Contradicting statement isnt it? If they spent less they would be able to extract more money.
The issue with Glazers is the mis management of the spending not the actual spending.
General Glazer Discussion | To receive the majority of £11m stakeholder dividend today
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
The issue with Glazers is the mis management of the spending not the actual spending.
Wonder if this is a bit of an attack on Woodward. He’s right in that they’ve spent the money it’s just be horrendous management from the top down. I wouldn’t be surprised if he let Woodward go and ordered this shake up, nobody likes to see their money frittered away.
Then they have basically commited a sudoku, they attacked themselves since they were the ones who appointed Woodward and let him spread around the "stopping players from going to Madrid" and "watch this space" nonsense.
The dividends are inconsequencial, insignificant and so boringly standard across all businesses in all industries that we really shouldn't even be wasting our time talking about them.
There are plenty of things to get at the Glazers for but I have always felt the divident argument is ridiculously naive and weak
Thanks for spending the clubs own income on shite players. Thanks alot.
The first time I looked at the headline I thought we were talking about some high ranking military officer. 
Thats what clubs are supposed to do. Spend their own money. Shite players is due to shite management. Their fault is keeping Woodward in that position for so long.
I have no idea but then you used to be able to get 0% deposit mortgages and people would believe thry owned their own home whilst paying that back.
What they did was fecking shite and I don't really understand why it was allowed to happen. Taking debt out against the club to buy the club.
Ultimately though whether they put their own money in is not relevant, sadly they own the club so they get to say we when talking about it. It's shit but it is what it is. Their strategy has been what's fecked us. If they had spent a billion with the structure Liverpool and City have (which they could have) very few people would care about whether they bought us with their own money.
Yep, which really isnt helpful when comparing "spend"
I have no problem with the amount of money we spend on players.. we’ve spent the most of any team in the league.
It’s the lack of actual investment from them, it’s the neglect to the stadium, the training ground, womens and youth team facilities, the amount of debt and interest payments we have to pay and probably most of all just the amount that they don’t give a crap about the club.
To have an owner who actually cares about the club and attends games would be amazing. They’re parasites who brought the club on debt and think of us no more than an opportunity to make a quick buck.
It’s the lack of actual investment from them, it’s the neglect to the stadium, the training ground, womens and youth team facilities, the amount of debt and interest payments we have to pay and probably most of all just the amount that they don’t give a crap about the club.
To have an owner who actually cares about the club and attends games would be amazing. They’re parasites who brought the club on debt and think of us no more than an opportunity to make a quick buck.
By itself, it isn't relevant, no. But on top of all their other failings, structure being a huge one, it adds to the relevancy.
What we can say is that the fans aren't only complaining because we're shite now. The fans were protesting when we were winning 3 titles in a row, when we were reaching 3 CL finals in 4 years.
But you can always argue more should be put in.
For instance the money put into City so far. Not all that much relative to the owners wealth. Why not invest more? Secure that Chanpions League win.
Ultimately had the money spent by United been allocated properly there'd be no complaints about investment.
Can you provide detail on how the training ground has been neglected?
There is a huge difference if you own a football club or a producing company. Glazers are the only owners wjo pay out a dividend.
Money and negligence is no use.
Money on the wrong players, money pursuing the wrong strategies, money in the hands of the wrong people and money sometimes withheld at the wrong time.
If a parent buys his or her child a random shiny toy once or twice a year and does nothing beyond that, its neglect. You can't just say 'there, that's my job done'.
EDIT- Also obviously its not money invested by them themselves. Just funds generated by the club itself.
Money on the wrong players, money pursuing the wrong strategies, money in the hands of the wrong people and money sometimes withheld at the wrong time.
If a parent buys his or her child a random shiny toy once or twice a year and does nothing beyond that, its neglect. You can't just say 'there, that's my job done'.
EDIT- Also obviously its not money invested by them themselves. Just funds generated by the club itself.
I suppose you know him personally?
These type of threads are really annoying. As has been pointed out time after time, the amount of money provided to Utd to buy players is at the top of the league. The local team management just does a bad job picking players, picking managers, picking staff, running the club. (See all the end of the season news.)
We signed Fellaini over kroos.
Check out the Sunday Times Rich List last weekend and see how many people you know of. None of these people talk to the media unless they have something to sell, and then they use proxies.
It could be argued that until the Glazers came along the club wasn't generating much in commercial revenue. They brought in Woodward who seems to have been some sort of genius at raising the revenue streams to astronomical proportions (noodle partners, tyre companies, far east fan base, etc.). Pity he couldn't manage a football club!
It's true. They take out huge amounts in dividends every year since 2015 (was like £20m in 2018), director's salaries (all 6 glazer siblings get about a mil each) and management fees.
The money they've spent is money the club generates, minus all they've taken out.
We've got a high net spend because we sell terribly, but if you go back to like 2008 when City were taken over, you'll see where the disparity starts.
Circa 2008 we were paying £70m per year in interest alone, and we've paid over £1 billion (!) servicing the debt since. 2009 was when we sold Ronaldo for £80m, and spent £20m on Obertan, Owen and Valencia. Wonder where the extra cash went? From 2009 to 2013 we barely signed any players and there's where the rot set in. We've merely tried to play catch up since, and done a bad job at that because the club's operating structure is so bad, which is all set up from the top - the board which has 6 Glazer's on it. Read any article with John Henry of Liverpool on both how to run a club and the amount he's extracted from them (hint, zero) and you'll see how badly we've been run and milked by the Glazers.
Everybody knows this and understands it but you have to deal with the 'here and now'.
Since 2010 and the restructuring of the PIK loans, the Glazers have "allowed" the club more than enough to challenge. You can blame them for the initial rot, you can blame them for appointing ineffective CEOs, you can wish we were owned by a benevolent United fan...all of those are legitimate....but still, we need to recognise that it needn't be hopeless and we can still be competitive under Glazer ownership.
Don't think it was agent fees, it was the glazers and the debt. Once that got under control the spending has been good. It was bad then
He's just clueless. Imagine you knew nothing about cars and spent 50 million on a nissan micra and 100 million on a ford focus thinking your doing the right thing and its money well spent.
There business smart but I bet there ego's stop them from taking advice from people with actual football knowledge and you'd have a better conversation with a goldfish.
There business smart but I bet there ego's stop them from taking advice from people with actual football knowledge and you'd have a better conversation with a goldfish.
They have spent the money needed to buy new players in fairness. Who we spend that money on isn’t directly on them, but keeping Woodward in charge of the whole operation certainly is.
Can we? What operational ability do the 6 Glazer siblings have between them? They're just glorified trust fund babies riding off of the work their dad put in building all that wealth.
There's a reason why boards at companies are filled with successful people at high ranking jobs from other big companies, why chairmen and CEOs are paid huge amounts and have lots of experience - the direction of any company or organisation comes from the top. Ours are severely lacking.
When you have ignorant people in charge, the natural course is that those under them will be supbar and that their choices will be subpar. They may get lucky like they did with Tom Brady, where prior to that Buccs hadnt won a single playoff game in like 18 years, but more likely that not they won't. It's no surprise to me that Liverpool are successful under John Henry when you look at his career, or Brighton and Brentford under their owners. Leadership and direction comes from the top.
You’ve pretty much answered your own argument there. Transfer fees of the last 10 plus years have been massive.
Given how we didn’t invest properly after Ronaldo left and how the squad was aging when fergie left, compared to city’s squad, the bare minimum that was required was to purchase a lot of good players.
Pogba cost 90m. Pretty much one tenth of 1 billion. Maguire 80m.
What I’m saying is, when people say we have spent a lot, it’s far from black and white, there is context. Obviously we have spent a lot because it was necessary and the transfer fees are huge for average players. Especially with bankers in charge.
The problem was that, if a player turned out to be a poor performer, the finance team wouldn’t allow us to shift them quickly for less than was paid.
In my opinion, given the costs of players, where our squad was and that our recruitment was poorly run, we definitely needed to spend more than we have and taken losses on players bought.
Let me remind you, in Moyes first summer, we only signed Fellaini (at the last minute for more than he was worth) despite our midfield having a huge hole in it.
Last summer, we didn’t sign a defensive midfielder, but the Glazers still took their dividend.
I feel like it's a myth that they appointed incompetent people through indifference. They appointed incompetent people because competent ones didn't want to be associated with such a dysfunctional project. So we ended up with chancers, mercenaries and the terminally unqualified. And because even competent mercenaries could not function in an environment where (for example) Woodward extended the contracts of redundant players because he thought it increased their asset value.
While I agree, I think you mean Seppuku? I'm not sure what committing Sudoku would look like but I want to see it one day.
The club has spent money, the glazers haven’t spent anything themselves. The state of OT and Carrington is the true measure of their worth, and that in itself should end this debate; they are leaches and have done much more harm than good for United.
They didn't spend anything they just took less.
I don't defend the Glazer but honestly speaking, Ole decided to buy all the shining toys. Maguire, AWB, Bruno, Telles, Sancho, Amad, Pellestri and Varane. 300 million outlay just to fund Ole. If it was a better, we would be top 3 consistently and challenging to top spot. I hope ETH get 300 million, I think he would spend it wisely for fit and function rather than star power.
That wasn’t my point, but nevermind. As long as United improve, we’re all together.
IF things improve.PLEASE Improve!
Exactly.
Yeah, looking back it was obvious excuses to redirect the issues we were having at the time.
Imagine having our current level of spending under someone like Sir Alex? It's what irks me so much, we were so successful in spite of the American leaches but it could have been much, much more.
Have they wasted money in a football sense? Yes. Have they wasted money in a profit maximising sense? No.
They know what they're doing, you only have to look at who makes up the independent directors on the actual board (not the nonsense fake one that SAF's on). Basically a who's who of upper echelon money men and marketers.
They don't and will never give a feck about actual football. We just have to hope that ETH/whoever is in charge throughout their already horrifically long reign can mould a football team despite them. So far, so shit.
ETH is the right step forward, so at least that provides some hope.
They know what they're doing, you only have to look at who makes up the independent directors on the actual board (not the nonsense fake one that SAF's on). Basically a who's who of upper echelon money men and marketers.
They don't and will never give a feck about actual football. We just have to hope that ETH/whoever is in charge throughout their already horrifically long reign can mould a football team despite them. So far, so shit.
ETH is the right step forward, so at least that provides some hope.
One thing you can’t argue with is they have spent money on players. The wrong ones... but they have invested.
They however, haven’t spent a dime of their own money on the club.
They however, haven’t spent a dime of their own money on the club.
Absolutely. Of course. United self-fund. Shame they cannot completely self-fund due to skimming and debt repayments.
Well, that went well.
The money the Glazers siphon out of this club could buy us the best stadium, the best training facilities and the best youth academy in world football. Instead it goes into a billionaire's bank account, and what we are left to spend is largely wasted because of the incompetence of the people the Glazers have hired to run the club.