that won’t involve more debt on the club and put us on the back foot in the transfer market.

So yeah, what are the thoughts on business as usual next season?
Mate, been to Stockholm lately? I hear it’s a great city.

Just to give you a friendly reminder, since 2006 we’ve been sucked out of around 3b pounds through debt refinancing and dividends. Haven’t had 1 pound reinvested in our infrastructure, and every pound we spent on players and managers was the clubs money to spend anyway. Please read this a couple of times till you fully grasp what this means for us. If you only see the number 3b as what we lost, you’re missing the point of strategic reinvestment completely. We sit here 3b down, without any infrastructure investment. So after investing this would out as at a 4,5-6b punds in red due to the feking Glazers. Haven’t even mentioned the titles etc we missed out on winning due to all above, but you could add another 0,5b there no biggy as its almost 20 years. And finally, how many fans do you think we lost out on in the last 10 years? (Meaning young kids who grew up in this period)

At this point, I’d take anyone other and then worry about first world problems such as morality etc. Just because they struck gold with ten Hag doesn’t change anything here, if it does for you,well… you’re just easy to please. I’d take North Korea at this point, scratch that, I’d take Satan himself before the current useless parasitic pieces of shite.
 
Rather them than becoming a sportswashing project.
Well that’s my sense too. Especially if their influence was diluted somewhat by other board members. A new board with fan reps, football people and some Glazer presence might be an improvement. Really it’s down to how the club is run (I.E.not as a cash cow), as long as it’s not a nation state, which of course would be another level of worse.
 
Mate, been to Stockholm lately? I hear it’s a great city.

Just to give you a friendly reminder, since 2006 we’ve been sucked out of around 3b pounds through debt refinancing and dividends. Haven’t had 1 pound reinvested in our infrastructure, and every pound we spent on players and managers was the clubs money to spend anyway. Please read this a couple of times till you fully grasp what this means for us. If you only see the number 3b as what we lost, you’re missing the point of strategic reinvestment completely. We sit here 3b down, without any infrastructure investment. So after investing this would out as at a 4,5-6b punds in red due to the feking Glazers. Haven’t even mentioned the titles etc we missed out on winning due to all above, but you could add another 0,5b there no biggy as its almost 20 years. And finally, how many fans do you think we lost out on in the last 10 years? (Meaning young kids who grew up in this period)

At this point, I’d take anyone other and then worry about first world problems such as morality etc. Just because they struck gold with ten Hag doesn’t change anything here, if it does for you,well… you’re just easy to please. I’d take North Korea at this point, scratch that, I’d take Satan himself before the current useless parasitic pieces of shite.

Mad how many people seem to think I need education on the harm the Glazers have done. As though it’s some kind of state fecking secret. The point is whether or not a new owner can afford to run the club in a more benevolent way, when they have to pay the Glazers a massive sum of money for the privilege.
 
I am one of those who prefer to keep the Glazers and have argued against new owners on many occasions and in many threads.
From my opposition to state/dictator (backed, linked, whatever) ownership, to the rational question of business logic and ROI expectation on any acquisition of the club, I fail to see how change in ownership could come without either selling our souls, or plunging into austerity and value-extraction for years to come.

If people think Glazers' dividends and debt repayments were bad, wait to see what loan payments on £5-6bn deal would be.

Even if it is not a LBO, no business person would just burn money on the club without a plan to get returns ASAP. That's just not how things work.

I see most posters and fans as incredibly naive when it comes to Manchester United, the business.

The problem with Glazers staying is that we know the club is running on fumes right now and we need capital injection. There are strong rumours that minor share could be sold for significant capital but that would come with more fiscal pressure and am not certain if it will make things better or be more like Barcelona's "levers".

In any case, let's win today, celebrate Ole's birthday and get back to worrying and arguing tomorrow!

GGMU!

At least someone gets the point I’m making.

To be clear, I’m not fully on board with continued Glazer ownership being the best option. Just not fully convinced the alternatives will definitely be better.
 
At this point, I’d take anyone other and then worry about first world problems such as morality etc. Just because they struck gold with ten Hag doesn’t change anything here, if it does for you,well… you’re just easy to please. I’d take North Korea at this point, scratch that, I’d take Satan himself before the current useless parasitic pieces of shite.
wtf!
 
So the options are:

1. State ownership by Qatar - a sports-washing project but with plenty of debt free money to invest in the squad and infrastructure
2. New private owners such as INEOS - less morally dubious (although not squeaky clean) but means more debt to service and with no guarantees as to additional funds for infrastructure
3. The Glazers - take away the recency bias induced by five months of over-achievement under ETH and it’s been soul-destroying under their “stewardship”

After the last 18 years of watching the club fight with one hand tied behind its back, I can’t face more of the same with option 2 (for larger sums this time and with high interest rates), and, as for option 3, the Glazers have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that they are not fit to own this club. So, with serious reservations and regret that it has come to this devil and the deep blue sea scenario, I can’t see beyond the state-ownership model. I fully understand why others might not feel that way.
 
I am one of those who prefer to keep the Glazers and have argued against new owners on many occasions and in many threads.
From my opposition to state/dictator (backed, linked, whatever) ownership, to the rational question of business logic and ROI expectation on any acquisition of the club, I fail to see how change in ownership could come without either selling our souls, or plunging into austerity and value-extraction for years to come.

If people think Glazers' dividends and debt repayments were bad, wait to see what loan payments on £5-6bn deal would be.

Even if it is not a LBO, no business person would just burn money on the club without a plan to get returns ASAP. That's just not how things work.

I see most posters and fans as incredibly naive when it comes to Manchester United, the business.

The problem with Glazers staying is that we know the club is running on fumes right now and we need capital injection. There are strong rumours that minor share could be sold for significant capital but that would come with more fiscal pressure and am not certain if it will make things better or be more like Barcelona's "levers".

In any case, let's win today, celebrate Ole's birthday and get back to worrying and arguing tomorrow!

GGMU!

They aren’t going to stay forever, their end game is to sell. Keeping the Glazers is just a slow downward spiral until they sell anyway.

The business under the Glazers is just protecting an asset, no short, medium or long term plan and that’s why club is in the state is in. That’s not going to change however much longer they stay which given the state of the finances won’t be long whatever happens with this current sale process.
 
It's not like we're not spending money, we have the highest wage bill in the league and by some distance:

1. Manchester United – £222,984,000
2. Chelsea – £169,720,000
3. Manchester City – £163,060,000
4. Liverpool – £141,782,000
5. Tottenham – £101,344,000
6. Arsenal – £85,490,000
7. Leicester City – 78,780,000
8. Aston Villa – £75,232,000
9. West Ham – £70,160,000
10. Newcastle United – £62,610,000
11. Crystal Palace – £59,180,000
12. Everton – £43,120,000
13. Wolves – £38,310,000
14. Fulham – £37,610,000
15. Southampton – £35,380,000
16. Bournemouth – £32,044,000
17. Nottingham Forest – £28,590,000
18. Brighton – £28,340,000
19. Leeds United – £17,300,000
20. Brentford – £15,240,000
Which in itself shows a massive problem. It's not just on the field, we've also been run completely incompetently off field and financially. While the Glazer's may not have been making those decisions themselves, they were the ones who hired the people who were and then kept them in that job despite years upon years of incompetence.
 
The problem with discussion about the ownership issue is that too many people are afraid of losing their Top Red loyalty bonus if they deviate from the MUST-led taking points memo est 2006, updated 2011.

To the point where you cannot honestly discuss the issues with many fans. If someone will insist we've got 'no money to spend on players' then see us spending £145m on players yet still insist they were right to say we had no money to spend on players, then it gets to the point of dogma.

The Glazers are bad owners, their business model can no longer sustain the club with our current demands. That isn't in question. But the puritanical element that I can see are now looking at ways to lynch Wayne Rooney for the audacity of having a different opinion, have always been wrong too.

We've been shitting cash for a decade now and still peoples think 'we've no money' argument holds because its what they heard years ago.
 
Last edited:
But the puritanical element that I can see are now looking at ways to lynch Wayne Rooney for the audacity of having a different opinion, have always been wrong too.
But Rooney is full of crap.
1) Glazers didn’t sign him
2) The worse of Glazer austerity was under SAF, during Rooney’s peak years. Rooney was the most outspoken player in the mid 00s. Asking SAF “what’s the plan” “we should sign Ozil” to finally making the transfer request in 2010 because the club lacked ambition
 
Interesting to hear if anyone out there thinks that the Glazers staying in charge might be the best option?

They seem to have finally stumbled on a decent manager and - for all their sins - have tended to back their managers in the transfer market. With the rumours of Avram Glazer being keen to hold onto the club, what happens if they raise a couple of hundred million through selling some equity in the club to give ETH a war chest for the summer?

We’ve a lot of fans (including me) who are uncomfortable with being owned by a nation state. And any private owner is going to have to raise 5 or 6 billion quid to buy the club. That’s a brutal outlay and it’s hard to see how that won’t involve more debt on the club and put us on the back foot in the transfer market.

So yeah, what are the thoughts on business as usual next season?

I honestly think the Glazers get a lot of stick due to the clubs on field performance, or that it's intensified due to it. Which to be fair is correct as they are ultimately responsible, but imo it had a lot more to do with someone like Woodward being too involved in the football side of the club and basically behaving like a glorified apprentice contestant sticking his nose into and dictating things he (quite clearly) knew little about.

Thats still on the Glazers but a lot of this has finally been offset by him moving on and the club appointing a manager who effectively has control on all football matters aside from relying on the club to provide funds and sign the players he wants. To be honest aside from the amount of funds available MAYBE being increased, we're not going to get new owners who can improve that set up very much. There is a whole lot they could and actually quite possibly would do to interfere and take it backwards again (look at Chelsea).

So from a football point of view I'm actually quite concerned and just hoping whoever ends up in control has the sense to see it is working and just give it their backing rather than interfere.

Then though there is all the rubbish with things like the ACS, and generally treating fans like numbers (well, literally treating fans like numbers), mining assets out of the club, selling club assets to themselves, trying to move the club out of the PL, amd generally not seeming to understand what a football club is or football fans are. I mean all of this COULD happen under different ownership, but I would say its unlikely to be as bad, if only due to the amount of focus there has been on it and the disruption and unrest its ended up causing. Any new owner really would need fans on side or at least not openly and aggressively hostile to them.

I'm not comfortable with state ownership but then it's all well and good criticising and taking moral high ground on that, but i feel like its way too late for football to take that path unless every aspect of it is going to drastically change to suit there suddenly being moral principles applied. I mean you can be privately owned and end up with your club's money funding a massive unjust war. You can have your national team try and protest a state's human rights when half of them are on the payroll of state's with exactly the same human rights issues. Footballers can kick cats about the place and then still get pivked to play a gane later on, or commit horrible acts against women and then have their identity protected until it can be swept under the rug. Football fans, clubs and even the national FA will defend and support their players for being caught on camera being a racist. All moral roads at this point lead to hypocrisy, unfortunately
 
But Rooney is full of crap.
1) Glazers didn’t sign him
2) The worse of Glazer austerity was under SAF, during Rooney’s peak years. Rooney was the most outspoken player in the mid 00s. Asking SAF “what’s the plan” “we should sign Ozil” to finally making the transfer request in 2010 because the club lacked ambition

The was no austerity. Look at spend pre-Glazers. We won the CL and capitalised by signing Mark fecking Bosnich on a free.

Fergie was never shy about speaking of publicly on Edwards or the PLC when he thought he wasn't being backed. The relationship between him and Kenyon never recovered after Ronaldinho. He never once did that with the Glazers and that truth is understandably inconvenient.

This idea the Glazers took over a club pissing money on world class players every summer was nonsense. Some years we spent big, others we didn't spend much at all. Every year for 27 of the years he was here for was exactly the same.
 
The last few years they have certainly improved: more forward thinking with how senior management has been put in place, suggestions of stadium renovation/potential new one. They have also been very active with transfer budgets (even though our majority of investments have been dreadful).

We need a change though at the end of the day: fresh ideas, committed improvement and owners who don't purely see as as a money maker but genuinely have passion for this club and want success over returns.
 
They aren’t going to stay forever, their end game is to sell. Keeping the Glazers is just a slow downward spiral until they sell anyway.

The business under the Glazers is just protecting an asset, no short, medium or long term plan and that’s why club is in the state is in. That’s not going to change however much longer they stay which given the state of the finances won’t be long whatever happens with this current sale process.
That doesn't make the prospect of new owners any brighter.
 
Are we getting the Manc Red Devil and Gold Trafford back to tell us all how the debt is actually good for the club again?
 
That doesn't make the prospect of new owners any brighter.

But there will be new owners at some point whether people like it or not. The only alternative to it happening now is the Glazers cling before selling anyway.

The Glazers aren’t going to suddenly have a plan, they can’t borrow significant money and won’t put their own in. There is no argument about them staying because they can’t and won’t last much longer.
 
But there will be new owners at some point whether people like it or not. The only alternative to it happening now is the Glazers cling before selling anyway.

The Glazers aren’t going to suddenly have a plan, they can’t borrow significant money and won’t put their own in. There is no argument about them staying because they can’t and won’t last much longer.
The fact that I will die some day doesn't make me more eager to die today.
 
Agree with those who will rather keep the ones we got than Qatar or Saudi Arabia.
 
Fans moaned when Martin Edwards was running the club and look how that turned out
 
Feckin hell. Didn't know it was this bad...

That's the point. We're the biggest club in England. We're doing this well despite them being the worst imaginable owners. We'd probably dominate with no rich owner at all. With a positive owner we'd be gigantic.

At this point anyone who genuinely thinks the Glazers have any merit whatsoever are just fekkin thick. I despise everything about the Qatari ruling family but there's no doubt we'd be very successful if they took over.
 
The Glazers would be far preferable than Qatari state-sponsored ownership for me personally. I would have to stop supporting if Qatar took over, certainly stop attending games. I just couldn't do it in good conscious. I don't understand the moral gymnastics people here are doing here when they say they'd be disappointed if Greenwood was brought back, but welcome the Qatar state in. To me that's a clear and obvious contradiction. I doubt I'd be able to completely stop supporting/following cold turkey but certainly with Qatari ownership each successive win just becomes increasingly hollow so it would happen eventually anyway. I don't like the Glazers and nearly anyone would be preferable so it's a shame it's come to this really.

More importantly to me, a few members of my family who I attend games with are likely on their way out soon. I'd like to continue attending games with them as long as possible as it's our tradition.
 
This is a very interesting idea that maybe the Glazers are better than new owners. What we should do is feck this idea off into the sun, and never, ever even consider it again
 
The fact that I will die some day doesn't make me more eager to die today.

That’s jot applicable, death is guaranteed, so is what the Glazers will do. Who the next owners will be and what they will do is unknown.

Worth remembering as well if the people you don’t want takeover the only ones to blame are the Glazers. They have no issue about who they sell to and that’s not going to change.
 
Glazer ownership just isn't sustainable at this point. It would require more debt, which we all know they would saddle on the club like the debt from buying us in the first place. Or they would be bringing in investors who would just be the exact same thing, here to get as much of the pie as they can and then... sell us to the highest bidder anyway.

It would just be kicking the can down the road with the added likely hood that club finances become more burdened.
 
That’s jot applicable, death is guaranteed, so is what the Glazers will do. Who the next owners will be and what they will do is unknown.

Worth remembering as well if the people you don’t want takeover the only ones to blame are the Glazers. They have no issue about who they sell to and that’s not going to change.
I agree with the last bit but that doesn't change my sentiment about the sale.
 
No. I have defended and corrected some of the false narratives around the Glazer ownership but overall they have been horrible owners.

We have a debt of £600m, the club is barely profitable after accounting for transfers/wages required to keep us even remotely competitive and the clubs' infrastructure is crumbling and needs major investment

Their biggest error, in my opinion, was being too loyal to Ed Woodward. The man was incompetent beyond measure, to the point I actually think he's arguably actually stupid (for example, boasting about how wealthy we are days before the transfer window opens).

Had the Glazers installed a competent management team from the top-down early on they could have made a success of it
 
The Glazers would be far preferable than Qatari state-sponsored ownership for me personally. I would have to stop supporting if Qatar took over, certainly stop attending games. I just couldn't do it in good conscious. I don't understand the moral gymnastics people here are doing here when they say they'd be disappointed if Greenwood was brought back, but welcome the Qatar state in. To me that's a clear and obvious contradiction. I doubt I'd be able to completely stop supporting/following cold turkey but certainly with Qatari ownership each successive win just becomes increasingly hollow so it would happen eventually anyway. I don't like the Glazers and nearly anyone would be preferable so it's a shame it's come to this really.

More importantly to me, a few members of my family who I attend games with are likely on their way out soon. I'd like to continue attending games with them as long as possible as it's our tradition.

Do you already apply that in your everyday life though?. There’s no point giving up on Utd and then going and doing your shopping at Sainsbury’s for instance.

It’s very difficult to know where to draw the line, I wasn’t particularly excited about the World Cup due to it being in Qatar but once it started I gradually forgot about everything surrounding it.

I don’t want Qatar to take over but if they do I would just get on with it, I’m not currently boycotting anything and everything to do with Qatar and wouldn’t be going forward.
 
I, for one, welcome our new Qatari overlords.

Also, feck the Glazers.
 
Do you already apply that in your everyday life though?. There’s no point giving up on Utd and then going and doing your shopping at Sainsbury’s for instance.

It’s very difficult to know where to draw the line, I wasn’t particularly excited about the World Cup due to it being in Qatar but once it started I gradually forgot about everything surrounding it.

I don’t want Qatar to take over but if they do I would just get on with it, I’m not currently boycotting anything and everything to do with Qatar and wouldn’t be going forward.

I mean I try and be as mindful as possible, but at the end of the day you're right - food, oil, computer components etc are all a necessary part of living these days, and they are nearly all sold immorally. For me it's just my line in the sand to support a club who's owners are directly involved with the slave trade, homophobic policies, violence against women etc. I just wouldn't enjoy it anymore. Any future success would be tainted and feel follow too.

I guess I wouldn't stop supporting but my support would be dormant until there were new owners (if there ever will be). It's sad, me and my brother/father were just lamenting that we have combined about 150 years of Man Utd support, and we have been working on indoctrinating the next generation into Man Utd colours already over the past couple of years :lol:. Sadly it just wouldn't feel right to me to continue pushing Man Utd on my niece when the owners would have her treated as a second class citizen requiring guardianship. I can ignore some stuff but that just doesn't sit with me.

I'm enjoying putting more effort into coaching my local tiny club though so I'll look on the bright side for now :)
 
Last edited: