Obviously it's sports washing. However, they understand that winning will make their image look better.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe: I want to buy Manchester United | Will make a bid for the club [Telegraph]
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Obviously it's sports washing. However, they understand that winning will make their image look better.
I can't believe the club is seen as a better buy now when it requires massive investment in the squad and infrastructure
We’ll there’s a project there
United are so fanatically supported around the world that whoever bought the club and restored it where it should be, winning titles and fighting for the CL, would be God status to millions
It’s pretty clearly a good time to buy. We’re on the way down, but salvageable, and animosity towards the current owners is at an all time high due to the mismanagement so somebody like Ratcliffe can throw his hat into the ring via his friends at the Times and stoke the flames.
If they leave it longer the work/money to turn the club around will be much larger.
Martin Edwards who messed Fergie around on contracts to the point where Fergie was set to quit the day before the FA Cup Final? And tried to sell the club to a scum bag like Rupert Murdoch? Who put in place a jurassic wage structure during a time when we were making more money than any club in the world? Or the Martin Edwards caught wanking in the womens toilets? He was hated because he deserved it. The club made him a millionaire.
Then the choice needs to be taken away from them.
We now know there is a buyer, and probably several buyers out there, something which was always a bit of grey area before, so there is no excuse at all for them to not relinquish control now.
Pre-Glazers, Man Utd was a publicly listed dividend-paying PLC some of whose key shareholders tried to get Sir Alex sacked over disputes about a horse! You are right, Utd was also almost purchased by Robert Maxwell (famous pension thief and Ghislaine Maxwell's dad). The problem with Utd's set up predates the Glazers but was glossed over by Sir Alex's successes and the lack of competition to Utd.
I don't think the Glazers ushered in a particularly different path, a lot is made of the debt and having to pay interest but if over £1bn in signings has not made a difference, would another £1bn be the answer?
Only options I can think of, are the fans harming the club so much for them that it's impossible for them to continue, or the FA to sanction them somehow, or stop them doing the things they might want to do investment wise in the near future.
Obvioulsy getting an offer they can't refuse would be an option.
It just feels like if something doesn't happen this time, then it might never happen.
Obvioulsy getting an offer they can't refuse would be an option.
It just feels like if something doesn't happen this time, then it might never happen.
Big day tomorrow.
Nobody is paying 10 billion for the club. That’s a “feck off” price if ever I saw one.
Where has that valuation come from?
Tell them you wait another 2 years. By then it will be worth 1bn max
Someone posted it further up. Glazers would only sell for 10 billion.
likely a made up bit of news but if true then they are crazy
Absolutely not, it will be worth more or less the same in two years time. We had a proper diabolical last decade and our value still increased. It might slow down or even stagnate, but no way are we losing significant value that quickly
Jesus wept! More ignorance.
The level of mismanagement and incompetence we are seeing is a direct result of the Glazer ownership. This has nothing to do with the money spent. Money which is the club's, by the way.
We miss out on targets, or don't pursue others because Joel Glazer has to be consulted. By all accounts, we had Thiago in the bag, but Glazer didn't want to give him an extra year, so he went to Liverpool. Joel Glazer meddles in things he shouldn't because he is always trying to penny-pinch. Or worse, signings made, or players not shifted, for commercial reasons.
They don't hire the right people. For nearly a decade, Woodward was allowed to run the club despite his incompetence. Why? Because he delivered what the Glazers most wanted: money to fill their pockets. Never mind that he wasn't a football person; they still let him make footballing decisions, with predictable consequences. After crying out for a DOF, they finally get one in, but he isn't experienced. In fact, anyone that may challenge the hierarchy they've established is seen as disruptive and shipped out/fired (see Rangnick, who, for all his being a mediocre manager, is in fact a proven club-builder). Promote internally, keeping everything locked down, and don't rock the boat. No, we need football experts in the right positions, and with the power to make decisions that are best for the club, not best for the bottom line.
They don't put money into the club. There's been a lack of investment in the club's infrastructure; everything, from our training ground to the stadium, has been allowed to fall behind the likes of even Spurs.
This recent panic-buying presents an interesting case. How do you have Arnautovic and Rabiot as your choices ahead of Casemiro, Antony and Gakpo? Glazer was willing to go cheap initially because he wants to pocket more money (remember, it is always United who pay for everything, not them; so any money they save on transfers and wages means more money they take out for 'management fees' and dividends). He couldn't get away with it this time, because of the start we've had, and unrest among the fans.
All of this points toward a club without any progressive, bold strategy; a club that's reactive, and behind the times. Like Zlatan said, an insular mindset that can only stem from the top.
And you think this is just about a billion pounds put into the team? You must be on a wind-up.
Top post well put
Ban
We will. We got worse and worse, and our name is slowly but surely vanishing. We profited from our past, but if we don't start winning things, that will change radically. Or do you think sponsors etc. are willing to pay the same kind of money as they did 8 years ago? When we don't even make the CL?
That will slowly degrade, yeah, but £10m less per year from a sponsor is only a small dent in a £5bn valuation. It will take ages for our value to drop significantly
Well said. The only point I’d challenge is the fundamental view that the Glazers don’t use the clubs income for anything other than dividends. Objectively, they have spent money on transfers. The issue though is the other many valid points you raised; no long term investment in infrastructure. No strategy. No leadership. No putting the right people in the right place. It’s truly bizarre because if they did all of that, it’d probably cost them less in the long run.
Not if our share price will fall. And that could be likely
United’s value would take decades before it diminished materially. Businesses are valued based on what is POSSIBLE, not on what they ARE. It’d take a very long time for all the fundamental components to be damaged to such a degree that a turnaround wouldn’t bring them all back.
No thanks.
I read ages while back they would sell for 6 billion.
10 seems like a PFO were not selling if that report is true.
Eh? No they haven’t.
I want Canada to buy United with tax payer money. If the Saudis and Qataris can buy teams why not Western nations
Glazers will be out by this time next year if the reports of 4 of 6 Glazer kids wanting to sell are true. The remaining two do not have the resources to buy those other shares nor do they have the money to run a team of this size. Offers will be made, the family will fracture at the thought of getting their big slice of cash each, and that's a wrap.
I think the big problem here is part of this fan base needs to realize we might end up with another foreign owner. I'm not so sure Sir Jim is going to win the bid and when that new owner rolls in it will be important to be united behind that new owner and give him a chance. Of course I am sure this will be hashed out over and over in a new 3000 page thread if/when we get to that point.
I think the big problem here is part of this fan base needs to realize we might end up with another foreign owner. I'm not so sure Sir Jim is going to win the bid and when that new owner rolls in it will be important to be united behind that new owner and give him a chance. Of course I am sure this will be hashed out over and over in a new 3000 page thread if/when we get to that point.
This has nothing to do with the Glazers or United, though
Ok.
I can't see anything in your comment that highlights how the Glazer ownership is distinctive from the Martin Edwards era. Why wasn't Old Trafford modernised prior to their takeover in 2005? What grand strategy lay behind responding to Arsenal invincibles and Jose's Chelsea cantering to league titles by signing Djemba Djemba (as Roy Keane's replacement!), Liam Miller, Alan Smith (the new Cantona apparently!) and Kleberson!
The club has long been a profit-maximising machine whose archaic set up was masked by Fergie's phenomenal management. Up until 2013 and 8 years after the Glazers too over, Utd were still successful on the pitch and there wasn't this fevered talk of Glazer's lack of "strategy" and "leadership." What changed in 2013, Fergie was gone and the common denominator behind the club's success was gone.
The Glazer's key error was seeking to replicate what worked under Fergie - appointing a "good" manager and trusting him, largely, with the player signings. As each manager proved unworthy, each successive new manager was faced with a squad of players that needed a clearout.
As for missing key signings, do you think we didn't miss out on key signings in the Edwards's era? Remember Alan Shearer in the 1990s, Zidane was also supposed to join us from Bordeaux in 1996. I remember feeling frustrated when we missed out on the South African captain, Mark Fish. In 2003, Harry Kewell left Leeds for Liverpool suggesting that United were going nowhere and he could win more trophies with Liverpool.
I think most are emoting about our present abject lack of footballing success and scrambling around for easy answers to which the Glazers present archetypal villains. We need to be clear exactly what and when things went wrong.
No one with enough financing to take over from the Glazers would do anything other than try and make a profit from their investment after making the hefty outlay to purchase the club. Utd is too big to be a City, Newcastle or Chelsea. So we can pretty much forget about having a benevolent owner who simply wants to see us win trophies. If it's about putting more investment in infrastructure, appointing a competent DOF (moving away from the Fergie era of the all powerful manager), and setting up a good scouting system, I am not sure you necessarily need a change of ownership to do all of that.
Well Said! Couldn't agree more!
I hope we can drive these guys out because it's clear the pressure has got to them and they've made more funds available where we've gone from targeting players on the cheap to trying to sign the high calibre/ high potential players like Casemiro, Antony, Gakpo and possibly Frenkie de Jong.
It's clear that there was a lack of funds available for a long time during the transfer window and now that the pressure is on, the Glazers have made extra funds available to sustain/maintain their most valuable asset, which is something they have to do, or they risk compounding matters further and possibly losing even more value on the club.
The pressure on the Glazers has to be maintained because with them as owners we will face the same issues in future transfer windows. Running a transfer strategy is simple if the football department is backed up by the funds from the owners with out any form of interference/meddling. Michael Edwards wasn't a experienced DoF when he took on the role at Liverpool. But if a DoF has a experienced head of recruitment guiding him on recruitment then things are very simple. And Edwards at Liverpool who was widely ridiculed for years had the experienced Dave Fallows and Barry Hunter along with a team of 6 data scientists guiding him on the football side of the club. We've only recently got the ball rolling as far as having a data scientist on the football side of the club and sacked our equivalent of Dave Fallows and Barry Hunter.
It's clear that there was a lack of funds available for a long time during the transfer window and now that the pressure is on, the Glazers have made extra funds available to sustain/maintain their most valuable asset, which is something they have to do, or they risk compounding matters further and possibly losing even more value on the club.
The pressure on the Glazers has to be maintained because with them as owners we will face the same issues in future transfer windows. Running a transfer strategy is simple if the football department is backed up by the funds from the owners with out any form of interference/meddling. Michael Edwards wasn't a experienced DoF when he took on the role at Liverpool. But if a DoF has a experienced head of recruitment guiding him on recruitment then things are very simple. And Edwards at Liverpool who was widely ridiculed for years had the experienced Dave Fallows and Barry Hunter along with a team of 6 data scientists guiding him on the football side of the club. We've only recently got the ball rolling as far as having a data scientist on the football side of the club and sacked our equivalent of Dave Fallows and Barry Hunter.
Last edited:
So, just that I'm understanding, you are saying Glazers are fine as owners?
Surely you can't be serious re: Old Trafford prior to 2005. The stadium was refurbished and expanded several times after the start of the Premier League and before the Glazers took over. We even hosted the CL final in 2003. Old Trafford was once one of the premier grounds in England. We moved from the Cliff to Carrington in 2000. At the time, this was a top-tier training facility, so much so that Giggs was surprised Robben chose Chelsea over us given the respective facilities at both clubs. Not so now.
And just because signings didn't work out doesn't mean they weren't brought with a strategy in mind. People forget, but Kleberson had just won the World Cup with Brazil when we signed him. That it didn't work out doesn't mean that the signing wasn't thought-out. I remember at the time many pundits believed he was fundamental to Brazil's success in that tournament.
And also context: when Chelsea won the league, we were in transition. This was in the 2004-05 season. We had a very young Rooney, and a very young Ronaldo. The plan was to see them develop, and add players going forward. Most importantly, we had a declining Keane. You said it yourself, the signing of Djemba Djemba was meant as a cheap option to replace Roy Keane (forward thinking, something this club has nowadays rarely shows). My impression was that Fergie at the time was trying to outdo Wenger by signing an unknown from the French market and polishing him up to world-class level. It didn't work. Just because the signing didn't work doesn't mean there wasn't thought put into where he would fit in to what we are trying to do. That's my gripe with the Glazer regime: no strategy.
So you concede that the Glazers have mismanaged the club, after all? They are the ones making the decisions, and keep making them despite over a decade of data telling them they should change how they do it.
Please do not misrepresent my argument. The point is not about missing out on key signings. Anyone can miss out on key signings. The point is how and why we miss out on key signings. A player can decide not to join, like Shearer or Gascoigne did. That's fine. But when players are offered to us, or even want to join us (it happened twice with Thiago alone), and the decider is an owner more interested in saving a couple of bucks than creating a winning team, then that's a problem. Or when agents, etc. look at the club as an easy, gullible mark, like they did with Woodward in charge.
There's an article from the Athletic discussing our confusing structure and how football professionals view what's happening in the club. I suggest you read it.
The Green and Gold protests began in 2011, when we'd been league champions, made it to consecutive CL finals, etc. I'd suggest that claiming the current protests are merely because of a lack of footballing success is precisely the facile argument you're claiming mine to be. All this that's happening right now is merely the kettle coming to boil after a long period of simmering discontent. Only those who've had their heads in the sand think this is a sudden eruption brought on by abject failure.
And are you suggesting no one out there - profit-driven or not - can do better than the Glazers? Because you can't be serious! I've often thought to myself that the Glazers must be the lousiest businessmen given the amount of money they've wasted (the club's money!). Even if they wanted to get a significant ROI, there are better ways to get that without appointing fools to run the club.
We've had 17 years of the Glazers. About 10 of them without Fergie. That's more than enough time to judge what they are. Are you really saying we need to give them more time to implement the simple organizational changes to maximize the resources we do have? IF they haven't done so after all this time, they won't going forward. It's not a bug that needs fixing, it's a feature.
I recently came across an old clip from a Bucs fan on Twitter pretty much making the same points about the Glazers. Theirs is a very different sporting model from Europe, but I guess we are all wrong, and it's the fans to blame.
I agree for the most part. Short of Sir Ratcliffe placing the team in a trust that allows for fans control, it will most definitely be owned by a for profit entity which is to be expected given the price point.
Last edited:
I'm not even British and I still want the club to preserve its British background and don't bring any foreign investors.
I am ambivalent about the Glazers as I don't see how they're less competent than what we had before. I think we are overestimating how much a change in ownership will have an impact on the lack of success on the pitch. If you strip away the emotional outbursts, there is a clear lack of details as to what exactly a new owner will do different and how the club will finance big investments in facilities and players. What exactly are Jim Ratcliffe's plan other than being unlike those bloody foreigners in Florida! A lot of wishful thinking, not much rigorous thinking.
I feel like narratives have been constructed to explain what is going wrong. In football, as in a lot of difficult endeavors, we are effectively fooled by randomness. There is not much talk today of Liverpool's Fenway Group lack of "strategy and leadership" forgetting that these same chaps, if I am not mistaken, signed Andy Carroll for £35m, Benteke and appointed Rogers and Dalglish as managers before the present success under Klopp. Sometimes success materializes or is elusive without a clear causal relationship with a club's owners.
Without any clear idea of what a new owner has planned for us, I am not sure things will necessarily be better after the Glazers. I am agnostic as I see a lot emotive outbursts but not much by way a clearcut plan for success.