Which club in the PL is better run than Manchester United?

[Champ]

Define 'well.run'?

United have made more money than all of these clubs, been more successful than most of these clubs (yes context is required but the point still stands), have a very competitive new Woman's team, are a global brand attracting global sponsors,

Now the argument will be 'we spend more money on transfers and wages with little to show for it',
And that's a good point, yet we are able to spend that money because of how we are run.
And this comes down to my original question, define well run?
United in a footballing sense have been mediocre for quite a whilst, yet things are beginning to move in the right direction, we are still profitable (just) and still competitive.
Most of the teams I have listed aren't any of those things.

 

[justsomebloke]

I have seen a lot of voices on the CAF stated that our issue is we are badly run and not about money. We only need the Glazers gone, top football people on top making decisions and we'd dominate again...etc.

So this thread is just an overview to see which club in the PL is better run than us (Apart from City obviously) and what can we learn from observing how they are run?

My take:

Category A: Well-run
Manchester City
Brentford
Brighton

Category B: Getting there (but either haven't been doing well for long enough to make grade A, or have some areas still to address):
Newcastle
Aston Villa
Fulham
Arsenal

Category C : Have some challenges
Manchester United
Liverpool
Wolves
West Ham
Crystal Palace
Bournemouth

Category D: Have serious problems
Leeds
Nottingham Forest
Leicester
Chelsea
Spurs
Southampton

Category E: A complete mess (major systemic issues AND big immediate problems)
Everton

General comment; major recency bias risk here, of course. Even if you try to focus on what you know about the systemic issues (transfer policy effectiveness, reputation of different parts of the club structure etc), inevitably recent results act as validation. Take Villa for example - if I wrote this 6 months ago I don't think I would have put them in category B.

 

[SilentWitness]

When you want to post an image of Everton players dancing and celebrating being the worst run club in England but can't so have to write this post and lose all humour. Get in!

 

[Gycraig]

Define 'well.run'?

United have made more money than all of these clubs, been more successful than most of these clubs (yes context is required but the point still stands), have a very competitive new Woman's team, are a global brand attracting global sponsors,

Now the argument will be 'we spend more money on transfers and wages with little to show for it',
And that's a good point, yet we are able to spend that money because of how we are run.
And this comes down to my original question, define well run?
United in a footballing sense have been mediocre for quite a whilst, yet things are beginning to move in the right direction, we are still profitable (just) and still competitive.
Most of the teams I have listed aren't any of those things.

Money generated has nothing to do with “how we are run”. United generate tons of money because it has tons of fans because before the glazers it did things like win trebles and stuff, Football is a tribal sport this takes generations to change. A chimp could have kept the money rolling in for man United, being well run would be actually buying players who suit the team, buying players who have the right attitude and want to be here, paying them similar wages to what they would get somewhere else and actually investing money into the stadium.

We have spent just less than city and came out with barely any trophies that’s badly run.

The glazers took over a top top team that was winning everything and put it into a terminal decline. A toddler could get sponsorships for man United

 

[Real Name]

All 19 of them and half the Championsip.

 

[fergiewherearethou]

The question should be which club is worst run than Man Utd?
Answer: Everton probably

Post SAF we spent over a billion in transfers and God knows how much on wages, to win 2 Carabao Cups, 1 FA Cup and 1 Europa League.
From missing the CL a couple of times and never fought realistically for a major trophy, to bringing in overpaid flops and hiring overrated managers who achieved some of the worst defeats in our recent history, we were terribly run.

 

[Champ]

Money generated has nothing to do with “how we are run”. United generate tons of money because it has tons of fans because before the glazers it did things like win trebles and stuff, Football is a tribal sport this takes generations to change. A chimp could have kept the money rolling in for man United, being well run would be actually buying players who suit the team, buying players who have the right attitude and want to be here, paying them similar wages to what they would get somewhere else and actually investing money into the stadium.

We have spent just less than city and came out with barely any trophies that’s badly run.

The glazers took over a top top team that was winning everything and put it into a terminal decline. A toddler could get sponsorships for man United

As much as I detest the Glazers, the one thing they did well along with Woodward was increase the sponsorship turnover.
Heck, they even set up an office in London built just to get new sponsorship deals.

Unfortunately football is a business, there's no getting away from that, and United as a business have been run very successfully.

As a successful footballing entity it's been the bare minimum really, a few scattergun trophies with little cohesion up until recently but that's still better than majority of teams in the league.

Terminal decline is quite dramatic, United were in a good position when the Glazers came in purely down to Sir Alex, it's arguable to say that the team was already in decline then, certainly from a business perspective it was.

Again, this whole question comes down to how one defines being a well run club.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Define 'well.run'?

United have made more money than all of these clubs, been more successful than most of these clubs (yes context is required but the point still stands), have a very competitive new Woman's team, are a global brand attracting global sponsors,

Now the argument will be 'we spend more money on transfers and wages with little to show for it',
And that's a good point, yet we are able to spend that money because of how we are run.
And this comes down to my original question, define well run?
United in a footballing sense have been mediocre for quite a whilst, yet things are beginning to move in the right direction, we are still profitable (just) and still competitive.
Most of the teams I have listed aren't any of those things.

Footballing peformance results vs financial resources/ spending, clearly.

We are able to spend because of our success from 1992 to 2012 created by Sir Alex and aided by good work behind the scenes pre the cunto family. By that time we were a footballing empire that was a money making machine. Since then we’ve been a abysmally run.

Yes there’s the commercial side and the footballing side but football clubs are primarily judged by the on pitch outcomes and secondarily on off pitch outcomes. We have been totally screwed on the most important metric and and done somewhat as expected / sub par on the secondary metric.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

As much as I detest the Glazers, the one thing they did well along with Woodward was increase the sponsorship turnover.
Heck, they even set up an office in London built just to get new sponsorship deals.

Unfortunately football is a business, there's no getting away from that, and United as a business have been run very successfully.

Yes the one thing because they failed at nearly everything else they touched. Managers? Non really worked out. Transfers? Over a billion thrown away . Contracts? De Gea, Sancho, Rooney, Jones, Mata, absolute mess.

Basically they’ve only done one thing well - which wasn’t hard to do anyway. United was a commercial bohemoth when they took over even more so than a footballing bohemian and to mess that up would have taken a monumental effort.

 

[Stacks]

That's not a pound for pound argument. During the past decade United actually won things, often outperformed clubs that have also spent a lot such as Chelsea or Liverpool. Now it's fair to say that we expected more and that we wanted to see the club higher in the rankings but United are pound for pound far from the worst. In fact in England the undisputed winners are Everton, they spent a lot, won nothing and have steadily regressed to relegation contention.

our best championship has been Europa League. These clubs you mentioned have both won league titles and champions leagues over the past decade. Even when we have a high league finish (2nd) it is then usually followed by a 6th place collapse. What has been your peak memory as a United fan over the past 10 years?

 

[Fahad Jawaid]

We are the worst undoubtedly. You look at our signings and which signing could you say was a gem unearthed by us or great value for money signings. Eriksen could qualify in that category except that the likes of AWB, Maguire, Bruno, Sancho, Casemiro, Antony and even Martinez, all of them were well established players who were bought for large sums of money.

we hardly go after the free agents or one year contract remaining, or players with lower release clause etc. which are value for money. Plus this stupidity of going for premier league proven or Depending on manager to identify targets and go for them strategy has to die as well.

We need to ask manager for profile of players and accordingly give him options for 3 to 4 players.

All of the recent signings we made in Ten Hag, Ole, Mourinho and even going back to Moyes were all manager signings. We might as well sack all the scouts and our directors and it won’t make a difference that’s how bad things are.

 

[SilentWitness]

It's us if you're looking at all clubs but probably United if you're looking at the top clubs.

We have spent half a billion in a decade and are battling relegation + our wage bill compared to revenue is atrocious. You've spent a billion but you've won a few trophies in that time, you qualify for Europe for extra revenue and despite your wage bill being high, compared to revenue it is much better than us.

 

[JPRouve]

our best championship has been Europa League. These clubs you mentioned have both won league titles and champions leagues over the past decade. Even when we have a high league finish (2nd) it is then usually followed by a 6th place collapse. What has been your peak memory as a United fan over the past 10 years?

I don't actually know why people struggle with that one. As an example over the past 10 seasons United finished higher than Chelsea 5 times, we literally outfperfom them regularly. In the context of that conversation the reality of the matter is that Untied average performances haven't actually been worse than the average performances of the teams that are near us financially or the teams against which we are competing at the exception of City. And United won trophies, now there are teams in this league that have spent far more than their direct competition and have almost systematically done worse, Everton being an example.

The point wasn't that United won as much as Chelsea or Liverpool but that over that period United competed and outperformed these teams regularly which is true. In an actual pound for pound ranking United aren't the worst, they are only the worst if you put them in the heavy weight category which defies the point of pound for pound.

 

[CloneMC16]

We are the worst undoubtedly. You look at our signings and which signing could you say was a gem unearthed by us or great value for money signings. Eriksen could qualify in that category except that the likes of AWB, Maguire, Bruno, Sancho, Casemiro, Antony and even Martinez, all of them were well established players who were bought for large sums of money.

we hardly go after the free agents or one year contract remaining, or players with lower release clause etc. which are value for money. Plus this stupidity of going for premier league proven or Depending on manager to identify targets and go for them strategy has to die as well.

We need to ask manager for profile of players and accordingly give him options for 3 to 4 players.

All of the recent signings we made in Ten Hag, Ole, Mourinho and even going back to Moyes were all manager signings. We might as well sack all the scouts and our directors and it won’t make a difference that’s how bad things are.

Big clubs don't really sign players like that. If they're signing for a big club, everybody already knows who they are. What value for money gems have City, Madrid, Barca or Bayern signed? Not signing that kind of player isn't the issue we're dealing with. It's signing the wrong players for a lot of money. City sign players averaging at around £60m a transfer. United shouldn't need to be trying to find bargains. That's what Brighton does.

Smaller clubs usually take the risk on those players. They sign for bigger clubs when they prove they can play at a higher level and/or in a better league.

Managers having the final say on everybody we buy is a big issue, though. When they get sacked, we're stuck with a bunch of players that may only work well under a different philosophy.

 

[wolvored]

Season by season, United outperformed all of these teams during certain seasons and they outperformed United in others. And United also won trophies during the past decade.

Are these two statements incorrect?

Yes but their trophies Pl Ch lge, ours dont compare by comparison.

 

[CloneMC16]

I don't actually know why people struggle with that one. As an example over the past 10 seasons United finished higher than Chelsea 5 times, we literally outfperfom them regularly. In the context of that conversation the reality of the matter is that Untied average performances haven't actually been worse than the average performances of the teams that are near us financially or the teams against which we are competing at the exception of City. And United won trophies, now there are teams in this league that have spent far more than their direct competition and have almost systematically done worse, Everton being an example.

The point wasn't that United won as much as Chelsea or Liverpool but that over that period United competed and outperformed these teams regularly which is true. In an actual pound for pound ranking United aren't the worst, they are only the worst if you put them in the heavy weight category which defies the point of pound for pound.

How have we outperformed teams that have won more trophies than us? We tie them when it comes to who finishes above each other in the table. You still get nothing for finishing below 1st. Winning trophies is all that matters for big clubs. The only other 'good' outcome is finishing in a CL spot. Chelsea have done that 7 times in the last 10 years. Liverpool have done it 7 times. We've done it 5 times. Both Liverpool and Chelsea have been much more successful than us over the last 10 years.

I would far rather have Chelsea's 2 PL's and CL title than anything we've done over the past 10 years. For the amount of money this club has spent, winning so little is absolutely shocking.

 

[JPRouve]

Yes but their trophies Pl Ch lge, ours dont compare by comparison.

True but I didn't compare trophy totals. I made two separate points that are both true.

 

[lysglimt]

Would be easier to answer which clubs are worse run than us.

Everton

 

[JPRouve]

How have we outperformed teams that have won more trophies than us? We tie them when it comes to who finishes above each other in the table. You still get nothing for finishing below 1st. Winning trophies is all that matters for big clubs. The only other 'good' outcome is finishing in a CL spot. Chelsea have done that 7 times in the last 10 years. Liverpool have done it 7 times. We've done it 5 times. Both Liverpool and Chelsea have been much more successful than us over the last 10 years.

I would far rather have Chelsea's 2 PL's and CL title than anything we've done over the past 10 years. For the amount of money this club has spent, winning so little is absolutely shocking.

It's in the first sentence. If a team finish above the other in the league, do you consider that that team outperformed the other?

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Man City are obviously far better run. On a smaller scale, clubs like Brighton and Brentford seem to be very well run given their resources

 

[CloneMC16]

It's in the first sentence. If a team finish above the other in the league, do you consider that that team outperformed the other?

Not particularly, because those table positions don't matter. Finishing 3rd and our rival finishing 4th is irrelevant. We both lost.

 

[Red Star One]

It's in the first sentence. If a team finish above the other in the league, do you consider that that team outperformed the other?

You say it yourself, in the last 10 years we have finished higher than Chelsea 5 times, meaning they finished higher than us 5 times too. They also won more domestically and in Europe over that period. It's a very difficult point to defend if you claim that we have "outperformed them" in the last decade - we didn't, all the results show they had a more successful last 10 years than us.

 

[JPRouve]

Not particularly, because those table positions don't matter. Finishing 3rd and our rival finishing 4th is irrelevant. We both lost.

If it doesn't matter then United are absolutely not the worst run team, in that case there zero argument in that favor because there is a bunch of PL teams that have won nothing during the past decade.

 

[Red Star One]

Honours over past decade:
United - FA Cup 15/16, Europa League 16/17, EFL Cup 22/23
Chelsea - Premier League 14/15 and 16/17, FA Cup 17/18, EFL Cup 14/15, Champions League 20/21, Europa League 18/19
Liverpool - Premier League 19/20*, FA Cup 21/22, EFL Cup 21/22, Champions League 18/19

again the trophy count - you will not find a single United fan that would take our tally over the last decade over Chelsea's or Pool.

 

[JPRouve]

You say it yourself, in the last 10 years we have finished higher than Chelsea 5 times, meaning they finished higher than us 5 times too. They also won more domestically and in Europe over that period. It's a very difficult point to defend if you claim that we have "outperformed them" in the last decade - we didn't, all the results show they had a more successful last 10 years than us.

It's not what I said, you left out an important word.

 

[CloneMC16]

If it doesn't matter then United are absolutely not the worst run team, in that case there zero argument in that favor because there is a bunch of PL teams that have won nothing during the past decade.

I agree. United aren't the worst run club in the PL. We're in the bottom 5, though. For how big this club is, that is shocking.

 

[JPRouve]

I agree. United aren't the worst run club in the PL. We're in the bottom 5, though. For how big this club is, that is shocking.

It's bad(in comparison to pre 2013) but it's not shocking and my answer was in response to the claim that United were without a doub the worst which is quite obviously wrong.

 

[Red Star One]

It's not what I said, you left out an important word.

You claim "we literally outperform them regularly" but then a Chelsea fan could say the same about them literally outperforming us regularly and I think he'd be in a better position to say this than us.

 

[Rozay]

Few would know the real answer to this question.

All we can tell is who has the best football teams and whose transfers have been more successful and make an estimation from that. Who knows anything about what is required to run a PL football club well?

 

[JPRouve]

You claim "we literally outperform them regularly" but then a Chelsea fan could say the same about them literally outperforming us regularly and I think he'd be in a better position to say this than us.

You think that my claim is aimed at someone? Yes, Chelsea fans could say the exact same thing and they would be correct which brings us to this simple conclusion, United and Chelsea have regularly competed evenly against each others and yes Chelsea won more trophies while competing with different teams which includes United.

Now there are teams that didn't compete with the teams they were supposed to compete with.

 

[Gycraig]

As much as I detest the Glazers, the one thing they did well along with Woodward was increase the sponsorship turnover.
Heck, they even set up an office in London built just to get new sponsorship deals.

Unfortunately football is a business, there's no getting away from that, and United as a business have been run very successfully.

As a successful footballing entity it's been the bare minimum really, a few scattergun trophies with little cohesion up until recently but that's still better than majority of teams in the league.

Terminal decline is quite dramatic, United were in a good position when the Glazers came in purely down to Sir Alex, it's arguable to say that the team was already in decline then, certainly from a business perspective it was.

Again, this whole question comes down to how one defines being a well run club.

Can’t remember where but I saw a chart comparing our increase of revenues compared to other clubs from when the glazers took over and we didn’t particularly when it comes to increasing revenues. We were just miles ahead in the first place.

We have a net spend of over a billion over the last 10 years we have won a couple of trophies and our facilities are falling apart around us which is believed to be one of the main reasons the glazers are selling up.

We have spent just about the most money in the league, most of it wasted, won next to fk all since Fergie left our facilities are knackered and we are again hoping a manager can turn it round for us.

Being “well run” would be spending money well updating facilities as needed and winning top trophies, not spending too dollar on the team for naf all returns.

None of what I have seen under glazers ownership even comes close to being well run, we have hired the wrong people and let them wreak havoc, each manager comes in and just buys who he wants resulting completely mismatched teams with players suitable for completely different playing styles.

We have just about spent the most on players and not won much. If being well run is getting good noodle sponsors we have possibly done ok.

 

[Von Mistelroum]

Depends how you look at it. As a football club we're near the very worst run club, as a tool for making money for the owners (which is our primary goal under the Glazers) we're the best!

 

[Stacks]

I don't actually know why people struggle with that one. As an example over the past 10 seasons United finished higher than Chelsea 5 times, we literally outfperfom them regularly. In the context of that conversation the reality of the matter is that Untied average performances haven't actually been worse than the average performances of the teams that are near us financially or the teams against which we are competing at the exception of City. And United won trophies, now there are teams in this league that have spent far more than their direct competition and have almost systematically done worse, Everton being an example.

The point wasn't that United won as much as Chelsea or Liverpool but that over that period United competed and outperformed these teams regularly which is true. In an actual pound for pound ranking United aren't the worst, they are only the worst if you put them in the heavy weight category which defies the point of pound for pound.

That's if you regard solely finishing above in the league table as outpeforming. Unless you win the title, if you both just make CL qualification then it is pointless. Over the past 10 years look at the trophy collection

Man Utd : 1 x FA Cup, 2 x Football League cup, 1 x Europa League.
Chelsea: 2 x Premier League, 1 x FA Cup, 1 x football league cup, 1 x champions league, 1 x Europa League.

Please see below the current Uefa Coefficient ranking.


These are the top 5. This is where we are supposed to be given the money we have invested. We have been a failure.
UEFA club coefficient ranking

Rank	Team	Points
1	Manchester City​	143.0
2	Bayern Munich​	136.0
3	Chelsea​	126.0
4	Liverpool​	123.0
5	Real Madrid​	121.0

As of 17 May 2023[239]

 

[pocco]

Chelsea has always been a circus. Shoddy little club.

They've been the second most successful club, after City, I think since Roman arrived (a stat I read recently, that may have been the timeframe, or the last 10 years). Obviously they've took a downturn in recent times. But I don't think they were ever a circus. They were run more similarly to the likes of Real Madrid, who are obviously very successful.

Less reliance on any one manager.Buy expensive players, many of which seem to work out. Then they have a knack of selling squad/loan players/flops for very good fees.

 

[Fahad Jawaid]

Big clubs don't really sign players like that. If they're signing for a big club, everybody already knows who they are. What value for money gems have City, Madrid, Barca or Bayern signed? Not signing that kind of player isn't the issue we're dealing with. It's signing the wrong players for a lot of money. City sign players averaging at around £60m a transfer. United shouldn't need to be trying to find bargains. That's what Brighton does.

Smaller clubs usually take the risk on those players. They sign for bigger clubs when they prove they can play at a higher level and/or in a better league.

Managers having the final say on everybody we buy is a big issue, though. When they get sacked, we're stuck with a bunch of players that may only work well under a different philosophy.

For City Alvarez for 18m, Akanji for 15m plus signing Haland for 55m was value for money great signings and credit to them.

Barca got Alonso, Christensen and Kessie for free just last season.

Madrid got Rudiger (free) Camavinga (25m) Alaba (free) in the last two seasons.

 

[JPRouve]

That's if you regard solely finishing above in the league table as outpeforming. Unless you win the title, if you both just make CL qualification then it is pointless. Over the past 10 years look at the trophy collection

Man Utd : 1 x FA Cup, 2 x Football League cup, 1 x Europa League.
Chelsea: 2 x Premier League, 1 x FA Cup, 1 x football league cup, 1 x champions league, 1 x Europa League.

Please see below the current Uefa Coefficient ranking.


These are the top 5. This is where we are supposed to be given the money we have invested. We have been a failure.
UEFA club coefficient ranking

Rank	Team	Points
1	Manchester City​	143.0
2	Bayern Munich​	136.0
3	Chelsea​	126.0
4	Liverpool​	123.0
5	Real Madrid​	121.0

As of 17 May 2023[239]

Let's say it this way. The 3rd team in UEFA club coefficient ranking has finished below United half of the time during the past 10 seasons. United has managed to be in the correct tier most seasons, yes United have come short, yes you can criticize the club but the reality is that United aren't close to be worst.

Now this thread isn't about who could do better or who should aim higher but who is the worst, the worst isn't a team that has most seasons been competing with the 3rd ranked UEFA club coefficient because you have teams that went from competing for UEFA competition spots to relegation battle while spending more than teams that are consistently in the EL.

 

[CloneMC16]

For City Alvarez for 18m, Akanji for 15m plus signing Haland for 55m was value for money great signings and credit to them.

Barca got Alonso, Christensen and Kessie for free just last season.

Madrid got Rudiger (free) Camavinga (25m) Alaba (free) in the last two seasons.

Alvarez and Akanji I'll give you. The rest were are all well known players. They were signed on a free, but none of them were unearthed gems. If the media is to be believed, we tried to sign Camavinga. He didn't want to come.

 

[Stacks]

Let's say it this way. The 3rd team in UEFA club coefficient ranking has finished below United half of the time during the past 10 seasons. United has managed to be in the correct tier most seasons, yes United have come short, yes you can criticize the club but the reality is that United aren't close to be worst.

Now this thread isn't about who could do better or who should aim higher but who is the worst, the worst isn't a team that has most seasons been competing with the 3rd ranked UEFA club coefficient because you have teams that went from competing for UEFA competition spots to relegation battle while spending more than teams that are consistently in the EL.

of course we aren't the worst but if you add in our net spend it doesn't look good for how we are run compared to others based on the return. I don't have this years figs (maybe someone can provide) but as of last year September 2022, guess who was highest in all of Europe for net expenditure for the past 10 years?

https://khelnow.com/football/top-10-clubs-with-highest-net-spend-in-last-decade

 

[JPRouve]

of course we aren't the worst but if you add in our net spend it doesn't look good for how we are run compared to others based on the return. I don't have this years figs (maybe someone can provide) but as of last year September 2022, guess who was highest in all of Europe for net expenditure for the past 10 years?

https://khelnow.com/football/top-10-clubs-with-highest-net-spend-in-last-decade

Which was the entire point.

 

[Champ]

Yes the one thing because they failed at nearly everything else they touched. Managers? Non really worked out. Transfers? Over a billion thrown away . Contracts? De Gea, Sancho, Rooney, Jones, Mata, absolute mess.

Basically they’ve only done one thing well - which wasn’t hard to do anyway. United was a commercial bohemoth when they took over even more so than a footballing bohemian and to mess that up would have taken a monumental effort.

The Glazers and Woodward have doubled revenues (that's adjusting figures accordingly to inflation),
That takes some doing, so it's a bit churlish to say 'it would have happened like that anyway ' or words to that affect, because it wouldn't have.

As for 'throwing away a billion ' that's not true, as we have a team there on the field, a training ground etc etc. Could we have spent the money better? Sure, could the footballing side of things been better? Sure. But have we just burnt £1b with nothing to show for it? No, to say so is hyperbolic and overly dramatic.

Is that tantamount to a club poorly run? Not fully, no. Again, certain aspects have improved, whereas others have been left to stagnate somewhat despite the money being there, yet United have never slipped into obscurity and remain competitive.