The answer to that is very simple. Brand names takes time to build but once its built they become a gold mine in terms of attracting sponsorships and plastic fans. Real Madrid were able to pay Beckham's and Ronaldo's entire fee in few months because their brand name was so huge that they could make a profit out of them in record time. The likes of Pogba, Mother Theresa and Beans generate a lot of revenue for Manchester United. They certainly generate more then the typical excellent but bland players such as Carrick, Van De Beek or Scholes.
Rewarding mediocrity - Why do the Glazers do it?
- Thread starter Raees
- Start date
It's not though. We are talking about poor performers, selling them early and replacing them adequately can lead to one or both outcomes, you either get a cheaper player or you get a better performing player. The first option is literally cheaper while the second option is meant to elevate your level and allow you to bring more money, typically with higher prize money.
Extending underperformers or even sticking with them too long is the most expensive option and it's also the option that is guaranteed to cost you more than it should.
Last edited:
I don’t buy this and not sure why so many United fans have brought into this way of thinking.
Clubs like Red Bull have sold and brought players like mad as have likes of Dortmund and the clubs have become more profitable. As long as your buying well and selling at the right time and results on pitch pick up - you’re going to make way more money and return on your investment than spending enormous amounts on non performing assets.
Malcolm Glazer was a brilliant businessman. A self made man.
His children aren't.
His children aren't.
Because they're not smart enough to look at how it will affect the bottom line in regards to football. If they were true football men they'd see the performances as a detriment to the profits of the club. They think the club will be profitable no matter what and that because we're still the biggest and most supported team in the world we will always make enough money for them to stay rich. but if they genuinely looked at all of it as a whole, they would see that having the best team and winning as much as possible will lead to more fans, more income, more profit. But they won't, because the only football they know about is hand egg.
The simple answer, I feel, is that the Glazers don't care about what happens at Man Utd provided their dividends get paid.
I think, for the most part, they're not paying much attention to what happens at the club. It feels like they basically allow for an envelope in which spending can happen e.g., no investment in the stadium or Carrington for a decade, while the squad becomes bloated. Then they let the executive team get on with it with no questions asked unless the dividend payments are under threat or there's a significant impact on commercial revenue.
As other posters have said, these kids didn't buy the club their Dad did. It was their Dad who was the real businessman. They just inherited the stuff their Dad left behind. Its no surprise United is so badly run.
Honestly, I thought what we'd see from the Glazers was an attempt to squeeze squad costs over time. I thought they'd be keen to be as cheap as possible. But their approach has been far more disinterested. They don't seem to care how big the wage bill gets as long as the dividend gets paid. They're like 18th century landowners who couldn't give a cak how their estate manager is running the business, as long as the expected amount of rent turns up. Even if they could be earning more money with more careful stewardship.
I think, for the most part, they're not paying much attention to what happens at the club. It feels like they basically allow for an envelope in which spending can happen e.g., no investment in the stadium or Carrington for a decade, while the squad becomes bloated. Then they let the executive team get on with it with no questions asked unless the dividend payments are under threat or there's a significant impact on commercial revenue.
As other posters have said, these kids didn't buy the club their Dad did. It was their Dad who was the real businessman. They just inherited the stuff their Dad left behind. Its no surprise United is so badly run.
Honestly, I thought what we'd see from the Glazers was an attempt to squeeze squad costs over time. I thought they'd be keen to be as cheap as possible. But their approach has been far more disinterested. They don't seem to care how big the wage bill gets as long as the dividend gets paid. They're like 18th century landowners who couldn't give a cak how their estate manager is running the business, as long as the expected amount of rent turns up. Even if they could be earning more money with more careful stewardship.
It's not though. We are talking about poor performers, selling them early and replacing them adequately can lead to one or both outcomes, you either get a cheaper player or you get a better performing player. The first option is literally cheaper while the second option is meant to elevate your level and allow you to bring more money, typically with higher prize money.
Extending underperformers or even sticking with them too long is the most expensive option and it's also the option that is guaranteed to cost you more than it should.
VDB is a good player
Because a lot of rich people are very stupid. They inherited Utd and it's making them a profit. Beyond that they couldn't care less.
This is where the owners' business interests overtake effectively running a football club. They're loath to let an asset disappear off the books, even if it's only an asset on paper and is no longer of value from a football perspective.
He could be but he hasn't shown any of it for United and he has no business being used as an example let alone being packaged with Carrick and Scholes.
The connection between winning stuff and making money isn't that strong and therefore they aren't that bothered beyond a certain point. That threshold is qualification for the Champions League.
Because it makes them money.
Getting those players to stay, even on higher contracts will attract bigger sponsorship/endorsement deals for them. Short term financial loss for long term gain. Money is the bottom line to them. They don't give a damn about football or performances on the pitch. It's the stock market and $$$ they care about. They only act in "the interests of the club" on a footballing level when it looks like it will affect their income.
Getting those players to stay, even on higher contracts will attract bigger sponsorship/endorsement deals for them. Short term financial loss for long term gain. Money is the bottom line to them. They don't give a damn about football or performances on the pitch. It's the stock market and $$$ they care about. They only act in "the interests of the club" on a footballing level when it looks like it will affect their income.
It stengthens the balance sheet.
It is all rather odd, as most successful business people would seek out 'best in class' top executives to assume the senior positions of any business they have a controlling stake in. That being said, the old man Malcom was the brains of the operation, and now we are left with his kids in charge, who evidently don't really appear to be up to much. If they gave a solitary feck about the club, then they would involve themselves more, and ensure that they appoint the right people and stop throwing money around where it is not needed - I do not mean reduce investment, but don't renew squad players contracts on £100k + p/w when there is no chance of them ever playing. It would take little else but intent and time.
I gave examples of excellent but bland players. That doesn't mean that each player I mentioned is at the same level. Else I wouldnt have mentioned Carrick alongside Scholes either
The club don’t spend 95% of its revenue on football operations, we spend far far less than that. Debt repayments and dividend payments are at least 80m before you even take into account other expenses. You are literally making up numbers out of thin air to suit your argument.
Also how is it more expensive to renew contracts than buy new players? We are not talking about renewing Mbappe here. The players we are talking about have very little resale value.
Because the economics of actually winning aren't that significant to the Glazers. Sure, they would like that extra pot from the CL, the extra PL prize money, the extra kudos that brings commercial potential. But we are already a juggernaut of a money making machine so the allure isn't that strong. Simply put, the difference isn't big enough to have them really concerned.
The way some of these Americans seem to see it is they want steady, solid funds coming in and the competition isn't that important. That was the whole ethos of the breakaway.
So if you've got the option to renew the contract of a man that played a part in bringing access to these revenues, they would see it as a no brainer. All they have to do is commit some future revenue in wages, pay an agent a nominal fee, and thus completely avoid paying huge transfers.
To bring some balance to things they do of course invest some club revenue into transfers. But I think the rewarding of what we see as mediocrity, whether it be players or staff is actually because they don't see our performance as mediocre to them. It's achieving something they have shown they're happy with.
The way some of these Americans seem to see it is they want steady, solid funds coming in and the competition isn't that important. That was the whole ethos of the breakaway.
So if you've got the option to renew the contract of a man that played a part in bringing access to these revenues, they would see it as a no brainer. All they have to do is commit some future revenue in wages, pay an agent a nominal fee, and thus completely avoid paying huge transfers.
To bring some balance to things they do of course invest some club revenue into transfers. But I think the rewarding of what we see as mediocrity, whether it be players or staff is actually because they don't see our performance as mediocre to them. It's achieving something they have shown they're happy with.
No the club spends around 95% on operating expenses which doesn't include financial costs. And renewing contracts is more expensive because you only find yourself in that situation when you don't move the players soon enough, if you plan on renewals you still pay underperforming players, you pay them over their market value and because you cemented their lower value by not selling them soon enough you also reduced their appeal.
And it's precisely because we are not talking about Mbappé, Mbappé is typically the kind of player that you would extend because it's cheaper, in terms of value he is at the top of the market. But when you are talking about someone like Henderson, what is cheaper sell him for 15m and bring a backup goalkeeper at back up goalkeeper rate or extend him as if he was a top 5 starting goalkeeper?
It's a penny wise pound foolish approach. At the end of the day, you are forced to sell the chronic underperformers for next to nothing, replace them with expensive players and there is the opportunity cost of missing out on a competitive team and the money that would have brought.
The simple answer is we are awfully run. Efficient clubs make quick decisions on whether a player is worthwhile or not and get rid as soon as possible for the maximum price. We let it linger until there is no market for the player at that wage, then we renew for fear of the player running down the contract.
The simple answer is we are awfully run. Efficient clubs make quick decisions on whether a player is worthwhile or not and get rid as soon as possible for the maximum price. We let it linger until there is no market for the player at that wage, then we renew for fear of the player running down the contract.
Last edited:
Lots to agree with here, but I don’t think it’s quite that simple.
SAF was a brilliant one-man band, and on his retirement didn’t bequeath the club with much in the way of a backroom organisation (scouting etc.). I don’t blame him for this AT ALL; what mattered is that what he had worked for him. The club’s upper management was clearly utterly oblivious to any of this; both Moyes and LvG were appalled by the lack of footballing structure and to the credit of both made their views clear to the club.
The club didn’t merely respond by sitting on their hands though. They recruited the highly regarded (not by @devilish
) John Murtough and later (in LvG’s time) beefed up the scouting with Marcel Bout and others.So it isn’t as if the club hasn’t recognised the need to have qualified and experienced people in place. Why then have our signings been so poor? Have the football people have been overruled by Ed? It looks to me as though they have been.
It doesn’t. A player is treated as an intangible asset, amortised over the life of their contract. Once their first contract is amortised, if they renew their contract the balance sheet value is already zero.
Well we have also signed players like Sanchez and Pogba on Extreme contracts.
Then players like De gea and the old version of Ronaldo who are on very very high contracts.
Then it kind of intensified the likelihood of average players getting bigger contracts too.
Then players like De gea and the old version of Ronaldo who are on very very high contracts.
Then it kind of intensified the likelihood of average players getting bigger contracts too.
I thought he was a rugby fan.
Question for all, do the Glazers make the decisions on whether to offer a new contract? I can see that they would have final say, but I would imagine that would be decided between the manager and Woody (now arnold). Not sure for example if Ole said he doesn't want Mata that the glazers said tough luck we are giving him a new contract anyway.
Lots to agree with here, but I don’t think it’s quite that simple.
SAF was a brilliant one-man band, and on his retirement didn’t bequeath the club with much in the way of a backroom organisation (scouting etc.). I don’t blame him for this AT ALL; what mattered is that what he had worked for him. The club’s upper management was clearly utterly oblivious to any of this; both Moyes and LvG were appalled by the lack of footballing structure and to the credit of both made their views clear to the club.
The club didn’t merely respond by sitting on their hands though. They recruited the highly regarded (not by @devilish
So it isn’t as if the club hasn’t recognised the need to have qualified and experienced people in place. Why then have our signings been so poor? Have the football people have been overruled by Ed? It looks to me as though they have been.
Jon Murtough was hired by Moyes in 2013. He was promoted to DOF despite being part of this mess basically from day 1 and had no experience whatsoever in the job. Bout is a remnant of another failed administration ie the LVG one. Not only we kept him despite the horrible signings made at the time but he was promoted to head of global scouting.
That's not a first. Mckenna and Ramsey were given first team roles following experiences with kids. Carrick was immediately promoted to first team coach despite having zero experience in coaching as well. However Fletcher is probably the guy who takes the biscuit. Darren joined the U16 around mid October 2020, he was then promoted to the first team on January 2021 and was promoted again as Technical director in March 2021. 3 promotions in 6 months. The guy is either a football genius at par to Sir Alex or else....
Our structure is weak and we've been underperforming for nearly a decade yet for some strange reason we insist in promoting from within and to people who barely have any experience in their new role. No wonder why all hell went loose when we finally decide to add experience and professionalism to the mix (aka Rangnick)
Giving contacts to high value assets (players) maintains the financial value of the club.
I think what happens is the glazers are more hands on than fans seem to think. There’s too many of them to move forward in an efficient and effective way. Too many bosses. The glazers, the rest of the board, the dof, the ceo, the manager, the players. It’s convoluted. The whole idea is to set a budget and give autonomy to people who know what they are doing. They don’t and they people they hire usually don’t know what they are doing either. It’s just a big mess.
I think the contract thing comes from the top. Easier to keep beating a dead horse than spend money on a new one especially if you’re not ambitious
I think the contract thing comes from the top. Easier to keep beating a dead horse than spend money on a new one especially if you’re not ambitious
Only if those players are actually high value assets.
Rather misleading example then. If Scholes is "excellent" then DVB sure as hell isn't.
Alternatively, if DVB is "excellent" then Scholes is nothing short of historically great.
There is no possible "excellent" category broad enough to contain both of them.
Yes, that too.
He is supposedly - also - a fan of his hometown football club, though. Or at least that has been claimed (probably a rumour spread by his own PR people to make him seem more like a man of the people).
I expect the offspring are a Florida hillbilly version of the offspring in Succession.
Perhaps because as far as running a football club .... its the old song.... "you don't know what you're doing"
Running a 'cash cow' is what they are good at!
This. I am so fed up of hearing that the Glazers aren’t involved just because they live in America and don’t go to games. People have been working remotely long before COVID, especially in big business like this.
There is no way they are not hiring managers and signing off on these huge transfers/contract extensions. As you said, every decision we make is terrible no matter who is in charge. The only constant staff that never changes is the glazers which means these decisions have to be coming from them.
Yeah.
We don't know to what extent the likes of Murtough and Bout are undermined by being ignored or overruled by Woodward and his mates. If that is happening, and I'm convinced that it is, and they are actually good at their jobs, then one would imagine that they'd get far greater job satisfaction by moving on to places where they wouldn't be ignored or overruled. It's all very odd, unless United pay so far in excess of market rates that they'd rather have the shekels than an enjoyable and fulfilling job.
The rapidly evolving role of Fletcher is indeed interesting. I take a more optimistic view than you though; however unsatisfacory the "process" that got him the job in the first place might have been, he's clearly trusted and listened to by Ralf. If Ralf wasn't happy with him, surely he'd ensure that he was moved to a Phelan-style backstage or ceremonial role. So maybe he's a capable guy after all, and is rated as such by an objective professional?
You said 95% of revenue which is a very different thing. Not sure what you are referring to if I’m honest but understand and agree with your point that a lot of money is wasted.
I really do disagree that renewals are more expensive than signing players. Maybe in the past but nowadays there are very few situations where this could be true due to how expensive transfer/agent fees are. We extend the contracts of average/past it players specifically because it is a cheap strategy for the Glazers.
You make a really good point about how useless we are at selling players and keep waiting until there is no value left. Either way im pleased we both agree about the fundamental thing that the board is completely inefficient and should sack themselves!
He's a parody.
I do my part, thanks for the recognition!
More than the players' contracts, I wonder what made the owners listen to the current management (woody and co) for this long. Even if they only care about the valuation of the business and not the results on the pitch, there was so much money we lost out on because of lack of success on the pitch. City and Pool have built businesses valued the same / almost the same as United from a much lower starting point over the last 10 yrs.
We've went on endlessly about appointing sporting directors and many many clubs have done well with that sort of appointment and yet they chose to trust Woody for 10+ years and he hasn't delivered anything at all.
I guess the Rangnick appointment is a change in direction but I don't think he was appointed by the owners, it was just Murtough realizing we needed some external help in running the sporting side of this club.
We've went on endlessly about appointing sporting directors and many many clubs have done well with that sort of appointment and yet they chose to trust Woody for 10+ years and he hasn't delivered anything at all.
I guess the Rangnick appointment is a change in direction but I don't think he was appointed by the owners, it was just Murtough realizing we needed some external help in running the sporting side of this club.
You'd hope so.