Monchi - "I cannot believe Manchester United do not have a Sporting Director."

Lentwood said:
I think many of our fans would do well to actually look at some of the numbers. The Glazers have taken a negligible amount in dividends, relative to the money blown on transfers and wages.

This is why many can't understand their reluctance to sell the club. They're billionaires and they've made next to nothing from the club in two decades. The stadium is crumbling, the debt is getting bigger, we're no closer to winning a major trophy and we had to wait until the last minute to loan a midfielder from Fiorentina because we're a hairs width from breaching FFP.

The only way they can make this a worthwhile investment is selling
Click to expand...

They put 0 money in aside from paying
banking fees and own an asset worth nearly 6bn which was worth no where near that 20 years ago. Yet you believe they have made next to nothing?

Wealth of the rich is dictated by the assets they own not what you have in their bank account. They have literally made billions and ownership of the asset unlocks liquidity, they can pull the trigger any time they want in order to realised their cash profit, but do not have to. They then also floated shares on the NYSE which gave them an immediate cash profit from club ownership.

Over that time they put 0 cash into the club, I think anyone would take that scenario.

Now lets move onto “waste” “they have spent billions”. No they have not they have spent 0. All whilst reaping the rewards of access to credit lines that exist off the back of their ownership of a billion pound asset. What is there not to like from a business perspective?

Now lets take a look at the asset (the club) and what actually affects its valuation and thus their access to capital and increased net worth.

Increased revenue is the number 1 driver for clubs valuation. United have a best in class commercial team that is churning out deals which increase / maintain elite revenue on a yearly basis. This is where the Glazers focus their attention.

Sporting success has limited affect on the clubs revenue. The club over the past decade has not won a league title and yet just a few weeks ago announced the biggest shirt sponsorship deal in football and is a top 3 club in terms of revenue generation in world football.

Media and fan engagement (whether good or bad). United have heavily invested in its media and social media activities over the past decade. I wonder why.

“Wasting money on transfers” Big money signings has been a key strategy for Uniteds commercial growth plan over the past decade. The signings were not mainly for sporting success they were key drivers for commercial relationships and also ensuring UCL qualification (another revenue effector)


Why would they not sell now? Well the key metric which effects the clubs revenue is still trending in right direction. Also football is on the verge of its next wave of revenue increase. Social media, online streaming and international club competitions are about to over the next decade massively increase the revenue potential of football clubs. United even without sporting success will likely be worth north of 10bn in that time.

So if you could potentially spend 0 money over the next decade whilst benefiting from access to capital based on owning a 5/6bn pound asset. And over the next decade you could turn that 5/6bn asset into a 10bn+ pound asset why would you sell now?

The reason they may sell are.

1. They do not believe they can get away with spending 0 over the next decade.

2. They would like to liquidate their asset to cash today

3. They have financial issuess elsewhere and credit has become expensive in todays market. Which means they cannot simply access capital at a reasonable rate just because they own a 5/6 bn pound asset
 
Last edited:
Yeah the script for this decade of premier league was written when the premier league decided to approve the leveraged buy out of United by the Glazers and then somehow City tripped from Thaskin Shinawatra to the Emiratis.
 
Tyrion said:
I agree with the first part but the funny thing is they give the team money but let the accountants spend it so its all wasted.
Click to expand...
M Bison said:
we’ve not been starved of money to be fair, it’s been spent badly which is the problem.
Click to expand...

The thing people often miss is that losing football games doesn't really matter in the short term too much as long as people still watch them in sufficient numbers. Yes you need top four every other year but the books balance better that way that by the huge investment City went for (if you include their dodgy stuff.)

So send a bunch of plausible second choice purchases on a pre-season ker-ching tour of Europe and America, and they come back exhausted and badly trained for the start of the season? Dropped points? Who cares? Not the Glazers. The stadium is just as full.

Economists call this inelastic demand. A shite Mars Bar and a tasty one sell in the same amounts at the same price. So it pays to make the cheap one as long as it says Mars on the side.

Of course it pretty soon comes to pass that good prime players with loads of option won't join, so a shitty Mars Bar is all you can make anyway.
 
Cassidy said:
They put 0 money in aside from paying
banking fees and own an asset worth nearly 6bn which was worth no where near that 20 years ago. Yet you believe they have made next to nothing?

Wealth of the rich is dictated by the assets they own not what you have in their bank account. They have literally made billions and ownership of the asset unlocks liquidity, they can pull the trigger any time they want in order to realised their cash profit, but do not have to. They then also floated shares on the NYSE which gave them an immediate cash profit from club ownership.

Over that time they put 0 cash into the club, I think anyone would take that scenario.

Now lets move onto “waste” “they have spent billions”. No they have not they have spent 0. All whilst reaping the rewards of access to credit lines that exist off the back of their ownership of a billion pound asset. What is there not to like from a business perspective?

Now lets take a look at the asset (the club) and what actually affects its valuation and thus their access to capital and increased net worth.

Increased revenue is the number 1 driver for clubs valuation. United have a best in class commercial team that is churning out deals which increase / maintain elite revenue on a yearly basis. This is where the Glazers focus their attention.

Sporting success has limited affect on the clubs revenue. The club over the past decade has not won a league title and yet just a few weeks ago announced the biggest shirt sponsorship deal in football and is a top 3 club in terms of revenue generation in world football.

Media and fan engagement (whether good or bad). United have heavily invested in its media and social media activities over the past decade. I wonder why.

“Wasting money on transfers” Big money signings has been a key strategy for Uniteds commercial growth plan over the past decade. The signings were not mainly for sporting success they were key drivers for commercial relationships and also ensuring UCL qualification (another revenue effector)


Why would they not sell now? Well the key metric which effects the clubs revenue is still trending in right direction. Also football is on the verge of its next wave of revenue increase. Social media, online streaming and international club competitions are about to over the next decade massively increase the revenue potential of football clubs. United even without sporting success will likely be worth north of 10bn in that time.

So if you could potentially spend 0 money over the next decade whilst benefiting from access to capital based on owning a 5/6bn pound asset. And over the next decade you could turn that 5/6bn asset into a 10bn+ pound asset why would you sell now?

The reason they may sell are.

1. They do not believe they can get away with spending 0 over the next decade.

2. They would like to liquidate their asset to cash today

3. They have financial issuess elsewhere and credit has become expensive in todays market. Which means they cannot simply access capital at a reasonable rate just because they own a 5/6 bn pound asset
Click to expand...

You said they have spent money on transfers to appease fans whilst they take dividends. That argument doesn't make any sense because the amount spent on transfers is 10x what they have taken in dividends.

The rest is just repeating what we already know-.

Glazers bought United with a loan and put the debt on the clubs balance sheet - i.e. leveraged buyout

The Glazers have made some money selling small packages of shares.

The value of the club has increased significantly since they bought the club.

Point being, nobody is arguing they made a bad investment. The point was about whether the transfer spending has anything to do with dividends.

Its importantly we get all this stuff correct, by the way, because this is why our fanbase are ridiculed time and time again over the protests/complaints against the Glazer ownership.

Most of our fans are unable to explain what's been bad about Glazer ownership and launch into the same old tired dialogues about spending, backing managers, dividends etc...and none of those arguments stand up to scrutiny and are easy to mock when we sit top of the global net spend tables on transfers
 
Lentwood said:
You said they have spent money on transfers to appease fans whilst they take dividends. That argument doesn't make any sense because the amount spent on transfers is 10x what they have taken in dividends.
Click to expand...

They did not spend 10x of what they took in dividends they spent 0.

The club spent 10x of what they took. There is a limit to the amount of dividends a shareholder can take without demonstrable capital expenditure.

The Glazers made the dividends in cash and the money spent on transfers did not affect them one bit because it was not their money it was simply cap ex
 
Cassidy said:
They did not spend 10x of what they took in dividends they spent 0.

The club spent 10x of what they took. There is a limit to the amount of dividends a shareholder can take without demonstrable capital expenditure.

The Glazers made the dividends in cash and the money spent on transfers did not affect them one bit because it was not their money it was simply cap ex
Click to expand...

Your initial point was "the Glazers have spent the money to pacify the fans whilst they take dividends". That statement still makes no sense. It does not make sense to waste £1BN to 'distract' fans whilst you make something like £100m in dividends over two decades.

Remember, my initial post was about why its baffling they haven't bought in an experienced management team at some point - since this is what the thread is about.

There's no amount of wrangling about who's money it really is or whether it's capex/opex, or how much they can borrow against United as an asset etc...that ever makes wasting that billion pounds a good business decision.
 
glazed said:
The thing people often miss is that losing football games doesn't really matter in the short term too much as long as people still watch them in sufficient numbers. Yes you need top four every other year but the books balance better that way that by the huge investment City went for (if you include their dodgy stuff.)

So send a bunch of plausible second choice purchases on a pre-season ker-ching tour of Europe and America, and they come back exhausted and badly trained for the start of the season? Dropped points? Who cares? Not the Glazers. The stadium is just as full.

Economists call this inelastic demand. A shite Mars Bar and a tasty one sell in the same amounts at the same price. So it pays to make the cheap one as long as it says Mars on the side.

Of course it pretty soon comes to pass that good prime players with loads of option won't join, so a shitty Mars Bar is all you can make anyway.
Click to expand...

Thats a good point and I don't think I'd heard of inelastic demand before. The only thing I'd add is that the Glazers seem to be making a shitty Mars bar while spending more than the good Mars bar would cost. Even for cynical bastards, they're still overpaying. I really think it's incompetence as well as greed. Liverpools owners are greedy too but they're also competent.
 
Tyrion said:
Thats a good point and I don't think I'd heard of inelastic demand before. The only thing I'd add is that the Glazers seem to be making a shitty Mars bar while spending more than the good Mars bar would cost. Even for cynical bastards, they're still overpaying. I really think it's incompetence as well as greed. Liverpools owners are greedy too but they're also competent.
Click to expand...

No Rice would be the good Mars Bar. Mount is the shitty Mars Bar

If the fans made demand elastic by boycotting the games on TV and in the stadium, the Glazers would be finished in a day. We have ourselves to blame for tolerating this. We should have picket lines outside every game urging people not to go in.
 
glazed said:
No Rice would be the good Mars Bar. Mount is the shitty Mars Bar

If the fans made demand elastic by boycotting the games on TV and in the stadium, the Glazers would be finished in a day. We have ourselves to blame for tolerating this. We should have picket lines outside every game urging people not to go in.
Click to expand...

Fair but were paying close to Rice prices.

I agree with that. It's why I defended the fans who stopped that Liverpool game 2 years back. Fans let themselves be mistreated so badly.
 
A serious football club of our stature with an ambition matching our projected self-image would have hired someone in this role in the last few years of Fergie’s reign to help smooth over the inevitable transition and get the best manager and transfer targets in place before the great man retired. Here we are over a decade of failure later and we still haven’t copped on.
 
RedUnited86 said:
Out of curiosity, how much would it actually cost to hire a "best in class" sporting director? Surely in comparison to the cost of a single transfer, it's absolute peanuts and a very good sporting director would pay for themselves many times over.

Everything is so short sighted with this club it's sickening.
Click to expand...
It’s not about remuneration. We do penny pinch some pointless stuffs but our first team expenditures have always been top of the league, or close enough. It’s about the scope of influence/latitude an outsider would have once they’ve taken on the role and it’s blatantly obvious that the institutional malaise of this club is bone deep.
 
2cents said:
A serious football club of our stature with an ambition matching our projected self-image would have hired someone in this role in the last few years of Fergie’s reign to help smooth over the inevitable transition and get the best manager and transfer targets in place before the great man retired. Here we are over a decade of failure later and we still haven’t copped on.
Click to expand...

We are not a football club
 
Tyrion said:
No premier league club is. They're all businesses. Our is just a badly run business.
Click to expand...

Not really, they might be all businesses but still football clubs, we are corporation with totally different priorities, we are Activision Blizzard of football.
 
It amazes me that the club is willing to spend 100's of millions on players and managers over rhe last decade with a clear track record of most of these acquisitions flopping and yet we hesitate to spend the money on getting the very best in class of a sporting director, it makes you wonder if some of the old boys have to much influence within the club that have the old school thought of the "United way" where the manager should still do all the work like fergie did?
 
Red Stone said:
Seems like the entire world is suddenly waking up to the fact that we're terribly run. We've been getting a lot of critical press lately.

I'm not going to lie. I like it.
Click to expand...
Haha I'm in the same boat.
 
Tyrion said:
That's the in some cases (Di Maria) but I don't see why Antony wouldn't have wanted to come and why that meant we had to pay a bigger transfer fee.
Click to expand...

They were desperate and that's what he cost.
 
If the options were Neville or Rio then maybe it’s best Woodward didn’t stain that role. When we do it we do it right.
 
JediSith said:
If the options were Neville or Rio then maybe it’s best Woodward didn’t stain that role. When we do it we do it right.
Click to expand...
Rio was trying to be a pro boxer around the time, which shows how serious Woodward was about it. Get a familiar face to keep the fans happy, and carry on regardless
 
R'hllor said:
Not really, they might be all businesses but still football clubs, we are corporation with totally different priorities, we are Activision Blizzard of football.
Click to expand...

They're all run for profit ultimately apart from City and Newcastle who are basically state run PR companies.
 
Did I read somewhere that sir Alex suggested Brian mcClair for the roll when he retired but Moyes turned it down
 
Lentwood said:
Your initial point was "the Glazers have spent the money to pacify the fans whilst they take dividends". That statement still makes no sense. It does not make sense to waste £1BN to 'distract' fans whilst you make something like £100m in dividends over two decades.

Remember, my initial post was about why its baffling they haven't bought in an experienced management team at some point - since this is what the thread is about.

There's no amount of wrangling about who's money it really is or whether it's capex/opex, or how much they can borrow against United as an asset etc...that ever makes wasting that billion pounds a good business decision.
Click to expand...

I think the point is the Glazers simply don't care about Manchester United as long as the asset value grows, which it has. They get the credit value they need and that's all they care about. As long as the asset value of United doesn't drop they don't get involved with the club. They have left the club in charge of incompetent businessman, with no knowledge of the football industry. They are the ones who have spent the £1 billion plus which has been wasted in the transfer window. Woodward helped Malcolm Glazer with the leverage buyout, in return he was given a well paid job as a director. Arnold was Woodward's best mate at university. So the status quo at director level hasn't changed at all and that's precisely why we are still making the same mistakes with transfers, players salaries and backroom staff. We have the same structure from when Sir Alex left in 2013.

Yes the manager and players should be doing better on the pitch but the structure above has needed to change for years. This is precisely why so many clubs have caught up even though we still have the financial advantage. We desperately need a qualified DOF. The club needs to look at the youth system as a business like Chelsea and City. The biggest issue at the club right now is we spend too much money in the transfer window, don't make enough money selling players and give players too high contracts. This stagnates the squad as we obtain 3/4 players a season and keep so much dross because they don't want to leave. Look how quickly Arsenal and Liverpool changed their squads once Klopp and Arteta came in.

From an operations perspective these mistakes aren't the Glazers fault. However competent owners, who actually wanted footballing success, would sack the directors involved and employ better people. Instead they allowed Woodward to squander millions and then replaced him with his best mate. It would be interesting to know how much influence Sir Alex has at board level as well. His success was built on full control at the club and I wonder if he still believes the manager should have full control of transfers. I expect the Glazers would trust his judgement.
 
https://x.com/fabrizioromano/status/1706041333197001091?s=46&t=5KQRH--dSKLb81GORZAA_Q

This is what happens if you get a director of football to ‘set the vision, hire the manager and target the players’ and he turns out to not be very good at running an entire football club. Job titles matter little.

This is one of those ‘well run clubs’ I hear so much about that everyone wanted us to be like two weeks ago. Getting embarrassed weekly in the fecking Dutch league and signing a load of rubbish at the request of their director of football.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.