Amazing. What is this club becoming? Favourite is the 'Recent Developments' slide - no mention of coming fecking 7th!So, the Glazers. Are they parasites? Blame game topic.
- Thread starter Henrik Larsson
- Start date
Amazing. What is this club becoming? Favourite is the 'Recent Developments' slide - no mention of coming fecking 7th!Regarding "would we have done better under different owners?"
The thing people seem to forget is that when looking at something like this, the effect of the owners is going to be a very delayed effect. When the Glazers took over, SAF had a very good team. Unless the Glazers actively tried to sell off these players, there was little immediate investment needed in order to simply maintain the team at a high level. The spine, structure/core of the team was already there and would continue to be until...well, now (or pretty recently, anyway).
The first time we needed investment in recent years was when we needed a striker in about 08? There were a few being touted around (Benzema?), in the end we signed Berbatov for way over the odds, on the last minute of deadline day (a theme which continues...).
The second and most significant time we needed investment was CM, which has been the case for years. It is still bizarre that it took us about 4-5 years to actually sign a genuine midfielder - Fellaini last season. Again we paid over the odds, again it was left to the last minute, again the player didn't perform as we would have hoped.
This season, we head into the final part of the transfer window knowing that we are surely still in the market for a CM and CB. We have already lost our first game of the season whilst our should-be rivals have won theirs. Let's see if we can guess the outcome here?
It seems a strange trend but whenever we need investment it we appear to delay it as long as possible, until maybe, eventually someone high up finally caves and admits "OK, you are right, we DO need xxx."
It's like we want to wait and see if there is any hope at all of avoiding a signing, and finally at the last minute, when circumstances are at their worst, we get someone in by throwing cash at them. The new player has no time to settle, may not even be fit, and is thrown straight in to the wolves.
Glazers principle of always doing the minimum possible (when it comes to spending). It's only now where the squad needs more investment that it will really damage us.
The thing people seem to forget is that when looking at something like this, the effect of the owners is going to be a very delayed effect. When the Glazers took over, SAF had a very good team. Unless the Glazers actively tried to sell off these players, there was little immediate investment needed in order to simply maintain the team at a high level. The spine, structure/core of the team was already there and would continue to be until...well, now (or pretty recently, anyway).
The first time we needed investment in recent years was when we needed a striker in about 08? There were a few being touted around (Benzema?), in the end we signed Berbatov for way over the odds, on the last minute of deadline day (a theme which continues...).
The second and most significant time we needed investment was CM, which has been the case for years. It is still bizarre that it took us about 4-5 years to actually sign a genuine midfielder - Fellaini last season. Again we paid over the odds, again it was left to the last minute, again the player didn't perform as we would have hoped.
This season, we head into the final part of the transfer window knowing that we are surely still in the market for a CM and CB. We have already lost our first game of the season whilst our should-be rivals have won theirs. Let's see if we can guess the outcome here?
It seems a strange trend but whenever we need investment it we appear to delay it as long as possible, until maybe, eventually someone high up finally caves and admits "OK, you are right, we DO need xxx."
It's like we want to wait and see if there is any hope at all of avoiding a signing, and finally at the last minute, when circumstances are at their worst, we get someone in by throwing cash at them. The new player has no time to settle, may not even be fit, and is thrown straight in to the wolves.
Glazers principle of always doing the minimum possible (when it comes to spending). It's only now where the squad needs more investment that it will really damage us.
It does amaze me that some people think the Glazers good owners ! That will be the clubs money used to finance transfers, the clubs money used to finance payments on a debt the Glazers incurred and the clubs money used to finance the wims of the Glazer family.
Also true - unlike Abramovich and the Sheikh who have had to dump their own money into their clubs (and have done...) all United really needs to be successful is to have access to some of its own, self generated revenue. We brag about these new sponsorships etc and have a ridiculously high revenue (which is the area that the Glazers have improved dramatically) - but we don't see any of this money. The club generates now at least £100m p/a, yet our spending is barely 50% of that (less if you factor in sales).
We've spent about £125m in the last 12 months, with apparently more to be spent in the next two weeks.
I'm pretty sure that 125 is more than 50% of 100.
Yea, I would love to thank them for all the success "they" have brought to the club but they've literally brought nothing and added nothing themselves. The word "parasite" isn't a pleasant one but it really is the perfect descriptive for what they are, the club has pulled them from the financial brink back when their shopping malls where losing them money left and right and its time they invested the clubs money back into the club or risk a backlash.
The new sponsorships and revenue are a product of modern day football and would have come along regardless, we can thank them for all but doubling season ticket prices though I suppose, I have personally already voted with my feet on that one, used to be a regular match goer and could take my lad along without having to justify a small fortune, those days are behind me now.
Sure, and those last 12 months encompasse 2 seasons worth of spending. Prior to the Fellaini deal last summer our spending was substantially less.
You can do better than that.
And yet still the squad is in dire need of reinforcements ! That in its self is very telling of our annual spend previous to our worst season in Premier league history.
The one thing I will say is that those who act as though, had the Glazers never took over we would be spending silly money - consider that the Glazers are the ones who have gotten the club generating that money.
Under the PLC or a different owner I doubt we would be anything like as commercially strong as we are now. It's just ridiculous that the club never seed any of that money.
We've spent close to 150M in 12 months (with Rojo in)
Surely that's generous even for City/Chelsea/Barca/Madrid level. What more do you guys want?
We surely don't need to invest that much prior because we are successful in the past (trophies, 2x CL Finalist, almost 5 in a row), now that things goes shaky the Glazers are loosening and spend as necessary. I don't really see what's wrong with that.
Some fans will never be happy, even if we spend 200M in the next 6 month, they'll keep on harping about the Ronaldo Money, some even goes as far as tabulating 100M / year we should have could have spend and ask the Glazers to cough up 500M, something that will not happen.
Some perspective, we're all angry they bought us cheap and sucker punch United with that whole interest thing, but from an owner perspective they have done no wrong so far. They back up their claim of warchest, 150M is a "BIG WARCHEST", and it's a reserve money to be used when the necessity calls, necessity calls and they cough up. What more could you possibly want?
Surely that's generous even for City/Chelsea/Barca/Madrid level. What more do you guys want?
We surely don't need to invest that much prior because we are successful in the past (trophies, 2x CL Finalist, almost 5 in a row), now that things goes shaky the Glazers are loosening and spend as necessary. I don't really see what's wrong with that.
Some fans will never be happy, even if we spend 200M in the next 6 month, they'll keep on harping about the Ronaldo Money, some even goes as far as tabulating 100M / year we should have could have spend and ask the Glazers to cough up 500M, something that will not happen.
Some perspective, we're all angry they bought us cheap and sucker punch United with that whole interest thing, but from an owner perspective they have done no wrong so far. They back up their claim of warchest, 150M is a "BIG WARCHEST", and it's a reserve money to be used when the necessity calls, necessity calls and they cough up. What more could you possibly want?
That's telling that we've been shit with our purchases.
Remember when LFC spend 70M on Carrol and Co? How we all laugh at them saying they don't spend enough? Double standard at its best.
As a counterpoint - it could be considered quite amazing that some can't at least appreciate there could be far, far worse owners of United.
I appreciate the fact that: The Glazers leveraged debt onto the club, and the result was debt repayment that could have been spent on players and facilities. But this is a normal everyday, legal, business practise. Is it unpalatable for United supporters? Of course. But hardly a demonical practise of leeches.
Have the Glazers made money off United? Yes, but from my understanding it came primarily in two forms. The stock issue and the resulting ownership of a billion dollar asset that they can sell in the future (provided it retains it's value). I've seen nothing that indicates that the Glazers call up United and take a few million out to spend on a new summer home, rather than spend it on player acquisitions.
I can understand legitimate greivances with the leveraged buyout. However, all signs point to the debt being well on it's way to (if not already) being sustainable and not interfering in the ability of the club to operate at a competitive level.
The argument that I think too many folks are latching onto is:
1) We don't like the state of squad, and our position in the league
2) If the Glazers hadn't leveraged the buyout, we'd have most certainly stocked up on high-priced star players and we wouldn't be in this situation.
3) The Glazers don't allow the club to spend
1 is a fair option. But 2 and 3 are just speculation, not fact, in my opinion. If we ever get reilable proof from Ferguson, Gill, Moyes, Woodward or LvG that the case is that they were financially restrained in the market by the Glazers, well then there you go. Until then, though, we've heard the exact opposite.
So, it basically comes down to having some half wit mumbling on Sky Sports about the Glazers being at fault not signing Vidal or whoever. Almost as "embarassing" as imbeciles paying good money to fly a plane in the distance over Old Trafford asking for Moyes to get sacked. Say what you want about the man, but he was bloody spot on and dignified when he said that money would've been better spent by Darren Fletcher's charity. You know what I think might be worthwhile? Make a donation to the charity with a "Glazers Out" note attached or "Buy Vidal" or whatever your passion is. That's a classy form of organized dissent.
Regarding other owners: It should be blatantly obvious that the FA "fit and proper" exam is bollocks. Think the Glazers are bad? Ask Portsmouth, Leeds, Cardiff, Blackburn fans about their recent owners. How are Southampton fans feeling? Aston Villa? How were Liverpool fans feeling about Hicks and Gillett? How have Rangers fans felt the last few years?
Sure, it looks like Chelsea have done well. But Abramovich can walk away or become uninterested or decide to sell up anyday. US and European sanctions on Russia might not make him feel too comfortable these days. City look alright these days. But will their owners stay interested? Will their slave labour rise up and overthrow their Royal Emirates one day? Who knows.
The Glazers certainly aren't the best thing that ever happened to United, but it could have been far, far worse.
Knock the Fellaini deal off then, it's still the basically £100m, and anything we spend in the next two weeks gets added on.
Still a shit load more than the '50% of £100m' you were bemoaning.
Blaming the owners for our current situation is nothing more than lazy, short sighted opportunism.
Lest people forget, they have also "DOUBLED" the value of Manchester United. They bought us at around 1bn and we're close to 2bn now.
To be fair they have earnt more than their debt.
And lest not forget that as PLC, no boardroom will sanction 150M in 12 months, it could have taken months to finalise a 30M signing.
To be fair they have earnt more than their debt.
And lest not forget that as PLC, no boardroom will sanction 150M in 12 months, it could have taken months to finalise a 30M signing.
There has been a shocking waste of transfer funds in recent years, no question. Although it would be interesting to see the components of net spend (the ins and outs). I have a feeling that ours probably looks even more horrendous in terms of lack of value for money due to the lack of investments in preceding years (the Obertan, Owen type period when the club was still tackling huge debt costs in the aftermath of the credit crunch). The likes of Madrid and Barcelona could recoup money from sales due to prior investment in quality players (Ozil, Fabregas, even Chelsea with Luiz, if I can stretch the definition of quality).
The key thing now the purse strings are being lifted is to improve scouting and, if Woodward demonstrates he is not cut out for the transfer market, to put a DoF in place so we can get deals done more efficiently.
We've also just wasted a fortune on a sub standard manager who then wasted a fortune on a sub standard midfielder and brought in a player we are now having to shoe horn into a system we don't play.
Moyes appointment had the scent of penny pinching due to his record at Everton and it's backfired royally, his severance pay and the loss we will take on Fellainis almost certain departure could have landed us a top midfielder. The Glazers have lost us a pound to save a penny and it's not the first time either, our deadline day record had been horrific, instead of just stumping up the clubs own cash first off there's fannying around until the last minute when we're forced to overpay due to our dire need of reinforcement.
Do we blame Ferguson alone in all of this ?
The problem is so many on here associate Glazers Out with lack of transfer spending - that shows how naïve the common fan is. Its far bigger than that and the impact they have had on our club is far bigger than "we should have bought Vidal...".
For example, want to know what they've turned our club into? Check out their latest "presentation" - not one mention of the football team itself.
For example, want to know what they've turned our club into? Check out their latest "presentation" - not one mention of the football team itself.
Bit inconsistent to accuse them of reckless spending in the same post you're accusing them of being tight-fisted. Either they've not invested enough money in the club or they have spent money but spent it badly. You can't accuse them of both. If we go with the latter scenario, is that really their fault?
Fergie's always maintained he was given whatever funds he wanted to invest but didn't see the "value" he was looking for in the market, which many of us thought was just him toeing the party line. Now he's retired (and sticking to his story) we've been spending a ton of cash. Perhaps there's no conspiracy here at all? Maybe the Glazers really do make available whatever funds the current manager thinks he needs?
The debt situation is also in a significantly different place compared to when SAF was peddling the "no value" line. There is absolutely no question in my mind that we have been negatively impacted by their debt.
As for sticking to his story, he remains on the club payroll so what do you expect?
I don't get the Glazers hate at all especially in the last year. Yes they are not blameless but anyone can see that we've spent over 120m in the last year. the problem we're facing is just because of our inability in the transfer market to get the right players instead of not throwing money.
If we spent this money wisely then arguably we would have been there challenging for the CL. Instead most of them went for gross. We spent 27m on a tree and 37m on someone who may've been world class but in a position we're already well stocked and is now causing problem on how to get the best out of him.
The problem is not spending money , its spending on the right players and it goes far more deeper than Glazers.
No one would have raised on eye had we overspent on the likes of Di Maria and Vidal and Hummels or even lesser but good players in Strootman , Scheneiderlin, Moutinho and Benatia. We couldhave got 3 players from the list for 120m if we were not incompetent and now would have a massively improved squad. Herrera is the only sensible buy we have made and maybe Shaw but it needs a lot of time to justify.
We have the money , but do have the sense to realise that overspending on top players is far more beneficial than overspending on dross? This remains to be seen.
If we spent this money wisely then arguably we would have been there challenging for the CL. Instead most of them went for gross. We spent 27m on a tree and 37m on someone who may've been world class but in a position we're already well stocked and is now causing problem on how to get the best out of him.
The problem is not spending money , its spending on the right players and it goes far more deeper than Glazers.
No one would have raised on eye had we overspent on the likes of Di Maria and Vidal and Hummels or even lesser but good players in Strootman , Scheneiderlin, Moutinho and Benatia. We couldhave got 3 players from the list for 120m if we were not incompetent and now would have a massively improved squad. Herrera is the only sensible buy we have made and maybe Shaw but it needs a lot of time to justify.
We have the money , but do have the sense to realise that overspending on top players is far more beneficial than overspending on dross? This remains to be seen.
Good grief.
Whats the problem?
Wait, what? Are we really reimagining history so much that we now had a good team in the immediate years before the Glazers came?
The years 03-04 and 04-05 are widely regarded as the worst Fergie team since we first won the league in 93. We finished 15 then 18 points behind the winners. This era also exemplified our worst our worst period for transfers - bringing in classics like Bellion. Djema-Djemba, Kleberson, Tim Howard, Alan Smith and Dong. That was a dark period indeed.
Many of our key players from that great team circa 06-09 came after the Glazers takeover - VdS, Evra, Vidic, Park, Nani, Anderson, Carrick, Hargreaves, Tevez. Six of our eleven starters and 3 of our subs in the final in Moscow were bought after the Glazers arrived.
There's enough to dislike about the Glazers without that kind of silliness. Next I'll be reading they introduced the poll tax, shot JFK & built the death star.
You regurgitating that old spiel.
That's the core issue. Wanting to assign blame with a reductionist argument. Who, exactly, is at fault?
There are so many factors why the club isn't quite up to some people's expectations, we could name hundreds.
I read a book by economists on football and they came up with this:
1) The primary factor in success equates to spending. (This supports arguments against ownership, in some ways, although we have spent money and par with our competitors spend, we should be much better placed in the table if this was true)
2) After purchases, the primary factor in a successful league campaign is minimizing injuries (teams that have less injuries are more successful)
So, shouldn't we really be leveraging our angst at our medical staff, too? It's just a fallacy to attempt to pinpoint and single out the Glazers, Moyes, SAF and Gill, Woodward or the medical staff for blame. We could blame the players too for not fulfilling their potential. "What if Anderson had fulfilled his potential and grew into a midfield general. It's all Anderson's fault we're in this situation!". It's just silly. We could blame Manchester because it's too rainy. We can blame almost anyone or anything for the current situation. It just doesn't lend itself to a simple reductionist approach.
Possibly but, if there was always cash available, it is strange that he didn't react to the Rome defeat in 2009 by strengthening the team (particularly as the team's best player then departed for a record fee). I do acknowledge things have been different the last couple of seasons but I suspect his hands were tied for a while back then. If in fact he did have money, then the other explanation is that he was starting to lose his touch in terms of assessing what was needed to meet the challenge of Europe's elite - that is also plausible in light of some of his later transfer purchases.
But that's the killer, it's a plausable explanation of many plausible explanations. Another plausible explanation could be: SAF had grown sick to death of having to deal with primadonna modern footballers, their opportunist agents, lawyers and third parties, tired of dealing with the Daniel Levy's of the world, and genuinely felt that the market was overinflated and players simply weren't worth their asking prices. At least that was the general jist of what he was actually saying at times during this period.
you are calling my reasoning lazy, yet you only care to go back one year - the year in which we have spent the most since the Glazers got here - and use that as a benchmark?You are suggesting we have averaged over £50m a season of spending, which is plainly rubbish. If you then factor in player sales, which we havent yet, then the figure becomes even more pathetic.
Ultimately you have missed the entire point of my original post anyway, which was that we are only now going to feel the effects of the Glazers' refusal to spend, as it is only now that the team requires serious investment, rather than just a "maintenence" signing every year to add depth to the squad.
We have got by until now as the squad was strong enough to succeed without serious spending - now that the investment is required we will see their true colours, and so far they are coming up well short.
Fair enough, but many of those players were bargain signings who are a credit to our scouts and SAF more than the Glazers. My point of "reimagining history" was simply that had the Glazers never taken over, the club would likely be generating far less revenue, so it is unfair to argue that - if they were not here - we would be spending £100m+ per season, as we simply wouldnt have been able to afford to in all likelihood.
And if you look at the previous two, the totals are 27.2m and 21m
Its easy to cherrypick numbers. I am looking at an average from when the Glazers have taken over.
Again this is all moot if we decide to take into account player sales, which in any reasonable argument we should do.
The value of Manchester United doesn't matter if we aren't successful. Yes they are great at getting sponsorship deals, but if the team start failing, they will find it harder and harder to get lucrative deals. These deals are supposed to be used to keep us at the top, not line their pockets. It isn't their money they are giving for transfers it's what they allow the club to give the manager. I am sure they look at their dividend and the shareholders dividend(mainly them) before they come to a transfer budget. It won't be the other way round.
What nonsense, the Glazers may have had a small impact on the global upturn in modern football but they really can't be held responsible for a World wide trend. The sponsorship deals and growing interest from tv companies is global and has more to do with the sport in general than anything our owners have done. If the interest wasn't there then neither would the huge deals be and Uniteds brand was already gigantic.
The only real value they have personally added to the club is matchday revenue from increased ticket pricing and with a debt still hanging over us you could say we're a less attractive proposition for any would be investors.
You are suggesting we have averaged over £50m a season of spending, which is plainly rubbish. If you then factor in player sales, which we havent yet, then the figure becomes even more pathetic.
Ultimately you have missed the entire point of my original post anyway, which was that we are only now going to feel the effects of the Glazers' refusal to spend, as it is only now that the team requires serious investment, rather than just a "maintenence" signing every year to add depth to the squad.
We have got by until now as the squad was strong enough to succeed without serious spending - now that the investment is required we will see their true colours, and so far they are coming up well short.
I'm calling the recent jump on the owners a lazy argument because it is.
People complain about the owners when things aren't going well on the pitch. Then we win the league again and suddenly nobody cares. Then things slump again (inevitably) after we lose our long standing manager and CEO at the same time, and suddenly it's back to blaming the owners.
Money has been made available. Plenty of it. If the manager has spent that on the wrong players that's his fault.
If we wasted money on appointing the wrong manager, who in turn wasted more money on a terrible buy, that's the fault of the manager and the guy who appointed him (sorry SAF, but it's true).
If we're struggling to attract top tier talent now that we have no European football to offer that's not exactly surprising.
There are plenty of things to dislike about the Glazers and their ownership, but it's pathetic the way people start jumping up and down only when we're not winning, and ignore plain facts to simply keep shouting the same propaganda over and over.
That talk of a protest march over a lack of world class signings is embarrassing. Talk about bloody spoilt.
Ok.
Absolutely spot on. They have always been a problem and will continue to be - our success shouldn't hide that.
Problem with us recently is we buy too high and sell at a loss. That is the main problem. We get fobbed off with any old rubbish. Why aren't we going for the big name as befits THE BIGGEST CLUB IN THE WORLD. They keep saying we have all these supporters, all these twitterers. It is all brag brag brag and no action. Don't these fans deserve to see the best players or are they just going to watch the CL on TV in the future to see them playing for other teams. They are going to have to change their transfer policy or it will bite them on the bum. The Glazers are just going to invest enough, hoping that we can scrape into the Top 4 each year and nothing more. We will just have to hope we can get a cup win. I am depressed so maybe not thinking straight.
The average is about £22 million per season since 2005 including both summer and winter windows.