Being Jewish has feck all to do with it.Young age group 14-18 is just small proportion of OT attendees. Will take a quite before we see drop in numbers.
Even then Glazers can just sell. They're Jewish family, we don't have to teach them how make money
The honest truth is that if fans are organised, there's nothing they can't do.Bloody hell, that’s really quite scary. The idea that fans could hound out Woodward at the very least seems quite fanciful after seeing that. God it’s depressing supporting United at the minute.
Wolves, Villa, Everton, and West Ham all have bigger nets spends over the last 3 windows. Brighton spent 7 million less over that time.
This is getting a bit ridiculous.
Do you agree with the rest of the thread about the Glazers though?Woodward has not received any dividends now in January if he acquired (new) shares after 2 December 2019, which seems to be the case.
The shares themselves probably are some share options that fell out 31 December and took him over the reporting threshold.
The dividend payment to shareholders on January 6 was the last one.
The club/Glazers will not pay dividends to the shareholders anymore (Glazers or others) after that.
The Class A has been trading ex-dividend on NYSE since 29 November 2019, which in part explains the dip in share-price.
So Woodward will definitely not receive any dividends in June. Neither will the Glazers or any other shareholders.
The money will stay in the club from now on.
This is fake news, but why am I not surprised that its been taken as fact in this thread.
https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/Governance Document/1q20-earnings-release.pdf
(page 4 under Dividend)
Woodward has not received any dividends now in January if he acquired (new) shares after 2 December 2019, which seems to be the case.
The shares themselves probably are some share options that fell out 31 December and took him over the reporting threshold.
The dividend payment to shareholders on January 6 was the last one.
The club/Glazers will not pay dividends to the shareholders anymore (Glazers or others) after that.
The Class A has been trading ex-dividend on NYSE since 29 November 2019, which in part explains the dip in share-price.
So Woodward will definitely not receive any dividends in June. Neither will the Glazers or any other shareholders.
The money will stay in the club from now on.
This is fake news, but why am I not surprised that its been taken as fact in this thread.
https://ir.manutd.com/~/media/Files/M/Manutd-IR/Governance Document/1q20-earnings-release.pdf
(page 4 under Dividend)
Pipe it down Trump..Bring on the Saudis. Time to make United great again.
And it shows on the pitch.Wolves, Villa, Everton, and West Ham all have bigger nets spends over the last 3 windows. Brighton spent 7 million less over that time.
This is getting a bit ridiculous.
Without a doubt there will be books written in years to come about the Glazer/Woodward era and how they destroyed the biggest football club in the world.
True but it would seem to me that the match going fans don’t really have the want or the stomach for it, which is a bit of a piss take coming from someone like me who rarely goes to games these days but I honestly think there needs to be very vocal disquiet coming from the terraces, especially during televised games to at the very least grab some headlines.The honest truth is that if fans are organised, there's nothing they can't do.
This is a hyperbolic thread and I usually just comment on here regarding financial matters when there is obvious fake news being spread like in the twitter-post that you posted.Do you agree with the rest of the thread about the Glazers though?
True but it would seem to me that the match going fans don’t really have the want or the stomach for it, which is a bit of a piss take coming from someone like me who rarely goes to games these days but I honestly think there needs to be very vocal disquiet coming from the terraces, especially during televised games to at the very least grab some headlines.
I'm not well versed when it comes to our financials but the reason I shared the chain of tweets was because the source was a chap called Barney who runs a fanzine and is normally well versed on the club.This is a hyperbolic thread and I usually just comment on here regarding financial matters when there is obvious fake news being spread like in the twitter-post that you posted.
I dont care about who the owners of United are as long as they spend enough money to keep United up there money-wise with Real, Barcelona and other top European clubs. The Glazers have been meeting that criteria since Sir Alex left.
My issue with the Glazers-out brigade is that no-one can present a realistic alternative as of today.
There are two realistic options to the Glazers now:
The first is a new LBO, and thus additional debt which would mean less money spent on the team, not more. Probably way less.
The other is the Saudis or the Chinese. Both are definite no-gos for me.
None of these alternatives are better. They are actually way worse.
If anyone can suggest someone that will spend as much money on the team as the Glazers are doing now and not make United a sportswashing tool; fine. If not, better the devil you know for me.
Jumping of a cliff without knowing if someone will catch you is generally not a good idea.
The people who could make a stand for the club don't want to. For me, this is the saddest part of this tragedy.
I never expected some American fraudsters to love MUFC, but I expected our match goers to. Turns out they only want to sing and get drunk.
It will be two simple sentences. Sir Alex Ferguson retired in 2013 and United did what they did without Sir Matt Busby and SAF.
But you are ignoring genuine concerns about the structure of the club and the poor recruitment that has neutralized any investment we have made whilst Woodward appears insulated from any form of accountability despite being the constant factor in this decay. Most people would be generally fine with the Glazer ownership if they provided the needed levels of investment and more importantly brought in the required expertise on the football side to implement a realistic, effective and efficient transfer and squad management policy. Its unacceptable for a club with the biggest wage bill in the league to find itself constantly fighting for top four and failing so their reluctance to put things right makes them a legitimate target for criticism.This is a hyperbolic thread and I usually just comment on here regarding financial matters when there is obvious fake news being spread like in the twitter-post that you posted.
I dont care about who the owners of United are as long as they spend enough money to keep United up there money-wise with Real, Barcelona and other top European clubs. The Glazers have been meeting that criteria since Sir Alex left.
My issue with the Glazers-out brigade is that no-one can present a realistic alternative as of today.
There are two realistic options to the Glazers now:
The first is a new LBO, and thus additional debt which would mean less money spent on the team, not more. Probably way less.
The other is the Saudis or the Chinese. Both are definite no-gos for me.
None of these alternatives are better. They are actually way worse.
If anyone can suggest someone that will spend as much money on the team as the Glazers are doing now and not make United a sportswashing tool; fine. If not, better the devil you know for me.
Jumping of a cliff without knowing if someone will catch you is generally not a good idea.
But to think of the platform Fergie left behind? We were/are a behemoth. It was all set up to carry on winning (not dominating) in a game where money and wage bills usually determine the winners. The place we sat in 2013 was totally different to where we sat when Busby left.
Alas we have crashed and burnt while Liverpool went in the opposite direction. Two very different owners.
I am not ignoring that, I have made multiple posts in threads concerning those subjects. Those are subjects are relevant regardless of who the owners are though. No-one knows what would happen to the structure of the club with new owners either, its another shot in the dark.But you are ignoring genuine concerns about the structure of the club and the poor recruitment that has neutralized any investment we have made whilst Woodward appears insulated from any form of accountability despite being the constant factor in this decay. Most people would be generally fine with the Glazer ownership if they provided the needed levels of investment and more importantly brought in the required expertise on the football side to implement a realistic, effective and efficient transfer and squad management policy. Its unacceptable for a club with the biggest wage bill in the league to find itself constantly fighting for top four and failing so their reluctance to put things right makes them a legitimate target for criticism.
I'd argue that the owners' duty isn't merely to invest but also to have a duty of care wrt how their money is invested and whether we the systems in place to spend the money right. Imo they are doing a good enough job when it comes to overseeing Woodward and how is implementing duties such that the club has descended into his personal fiefdom, as for getting someone better I'd argue that whilst there is no guarantee that the next guy will be better there are ways to predict with reasonable accuracy whether a someone is suitable or not - their past history, their vision as enunciated in the selection process and their qualifications. I'd say Van Der Sar could do better as United CEO than Woodward because he has a fine balance of corporate experience and a history of playing football at the top level for a long time coupled with a steady temperate, he is not overly excitable.I am not ignoring that, I have made multiple posts in threads concerning those subjects. Those are subjects are relevant regardless of who the owners are though. No-one knows what would happen to the structure of the club with new owners either, its another shot in the dark.
The owners main function is to provide enough investment for the club to be successful and financially stable. Thats what I am going to judge them on first and foremost.
I am genuinly concerned that this would be less in both regards with a new LBO.
The structure of the footballing side of the club is down to the CEO: Woodward. To want him out is perfectly fine, but same argument: you dont know if you will get someone better in.
Fergie didn't left a platform, he was the platform which is the issue. We weren't a behemoth, he was a behemoth. As for Liverpool, their owners were piss poor until Klopp arrived.
Yeah I get that. But there's so much more to being a top club these days than getting the right manager. when Fergie left Utd were the biggest and richest club in the world, at the top of the pyramid. Yes stuck in the dark ages but a monster of a club. Any shrewd owners would have made more of the advantage. There were (& are) so many necessary changes needed. Here we are in 2020 still without a DoF just as one example.
Liverpool's owners didnt't have the luxury of starting at the top of the pyramid like the Glazers. They were a shambles under Hicks & Gillette. FSG had to start from scratch and slowly rebuild a club over 10 years or so. Rodgers was an excellent appointment, almost won the league in 2014 playing amazing football and then they got it right again with Klopp, who could see how well run the club was behind the scenes, something he didn't see at Man Utd/Disneyland.
When Klopp goes you can bet they won't be as good but also they won't fall away completely. They certainly won't appoint has-been managers like the Glazers did. The wheels are already in motion in terms of planning a suitable successor. They probably have a shortlist of 2 or 3 with Gerrard in the mix. Then there's player recruitment, we're a million miles worse. We're now mid January in desperate need of players but there's no sign of anyone coming in while Liverpool, sitting clear at the top of the league, Champions of Europe, on the 1st January brought in a exciting young player for the same fee they sold Ryan Kent.
Then there's Old Trafford. FSG have improved Anfield. Glazers have let OT rot.
Bit harsh maybe, turning up to sing and get drunk has been part of British football culture since the year dot, a release for the working class after a long hard working week, ok football culture certainly on the terraces almost as much as on the field, has changed immeasurably but the principles remain the same the fans need something to watch and enjoy but they also need, and in my opinion have the right to voice their displeasure if they’re not enjoying what they see or how they feel the club is being run, after all it’s their hard earned money, I guess it’s up to the individual how they express that displeasure but me personally, I’d be giving the cnuts both barrels.The people who could make a stand for the club don't want to. For me, this is the saddest part of this tragedy.
I never expected some American fraudsters to love MUFC, but I expected our match goers to. Turns out they only want to sing and get drunk.
The other is the Saudis or the Chinese. Both are definite no-gos for me.
That is exactly the kind of attitude that will see us remain shite for decades to come.I agree with your first paragraph, I pretty much say the same thing in the longish post that I made earlier, the small difference being that I don't think that they are destroying the club, it's an overreaction based on years of unparalleled success, it's worth remembering that we won the Europa League in 2017, it's a big trophy in the football world and we are a top 6 team in the PL. It's not good enough because we justifiably have big ambitions but this isn't actually a club in shamble.
And it's a misconception that starting at the top means that you are in an easier position, the sport industry is an extremely competitive environment where success is a matter of detail, high skills level and luck, the teams that are just behind you are also pretty good and it only takes a small deep to be overtaken. Now when you consider that United had by some distance the best manager in the world and arguably the best manager in the history of the game, losing him was always going to be a massive change.
The issue with the Glazers is that they didn't force a structural change when SAF was around, that's their mistake but it's one that I understand because it was a very difficult move to impose to SAF. Now when SAF leaves who is supposed to lead the club from a football standpoint? Unlike what you are suggesting FSG failed until Klopp came, Rodgers wasn't a particular appointment at the exception of one season he maintained them between 6th and 8th, the change came with Klopp who not only was a great head coach but also has/had the humility to say that he wanted and needed help with a DOF because that's the structure he was familiar with and that change officially happened at the end of 2016. And I won't make any prediction on what they will do when Klopp leaves, that's a bit foolish to do so, particularly when far more experienced and successful owners/executives have made terrible appointments.
That is exactly the kind of attitude that will see us remain shite for decades to come.