Glazers / Woodward out! (One down)

Fosu-Mens said:
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.
Click to expand...
I do. Its a bit scary to see more and more people coming around to it though.
When it comes to the development of United financially, I agree that a lot of it comes from the development of the PL, CL, TV-rights etc. But quite a bit comes from the Glazers monetising Uniteds brand earlier than any other PL-club did.
That was not really my point though, I was talking about the Glazers buying United for a gigantic sum back in 2003/2004 when Leeds just had gone pretty much bankrupt one season after being in the CL-semifinal.
Its revisionist history to claim that everyone saw this coming back then. The Glazers took a gigantic punt on United and they turned out to be right. You have to give that to them. Which was my point. It was an excellent decision executed at the exact right moment in time.
And it was a punt, because even if people love to push the narrative that the Glazers used the clubs own money to buy it, its far from the whole truth. The Glazers took a big personal risk with the PIKs as well.
 
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...
lets say the club has debt of 300m and cash of 250m... net debt 50m.

club spends 150m cash... net debt now 200m, +300%, but no change in 'gross debt'
 
It's kind of funny the unwarranted credit the Glazers get for being savvy businessmen just by being referred to as "The Glazers." The Glazers did this, the Glazers did that. In reality I think it's more accurate to give the credit to Malcolm. He was the Don. Prick.

In the same token, Fergies kids, Darren and dodgy agent, aren't "The Fergusons."

Bunch of chumps profiting off the success of another.
 
Valar Morghulis said:
It's kind of funny the unwarranted credit the Glazers get for being savvy businessmen just by being referred to as "The Glazers." The Glazers did this, the Glazers did that. In reality I think it's more accurate to give the credit to Malcolm. He was the Don. Prick.

In the same token, Fergies kids, Darren and dodgy agent, aren't "The Fergusons."

Bunch of chumps profiting off the success of another.
Click to expand...
completely. Daddy handed them a golden ticket where they can fail over and over and still get paid
 
EJr7b6IW4AAtuYO


the net debt has increased by 55%.
 
Johan07 said:
I do. Its a bit scary to see more and more people coming around to it though.
When it comes to the development of United financially, I agree that a lot of it comes from the development of the PL, CL, TV-rights etc. But quite a bit comes from the Glazers monetising Uniteds brand earlier than any other PL-club did.
That was not really my point though, I was talking about the Glazers buying United for a gigantic sum back in 2003/2004 when Leeds just had gone pretty much bankrupt one season after being in the CL-semifinal.
Its revisionist history to claim that everyone saw this coming back then. The Glazers took a gigantic punt on United and they turned out to be right. You have to give that to them. Which was my point. It was an excellent decision executed at the exact right moment in time.
And it was a punt, because even if people love to push the narrative that the Glazers used the clubs own money to buy it, its far from the whole truth. The Glazers took a big personal risk with the PIKs as well.
Click to expand...


1) In 1997/1998 Richest Club in the world. 1. Man Utd revenue £87.9m 2. Real Madrid revenue £72.2m.
In 2003 richest club in the world 1. Man Utd revenue £229.5 2. Juventus £177.9.
In 2006 Real Madrid overtake us as number 1. In 2007 we drop to 4th. And we don’t reclaim top spot until 2017!

How have the Glazers helped us? When the Glazers taking over saw us lose our spot as “highest earning club” within 2 years? They came, got lazy, other clubs overtook us financially even while we were successful on the pitch then since 2013 they realised they had to step up the business to continue milking us.


2) The Glazers put the dept on the club. If it went tits up it would have been the club that went bankrupt not the Glazers.
 
Last edited:
The squad is shit and there was an increase of 140m in debt. Yet...... Woody and co were speaking about instagram subscriptions on the female Man United team and app adverts. I wonder if some sellout still think that they are no better alternatives to this lot.
 
tenpoless said:
Ruling out ethnic groups I see :lol:

Just feck off Gary. If any other pundit came up with "Asians family isn't fit to own my football club" They would be accused of being racist. Maybe He doesn't even understand what Asian means? He mentioned Chinese then Asian. Gary gobshite.

"Any other people AREN'T COMPETENT BUT ME!"
Click to expand...

Imagine if it turns out that Gary Neville owns a club alongside an Asian investor like lets say....Peter Lim. Wouldn't that be hypocritical? Also they do sack managers there as well.
 
momo83 said:
1) In 1997/1998 Richest Club in the world. 1. Man Utd revenue £87.9m 2. Real Madrid revenue £72.2m.
In 2003 richest club in the world 1. Man Utd revenue £229.5 2. Juventus £177.9.
In 2006 Real Madrid overtake us as number 1. In 2007 we drop to 4th. And we don’t reclaim top spot until 2017!

How have the Glazers helped us? When the Glazers taking over saw us lose our spot as “highest earning club” within 2 years? They came, got lazy, other clubs overtook us financially even while we were successful on the pitch then since 2013 they realised they had to step up the business to continue milking us.


2) The Glazers put the dept on the club. If it went tits up it would have been the club that went bankrupt not the Glazers.
Click to expand...
Those figures are damning. We were already so far ahead, now we are behind which tells us all we need to know.

It’s funny how their marketing strategy perceived as strong is actually failing as fans have been in open revolt and communication is non-existent with the club. Our club is an echo chamber.

Good marketing is to listen to your valued customers which is something up until recently our owners haven’t done. Essentially distrust over time affects profits as does treating a club like a personal ATM machine.

We didn’t used to have these problems and we could have spent more to accumulate after 99’ but we didn’t. Madrids Galaticos era was probably the best marketing in football ever despite them winning overall not much. They gambled and won - it made them the most marketable club outright.
 
The club is still healthy but years of underperformance is starting to bite.
Revenue growth has stalled, costs haven't and rivals catching up. Apart from the drop in commercial revenue due to clauses, we can't even rely on a decent stream of European prize money, which is considerable (£70m thereabouts).
When you look at it objectively, I don't understand how the Glazers aren't asking Ed Woodward questions. The idea Ed is making us money is rubbish. He's costing us.
 
Adisa said:
The club is still healthy but years of underperformance is starting to bite.
Revenue growth has stalled, costs haven't and rivals catching up. Apart from the drop in commercial revenue due to clauses, we can't even rely on a decent stream of European prize money, which is considerable (£70m thereabouts).
When you look at it objectively, I don't understand how the Glazers aren't asking Ed Woodward questions. The idea Ed is making us money is rubbish. He's costing us.
Click to expand...


Because he is their puppet. He helped them buy the club in the first place. When SAF & Gill retired, Woodward was given a promotion even though he had no previous experience in that role.

Sad but the true fact is that Woodward will not be going anywhere whilst the Glazers are in charge. He’s pretty much got the most safest job in world football.
 
Adisa said:
The club is still healthy but years of underperformance is starting to bite.
Revenue growth has stalled, costs haven't and rivals catching up. Apart from the drop in commercial revenue due to clauses, we can't even rely on a decent stream of European prize money, which is considerable (£70m thereabouts).
When you look at it objectively, I don't understand how the Glazers aren't asking Ed Woodward questions. The idea Ed is making us money is rubbish. He's costing us.
Click to expand...
Its crazy, ain't it. The major structural changes that the fans are clamouring for will primarily benefit the Glazers, the United issue is so easy to address but because they indulge Woodward they keep on missing the bus. Just four years ago Liverpool were a laughing stock but just a few good decisions later they have completely turned around the ship and look certain to win a few more PL and CL tittles which will set them up well for future growth whilst we are now the club living on its history. I think,right now, we are fast approaching our last chance salon before we become a confirmed midtable-has-been.

Next summer we are likely going to lose Pogba and if we do so, without CL football to offer, replacing him will be difficult so we need our recruitment team to be on top of its game and get that signing or couple of signings absolutely right.
 
RedDevilRoshi said:
Because he is their puppet. He helped them buy the club in the first place. When SAF & Gill retired, Woodward was given a promotion even though he had no previous experience in that role.

Sad but the true fact is that Woodward will not be going anywhere whilst the Glazers are in charge. He’s pretty much got the most safest job in world football.
Click to expand...
We don't necessarily need to sack him, not just yet anyway. Just bring in a top DOF to oversee the football side and have him concentrate more on the business side.
 
Bestietom said:
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.
Click to expand...

Given that you have sold three of our centre halves, we will need to add another one (even with Tuanzebe). That might cost £50m. I would like any spare budget to be spent on midfielders first, then look at the defence again. I would be happy with Jones and Smalling leaving but would keep Rojo who could be a decent squad player for us in the short term.
 
momo83 said:
1) In 1997/1998 Richest Club in the world. 1. Man Utd revenue £87.9m 2. Real Madrid revenue £72.2m.
In 2003 richest club in the world 1. Man Utd revenue £229.5 2. Juventus £177.9.
In 2006 Real Madrid overtake us as number 1. In 2007 we drop to 4th. And we don’t reclaim top spot until 2017!

How have the Glazers helped us? When the Glazers taking over saw us lose our spot as “highest earning club” within 2 years? They came, got lazy, other clubs overtook us financially even while we were successful on the pitch then since 2013 they realised they had to step up the business to continue milking us.


2) The Glazers put the dept on the club. If it went tits up it would have been the club that went bankrupt not the Glazers.
Click to expand...

Thats not true. 275m of the debt was initially secured against the clubs assets. The rest was PIKs which the Glazers were responsible for through Red Football. United has never even close to anything like bankruptcy; as for example Liverpool under Gillett and Hicks, Leeds, Portsmouth, Man City under Shinawatra or any of the other terrible takeovers that happened in the PL during that era. People act like United was some kind of a goldmine just there waiting for the taking, when fact is that the Board could not get a better offer than the Glazers.
 
Johan07 said:
Thats not true. 275m of the debt was initially secured against the clubs assets. The rest was PIKs which the Glazers were responsible for through Red Football. United has never even close to anything like bankruptcy; as for example Liverpool under Gillett and Hicks, Leeds, Portsmouth, Man City under Shinawatra or any of the other terrible takeovers that happened in the PL during that era. People act like United was some kind of a goldmine just there waiting for the taking, when fact is that the Board could not get a better offer than the Glazers.
Click to expand...

You make is sound like the club was saved, it was a shocking takeover from a fans point of view.
 
DanClancy said:
You make is sound like the club was saved, it was a shocking takeover from a fans point of view.
Click to expand...
I did not agree with it back then either. But in retrospect the Glazers takeover of United and Abramovich´s of Chelsea constitute the two successful takeovers of a PL-club during that era which except those two are completely filled with absolute disasters and clubs being destroyed financially, going bankrupt, relegated, etc.
I did not say anything about the Glazers being "saviours", but it can be quite good to take a pause sometimes and gauge what actually became the result of the takeover compared to other clubs. If the Glazers had not bought us, then Gillett/Hicks might have. Or Shinawatra. The results of takeovers of PL-clubs in the first decennnium of the new millenium is absolutely abhorrent. So saved, naw. Escaped some pretty bad alternative scenarios: yeah, most definitely.
EDIT
You could also play with the alternative scenario that CUBIC had rejected the Glazers proposal. Then Sir Alex would have been gone, he was not going to stay on with those guys still owning a big part of the club. We would basically then had been Arsenal 10 years early with a hung ownership and no executive power.
Would have been disastrous for the club had that happened. I prefer the Glazers takeover to that, at least it made sure that Sir Alex stayed and made sure that the club actually could be run, debt or not.
 
Last edited:
Johan07 said:
I do. Its a bit scary to see more and more people coming around to it though.
When it comes to the development of United financially, I agree that a lot of it comes from the development of the PL, CL, TV-rights etc. But quite a bit comes from the Glazers monetising Uniteds brand earlier than any other PL-club did.
That was not really my point though, I was talking about the Glazers buying United for a gigantic sum back in 2003/2004 when Leeds just had gone pretty much bankrupt one season after being in the CL-semifinal.
Its revisionist history to claim that everyone saw this coming back then. The Glazers took a gigantic punt on United and they turned out to be right. You have to give that to them. Which was my point. It was an excellent decision executed at the exact right moment in time.
And it was a punt, because even if people love to push the narrative that the Glazers used the clubs own money to buy it, its far from the whole truth. The Glazers took a big personal risk with the PIKs as well.
Click to expand...
We were the biggest club and at that time the most successful club in england. We also were a big player on the european stage and had worldwide appeal. It really wasnt that much of a punt.
 
Johan07 said:
Thats not true. 275m of the debt was initially secured against the clubs assets. The rest was PIKs which the Glazers were responsible for through Red Football. United has never even close to anything like bankruptcy; as for example Liverpool under Gillett and Hicks, Leeds, Portsmouth, Man City under Shinawatra or any of the other terrible takeovers that happened in the PL during that era. People act like United was some kind of a goldmine just there waiting for the taking, when fact is that the Board could not get a better offer than the Glazers.
Click to expand...
Red Football is a company... It’s only purpose is to deal with Man Utd. If Man Utd went bust the Glazers simply declare Red Football bankrupt. Their personal wealth and business wealth are separate. This is the main reason why people set up businesses.. to protect themselves if things go wrong. So as you see the Glazers had invested very little of their own wealth into buying United so would havre lost very little compared to the club and lenders.
 
Son said:
Those figures are damning. We were already so far ahead, now we are behind which tells us all we need to know.

It’s funny how their marketing strategy perceived as strong is actually failing as fans have been in open revolt and communication is non-existent with the club. Our club is an echo chamber.

Good marketing is to listen to your valued customers which is something up until recently our owners haven’t done. Essentially distrust over time affects profits as does treating a club like a personal ATM machine.

We didn’t used to have these problems and we could have spent more to accumulate after 99’ but we didn’t. Madrids Galaticos era was probably the best marketing in football ever despite them winning overall not much. They gambled and won - it made them the most marketable club outright.
Click to expand...

Yeah hopefully those figures end the recent revisionist comments that the Glazers turned us into some kind of financial superpower. Simple fact we were there biggest, richest and most marketable club every year before they arrived and 3 years after they took over we dropped to 4th.

Yeah. Madrid Galaticos did them wonders both financially and it’s what gave the myth of “no player says no to Real”. They won 3 CL in 6 years. I think 97, 00, 03 after 30 years being pretty much dormant in Europe.
 
It has to change, you can’t take a powerhouse brand like United who were so far ahead financially and leave us where we are now.

Without Fergie these lot would have been run out of Manchester by now, they have ridden his genius for every feckin penny they can. Feckin’ leaches.

They have done nothing for this club, all they have done is line their pockets, the United brand was always going to be able to attract top sponsors and Ed has milked that side of it dry. But anybody with a brain in that line of work could have done the same with United.

We are an altogether worse off club than we were prior to their arrival, regardless of any bollox in between then and now, when you look at their tenure they have taken us backwards, without SAF being here for much of their ownership feck knows where we would be now.
 
Declining revenues and emphasis on youth. Anyone expecting a £200m+ summer spend without selling Pogba will be disappointed. Years of bad decisions have caught up with us.
 
wolvored said:
We were the biggest club and at that time the most successful club in england. We also were a big player on the european stage and had worldwide appeal. It really wasnt that much of a punt.
Click to expand...
Oh, so why where no one else in for us back then? Same reason no one is going to pay up 6bn in cash for United today. Its not a very secure investment. And the dividend yield is terrible. Contrary to public belief United is not a cash cow, far from it. Dividends of 20m a year for a company valued at 4bn is fecking terrible.
If what you are saying was true then there would have been plenty of un-leveraged bids in for United then. There was not. Because it was a punt. A really big one.
 
The Glazers but mainly Ed are not performing as us fans want them to. We are not competing for the highest honours. They have had PLENTY of time to sort it out and haven't. As a bare minimum Ed needs go.
 
AneRu said:
We don't necessarily need to sack him, not just yet anyway. Just bring in a top DOF to oversee the football side and have him concentrate more on the business side.
Click to expand...

I agree but I don’t think he wants to give up his power that was given to him by the Glazers when SAF & Gill retired. As I said earlier, the Glazers will not get rid of him or even demote him, not a chance!

Remember when we sacked Jose, he briefed the media stating that we were going to be hiring a DOF before a manager. Here we are almost 12 months later and no sign or even a small possibility that we will hire one. In fact under the Glazers/Woodward stewardship, I have accepted a long time ago that I can’t see us hiring one. Hence why I don’t rant about it as much as I used to do. It’s just unfortunately not going to happen and that’s the sad truth.
 
momo83 said:
1) In 1997/1998 Richest Club in the world. 1. Man Utd revenue £87.9m 2. Real Madrid revenue £72.2m.
In 2003 richest club in the world 1. Man Utd revenue £229.5 2. Juventus £177.9.
In 2006 Real Madrid overtake us as number 1. In 2007 we drop to 4th. And we don’t reclaim top spot until 2017!

How have the Glazers helped us? When the Glazers taking over saw us lose our spot as “highest earning club” within 2 years? They came, got lazy, other clubs overtook us financially even while we were successful on the pitch then since 2013 they realised they had to step up the business to continue milking us.


2) The Glazers put the dept on the club. If it went tits up it would have been the club that went bankrupt not the Glazers.
Click to expand...

Leftback99 said:
Declining revenues and emphasis on youth. Anyone expecting a £200m+ summer spend without selling Pogba will be disappointed. Years of bad decisions have caught up with us.
Click to expand...


How about this? Anyone who doesn't want the Glazers out isn't truly a United fan.

If a club is flying as high as United was when they took over, it'll take a while for things to go to crap. Ferguson achieved despite them in those last years, but I think we might have had a 4th European Cup without them.
 
Johan07 said:
Oh, so why where no one else in for us back then? Same reason no one is going to pay up 6bn in cash for United today. Its not a very secure investment. And the dividend yield is terrible. Contrary to public belief United is not a cash cow, far from it. Dividends of 20m a year for a company valued at 4bn is fecking terrible.
If what you are saying was true then there would have been plenty of un-leveraged bids in for United then. There was not. Because it was a punt. A really big one.
Click to expand...
I think that the coolmore mafia were interested but the shares were split between 2 or 3 big hitters. Glazer bought 29% I think it was and the other one was magner. The fact Fergie got greedy and fell out with them over stud fees led to their disinterest and sale. Glazer snapped them up and then had to bid for the lot. Without the fallout things might have been very different.
 
Within 2 years its predicted City will have overtaken us growth wise. Without any debt the profits made will result in them being able to buy anyone without ffp getting involved. Meanwhile we will be languishing as an also ran on the world stage.
 
wolvored said:
Within 2 years its predicted City will have overtaken us growth wise. Without any debt the profits made will result in them being able to buy anyone without ffp getting involved. Meanwhile we will be languishing as an also ran on the world stage.
Click to expand...

Yea but it's fine, the better devil you know. Glazers are good. They throw lots of money at transfers. Ed is a good guy. He's just been really unlucky with the managers. The managers at fault. Oh and so is Jesse Lingard. He's the main culprit.
 
RedDevilRoshi said:
I agree but I don’t think he wants to give up his power that was given to him by the Glazers when SAF & Gill retired. As I said earlier, the Glazers will not get rid of him or even demote him, not a chance!

Remember when we sacked Jose, he briefed the media stating that we were going to be hiring a DOF before a manager. Here we are almost 12 months later and no sign or even a small possibility that we will hire one. In fact under the Glazers/Woodward stewardship, I have accepted a long time ago that I can’t see us hiring one. Hence why I don’t rant about it as much as I used to do. It’s just unfortunately not going to happen and that’s the sad truth.
Click to expand...


100% of what comes out of his mouth is spin. No more, no less. He needed to convince the fans, the media and the shareholders that the men in charge were not just making this up as they go along.

He's still doing this, and guess what? He's still succeeding.

"The Future." "The United Way".

Spin and buzzwords to deflect attention from the dogshit we are witnessing on the field 4/5 games. To deflect attention from the fact that our manager appears to be floundering a bit and out of his depth tactically in most games.

To deflect attention that, by blindly hoping that he's soon "going to get it right", the men in charge are again making it up as they go along.

The beauty of this is that all they need to do is mildly convince fans that things are going to change for the better and the season tickets get renewed. Then it's job done for the rest of the 2019/20 season - kick back, take the bonuses, relax, go on a summer-long holiday, brief the papers about a warchest etc.

Repeat the process from August 2020 - January 2021.
 
Johan07 said:
I do. Its a bit scary to see more and more people coming around to it though.
When it comes to the development of United financially, I agree that a lot of it comes from the development of the PL, CL, TV-rights etc. But quite a bit comes from the Glazers monetising Uniteds brand earlier than any other PL-club did.
That was not really my point though, I was talking about the Glazers buying United for a gigantic sum back in 2003/2004 when Leeds just had gone pretty much bankrupt one season after being in the CL-semifinal.
Its revisionist history to claim that everyone saw this coming back then. The Glazers took a gigantic punt on United and they turned out to be right. You have to give that to them. Which was my point. It was an excellent decision executed at the exact right moment in time.
And it was a punt, because even if people love to push the narrative that the Glazers used the clubs own money to buy it, its far from the whole truth. The Glazers took a big personal risk with the PIKs as well.
Click to expand...

I would prefer if you could distinguish between Malcolm Glazer and his kids. I have not seen any decision made from his kids that I would relate to being smart, Malcolm, on the other hand, should get credit for making a good deal.

United was already heads and above the rest of the football clubs in the world when it came to monetizing the brand at the date of the takeover. Don't see any point in giving them credit for continuing on this.

Malcolm Glazer took a risk, but it paid of for THEM, not the club.
 
Sir alex and co. took the club's success for granted. We should have been the dominant forces in european football but we let nobodies like City grow and become a powerhouse.
 
AshRK said:
Sir alex and co. took the club's success for granted. We should have been the dominant forces in european football but we let nobodies like City grow and become a powerhouse.
Click to expand...

Difficult to see what we could have done to curb City's growth - they are afterall one of only two clubs in the world that are financially backed by a sovereign state.

On the other hand, allowing Liverpool to supersede us from our relative positions in 2013 (they finished 7th that year), is unforgivable.
 
Infra-red said:
Difficult to see what we could have done to curb City's growth - they are after all one of only two clubs in the world that are financially backed by a sovereign state.

On the other hand, allowing Liverpool to supersede us from our relative positions in 2013 (they finished 7th that year), is unforgivable.
Click to expand...

I felt we should have been more ruthless in the transfer market. How did we let players like Silva, Aguero, Yaya join them without even trying to buy them. The rot was already starting to begin from the day we chose not to replace Ronaldo and Tevez. The only reason we were doing well was Sir alex. We were slowly but surely regressing and then the great one left and it all went down.
 
Infra-red said:
Difficult to see what we could have done to curb City's growth - they are afterall one of only two clubs in the world that are financially backed by a sovereign state.

On the other hand, allowing Liverpool to supersede us from our relative positions in 2013 (they finished 7th that year), is unforgivable.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. Whatever other teams have done, kudos to them. But how we have slipped is beyond negligence. Crazy how fans will make excuses for these guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.