Sell me the Glazers: Positive Arguments for Glazer ownership

Seriously, there are still people here who can bring themselves defend the board? You will think being that crap for 6 years is due to reasons more just having a crap manager or crap players, but in those who actually appoint these managers and keep these players.
 
£1bn+ made in debt repayments, still £400m in debt.
 
There are next to none. They have invested in the last 5 years but mainly on players with commercial value. They will be happy to run us down for another 5 years but you have to question whether they even care that our profitability will go down.
 
@Lentwood I don't know why you went to lengths to reason this out. As you noted, at 29 years you've had plenty of time to see they're no good. Theyve been defended for a decade and now look where we are.
 
Harry190 said:
They ain't the one doing the running on the pitch.
Click to expand...
But they are the ones creating the rotten atmosphere. It all starts from them - the hands off approach. They don't care and have other things to do, they trust their lackey Woodward who is clueless. In turn he makes all the wrong decisions, which results in players not caring about anything but their ridiculously high wages.
The way they run this club creates an environment of no accountability. As long as we're making money - everything's fine.
They've turned us into the dream club for every mercenary out there. If you're average and don't want any pressure - come to United. High wages, low expectations, no sweat.

The only way this club will be successful under them is if Woodward hires the next Fergie by accident.
 
Sterling Archer said:
@Lentwood I don't know why you went to lengths to reason this out. As you noted, at 29 years you've had plenty of time to see they're no good. Theyve been defended for a decade and now look where we are.
Click to expand...

I did it because from time to time a poster will put forward such passionate defences of the owners that I have genuinely started to question whether I am missing something. This thread isn't about defending them per se', I've created it to hear solid, logical arguments from pro-Glazer posters so that I can at least understand their viewpoint
 
I said I'd give it an hour or so to see if anyone comes up with a genuinely positive argument for the Glazers. As I suspected no-one can.

There is no credible argument in favour of these people owning a football club, they have been of no material benefit to a club that could and should be the biggest by far in the world.
 
Lebowski said:
Good post.

One of the things that always struck me as strange about the Caf ever since I joined was how there appeared to be a group of posters who seem to never miss an opportunity to jump to the Glazer's defence.

I get that Redissue style opposition is too militant for some, I also understand if you have resigned yourself to the fact that they will be here until they decide to sell and concentrate on less futile pursuits for your own sanity. Indifference I can understand, resignation to the status quo for your own mental sanity too... However, there seems to be some posters who responded to our bitterly opposed, totally unneeded and unwanted takeover by rolling out the red carpet and arguing why they have been a net positive for United.

I don't want to create some 'which turncoat enemy sympathiser is going to be brave enough to put their head above the parapet!!?' mentality... we're all United fans and the infighting and total exit of some of our most dedicated supporters has been one of the worst things about their takeover, so far be it for me to try and make it worse. It just always surprised me that some fans felt like this.



There's been some good research on this and the conclusion drawn from either the Deloitte study, Forbes lists or the KPMG paper don't put the Glazers in a particularly positive light.

E.g.
United topped the Deloitte list every year from inception (1997/98) to the point the Glazer's took over. Usually around 10-30% higher than the second place club. After the takeover we lost top spot to Real Madrid for the first time, and then Barcelona overtook us the following year. Until 2018. We were falling further behind Barca and Real until the explosion of the PL TV rights.

In Forbes' annual list of club by estimated net worth (which only started after the takeover in 2007), the picture is similar - constantly the most valuable club until Barcelona and Real Madrid overtake us in 2013, regaining top spot when the PL TV rights money kicks in.

% increase is also telling- United's value increased by 183.75% since 2007. In the same period Barcelona saw a 659.81% increase, Bayern 265.51% and Real Madrid 294.59%.

% increase to other PL clubs: United's 183.75% growth since 2007 is just higher than Arsenal's (144.60%) and far lower than Liverpool (328.19%) and Chelsea (283.98%). As you would expect, City's 1089.42% growth is the highest in the league.

I wouldn't use the above to argue that the Glazers have been terrible for us commercially, but like you said - the rise is more down to the explosion in the global popularity and television deals rather than something that only they could bring to the club. Plus other clubs (with admittedly lower starting points) have grown more and still managed to set up a structure to bring in more on the field success.
Click to expand...

Excellent post and backed up with facts. The Glazers have milked the club dry and haven't done anything special to our commercial side. The organic growth alone has made them look they like have done something.
 
@Lentwood

I wish there was any positive arguments to have but there is not a single positive thing to say about them. Literally the only thing to sum these people up is the dirty way they bought the club and the worst part is the man behind the whole process is now our CEO...
 
Glazers might be withholding some funds but money spent has never been the issue with the club it's who we are buying which is the issue.

Our attacking line consist of £145+ million (Mata, Martial, Lukaku)

Midfield £205 million
(Pogba, Herrera, Matic, Fred)

Think the defence amounts to around £100 million (Shaw, Lindlelof, Bailly,)

That's almost 500 million with our most recent squad obviously excluding the likes of Depay, Di Maria, Schneiderlin etc.
 
Rory 7 said:
I said I'd give it an hour or so to see if anyone comes up with a genuinely positive argument for the Glazers. As I suspected no-one can.
Click to expand...
It's not possible to do this. Because no matter what your perspective may be, everyone who is old enough to understand ultimately knows that they only own the club as an investment vehicle. It's exactly the same as Kroenke at Arsenal. Not only do neither of them care about the football results of the clubs that they own, they don't even care about football! Why would they? They're billionaires from the United States, who didn't even grow up in a culture in which football / soccer was popular.

If the Glazers and Kroenke thought (a) that they would lose money from owning United and Arsenal, or (b) that they could make more money, more easily elsewhere, then they never would have invested in the first place. The problem is that football has become so big commercially nowadays that any clubs with an ownership model will have to be owned by people like this.

Liverpool are no different really, the fact that Fenway Sports Group has 'sport' in their name makes them seem less threatening, but Liverpool are just part of what Forbes described as "the most sophisticated, synergistic player in the coming age of international sports conglomerates". Fenway Sports Group are hardly invested in Liverpool because they love the club! Or even because they want anything else other than commercial success. They understand that commercial and sporting success tend to be conjoined, but the former is more important to them than the latter. If Liverpool were enjoying success on the field, and also haemorrhaging money, then there is no way that FSG would deem this to be success.

City have basically got to the top because they have owners who are so wealthy and powerful, whose financial position is so secured and ensured (if you read into the background of the UAE and how it operates then you'll understand why), that they don't need to make a profit from City, and they are instead using it as a promotional vehicle and mechanism.

I still follow football to some degree, but because of this it has lost much of its magic for me now, and I just view it as a rather grubby spectacle. Unfortunately, this merely reflects the way that we've allowed the world to be.
 
wub1234 said:
It's not possible to do this. Because no matter what your perspective may be, everyone who is old enough to understand ultimately knows that they only own the club as an investment vehicle. It's exactly the same as Kroenke at Arsenal. Not only do neither of them care about the football results of the clubs that they own, they don't even care about football! Why would they? They're billionaires from the United States, who didn't even grow up in a culture in which football / soccer was popular.

If the Glazers and Kroenke thought (a) that they would lose money from owning United and Arsenal, or (b) that they could make more money, more easily elsewhere, then they never would have invested in the first place. The problem is that football has become so big commercially nowadays that any clubs with an ownership model will have to be owned by people like this.

Liverpool are no different really, the fact that Fenway Sports Group has 'sport' in their name makes them seem less threatening, but Liverpool are just part of what Forbes described as "the most sophisticated, synergistic player in the coming age of international sports conglomerates". Fenway Sports Group are hardly invested in Liverpool because they love the club! Or even because they want anything else other than commercial success. They understand that commercial and sporting success tend to be conjoined, but the former is more important to them than the latter. If Liverpool were enjoying success on the field, and also haemorrhaging money, then there is no way that FSG would deem this to be success.

City have basically got to the top because they have owners who are so wealthy and powerful, whose financial position is so secured and ensured (if you read into the background of the UAE and how it operates then you'll understand why), that they don't need to make a profit from City, and they are instead using it as a promotional vehicle and mechanism.

I still follow football to some degree, but because of this it has lost much of its magic for me now, and I just view it as a rather grubby spectacle. Unfortunately, this merely reflects the way that we've allowed the world to be.
Click to expand...

There is a difference. A very significant difference. Fenway have a plan, a long term vision for the club and a track record of innovation in sports science with the Red Sox that they are now transferring to Liverpool. Their spanking new stand at Anfield is testament to their long term vision for that club. The Glazers, by contrast, have demonstrated zero strategic planning or investment in either sports science or bricks and mortar. As I said previously, I await in keen anticipation for someone to put forward a positive argument in favour of them as owners.
 
I guess the the biggest praise I can give them is they have spent alot of money but have never overspent putting the club in danger.

I know that's hardly glowing endorsement but when you look what has happened to so many other clubs, Leeds, Portsmouth, Bolton, QPR, Sunderland.... we could have had a lot worse.

Especially when you consider, the amount of fans who put pressure on the ownership, to basically bankrupt the club in one summer. People complain when we don't spend 200 + million every year, that's just crazy.

So yeah I think they have spent a lot, without ever spending too much, its not their fault its been spent badly.
 
The argument that they spend enough doesn't stack up. They underinvested in the squad for years and allowed us to fall far below standard. We simply spend enough to maintain that level now. If we weren't burdened by the debt we could of spent enough to keep up with City. Yes we may match them now but they were already miles ahead.
 
Lentwood said:
I did it because from time to time a poster will put forward such passionate defences of the owners that I have genuinely started to question whether I am missing something. This thread isn't about defending them per se', I've created it to hear solid, logical arguments from pro-Glazer posters so that I can at least understand their viewpoint
Click to expand...

Their ownership of the Tampa Bay Bucs has been better than average. Prior to the Glazers, they were a mostly losing franchise. Post Glazer they improved and became an average team, with one standout Superbowl win. I can't take much stock in that, however, as the American sports system is ironically designed with socialist principles despite their/our vitriol for even the word.

Skills makes a point worth digging into below:

Skills said:
They're quite hands off. If we finally get the on-field stuff right, they're perfect as the club will just be left on its own devices to do it's own thing.
Click to expand...

Are they actually hands off? Let's go back to Sir Alex's days. Was there ever any confirmation that it was in fact the Glazers that tied our hands with transfers? Are they why we went with, as mentioned, Valencia, Owen and Obertan instead of Ribery or Torres or Robben?

Or was it Sir Alex making a point about agents and ridiculous transfers? Was it Gill?

Because we did still splash money on the likes of Berbatov and then an older Van Persie for a swansong. They also funded crock Hargreaves , Anderson and Nani. Expensive punts in honesty.

If it was the Glazers as expected, they certainly weren't hands off. In contrast, in the LVG and Mourinho years there was a considerable amount of spending. Was this to make amends for earlier years? Or were the Glazers just continuing to be a bit hands off and leaving the manager with the funds? If we go back to Jose's meltdown over his transfers not materializing, it had nothing to do with money from what's been said. It was that Ed Woodward didn't fancy the players. Again a case of Glazers letting the heads of football work it out amongst themselves ?

Leaves me with one last point:

Why hire David Moyes? Maybe it was, once again, Glazers giving authority and respect to Sir Alex.

It's almost a Catch 22. On the one hand, Glazers being hands off and empowering their football structure to act of it's own accord so long as the commercial side is smooth, should be a fantastic thing.

But on the flip, allowing Sir Alex (and Sir Bobby's?) favoritism decide our next manager, letting Sir Alex's moral high ground and ego bring in mediocre talents over quality while City were ominously spending big ...that didn't work out either. And now, letting the likes of Woodward hire, fire and sign managers and players at will...that's no good either.

Glazers are accountable. But not in the way I see most folks going on about here with just transfers. Unless we know for a fact they curtailed Sir Alex's spending, there's some blame to spread.
 
Skills said:
They're quite hands off. If we finally get the on-field stuff right, they're perfect as the club will just be left on its own devices to do it's own thing.
Click to expand...

They’re not though. Woodward is their puppet. Do you also believe that Sergei Lavrov’s foreign policy is independent of Putin?
 
Rory 7 said:
There is a difference. A very significant difference. Fenway have a plan, a long term vision for the club and a track record of innovation in sports science with the Red Sox that they are now transferring to Liverpool. Their spanking new stand at Anfield is testament to their long term vision for that club. The Glazers, by contrast, have demonstrated zero strategic planning or investment in either sports science or bricks and mortar. As I said previously, I await in keen anticipation for someone to put forward a positive argument in favour of them as owners.
Click to expand...
Fenway are an investment vehicle, the Glazers are investors. There is no difference in what they want, they may go about it in different ways. It is not that long ago that Liverpool fans were far from enamoured with them.
 
wub1234 said:
Fenway are an investment vehicle, the Glazers are investors. There is no difference in what they want, they may go about it in different ways. It is not that long ago that Liverpool fans were far from enamoured with them.
Click to expand...

If you can't see the difference between how Fenway and The Glazers have approached both of their respective clubs, there is no point continuing to post in this thread.
 
Skills said:
They're quite hands off. If we finally get the on-field stuff right, they're perfect as the club will just be left on its own devices to do it's own thing.
Click to expand...
'Perfect'. That's the word I was looking for! The on-field stuff is entirely unrelated to the management structure of the club, the policy of the club, the way the club is run, no?
 
In the state the football club is in (on the pitch as that's what we are about) do you really think this is the right time to ask for a positive response from the fans?
 
Nytram Shakes said:
I guess the the biggest praise I can give them is they have spent alot of money but have never overspent putting the club in danger.

I know that's hardly glowing endorsement but when you look what has happened to so many other clubs, Leeds, Portsmouth, Bolton, QPR, Sunderland.... we could have had a lot worse.

Especially when you consider, the amount of fans who put pressure on the ownership, to basically bankrupt the club in one summer. People complain when we don't spend 200 + million every year, that's just crazy.

So yeah I think they have spent a lot, without ever spending too much, its not their fault its been spent badly.
Click to expand...
Look at spend from 2005 - 2013. This was a key time for us to continue building from a position of power, at the top. Then factor in the transfer inflation that has occurred since they did start spending after 2013.
 
Rory 7 said:
If you can't see the difference between how Fenway and The Glazers have approached both of their respective clubs, there is no point continuing to post in this thread.
Click to expand...
There seems a massive difference because Liverpool have a good team at the moment, so it completely skews the perception. Read this article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbym...iverpools-record-profit-of-160m/#56f80bab4114

I'm in total agreement that the Glazers are bad for United, that cannot be contested. What I would say with Liverpool is that Klopp (and arguably selling Coutinho for an inflated fee) has disguised deeper issues at Liverpool, which are not dissimilar from the situation at United.

If United had been managed better, and had a winning team, there (wrongly) wouldn't be any complaint about the Glazers, just as there was very little complaint when Ferguson was still winning the league and going close in the Champions League.
 
I have to say, they did well to not get involved when Fergie was in charge - they stood back and let him run the show. How often do we see a new owner come in and sweep away the previous regime? This seems obvious in hindsight, but around 2005-2006 there were many people who thought Fergie was past it and would never win major titles again.
 
Red Dreams said:
That will be happening soon enough.
Click to expand...
Why do you think this? I saw recently that there where reports of the “Saudis” walking away from a deal as the Glazers were looking to get more “involved” or is that sort of talk just the start of the negotiations?
 
Unlike the owners of other clubs, they're not using us to sportswash the image of a country guilty of repeated human rights violations.

Pretty grim that I'm defending them on that level though.
 
wub1234 said:
There seems a massive difference because Liverpool have a good team at the moment, so it completely skews the perception. Read this article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbym...iverpools-record-profit-of-160m/#56f80bab4114

I'm in total agreement that the Glazers are bad for United, that cannot be contested. What I would say with Liverpool is that Klopp (and arguably selling Coutinho for an inflated fee) has disguised deeper issues at Liverpool, which are not dissimilar from the situation at United.

If United had been managed better, and had a winning team, there (wrongly) wouldn't be any complaint about the Glazers, just as there was very little complaint when Ferguson was still winning the league and going close in the Champions League.
Click to expand...

The investment in infrastructure at Anfield alone differs the two owners for me.
 
wub1234 said:
Fenway are an investment vehicle, the Glazers are investors. There is no difference in what they want, they may go about it in different ways. It is not that long ago that Liverpool fans were far from enamoured with them.
Click to expand...
Everyone likes to willfully ignore how hated the FSG was during the Comoli/Daglish/Carroll era. Of course all was forgotten once they got their managerial appointments correct.
 
They don’t chop people’s heads off. They are not fraudsters. Beyond those “it could be worse” arguments, there isn’t much to say for them.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Look at spend from 2005 - 2013. This was a key time for us to continue building from a position of power, at the top. Then factor in the transfer inflation that has occurred since they did start spending after 2013.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair criticism, and opinion I share, personally this the mess the club is in now started a a decade ago.

My argument was more they could have been worse owners rather then arn't they great.
 
As businessmen I almost admire them. Taking a massive loan against a proven commodity that pays off the loan without issue whilst handing them out massive dividends in the meantime. It’s almost like printing money.

Just a shame that commodity happens to be our football club that they don’t give a toss about. The only way we will see the back of them is when they sell up for an eye watering profit. A day I very much look forward to.
 
There's nothing positive about the Glazers.
Nothing.
Look at the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, rotten to the core, lack of interest in the team, manager after manager fired, yet the value of the club has grown.
Look at Glazers shopping centre business ventures, in tatters, lack of long term vision cost them dear and they remortgaged most of what they owned.
Their main source of income is now United, of which they take money freely, it's in their contracts!!
The Glazers have put in the minimal amount of their own money into this club, heck the loans they took out had United as collateral,
They even wanted to lease the club its own training ground....
 
They aren't as bad as some of the other American owners. That's as far as I'll go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.