Glazers / Woodward out! (One down)

The Glazers are the luckiest (or most astute) investors in the world. Their return on investment way outpaces any comparable option, yet the blame of their under financing of our club is carried by managers, players and the like.

This is just pure mismanagement.
 
dabeast said:
The Glazers are the luckiest (or most astute) investors in the world. Their return on investment way outpaces any comparable option, yet the blame of their under financing of our club is carried by managers, players and the line.
Click to expand...

The late Malcolm Glazer was an astute businessman. The increase in the value of the club is more down to the global increase in football worldwide than their or Woodwards financial decisions.
 
Sky1981 said:
One thing i know. We cant afford to spend above 200m per season

Anything beyond 200 means we're digging through future money.

Probably not 200 exactly but i suspect it's thereabouts
Click to expand...
Sky1981 said:
One thing i know. We cant afford to spend above 200m per season

Anything beyond 200 means we're digging through future money.

Probably not 200 exactly but i suspect it's thereabouts
Click to expand...
Naw, thats way to simplified. You cant just take cash at hand in the last quarterly report and say that its our "transfer budget". Transfers are paid over time in arrears much like salaries if its not some weird Neymar-situation and you have to pay his release clause upfront.. If Sancho, Kane, and one of Koke and Saul suddenly would become available in one window that would be a 400m gross spend and we would jump on it. As long as it would fit our wage bill. Thats not spending, its investment. Those players wont be worth less in two or three years, probably more.
"Transfer budget" is such an overrated concept. Does not exist.
 
Last edited:
Fosu-Mens said:
The late Malcolm Glazer was an astute businessman. The increase in the value of the club is more down to the global increase in football worldwide than their or Woodwards financial decisions.
Click to expand...
So you mean that it was not a financial decision by them buying the club anticipating just this? There was not many other takers of United back in 2003, mind you. I dont really care about the Glazers as long as they keep spending money in the way they have been doing lately. But one thing you cant take from them is that the leveraged takeover back when was an excellent financial decision by them. Even if you find it morally abhorrent or not.
 
Johan07 said:
Naw, thats way to simplified. You cant just take cash at hand in the last quarterly report and say that its our "transfer budget". Transfers are paid over time in arrears much like salaries if its not some weird Neymar-situation and you have to pay his release clause upfront.. If Sancho, Kane, and one of Koke and Saul suddenly would become available in one window that would be a 400m gross spend and we would jump on it. As long as it would fit our wage bill. Thats not spending, its investment. Those players wont be worth less in two or three years, probably more.
"Transfer budget" is such an overrated concept. Does not exist.
Click to expand...

Yes. You can dress it up as 200m this year and installment.

You can pull that off, but not everyyear. Do that 3x in a row and we'll be left with bigger debt than the original glazer debt.

Off course if the right player comes along (say mbappe at 150m) you'd beg steal borrow to get him. But there are always limits on how hard you can pump up those numbers.

I'm not saying a straight 200m and not a penny more kind of budget.
 
Sky1981 said:
Yes. You can dress it up as 200m this year and installment.

You can pull that off, but not everyyear. Do that 3x in a row and we'll be left with bigger debt than the original glazer debt.

Off course if the right player comes along (say mbappe at 150m) you'd beg steal borrow to get him. But there are always limits on how hard you can pump up those numbers.

I'm not saying a straight 200m and not a penny more kind of budget.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree, we are a bit hamstrung by having a lot of instalments left to pay from earlier transfers. Getting rid of Lukaku was one step.
But we are so strong financially that if the right transfers opens up we can easily do what Real did this summer. But sure, its not sustainable over time for every window if you dont sell off as well.
I just dont belive this thing about a "transfer budget". It has never been a problem so far. Compare that to Barcelona who have had to take out expensive short term loans to finance their transfers.
Its all about opportunities and tbf I dont think there were that many last summer except for what we got.
There might be nxt summer and we could splash large. Or it might be the same and we will not and the Caf will go mental.
Clubs need to be willing to sell and players need to want to come.
But there is no way we would not invest in Kane, Mbappe, Sancho and say Saul if they suddenly were available in one window (they wont be) and wanted to come. Problem would be the wage bill, so we would probably need to stay with giving youth a major chance.
Which I guess is OK.
 
Ed keep banging on about our youth team and how much it's been used etc. Is Ed trying to sell a cost effective narrative to the fans?
 
red thru&thru said:
Ed keep banging on about our youth team and how much it's been used etc. Is Ed trying to sell a cost effective narrative to the fans?
Click to expand...
Are you disputing that the club put a lot of money in our youth setup during the last 5 years and that its actually starting to bear fruit? And if not why should not Woodward highlight something that is at the core of the club and we should be proud of? The last crop of youngsters coming through are the most exciting we have had for quite a while. Its not like when LvG had to play CBJ at left back. Things have improved tremendously. How is this something to be negative about?
 
Johan07 said:
Are you disputing that the club put a lot of money in our youth setup during the last 5 years and that its actually starting to bear fruit? And if not why should not Woodward highlight something that is at the core of the club and we should be proud of? The last crop of youngsters coming through are the most exciting we have had for quite a while. Its not like when LvG had to play CBJ at left back. Things have improved tremendously. How is this something to be negative about?
Click to expand...

I was asking the question. And what fruit is it bearing may I ask? So if you are talking in the past 5 years, what fruits are we now seeing that was invested 5 years ago?
 
red thru&thru said:
I was asking the question. And what fruit is it bearing may I ask? So if you are talking in the past 5 years, what fruits are we now seeing that was invested 5 years ago?
Click to expand...
Greenwood, Garner, Williams, Gomes and Chong are probably the best young players that have made the first team squad for a long time. They will not all make it, even if I give the first three a very good chance. And its not about how much money was invested 5 years ago, its about how we have continued to invest money in our academy and youth setup since Sir Alex left and enabled those players to continue their development at the club. I really dont see the point of your original post. Whats bad about this?
 
No surprises here this club is on a sharp decline. It's only a matter of time that our sponsorship deals start drying up, I have already noticed that due to our boring football and lack of success over recent years that there are far less kids in United kits, less of our games being chosen for TV and less discussions about us on the radio. Our latest win for example wasn't covered at all by any podcasts I listen to The Debate, BBC football daily or Sunday Supplement.

All just points to a club going 1 way in my opinion.
 
Johan07 said:
Greenwood, Garner, Williams, Gomes and Chong are probably the best young players that have made the first team squad for a long time. They will not all make it, even if I give the first three a very good chance. And its not about how much money was invested 5 years ago, its about how we have continued to invest money in our academy and youth setup since Sir Alex left and enabled those players to continue their development at the club. I really dont see the point of your original post. Whats bad about this?
Click to expand...

The point about my original post on this is Ed keeps on talking about the youth. How we've played the most youth players than the other clubs. How we have nearly reached 4,000 consecutive games whereby youth member have been involved with the first team. What is the point in mentioning this to bunch of investors? Investors who had one question, how much more activity will we be having on our app?!

Also, you mentioned the investment made in the last 5 years, so I'm assuming you had a point to this? The likes of Greenwood, Williams and Gomes have been here a lot longer than the 5 years you've mentioned. Also, some would say that the use of the youth is out of necessity rather than willingness.
 
red thru&thru said:
Ed keep banging on about our youth team and how much it's been used etc. Is Ed trying to sell a cost effective narrative to the fans?
Click to expand...
Yes he is, and trying to pull the wool over our eyes again. We will sill only spend part of what we get for players going out. If Pogba goes for 150million, we will spend 100 million of this money.
Matic, Fred, Lingard, Rojo, Jones, Smalling, Pereira, Young, Mata, are all deadwood, and will reduce the wage bill if we can get rid. The monies we receive for these should be able to bring in a few top players, IF we spend the lot with what we have in Kitty, in next couple of windows. Adding the academy players to the Squad/Team will be good for future.
 
red thru&thru said:
The point about my original post on this is Ed keeps on talking about the youth. How we've played the most youth players than the other clubs. How we have nearly reached 4,000 consecutive games whereby youth member have been involved with the first team. What is the point in mentioning this to bunch of investors? Investors who had one question, how much more activity will we be having on our app?!

Also, you mentioned the investment made in the last 5 years, so I'm assuming you had a point to this? The likes of Greenwood, Williams and Gomes have been here a lot longer than the 5 years you've mentioned. Also, some would say that the use of the youth is out of necessity rather than willingness.
Click to expand...
Ok, I am going to bow out of this discussion with this:
Do you really think that it matters when a particular talent joined United? The most important years in the development of a young footballer is between 17-20 or so. Before that there is talents, but no guarantees. Not even after 20 there are guarantees. Ravel Morrison anyone?
Dont you think its pretty important that we actually have had and invested in a setup in place to groom those players over the last 3-4 years and that our youth setup has been essential to develop them into what they are today and ready to step into the the first team? The last one or two years before they step up to the first team are the most important. I dont get why you cant stomach to give the clubs team some credit. Because they are worth it.
Or are you just so blinded by your hate for Woodward that you cant see sense and accept that our youth setup today is on another level to what it was when Sir Alex left when we were miles behind clubs like Chelsea and even Southampton and Everton. Not to mention Barca and their La Masia. Now they want to sign Gomes if you should believe some sources.
And it has not come for free, far from it. It has taken a lot of money to catch up in this regard.
And I think most investors will see that for what it is, a very relevant and long-term investment in the very structure of the club. So it will be very relevant for them, even if it does not seem to be for you. For some weird reason.
Im out of this.
 
Johan07 said:
Ok, I am going to bow out of this discussion with this:
Do you really think that it matters when a particular talent joined United? The most important years in the development of a young footballer is between 17-20 or so. Before that there is talents, but no guarantees. Not even after 20 there are guarantees. Ravel Morrison anyone?
Dont you think its pretty important that we actually have had and invested in a setup in place to groom those players over the last 3-4 years and that our youth setup has been essential to develop them into what they are today and ready to step into the the first team? The last one or two years before they step up to the first team are the most important. I dont get why you cant stomach to give the clubs team some credit. Because they are worth it.
Or are you just so blinded by your hate for Woodward that you cant see sense and accept that our youth setup today is on another level to what it was when Sir Alex left when we were miles behind clubs like Chelsea and even Southampton and Everton. Not to mention Barca and their La Masia. Now they want to sign Gomes if you should believe some sources.
And it has not come for free, far from it. It has taken a lot of money to catch up in this regard.
And I think most investors will see that for what it is, a very relevant and long-term investment in the very structure of the club. So it will be very relevant for them, even if it does not seem to be for you. For some weird reason.
Im out of this.
Click to expand...

You brought into the conversation about the last 5 years of investment of youth. You clearly said it for a reason. Which you still haven't been clear on? What was it in the last 5 years that happened that Ed can be so proud of?

I love having youth players in the team. It's a symbol of our club. It is the back bone of our success over the Busby and Fergie years. And you say catch up? How have we caught up?
 
Johan07 said:
We dont have a transfer budget. We have a wage budget.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And a huge one at that.

It has been huge for a long time too. But the people who insist that the owners are doing whatever they can to save a penny every chance they get simply won't acknowledge this. It's some form of cognitive dissonance: we've paid out more in wages than any other club in the world consistently for many years now (in individual seasons we have been top of the list, or second, or perhaps third - in the world, that is), this is a matter of fact - of public record, you might say. But it's completely ignored by a certain set of fans.

Our wages do not in any shape or form jibe with the idea that the owners have zero ambition beyond "doing an Arsenal". The Sanchez deal is only the most grotesque example of this - the overall picture is that United have maintained an outlay on wages which is 100% in line with what you'd associate with a consistent title challenger (and not in line with "doing an Arsenal" at all).

Incompetence, not failure from trying to save penny (or a buck, more appropriately).

ETA Might also add - yet again - that the golden rule of football is that the teams that spend the most on wages (not transfers - though we've spent plenty there too compared to most clubs) find themselves highest in the table at season's end. United have been the terribly glaring exception to that rule ever since Fergie retired.
 
Last edited:
I always find it funny how there are still some united fans who defend Woodward and Glazers. They have absolutely destroyed this club. Woodward is just saving his face and acting all nicey nicey now after the bs he used to say 2 or 3 years ago.
 
I would rather be relegated to the championship than have dirty oil money replacing dirty American money.
 
To put the forecast of £560-580m in some kind of context, Barcelona are forecasting turnover of €1.047bn, but that figure includes a forecast €124m in player sales. Excluding player sales, the turnover is €923m, or £788m at current exchange rates - over £200m higher than United.

Certainly, United cannot claim to be the biggest club in the world financially, and that is in Woodward and the Glazers.
 
devlinadl said:
To put the forecast of £560-580m in some kind of context, Barcelona are forecasting turnover of €1.047bn, but that figure includes a forecast €124m in player sales. Excluding player sales, the turnover is €923m, or £788m at current exchange rates - over £200m higher than United.

Certainly, United cannot claim to be the biggest club in the world financially, and that is in Woodward and the Glazers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. So what is it claimed United are the highest?
 
Crashoutcassius said:
Just so everyone is clear - do we understand that increase in net debt is not the same as increase in debt ?
Click to expand...

i don’t and I came in here hoping somebody had summarised the difference in a couple of sentences. If you would be so kind...? :)
 
Johan07 said:
So you mean that it was not a financial decision by them buying the club anticipating just this? There was not many other takers of United back in 2003, mind you. I dont really care about the Glazers as long as they keep spending money in the way they have been doing lately. But one thing you cant take from them is that the leveraged takeover back when was an excellent financial decision by them. Even if you find it morally abhorrent or not.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about post-takeover... Malcolm Glazer did some shrewd business with the takeover over us and Tampa Bay. The increase in the value of our club since the takeover is not down to some ingenious financial medling by the Glazers or Woodward.

Since the refinancing of the loans in 2010, we have spent enough £££ to be in a better position than we currently are. The reasons for us being in our current state are many.

Only reason I can see for not wanting new owners is that the likely new owner will be the House of Saud or someone similar. I can accept owners that own the club for personal financial gains, ideally with the view that financial and sporting performance are not mutually exclusive. Would be difficult (impossible) for me to accept Saudi ownership as this would make our club a tool for improving the view of one of the 3-5 worst regimes in the world. I assume you share the same view.
 
devlinadl said:
To put the forecast of £560-580m in some kind of context, Barcelona are forecasting turnover of €1.047bn, but that figure includes a forecast €124m in player sales. Excluding player sales, the turnover is €923m, or £788m at current exchange rates - over £200m higher than United.

Certainly, United cannot claim to be the biggest club in the world financially, and that is in Woodward and the Glazers.
Click to expand...

Barca’s budgeted revenue this season is €875m, and that includes like €20-25m in revenue from their other sports clubs. If we qualified for the CL we’d probably make about £640m (€750m).
 
Anyway you look at it, the club is in a joke state at the moment. No CL this season. We won't be in it via the league next season. Not competing for the title. All we have to talk about is the business side of the club. Quite a joke.
 
devlinadl said:
To put the forecast of £560-580m in some kind of context, Barcelona are forecasting turnover of €1.047bn, but that figure includes a forecast €124m in player sales. Excluding player sales, the turnover is €923m, or £788m at current exchange rates - over £200m higher than United.

Certainly, United cannot claim to be the biggest club in the world financially, and that is in Woodward and the Glazers.
Click to expand...

"Where Barcelona is largely different, however, is that Barcelona includes the profit from the sale of players as part of its revenue number. Other teams do not regard such income as operating income but a number accounted for as a "special" item and added after operating expenses have been subtracted from operating revenues to then give the overall operating profit.

What this means is that Barcelona's revenue number of €914m ($1.06b) for 2017-18 will be closer to €700m ($812m) when being compared with revenue numbers for other teams. "

Barcelona report their income differently than we do.
 
Nanook said:
Barca’s budgeted revenue this season is €875m, and that includes like €20-25m in revenue from their other sports clubs. If we qualified for the CL we’d probably make about £640m (€750m).
Click to expand...

Not sure where that figure is coming from. For the most recent season, to quote Barcelona itself:

"Regarding the end of the year corresponding to the 2018/19 season, the club achieved the highest revenue numbers in its history : €990 million ($1.089 billion) with an increase of €76 million ($83.6 million), an increase of 8% compared to the end of the previous season. Expenditure closed at €973 million ($1.070 billion) and profit after tax at €5 million ($5.5 million), with an EBITDA of €179 million ($196.9 million)."

That figure of €990m includes player sales of €97m, so the equivalent to United's turnover would be €893m.
 
devlinadl said:
Not sure where that figure is coming from. For the most recent season, to quote Barcelona itself:

"Regarding the end of the year corresponding to the 2018/19 season, the club achieved the highest revenue numbers in its history : €990 million ($1.089 billion) with an increase of €76 million ($83.6 million), an increase of 8% compared to the end of the previous season. Expenditure closed at €973 million ($1.070 billion) and profit after tax at €5 million ($5.5 million), with an EBITDA of €179 million ($196.9 million)."

That figure of €990m includes player sales of €97m, so the equivalent to United's turnover would be €893m.
Click to expand...

https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/club...ic-plan/commissions-and-bodies/annual-reports

2018/19 Barca’s revenue was €852M (page 233). Budget for 19/20 is €890M (page 223) and that includes about €12m generated by basketball, handball etc.

Even if we qualified for the CL Barca would still be about €100m ahead of us.
 
When are we going to be bought by the Saudi Rulers, how I long for the day!! We are slowly sliding into mediocrity on the world stage
Bite much??
 
sewey89 said:
i don’t and I came in here hoping somebody had summarised the difference in a couple of sentences. If you would be so kind...? :)
Click to expand...

Net debt is debt minus the cash held on the balance sheet. So if you spend that cash, on something like transfers your net debt will increase without your actual debt increasing which is what happened here.

Basically we spent some of our cash on players.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.