feck, I wish I hadn’t watched that.
I’m waiting for one of the cnuts on this forum to say how much we’ve spent, how well we’re run and that’s how capitalism works but if there was any moment I found myself in the same room as one of the Glazers/Woodward I’d be giving more than a wet Willy.
It’s interesting how people can interpret the same information differently. Let’s look at some facts:
1. We have consistently spent highly on the transfer market under the Glazers.
2. The Glazers have consistently taken money out of the club.
3. The Glazers have loaded the company with debt.
4. Debt repayments are equal to or lesser than dividend payments would be if there was no debt.
5. Dividend payments or tax burdens on profits could be avoided by investing into the infrastructure of the club (capital expenditure)., as opposed to debt repayment.
6. The club has performed to a higher level commercially since their takeover.
7. All EPL clubs have performed better commercially over the last decade.
8. Commercial growth is lower at Utd, %age wise, than EPL rivals.
9. The club has performed poorly on the field since 2013.
10. The club has hired and fired 4 managers in 8 years with no strategic continuity.
11. Return on investment in player recruitment, sporting or financial, has been consistently poor over the last 8 years.
12. Club following internationally has continued to grow.
13. Club status domestically and internationally, has fallen over the same period.
14. Club infrastructure, particularly match day facilities, are decaying and have fallen behind domestic rivals.
These are the facts. Without any partisan interpretation. If you weigh these up analytically you can reach a very obvious conclusion about the performance and effect of Glazer ownership.
