So, the Glazers. Are they parasites? Blame game topic.

KeninDC said:
Am I going crazy, or does the graphic from a recent article in the Guardian (link here: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/aug/20/glazers-thrive-manchester-united-flounder-ed-woodward) show net spend on players to be less than zero in the past few years? That is not consistent with United's audited financial statements.

image_zpscca6613d.jpg



This is net spend from United's investor presentation.

imagejpg1_zps22617eb3.jpg
Click to expand...
You're not going crazy at all. You're just not comparing like with like.

The Guardian chart, objectively, shows total revenues going up quite dramatically. And as a result net spend on players effectively standing still.

The Glazer chart, subjectively, shows net spend on players as a function off net revenue from player sales. But that chart ignores the massive growth in club revenue.

That's the point anyone who criticises the Glazers are making. This club has the potential to out punch most clubs in world football financially but it simply doesn't in the transfer market. Why? Because these owners are parasites.
 
KeninDC said:
Pretty lame mistake, n'est ce pas? The author makes a big deal about ticket price increases at OT without benchmarking against other teams and uses cash on hand as of the end of the FY as an indicator of fiscal health--without indicating that cash on hand is volatile given ins and outs.

I thought it was a poorly argued article.
Click to expand...

Didn't read it Ken; I was fully committed to providing a technical solution in order to assuage your sense of impending insanity. Turns out that the solution was as obvious as the mistake was lame.
David Conn on a Glazer owned United wouldn't be the epitome of impartial-observer reportage.
 
C'est Moi Cantona said:
Ok I'm after someone who knows how these things work inside out out, just a few questions on a some scenarios re our ownership.

Would it be possible for the Glazers to buy back the shares they have sold using United's money, and de-list us form the stock exchange.

Could they use United's money to dissolve the ownership of some of the equal shareholders (ie the Malcolm Glazers kids).

When they do sell could they do so to a similar ownership setup as their own, or are leveraged buyouts now better policed by the FA.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

No.
Maybe - in theory the club could use excess cash for a share buyback.
Yes - the FA are still mostly useless on that kind of thing.


gasmanc said:
You've not read the initial post of mine that you responded to then. We have been in for quality players we've just stopped short at spending the big money.
Lack of investment has been Arsenals achilles heel for just shy of a decade during the time they paid for the emirates and put simply they've won nothing. Now there is money available and they are chasing and landing the quality players, just as the Champions and Chelsea have been doing. United on the flip side have a solid enough squad but it does need a huge injection of quality to compete at the very top and it's time for our owners to show their true colours and break the bank.
Click to expand...

I read it - I just didnt agree with your suggestion that Arsenal are outdoing us in the transfer market.
I can understand what you are complaining about but I doubt that the Glazers have much if any influence over individual transfers - more likely they just approve a certain budget and then leave it to the manager and CEO to spend it as they see fit.

Would you be happier if we spent less in total but got bigger names like Arsenal in the past 2 years? Im sure the Glazers would be happier with that as it costs the club less


Haddock said:
I feel Ferguson is to blame to an extent. The fallout from that stupid racehorse is one of the reasons these Shylocks are in our club. For eight years Ferguson was here , he must have been indebted to the Glazers in some way , there's no reason why the man constantly backed them for years...
Click to expand...

There is a very good reason - the Glazers gave Fergie full control over the footballing side of the club, he never had that much power and freedom to implement his ideas under the PLC or Edwards, so why would he complain?
 
Rory 7 said:
You're not going crazy at all. You're just not comparing like with like.

The Guardian chart, objectively, shows total revenues going up quite dramatically. And as a result net spend on players effectively standing still.

The Glazer chart, subjectively, shows net spend on players as a function off net revenue from player sales. But that chart ignores the massive growth in club revenue.

That's the point anyone who criticises the Glazers are making. This club has the potential to out punch most clubs in world football financially but it simply doesn't in the transfer market. Why? Because these owners are parasites.
Click to expand...


Totally agree, early in their tenure we could get away with it. Since the massive injection of money into the EPL and European clubs we are no longer at the top table. When was the last time that we were able to compete for the signing of a top european or global talent in the ascendancy?

The world has moved on, but we haven't.
 
Rood said:
No.
Maybe - in theory the club could use excess cash for a share buyback.
Yes - the FA are still mostly useless on that kind of thing.




I read it - I just didnt agree with your suggestion that Arsenal are outdoing us in the transfer market.
I can understand what you are complaining about but I doubt that the Glazers have much if any influence over individual transfers - more likely they just approve a certain budget and then leave it to the manager and CEO to spend it as they see fit.

Would you be happier if we spent less in total but got bigger names like Arsenal in the past 2 years? Im sure the Glazers would be happier with that as it costs the club less




There is a very good reason - the Glazers gave Fergie full control over the footballing side of the club, he never had that much power and freedom to implement his ideas under the PLC or Edwards, so why would he complain?
Click to expand...

We're actually not that far off in terms of squad, we're in dire need of quality so yes I would prefer to see money spent on big signings.

Your absolutely right that the Glazers will be approving the budget, it's taken us near 7 years to break our own transfer record when once we where the ones making the running.

As an aside I personally will not be happy with our owners until they've fecked off, I've already voted with my feet but the success we've maintained under Fergusons genius has papered over the cracks.
Now we're all turning to blame Ferguson for the squads shortcomings despite him being in for top tier players and ultimately falling financially short. Not paying agent fees, no value and other such horseshit.

Our owners are what they are, let's face it we all know what that is.
 
Utter parasites. Leveraged buyouts are basically fecking evil. Hope in the wake of this laws are passed protecting clubs from this sort of unrestrained capitalism, seems pretty unlikely though.

Really the best way could be a situation like Swansea; where the club is at least partially supporter owned, but that's near impossible when you're in the top-flight.
 
If they keep doing what they are doing we're in serious trouble. I hope those protests start. I don't think they'll do much but maybe some of that cash raised from selling off stake in the club can pay off the debt entirely as opposed to line the Glazers pockets.
 
You just have to ask one question to answer this. Would we have been as, or more, successful without them?

Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.